1955-04-18

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all hon. members were shocked as I was to learn of the death earlier today of one of our number, Mr. Gaspard Boucher, who represented the constituency of Restigouche-Mada-waska in this house.
Mr. Boucher was elected to the House of Commons for the first time on August 10, 1953, after a long and distinguished career in his native province of New Brunswick. A printer and publisher by profession, he was president of the Madawaska Printing Office and Bookstore Limited, and editor of the weekly newspaper Le Madawaska or The Madawaska, published in both languages. During his career as a newspaperman, he was always keenly devoted to the interests of the residents of his county and of his province.
In 1935 he was elected to the legislature of New Brunswick and was given renewed votes of confidence during the succeeding elections of 1939, 1944 and 1948. From 1936 to 1939 he served as deputy speaker of the legislature. From 1940 to 1949 he was chairman of the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission and from 1949 to 1952 secretary-treasurer in the provincial government.
Although his career as a member of this parliament was regrettably brief, Mr. Boucher made a substantial contribution to several of the committees of this house. As was natural because of his background and experience in those fields, his views were very helpful to the committees on printing, public accounts, and banking and commerce. He was also an effective member of other committees, including that on railways, canals and telegraph lines and the committee on mines, forests and waters. Unfortunately, his failing health did not permit him to take the active part in our debates which he would have liked.
I feel confident that all members will join with me, Mr. Speaker, in expressing our sincere regret at the loss of a member whose knowledge and experience we all appreciated and in extending our sincere condolences to Mrs. Boucher and the other members of the family in their bereavement.
(Translation) :
Our friend Gaspard Boucher, who for many years was prominent in the field of public affairs, was also particularly devoted to the interests of the French-speaking citizens of his province. He will be remembered as a Canadian who faithfully and worthily represented his fellow citizens both in the New Brunswick legislature and in this house where, unfortunately, his failing health these past few years prevented him from being as active as he had been.
May we again extend to his wife and his family our deepest sympathy on the occasion of their bereavement.
(Text):


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with the Prime Minister and the other members of this house in expressing heartfelt sympathy to the widow and children of Mr. Boucher in the sad loss they have suffered. It does come home to us on an occasion of this kind that, with whatever political opinions we may seek to express our services in this house, there is a close and intimate association amongst the members, which finds very clear and deep expression at this time. Like so many of the other members in the house, Mr. Boucher was a man of wide and long experience, not only in the provincial legislature, but in the many local activities which contribute so much to the strength of the life of the whole nation. He was very active in those local enterprises which advance the health and strength and interest of young people, as well as in those social organizations which play their important part in the building of the character of every community. On an occasion like this it seems that it is extremely difficult to use words which in themselves convey to those who have been bereaved the sentiments we feel. I feel sure that in joining with the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and in extending to him and his colleagues our sympathy in their loss, we may also express the hope that for Mrs. Boucher and his children there will be some real measure of comfort in the knowledge that those who have been associated with him in the House of Commons are thinking of them at this time.

The late J. G. Boucher


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, it was only just as I came into the building a few minutes ago that I learned the sad news of Mr. Boucher's passing. I want to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) in expressing to Mrs. Boucher and her family our sympathy in their sorrow. I would also couple with that remark our sympathy to the Prime Minister and the members of the party with which Mr. Boucher was associated in the loss of a colleague.
I did not know Mr. Boucher well. He has been here, of course, for only a year and a half and in that time one does not get to know all of the members of the house. But from what I know of him-and I met him casually two or three times-I thought he was a fine gentleman who would have made a real contribution in this parliament had he been permitted to do so.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a matter of great regret when members of our association here in parliament pass on. Especially is that so when members with such broad experience as that of Mr. Boucher are called prematurely, it seems, into the next phase of existence. We join with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in expressing sympathy to the wife and the family of Mr. Boucher. While I did not know Mr. Boucher too well, I was associated with him in the banking and commerce committee. If he had been privileged to live longer, I think he would have made a real contribution in this house, in view of his sincerity and the great background of experience that he had had in his native province of New Brunswick. We also express our sympathy to the Prime Minister and his party in the loss of a devoted follower.


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, those who have spoken with reference to the passing of our good friend Gaspard Boucher have paid him a fine tribute; but on behalf of the Liberal members from the province of New Brunswick I should just like to add a few words. I have known Gaspard Boucher for about thirty years, and I can say that few men in the province of New Brunswick have given more of their life for the benefit of their fellow men than has Gaspard Boucher. He was a most valued member of our provincial legislature for many years. As has been said, he was deputy speaker. He was then chairman of the New Brunswick hydro commission. For the last few years he was a provincial member he was our provincial secretary treasurer. On behalf of the members from New Brunswick I should like to extend sincere sympathy to 
Mrs. Boucher and her family. We realize at this time that the counties and the province which he represented have lost a fine citizen.



PRIVILEGE


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I would express the hope that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) will avail himself of the opportunity afforded at this time to explain to the house if the sharp drop in immigration in the past few months is the administrative expression of the new immigration policy which he enunciated in Victoria last Tuesday.


Mr. Speaker:: This matter really does not come within the realm of privilege. I would hope that an opportunity will be given soon for both the Leader of the Opposition and the minister to air their opinions on this question.
[Later :1


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I wish to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if it is his intention to amplify and to explain to the house the surprising statement of policy he made last week in Victoria.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if I have your permission, I think the easiest way I can do it would be to read a letter I addressed this morning to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees), which I hope he has received. It reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Hees:


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: The mails are not that fast.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Judging from the attention you have given to reports of a speech I made in Victoria last week, I assume the extract you cited is going to find a place in the literature of the Progressive Conservative party.


Mr. Ferguson:: It does not need to be; it is all over Canada now. You made a perfect mess of it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps if the hon. gentleman would listen, I could complete the reading of this letter.
If that is correct, I am sure you will want to quote the full sentence, from which the extract was taken.
It went like this:


An hon. Member:: Music. Let us have the first bar.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The first stanza.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, this is the second stanza.
"We all want to increase the population of this country-"


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I agree with that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and for that purpose if they are equally good people-
And I think I might repeat that phrase: "If they are equally good people''-
-I don't believe that any immigrant, no matter where he comes from or how good he is, is as good as another Canadian baby, because the immigrant has to learn to be a Canadian and the baby is a Canadian to start with."
Now, sir, the Leader of the Opposition asked me to amplify what I had said'. I think I can illustrate my point very well by saying that I have no doubt the hon. member for Broadview was a beautiful baby, but I would never think of comparing him favourably with my hon. friend from Victoria, British Columbia (Mr. Fairey), whose guest I was when I made this statement, and who is an immigrant, and a very good Canadian.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do regret that in a matter of such importance as this the minister should have seen fit to answer the question by quoting a letter in which he chose to put this on a strictly political ground.
This subject, after all, is one which relates to the feelings toward Canada of a great many people in this country. I feel sure the minister will recognize that there has been no attempt to deal unfairly with a statement which obviously was contracted in the reporting. I would have hoped that a statement which can only give concern to so many people who have chosen this country as their home would have received a more adequate explanation from the minister, and would not have been reduced to the basis upon which the minister has put it. However, since he has reduced it to that position, I would hope that he would remember that Sir John A. Macdonald was an immigrant to this country.


Mr. Michener:: Would the minister consider the desirability of changing the name of his portfolio to that of minister of citizenship and propagation?



MR. COLDWELL    REFERENCE TO PRESS REPORTS OF SPEECH BY MINISTER OF FINANCE

Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on what amounts to a question of personal privilege. The radio and the press over the week end have carried a story that the Minister of Finance, when speaking in Toronto on Saturday night, made what is a serious allegation. In discussing the expulsion of certain Trotskyites from the C.C.F.-may
Privilege
I say that no organization in Canada has been more careful to expel communists when we discovered them within the C.C.F.-he said similar charges could be laid against some C.C.F. federal members. I am a C.C.F. federal member. I ask the minister to name the federal members to whom he refers.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, speaking on the question of privilege, may I say that what my hon. friend read from, of course, was a report of a meeting but it was a report without any quotation marks around it. Had he asked me to say here what I said there, I would have obliged him. The report is not accurate in saying that I said that any members of his party in this house were Trotskyites.


Major James William Coldwell: The press phoned me yesterday and told me that.


Walter Edward Harris: I am not saying that the press did not attempt to quote what I said. I merely say that in the report there are no quotation marks whatever. If my hon. friend wants a short explanation of what I said, I should be glad to oblige. I regret that the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) is not in his place. My remarks were prompted by a letter which he wrote on the subject of the expulsion of these people. If my hon. friends in the house will permit me to do so, I should like to read extracts from the letter which appeared in the press.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister had better read the whole letter.


Walter Edward Harris: I am sorry, but I am not able to do so. I can read only the part of the letter which appeared in the press. I will read exactly what appeared in the press. It appeared in two different newspapers. I quote first from the Star of April 7:
Paddy Stanton, one of the purged, produced as evidence in his favour a letter from Colin Cameron, M.P. for Nanaimo . . .
Mr. Cameron said he viewed with alarm attempts to rid the C.C.F. of-
And these words are in quotation marks: -"those difficult persons who ask awkward questions; those exasperating people who play the role of watchdog and bark at our heels whenever in their view we tend to stray too far from the socialist path on which we set our feet twenty years ago".
That is the end of the quotation. Then in the Telegram of the same day there is a somewhat extended report which reads as follows:
Colin Cameron, M.P. Nanaimo, urged the convention to-
And these words are in quotation marks: -"consider very carefully before depriving the C.C.F. of Stanton's talents''.
2894	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce
That is the end of the quotation. The article continues:
In a letter he said-
And the following is within quotation marks:
-"I do not for one moment deny that he can be the most exasperating creature. Nor do I deny that he has very little of what most of us would call practical political sense.
But that is not the function of the Paddy Stantons of this world. Theirs is the role of goads, spurs, prickly thorns in the flesh of our complacency".
That is the end of the quotation. The story goes on as follows:
He numbered Stanton among those people who-
And the following is within quotation marks:
-"play the role of watchdog and bark at our heels whenever in their view we tend to stray too far from the socialist path." He said Stanton was "an agitator, a rabble rouser and an embarrassment to all respectable conventional people" but he had a socialist message "delivered in terms that the man in the factory can understand and appreciate".
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, on reading it over, it occurred to me that that was a rather fair description of the man who wrote the letter. That is the implication I had in mind in what I said.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I say that is entirely different, that the man to whom the hon. member for Nanaimo referred had not yet been labelled as a Trotskyite, and that the inference against the hon. member for Nanaimo is one with which I think he himself will have to deal. I am extremely sorry-as is the minister, I am sure-that he is not in the house at this time. The thing that surprised me is that a minister for whom I had a great deal of respect should stoop to the level of smearing.



ATOMIC ENERGY


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling copies in English and French of a resolution of the North Atlantic council approving the draft text of an agreement for co-operation regarding atomic information and recommending to member governments that they take action, in accordance with their own national requirements, with a view to the conclusion of the agreement. The draft text of the agreement is appended to the resolution.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 329, for the relief of Maureen Demers Kezber.-Mr. Hunter.
[Stage Direction]

Bill No. 330, for the relief of Eva Levine Shapiro.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 331, for the relief of Rejane Pla-mondon Levine.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 332, for the relief of Marie Irma Marquette Lalonde.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 333, for the relief of Marion Tan-nenbaum Rabow.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 334, for the relief of Walter Williamson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 335, for the relief of Eileen Beatrice Sloan Douglas.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 336, for the relief of Madelyn Jane Picard Gilbert.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 337, for the relief of George James Marshall.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 338, for the relief of Luigi Mar-tellino, otherwise known as Louis Martellino. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 339, for the relief of Bernice Bal-insky Friedman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 340, for the relief of Rose Marie Lescarbeau Deschenes.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 341, for the relief of Florence Aleatha Geraldine Hamilton Gardner.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 342, for the relief of Mary Veronica Hamilton Campbell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 343, for the relief of Aba Awner. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 344, for the relief of Grace Elizabeth Sinclair Peterkin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 345, for the relief of Sybil Lavine Markowitz.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 346, for the relief of Gabriel Bois-clair.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 347, for the relief of Betty Weiner Schwartz.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 348, for the relief of Lili Gourd La-jeunesse.-Mr. Hunter.


Mr. Argue:: 1.	Are any Investigations into thefts in the armed services presently being conducted? If so. how many?
2.	What is the nature of each such investigation?


Mr. Campney:: 

ARMED SERVICES


Mr. Argue:: 1.	How many complaints, if any, have been received concerning irregularities or thefts in any branch of the armed services?
2.	Have any investigations been completed into such irregularities?
3.	If so, what was the nature of the report made following each investigation?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	Since November 26, 1952, 23 complaints alleging irregularities have been received.
2.	Yes, 22.
3.	With respect to 18 of these complaints, the following observations may be made. As far as could be determined from thorough investigations by service police and, in some instances, civil police, R.C.M.P. and the chief auditor, 13 complaints were found to be without foundation; four of these complaints indicated a possible malicious intent. Investigation into an additional four complaints revealed that, in fact, these complaints were not warranted; two of them appear to have been made by eccentrics. One complaint received was not sufficiently specific to make an investigation possible.
With respect to the remaining four complaints of the 22 complaints in which investigations have been completed:
(1)	Following an R.C.M.P. investigation into a complaint alleging discrimination in the letting of trucking business at Hagers-ville, Ontario, an officer and a warrant officer were brought before the civil criminal courts; the charges were subsequently dismissed by the supreme court of Ontario.
Questions
(2)	Following an R.M.C.P. investigation into a complaint about the handling of trucking tenders at Camp Shilo, Manitoba, a report was submitted to the attorney general of the province of Manitoba, who found that there was insufficient evidence on which to prosecute. A warrant officer was removed from his position.
(3)	Following an R.C.M.P. investigation into a complaint of irregularities at Moncton, New Brunswick, a flight sergeant and two civilians were charged with obtaining the sum of $1,066 by forging invoices. The flight sergeant was sentenced to three months imprisonment and released from the service. The two civilians were given five years suspended sentence. The sum of $807 was restored to the crown.
(4)	Following an investigation by service authorities into a complaint alleging irregularities at Camp Petawawa, Ontario, three officers were disciplined for misuse of transport on two occasions. An allegation that civilian labourers were being asked to work too much overtime was substantiated in only one case since overtime is the normal practice during the summer training period. Other allegations were thoroughly investigated and no evidence was found to substantiate them.



ARMED FORCES IDENTIFICATION BUREAU

Mr. Harkness:: 1.	How long has the Canadian armed forces identification bureau been in operation?
2.	How many persons have been employed in it each year since its inception?
3.	What has been the total cost of this bureau to date?
4.	What backlog of unclassified fingerprints exists and, if this backlog is increasing, what is the rate of increase?
5.	How many men would be required, and how long would it take to catch up with the backlog and to put the identification bureau on an efficient and useful basis?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	The Canadian armed forces identification bureau has been in operation since 1947.
2.	1947, 13; 1948, 13; 1949, 16; 1950, 40; 1951, 40; 1952, 40; 1953, 41; 1954, 45; 1955, 47.
3.	Approximately $988,000.
4 and 5. The Canadian armed forces identification bureau is responsible for the provision of identification cards and assisting with security checks. Existing staff is carrying out these functions satisfactorily and is keeping abreast of current demands.
In October 1954 the bureau adopted the R.C.M.P. system of fingerprint formula classification. Since that time all fingerprints have been classified according to this system. Fingerprint records made before October 1954, which include all wartime fingerprint

Questions
records, are not classified according to the R.C.M.P. system. To reclassify previous records would require the present staff to be multiplied several times over and would take perhaps a year. However, it has not yet been determined that a complete reclassification would be warranted in the light of the-costs involved.



C.N.R. ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT

Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Were any new jobs created in the accounting department of the Canadian National Railways in the years 1953 and 1954?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	What is the monthly rate of pay for each of these jobs?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	The Canadian National Railways advise that the organization of any department of the railway is a matter of internal operation, and it is not the policy of the management to make public such information.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.



WHEAT MARKETING POINTS, WESTERN PROVINCES

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many wheat marketing points are there in each of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?
2.	In how many of these shipping points in each of the provinces does the car order book operate?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	There are 378 points in Manitoba, 1,106 points in Saskatchewan, and 590 points in Alberta from which western grain may be shipped.
2.	Section 61 of the Canada Grain Act provides that all railway companies furnish car order books to their agents at each point from which western grain may be shipped. Car order books become operative when applications are made in them for cars under section 62 of the Canada Grain Act. They may be in operation for a short period and then cease to operate when all applications are filled. No record is kept, therefore, of points where car order books are in operation.



IMMIGRATION

Mr. Bell:: What is the total of all immigrants landed in Canada since January 1, 1950, at (a) Saint John, New Brunswick; (b) Halifax, Nova Scotia; (c) all other ports?


John Whitney Pickersgill: (a)	Saint John, N.B	
21,582(b)	Halifax, N.S	
292,632(c)	All other ports	
441,682Total	
755,896



PRIVATE CARS, C.N.R.

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many private, business or official cars, for the use of officials or executives of the Canadian National Railways since the 1st day of January, 1953, have been manufactured by the railway plants or purchased for the Canadian National Railways?
2.	What was the cost including alterations of each of said cars?
3.	Are any of such cars still under construction? If so, how many, and what is the estimated cost thereof?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows: 1. No private, business or official cars for the use of officials or executives of the Canadian National Railways have been manufactured by railway plants or purchased for Canadian National Railways since January 1, 1953. Since that date two obsolete passenger cars, which have been replaced, were converted to business cars in company shops, replacing two units no longer efficient or safe for use in service.
2.	Cost of conversion was approximately $127,000 for each car and this represents the total cost as prior to conversion the cars had been retired and written off.
3.	No.
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-SEALS Mr. Monieith:
1.	How many contracts have been let for lead seals for the Post Office Department in the last two
years?
2.	How many lead seals were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the name of the successful bidder in each contract and what was the bid per 1,000
seals?


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouih-Clare):: 1. 7.
2 and 3. 1953 January 30; Federated Metals Canada Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., 1,000,000 seals, $3.61 per 1,000; Union Metal Co. Ltd., Winnipeg, Man., 1,000,000 seals, $3.35 per 1,000;
September 3: Union Metal Co. Ltd., Winnipeg, Man., 1,000,000 seals, $3.30 per 1,000; Mayer Sealing Devices, Montreal, P.Q.,
1.000.	000 seals, $3.36 per 1,000.
1954 February 16: Union Metal Co. Ltd., Winnipeg, Man., 1,000,000 seals, $3.20 per 1,000; Mayer Sealing Devices, Montreal, P.Q.,
1.000.	000 seals, $3.36 per 1,000.
November 30:	Mayer	Sealing Devices,
Montreal, P.Q., 2,000,000 seals, $3.61 per
1.000.



AIRDROMES-CORRECTION OF ANSWER GIVEN ON APRIL 1 TO MEMBER FOR QUEENS

J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Speaker, X regret that it has been found on rechecking that the answer appearing in Hansard of April 6, 1955,

page 2860, to a question by the hon. member for Queens regarding airports in Canada used by scheduled airlines as scheduled stops was incomplete, and I now have the corrected answer.
Airports in Canada used by scheduled air lines as scheduled stops:
Department of Transport-Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Penticton, B.C.; Fort Resolution, N.W.T.; Quebec, P.Q.; Lakehead, Ont.; Saskatoon.; Hay River, N.W.T.; Swift Current, Sask., Lethbridge, Alta.; Toronto (Malton) Ont.; Montreal, Que.; Winnipeg, Man.; Norman Wells, N.W.T.; Yellowknife, N.W.T.; Prince George, B.C.; North Bay, Ont.; Fort St. John, B.C.; Providence, N.W.T.; Fort Smith, N.W.T.; Regina, Sask.; Grande Prairie, Alta.; Seven Islands, P.Q.; Kimberley, B.C.; The Pas, Man.; Moncton, N.B.; Windsor, Ont.; Muskoka, Ont.; Yarmouth, N.S.; Yorkton, Sask.; Ottawa (Uplands), Ont.; Fort McMurray, Alta., Port Hardy, B.C.; Fort Simpson, N.W.T.; Quesnel, B.C.; Gander, Nfld.; Sandspit, B.C.; Kapus-kasing, Ont.; Sydney, N.S.; London, Ont.; Victoria, B.C.; Mont Joli, Que; Wrigley, N.W.T.; North Battleford, Sask.; Earlton, Ont.
Department of National Defence-Comox, B.C.; Val d'Or, P.Q.; Halifax, N.S.; Yorkton, Sask.; Summerside, P.E.I.; Goose, Nfld.; Whitehorse, Y.T.; Bagotville, P.Q.; Fort Nelson, B.C.; Watson Lake, Y.T.; St. John's, Nfld.
Municipalities-Baie Comeau, P.Q.; Moose Jaw, Sask.; Cranbrook, B.C.; Prince Albert, Sask.; Edmonton, Alta.; Saint John, N.B.; Fort Vermilion, Alta.; Trail, B.C.; Lloydminster, Sask.; Williams Lake, B.C.; Medicine Hat, Alta.; Castlegar, B.C.; Peace River, Alta.; Dawson Creek, B.C.; Rouyn (Noranda), Que.; Forestville, Que.; Timmins, Ont.; Kamloops, B.C.; Westview, B.C.; Calgary, Alta.; New Glasgow, N.S., Dauphin, Man.; Rimouski, Que.; Flin Flon, Man.; Sudbury, Ont.; Fredericton, N.B.; Vancouver, B.C.; Matane, P.Q.
Other bodies-Brandon, Man., City of Brandon flying club; Dawson City, Y.T., Govt, of Yukon Territory; Mayo, Y.T., Govt, of Yukon Territory; Red Lake, Ont., used by Central Northern Airways (under negotiation); Stephenville, Nfld., United States air force; Uranium City, Sask., Eldorado Mining and Refining.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Argue:: 1.	How many fires have occurred in the works services department or at army stores depots in each month since November 26, 1952?
2.	What was the location of each fire and the damage in each case?
3.	On what dates was the inventory taken at each place where a fire occurred?
Inquiries of the Ministry



ARMED FORCES ENLISTMENTS, QUEBEC

Mr. Boisvert:: How many enlistments have there been in the province of Quebec (a) army: (b) navy; (c) air force, for each year since 1949?



PRINTING BUREAU

Mr. Harkness:: 1.	What has been the total cost of the new printing bureau in Hull to date, including cost of land, construction and equipment?
2.	When is the printing bureau to be transferred to this new building?
3.	What new machinery has been installed in the new building to date?
4.	Are the floors sufficiently strong to take the weight of the machinery which has been, or is to be installed?
5.	Has any strengthening of the floors been done and what has been the cost?


Mr. Pinard:: Return tabled.



FIRE BOATS

Mr. Bell:: 1.	What ports in Canada have fire boats or similar facilities?
2.	What are these facilities, and by whom provided?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. What is being done to bring about an early settlement of the strike of lakehead grain handlers in order to prevent economic unsettlement and serious distress in the marketing of wheat and other farm products on the prairies?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) sent me notice this morning of a similar question, part of which corresponds with the question of the hon. member for Prince Albert. In view of the importance of this matter I would ask that I might have the opportunity to give a little of the background of this dispute, one that I assure you has been causing my department concern now for a good many months.
The last agreement which was in effect between local 650 of the brotherhood of railway and steamship clerks, freight handlers, express and station employees and the lake-head terminal elevators association, representing elevator companies at Fort William and Port Arthur, was for a period of one year, terminating December 31, 1953. Pursuant to the terms of the collective agreement, local 650 of the brotherhood gave notice to the association that it wished to revise the agreement increasing wage rates and improving working conditions. Following this notice, the

Inquiries of the Ministry negotiating committees of the association and the local carried out direct negotiations subsequent to the termination date, but little progress toward a settlement was made.
On March 24, 1954, the lakehead terminal elevators association requested me to appoint a conciliation officer to deal with matters in dispute between the parties. The department's senior conciliation officer in Winnipeg was appointed on March 29, 1954. On June 11 the conciliation officer reported that he was unable to effect a settlement of the dispute, and on June 21 I established a conciliation board to deal further with the dispute. The board was fully constituted on July 19, 1954, with His Honour Judge Dowler of Port Arthur as chairman.
The board directed its efforts towards getting the parties back into negotiations on the issues in dispute with the result that on December 16, 1954, it was able to report that the parties "had been successful in settling all the issues except wages." On this issue the brotherhood had requested that the base rate paid at the lakehead be increased to the level of the wage rate paid by Vancouver elevator companies, with an additional 10 cents per hour to compensate for the dust hazard. On December 16, 1954, I received the report of the conciliation board, signed by the chairman and the nominee of the brotherhood, recommending a general increase of 3 per cent for all classifications affected.
Following receipt by the parties of copies of the report of the board, which I conveyed to them, the brotherhood advised me that the board's recommendation was unacceptable. The association of employers, in view of the decision of the brotherhood, did not express any view on the board's recommendation. Subsequently, my department arranged a further meeting between representatives of the parties in Ottawa on February 15. Some progress was made and a further meeting was arranged for a later date at the lakehead. This meeting was held but adjourned without results. A further conference between the parties initiated by the Canadian vice president of the brotherhood was held at Fort William on March 29, but no further progress towards a settlement was made.
My department was subsequently informed that a strike vote would be taken and immediately on receipt of the result of such vote I appointed Mr. Eric Taylor of Toronto as mediator to confer with the parties and use his best efforts to bring them into agreement. Advice to this effect was conveyed to the parties on April 13.
There was some indication that a strike would not take place until the parties had

met with the mediator, and meetings with them were accordingly arranged by him to take place on Tuesday morning, April 19- that is tomorrow morning. When it was learned on Saturday, April 16, that the employees had initiated strike action, Mr. Taylor proceeded at once to the lakehead and is now actively engaged in efforts to resolve the dispute and obtain a resumption of operations.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the serious
possibilities connected with this strike, would the minister not consider personally going to Fort William to see whether or not he could bring these people together? It has serious possibilities to the west and to the economy in general.


Milton Fowler Gregg: All I can say is that the minister and his department will leave nothing undone that they think will help towards a settlement of this dispute. It was only on Saturday that Mr. Taylor flew to the head of the lakes. Although yesterday was Sunday, he was able to get in touch with some members of the parties concerned and he is holding aggressive, active discussions with them on this day, the 18th. I think we might see what happens there. I will be very glad to report to the house as we go on from here.



REPORTED UNEMPLOYMENT CONDITION AT SEVEN ISLANDS, QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Nose worthy (York South): Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Labour. I regret I did not send him notice, but I do not think he will need it. Will the minister tell the house what action, if any, the government is taking with regard to a condition of unemployment reported at Seven Islands where 600 employees are reported to be looking for work, which will not be available for some weeks to come?
Milton Fowler Gregg: I am very glad to reassure my hon. friend and the house that that situation is not as was reported over the week end. This morning I had a discussion with the hon. member for Saguenay (Mr. Brisson), in whose constituency Seven Islands is located; and I have also had reports from our Montreal office of the unemployment insurance commission which, over the week end, was in touch with the management of the employment office, and I find that instead of there being 600 new Canadians assembled there, who are unemployed, there are 448 applicants for employment at the present time in that office, of whom 80 are new Canadians. They have assembled there, in small groups, from various

parts of Canada, mainly from the St. Lawrence valley, during the last few weeks.
It was suggested that they go there so as to be in plenty of time to be taken on or to get their applications in when hiring takes place. Unfortunately hiring will not begin until May 15. However, even that number, though small, is nevertheless important. I am glad to say that the situation is well in hand and that the Montreal office and the local office are well able to cope with it. There is no trouble.
But this does again give a clear indication of the importance of personnel-new Canadians or old, who are urgently seeking work-checking in at the nearest employment office to make sure that the alleged employment elsewhere is a reality rather than a rumour.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Has the
attention of the Minister of Transport been called to the fact that quite short notice has been given to Canadian National Railways employees in the repair shops at Leaside, indicating that their employment will either cease or they must move to London or Montreal? Has he investigated whether the closing of this type of shop is really necessary in the interests of efficiency and economy?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: I shall take my hon. friend's question as notice and look into the matter.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: May I ask a supplementary question in that regard? Can the minister give the house some information as to the projected lay-offs which are going to take place in the Canadian National shops at Winnipeg?



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: May I
direct a question to the Acting Minister of Defence Production or his parliamentary assistant?' Will the minister comment on a statement made at an Avro workers' meeting in Toronto on Sunday to the effect that production of the CF-105 was being delayed and unemployment created through lack of necessary tools?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Acting Minister of Defence Production):: I have not seen the statement in question, but if there has been one I know of no grounds for its validity.



SUGGESTED REDUCTION IN STORAGE PAYMENTS AT ELEVATORS AFFECTED BY STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Can the
minister say whether the regular storage payments at the terminal elevators affected by the strike have been reduced, as I believe was the policy in a previous strike?


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps, as Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, I might answer that. I have not had the opportunity of going fully into this matter, but storage rates have not been reduced. At the moment this is a matter between the wheat board and the operators, but it is one upon which we are in touch with the wheat board.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the minister also in touch with the board of grain commissioners relative to the same subject?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT AS TO FINAL PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: The question I was going to ask is slightly different from that asked by the hon. member for Yorkton. Is it the intention of the government, by an immediate statement, to carry out the commitment made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the final payment for wheat would be announced before seeding?


Robert Henry Winters: I read the question as it was submitted to me, Mr. Speaker, and it refers to a commitment. I may say I have not been able to find any record of a commitment, but in referring to the various Hansards I find that on April 1, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Prince Albert, the Minister of Trade qnd Commerce stated that the announcement would be made as soon as the figures became available from the Canadian wheat board. He indicated that would probably be in three or four weeks from that date, and a reply in the same tone was given on March 14 to the hon. member for Assiniboia.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce plans to return early in May and I expect he will make a statement shortly thereafter. I may

Inquiries of the Ministry say that the board is making excellent pro- Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime gress in mailing out cheques on the barley Minister): There has been no recent request and oats payments which were announced from Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. There was on March 14 and 18 respectively. The barley included in the original plan a provision for cheques are going out first, and they will be the exportation of a certain amount of natural completed this week. They will be followed gas to the United States, but there has been by the oats cheques.	no recent application.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the minister might not consider the very serious financial plight of western farmers and make an announcement before the return of the Minister of Trade and Commerce?



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, or in his absence his parliamentary assistant. Can he give information to the house as to when farmers may expect payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act? Spring has come and this money is urgently needed for fuel and seed, and there are many areas in which no payments have been received.


Robert Henry Winters: I have received a
question from the hon. member for Kinders-ley which is along the same line, and which reads as follows:
Is it the intention of the government, by an immediate statement, to carry out the commitment made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the final payment for wheat would be announced before seeding?


Major James William Coldwell: Those are two different matters.


Robert Henry Winters: I beg your pardon.


Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: cannot answer the question asked by the hon. member for Yorkton, but I shall look into the matter and see if an answer can be given in a few days.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: May
I be permitted to direct a question to the Prime Minister? I do so in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the government received any request from Trans-Canada Pipe Lines for a permit to construct a gas pipe line from Alberta to Winnipeg, with a request also to export to the Minneapolis and St. Paul's areas?
IMr. Winters.1



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Has the Minister of National Defence any statement to make to the house concerning the disastrous fire at Rockcliffe airport?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I believe the facts with reference to this very regrettable fire have been fairly well covered by the press, but I might add a few observations.
As everyone knows, the fire took place at midnight on April 16, in barracks block 73, which is a second world war barrack block building, accommodating about 100 airmen. The station fire department arrived at the scene of the fire approximately two minutes after it was discovered by an airman.
Within a very few minutes they were joined by firemen from the Ottawa city fire department. Apparently there was adequate equipment, and it operated satisfactorily. It was almost 2 a.m. when the fire was finally brought under control. There was heavy damage to the south end of the east wing, and the washroom corridor on the second floor. The remainder of the building suffered water and smoke damage.
The evacuation alarm was sounded by the airman who discovered the fire, and he immediately began rousing others from their sleep. Intense smoke and heat however prevented anyone from entering the south end of the east wing on the second floor where the fire had originated. Some airmen did escape from this area through the windows but, most regrettably, two young airmen were trapped and died in the fire. Nine others received minor injuries.
The cause of the fire is as yet undetermined. An investigation is now under way by the Royal Canadian Air Force, the R.C.M.P., the Ontario fire marshal's office and the Ottawa fire department.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if his department is using fire resistant paint on buildings of that nature.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I cannot answer that
question definitely in regard to this building. It is an old building, completed during world

war II. I know that we are studying fire resistant paint, but I also know that in some cases the use of fire resistant paint has not proven effective and it is quite expensive. I am not sure as to the extent to which we are actually using it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I would like to say that we have a report in connection with repairs to the library which shows that they are using fire resistant varnish in there. They hope it will help.



REPLY OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: In the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I should like to know if the government is yet in a position to give to the house the reply of the government of the United States in answer to a statement sent to that goverment as reported to this house some time ago?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I shall have to inquire. I returned this morning, and I am sorry I did not communicate with the Department of External Affairs to ascertain whether or not any answer had been received. I shall have to do that before I can give a formal answer.


George Alexander Drew: I wish to thank the Prime Minister for taking this as notice, but I would point out that this matter was regarded as sufficiently important for the minister to read to the house the message sent to the government of the United States, and I do think we should have the answer given by the government of the United States to that message.



NEW WESTMINSTER HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 187, respecting the New Westminster harbour commissioners-Mr. Marler-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Marler
Railway Act
for the second reading of Bill No. 259, to amend the Railway Act.
Mr. R. H. Small (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, the amendments moved by the Minister of Transport on the motion for second reading of the bill that he suggested would remove the impediments to the operation of the act are now well known to us. Probably they will work out the way the minister has suggested with regard to five of the six proposals he presented, but the fifth, which limits the fund to $7 million, if the amount of the uncommitted balance is over $2 million on April 1 of any year, instead of being cumulative, indicates that this is a continuation of the sloth that made the momentum in accomplishment so sluggish and has brought about the consequent dissatisfaction with the board's present policy. It seems that the policy is to be the same, and I say the whole question should be examined.
I should like to refer to the statement of the minister that the board did not initiate projects, and that it acts only upon the petition of interested parties. The board should be in a position to initiate, and should not always leave to others the decision as to whether a project is needed, because the financial positions of some municipalities are such that many urgently needed projects will never be built. The board should be in a position to act on its own to protect the public.
At the time the board made an examination of the whole project they did not have the power to deal with the problem of unemployment that confronted this house last year. The minister said that unemployment was not one of the problems that confronted the board at that time, which is right; but since it has been injected into this arena- I mentioned it in debate the other day-it is a very important matter at the present time, and if the board had had the information at that time probably it would have introduced it as a subject to assist in solving our unemployment problem.
When the unemployment problem was considered some ten years ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) suggested that shelves of work would be provided to take care of unemployment in the future, and that municipalities and provinces were to have shelves of work set aside for that purpose. That situation has now arrived. Such projects as grade separations and the protecting of crossings with safety devices are matters that lend themselves to consideration at this time. That was the reason why I introduced it in my remarks. I thought it would help to solve the problem of unemployment and would prevent grade crossing accidents, without making work just for the

Railway Act
sake of making work. This is a shelf of work that would lend itself to removing grade level crossing hazards and at the same time it would help to relieve unemployment next year.
It seems that tail these problems are discussed or considered when we are right in the middle of them and nothing can be done. When the dominion-provincial conference meets, this question should be put on the agenda. The only reason why it was not considered by the board of transport commissioners when they were studying the question was that they were not asked to consider it.
Some papers made mention of the fact that there was no necessity to go into the whole problem because accidents were happening in remote sections of the country and also Dn grade crossings that were protected at the present time; therefore you could not take care of the indifference of the people who were driving, if they could not keep themselves out of accidents. I am not disregarding that point. It is quite true. But if the attitude were taken by industry, whether construction or manufacturing, that because of the indifference of the people no attention should be given to preventing accidents, I am quite sure we would have an appalling situation in the country. Because people are indifferent to the protection provided for them in accident prevention devices and disregard them is no reason why we should not continue to examine this problem which is causing concern to the people of Canada.
I am interested not only in unemployment but in the matter of safety regulations on the highways. This question has been touched on by some speakers. It should also be on the agenda of the dominion-provincial conference and should be tied in not only with safety on the highways but with an over-all accident prevention program. The whole question of safety should be studied., and standard regulations on the highways should be adopted so that all the people from Nova Scotia to British Columbia would be familiar with them and the safety regulations would all be the same. Then when tourists come to this country they could readily adapt themselves to the safety practices, precautions and devices that have been established.
These are some of the points that I thought should have been emphasized when the minister made his remarks on his motion for second reading. The unemployment factor and the factor of placing a limitation of $7 million on the fund are very important. The limitation on the fund is going to get us back into the position we were in formerly,

and very little will be done. I am satisfied that while $5 million is a vast improvement, it will not take care of the situation that presents itself, nor will it solve our problems.


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: I have a few comments to make because it seems to me that the principle of this bill is very important. There is a great job to be done in this country so far as the removal of level crossings is concerned not only from the standpoint of safety-because we all realize that there is a great toll in human lives each year from crossing accidents-but also from the standpoint of convenience. I know of many localities in Canada where the failure to provide for proper access from one side of a railway track to another has brought about serious inconvenience. I am thinking of my own constituency where on occasion traffic is held up for a considerable period of time owing to the passage of a particularly long freight train. I know that happens in this part of the country.
I recall going through the city of Brock-ville not long ago, and the traffic was held up in that place for some considerable time. So we are faced here with a grave problem. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the amount of money provided for this bill is totally inadequate even to come close to dealing with the problem. After all, this legislation must be judged in the light of its effectiveness in doing a job. When we realize the immensity of the job to be done, and when we look at the figure of $5 million, we appreciate how ineffective the legislation is going to be.
I suggest it is going to be ineffective, not only because of the paucity of the amount of money in the fund, but also because the municipalities are still to be called upon to bear a share, which not many of them are able to bear. I suggest that, in spite of the fact that these funds will now provide for a maximum of 60 per cent and that some arrangement may be reached with regard to the railroad's share, it is quite evident that a tremendous financial burden is going to be placed on the municipalities in this country. It does not matter what part of the country we consider, municipal councils and city councils have the same story to tell. The mill rate is now at an extremely high level and the municipal taxing authorities have gone as far as they can go. They are not able to undertake any appreciable expenditures of this kind.
Therefore, if the government suggests that through this legislation they are going to make any real attack on this problem, I think they have to give further consideration to the legislation. I do not know of any municipalities that are now in a position to

go to the board and ask that a particular project be undertaken, particularly when the average project in a city may involve an expenditure of a million dollars or more. The $5 million figure, I suggest, is in keeping with the procedure under which the money is made available, that the onus is on the municipalities. Instead of the board giving leadership, going out into the various parts of the country where the problem is most acute, and showing initiative, the initiative is going to have to be left to the municipalities, and not many municipalities are in a position at the present time to embark on an expenditure of a few hundred thousand dollars on a rail crossing project.
It seems to me that, in view of the position of the municipalities, if the government is anxious to bring about some improvement in the rail crossing problem in this country, then the government through the board is going to have to offer the leadership and supply most of the money. If that is not done, then I suggest that not many projects will be undertaken in the country at the present time. I want to repeat that there are not many municipalities in this country that are in a position today to go before the board with a recommended project and to proceed in the construction of that project when it is invariably going to cost them a good part of a million dollars on an average. So if the government is really anxious to do something about this problem, I suggest that the sum of money in the fund is going to have to be greatly increased; and secondly the board is going to have to be given wider latitude. It is going to have to be empowered to go out and seek to eradicate the problem where it is most serious and to take the initiative in proceeding with these projects. When I say "take the initiative", I suggest that it will of necessity involve offering to pay a larger share of the total cost than is provided for in the legislation.
There is one other matter which I wish to deal with. I touched on it on a previous occasion. I feel that, in view of the seriousness of the unemployment problem in Canada at the present time, the government should be casting about and seeking ways and means of providing employment and in so doing performing useful works throughout this country.
The hon. member for Danforth mentioned a moment ago the shelf of public works. We are familiar with the promises made by the government immediately after world war II, that, in the event that unemployment did come, the government would be prepared to provide employment through a shelf of public works. Since those public works have not
Railway Act
materialized, I feel that here, in at least a small sphere, the government could do something to provide immediate employment.
I realize that with modern methods of construction not too many actual labourers are going to be employed on these projects, but I suggest that where projects of this type are undertaken it is going to be a shot in the arm to business in localities where projects are being undertaken, and that it is going to assist in the economic welfare of the community. There are communities in every part of Canada that have problems of this kind, and the government could be using legislation to provide necessary jobs in those localities.
I was quite surprised a few weeks ago when the minister was commenting on the precedent set in the 1930's, when sums of money were made available in some cases from the unemployment relief fund to the rail crossing fund, and the minister at that time suggested that the time was not ripe. I asked him on that occasion whether he did not feel that now is the proper time to put sufficient money into the fund to provide some jobs. I must say that I was quite amazed by the answer given by the minister when he told the house that the government did not consider that now was the appropriate time to do anything in this regard. Now, I am just wondering how serious the situation is going to have to get in this country before the government is prepared to undertake even a small measure of this kind.
After all, we can talk about unemployment, we can talk about the necessity of providing jobs, but here is one specific example of where the government could be doing some little thing at least towards providing employment; and yet they feel that now is not the appropriate time. They are prepared to wait until the unemployment situation, I presume, gets worse. So I want to urge the minister at this stage to give serious consideration to the suggestions which have been made and to reconsider his earlier answer that the time has not yet arrived when it might be deemed necessary or advisable to place in this fund additional sums of money with the specific purpose of making an attack on the unemployment problem to at least a small extent in some parts of the country. I want to urge the minister to consider very seriously just how effective this legislation is going to be. We all welcome the addition of $5 million, but at the same time we have to ask ourselves this question. As a result of this legislation, will grade separation projects be undertaken in this country? That is the acid test of the legislation. I suggest that under the present arrangement, where the municipalities are called

Railway Act
upon to pay an extremely heavy burden as part of the costs, not many subways are going to be built; and after all that is the real test of the legislation.
It is my considered opinion that if the government is willing to grant the board greater latitude and to permit it to enter into negotiations with the municipalities with a view to undertaking projects where perhaps the board would pay 100 per cent of the cost and relieve the municipalities in needy cases of any expense whatsoever, then we are going to do something about eliminating grade crossings in this country. But if we are simply going to pass the buck to the municipalities and limit the funds to $5 million and expect the municipality to come along with a few hundred thousand dollars to undertake the project, then this money is going to stay in the fund for some time. I can understand why the government decided that the money was not to be allowed to accumulate beyond $7 million. So I urge the government at this time to give some serious reconsideration to the bill in its present form and to bring forward the changes which, in my opinion, will make it more effective.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this subject was quite broadly discussed during the resolution stage and I do not pretend that at this point one can add new considerations, but in connection with the problem there are several factors on which I should like to lay stress briefly this afternoon.
We have three principal aspects of the bill. First, there is the increase in the annual parliamentary contribution to the railway grade crossing fund from $1 million to $5 million. Second, there is the increase from 40 to 60 per cent which may be ordered by the board of transport commissioners to be paid out of that fund, toward the cost of construction work for the protection, safety and convenience of the public. Then, third, there is the increase from $150,000 to $300,000 in the ceiling on the contribution which may be paid out of the grade crossing fund to the cost of construction of any such project.
The measure has been welcomed in all parts of the house; indeed, Mr. Speaker, it has received warm approval as far as it goes. The discussion has been concerned largely with pointing out what may be inadequacies in it and with urging upon the government an increase in the provisions thus made.
The two features which have attracted attention in the discussion have been safety of the public and some assistance in the attack on the unemployment problem. Both of these are serious matters deserving of the highest degree of attention on the part of

parliament. As to safety, one need not dwell at length on the huge economic cost of injuries and fatalities in crossing accidents. It is easy enough for us to think of investments on the part of the public and those others who are called upon to contribute substantial amounts to the cost of grade crossing projects. Against that consideration, however, must be placed, in redress of the ledger balance, the huge annual economic cost of fatalities and injuries inflicted year by year in crossing accidents which might otherwise be avoided; and that is quite apart from the anguish that is caused by reason of those fatalities and injuries.
In the excellent and comprehensive report which the board of transport commissioners submitted to the minister on this subject, they brought most of their figures down to the end of the year 1953. I have obtained some of the figures for the year 1954 with a view to bringing the information up to date. Out of the large numbers of injuries and fatalities in the course of railway accidents, these figures have been isolated as applicable to accidents arising at public highway crossings, regardless of the form of protection or whether protection there exists. In 1954 at public highway crossings on railways there were 454 accidents involving injuries to persons, and in those accidents 179 people were killed and 596 were injured. That is a formidable total indeed. How does it compare with the record in recent years? I have here the figures on the number of accidents at the same types of crossings in the five-year period commencing with 1950. In 1950 there were 457 accidents at these public highway crossings; in 1951, there were 490; in 1952, there were 463; in 1953, there were 487 and in 1954 there were 454.
What has been the contribution to the solution of this problem by various types of crossing protection? A further glance at these figures indicates that over three-quarters of these accidents which have occurred at public highway crossings on railways have occurred at unprotected crossings. In 1950, out of the 457 accidents, 356 occurred at unprotected crossings; in 1951, out of the 490 accidents, 393 occurred at unprotected crossings; in 1952, out of 463 accidents, 364 occurred at unprotected crossings; in 1953, out of the 487 accidents, 392 occurred at unprotected crossings; and in 1954, out of the 454 accidents, 353 occurred at unprotected crossings.
Density of population and also density of motor car traffic enter into the picture substantially, as one can see by looking at the breakdown of the numbers of accidents at such crossings by provinces. These figures indicate that well over 40 per cent of accidents

at grade crossings have occurred in the province of Ontario where population is more dense and the numbers of motor cars are so much larger.
On the part of some, Mr. Speaker, there is an impression that, after all, most of these accidents occur at night and that people keep their eyes open in the daytime. The figures do not bear out any such impression. Taking the figures for 1954, one finds that, out of the 454 accidents to which I referred, 235 of them occurred during daylight hours and only 219 during the night hours. In the case of accidents that occurred where motor vehicles were struck by a train-and of these there were 264-150 of them occurred during daylight hours and 114 during night hours. Those are cases where the collisions took the form of the train striking the motor vehicle. The majority of them occurred in daylight. No doubt many of them were cases where people had tried to beat the train across the crossing and others where they failed to observe the approach of the train. Then in the case of accidents that took the form of motor vehicles running into the side of trains-and there are many of these accidents-last year there were 140 of them, of which 46 occurred in daylight hours and 94 during the night hours.
It seems to me that these are important statistics, Mr. Speaker. The cost of grade separation work-indeed the cost of "construction work for the protection, safety and convenience of the public", to follow the words of the statute-is unquestionably high. Whether these works take the form of complete grade separation or of other crossing protection, the construction of these works is becoming increasingly costly year by year. The cost of constructing those projects-some of them major projects-has particularly increased by leaps and bounds with the soaring cost of construction in recent years. Consequently, with the increase in cost there has been a natural resistance, on the part of municipalities and oftentimes on the part of railways, to projects of this kind. Therefore, the importance of the increase in the permissible contribution from the grade crossing fund, from 40 per cent to 60 per cent in these cases, is, in my humble opinion, fully as important as is the increase in the annual contribution from $1 million to $5 million.
It would really be of much less effect than I think many hon. members of the house assume if the annual contribution were multiplied fivefold in this way and if there were not at the same time a corresponding increase in the maximum percentage which the board of transport commissioners may order to be paid out of the crossing fund to the cost 50433-184
Railway Act
of construction of any of these projects. Let us remember, sir, that the number of those among whom the cost of the work may be assessed is not large. In the case of provincial highways you have the provinces. In the case of other highways, and sometimes also in the case of provincial highways, you have the municipalities. Then you have the railways and you sometimes have public utilities. You sometimes have electric or street railways.
Let us bear in mind that no portion of the cost of maintenance of these crossings is paid out of the railway grade crossing fund and that when any of these projects is ordered to be constructed those upon whom a portion of the cost is assessed must face the fact that along with that allocation goes an allocation of the cost of future maintenance, and in many cases that may be a sizeable sum.
But let us look at this matter of the maximum contribution to the cost of construction as distinguished from the cost of maintenance. It is a heavy burden indeed that can be created for municipalities and for railways under these orders. So far as I am aware we have not, in any of the tables in the report of the board of transport commissioners, the total amount which has thus far been levied against any of the individual railways operating in Canada. We may see in the report at page 27, for instance, that the total expenditure for protection at highway crossings from 1909, the date of the inception of the railway grade crossing fund, down to the end of 1953 was approximately $52 million, and it appears that something over $18 million was assessed against the railways as their portion of the total. I think if further inquiry were made into the figures, including the cost of maintenance, we would have a much clearer picture than is yet available of the very formidable cost laid upon the railways in relation to the construction and maintenance of such projects.
As to the municipalities, the table on page 27 to which I have referred does not distinguish between provinces and municipalities, but out of the $52 million aggregate the total of contributions levied against the provinces and municipalities from 1909 to 1953 exceeds $19 million. Sir, this amount is bound to rise as the total increases if there is not some change made now along the lines proposed by which the proportion of the cost that may be paid out of the railway grade crossing fund may be increased.
One does not say that the experience of Canadian railways is precisely parallel to that of the United States railways operating in densely built up areas, but I mention the

Railway Act
experience of one railway in the United States. It is not completely transcontinental, but one important railway in the United States having an annual business approximating that of Canadian National Railways or Canadian Pacific Railway has had levies upon it so far for grade separation and railway grade crossing works exceeding $160 million. It is time that we stopped and observed the warning in relation to this cost.
As long as municipalities are to be called upon to bear a substantial percentage of the cost of construction, they, in their depressed condition, are bound to offer resistance in many cases. It does not matter that in so many of these cases the need of the grade separation or of some change in the form of crossing protection is acknowledged. Accidents may have resulted at a crossing by reason of the absence of some better form of protection but in case after case-and I speak out of not a little experience in relation to cases of this kind-one finds objections taken by the municipalities simply because they feel they cannot meet the percentage of cost that is proposed to be levied upon them.
A similar situation exists in the case of the railways, which are a depressed industry in Canada today. We are reminded of that in the recent report of the royal commission on agreed charges by the former Mr. Justice Turgeon. He points to the fact that the railways of Canada today are a depressed industry. When the railways are called upon to pay substantial percentages towards the cost of construction of these works, is it any wonder, when these costs far exceed any benefit that the railway may expect to derive from the crossing protection or grade separation, that the railways in many cases are obliged to resist? That leads me to say this. We hear discussion in the chamber about the great potential value of a general program of crossing protection and grade separation in Canada as an aid to relieve unemployment, but it is of little value to propose that great national schemes of this kind should be undertaken if we are going to be faced with the same type of allocation of costs as we have been facing hitherto. It only means that the more of these projects that are mooted the stronger must be the objections taken by the municipalities affected and the stronger the objections that must be taken by the railways that are affected so long as the amount that they are called upon to contribute exceeds the benefit that they receive from the contemplated construction.
The increase from 40 per cent to 60 per cent in the proportion that may be paid out

of the railway grade crossing fund is, in my estimation, as important as any other feature contained in this measure. I point out to the house that the 60 per cent we are now about to legislate is a maximum, just as the 40 per cent was that has existed in recent years. There is no guarantee that the board of transport commissioners will award that sum to be paid out of the grade crossing fund in every case that comes before it. It simply means that parliament is giving power to the board to order up to 60 per cent of the cost of construction to be paid in any case where it meets with the board's approval to do so.
If there is going to be an attempt made in the interests of public safety or public convenience to expand the program of grade separation works in Canada, then I think we must be prepared to be more generous in order to lighten the burden on the municipalities in those cases and, so far as the railways are concerned, it seems to me we must be prepared to draw more guidance from the policy being followed in the United States. It is federal policy in the United States to limit the contribution that the railways are called upon to make to grade separation in two ways: first of all, to limit the contribution to the benefit to be received by the railway from the contemplated construction and, second, even to limit that to an aggregate of 10 per cent of the total cost.
The federal policy in the United States thus provides for railways to participate in the cost of projects according to the benefits they receive and subject to this maximum of 10 per cent of the total cost. If there are no benefits available to the railways as a result of the projected grade separation, the railways are not called upon to contribute anything to the cost of grade separation in the United States. That is the federal policy there.
Now, the policy of the states is not uniform in this matter. There is quite a wide variation in the legislative policy of the various state legislatures in those cases where the grade separation falls within state, rather than federal, jurisdiction. There are some states which have laws providing for an allocation of cost according to the benefits received, which is like the federal policy in that country. Some states have placed a maximum of 15 per cent on the total contribution that may be levied upon the railways. Other states provide that the railways may be called upon to contribute a fixed percentage ranging from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. In other states, the state commission has the power to fix the railway contributions

in a manner somewhat similar to the provision made in our own Railway Act, within certain limits.
It is well for us to bear in mind, sir, the increasing extent to which benefit has been made the yardstick of the contribution that the railways in the United States have been called upon to make towards the cost of grade separation- work. In Canada there has been a steady and beneficial trend over the long period since 1909. Canada began in 1909 with a maximum contribution from the railway grade crossing fund of 20 per cent. In 1919 this contribution was increased to 25 per cent, and in 1926 to 40 per cent. It has remained at 40 per cent for 19 long years. The measure that is before us now has indeed been delayed too long.
Accompanying these percentage maxima there have been as well absolute maxima imposed in connection with the cost of any project, beginning in 1909 with $5,000. This was increased, the last time in 1950, to $150,000 per project which was far too low because the construction costs of these projects, oftentimes in areas where they are most needed, have run to such high figures that the maximum contribution of $150,000 out of the fund has been quite inadequate. I have misgivings also, Mr. Speaker, as to the adequacy of the proposed maximum of $300,000 per project.
When I raised this point in the debate in 1950, pointing out that the maximum contribution of $150,000 from the railway grade crossing fund was going to have the effect of preventing the elimination of grade crossings in some important situations, I was told that the great danger was that if we did not impose such a maximum the result could be that a few costly projects could absorb the entire amount available in the railway grade crossing fund. Now we are having a fivefold increase in the annual contribution, we are having an increase from 40 per cent to 60 per cent in the percentage contributions of the fund. I question whether the proposed new maximum of $300,000 for any one project is justified.
Looking back over the years, it is well that we bear in mind that on more than one occasion the railway grade crossing fund has been exhausted. It is well that we should bear in mind also that its purpose is more than safety. The terms of the statute contemplate the use of the fund for construction work for the protection, safety and convenience of the public. Undoubtedly, to an increasing extent, grade eliminations are being sought not merely in the interests of public safety, but in the interests of speed and public convenience. The great increase 50433-184$
Railway Act
in the volume of motor traffic on our highways has resulted in many cases in a stimulated demand for the elimination of grade crossings. That is a factor that must be recognized, and it is another reason why an increasing percentage of the cost of crossing eliminations should be borne at public expense rather than at the expense of these municipalities, railways, public utilities or others who are, in the language of the statute, interested or affected by the proposed crossing works.
Sir, the problem is great. It is a problem that is bound to increase in proportion with the increase in highway traffic in Canada. I hope that no one will pretend that the increases that are being made in the bill are adequate to meet the problem. They are an important and valuable step forward. One would commend the report of the board of transport commissioners, and the recommendations which they have put before the government and to which, with one exception, effect is being given by this legislation. I am bold enough to predict, sir, that further legislative changes lie before us as we realize the extent to which this is a public problem and not simply the problem of the municipalities or the railways or the public utilities immediately affected in the case of any project. We would do well, it seems to me, to draw benefit and guidance from the example of the United States in this regard.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I do not wish to take up the time of the house, Mr. Speaker, by reciting what has already been so adequately dealt with by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and others who have criticized the suggested legislation. It is sufficient to say that we are all, of course, glad to see that the government has taken steps to increase the amount of this fund and increase the proportion of the contribution. We all realize this is necessary because of the increase in highway traffic in Canada and the speeding up of that traffic. In addition there seems little doubt that the already overtaxed municipalities are going to have to pay a still larger proportion of the cost of these enterprises.
There is only one thing in this bill with which I should like to deal, and that is the method of initiating proceedings. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) made the following statement as recorded on page 2134 of Hansard for March 17, 1955:
The board of transport commissioners, which administers the fund, does not itself initiate the execution of these projects, but acts upon the petition of a railway company, a municipality, a province or some other interest that desires to have the project carried out.

Railway Act
Now, having a very dangerous crossing in my own constituency, which I have mentioned many times in this house, I have had conversations with members of the board of transport commissioners or rather officers of that board. It is my understanding that often proceedings of this sort are initiated by the board itself, either as the result of reports of traffic accidents or as a result of reports by the board's inspectors. Possibly when the minister replies he will make a further statement in the matter. This whole discussion came up, may 1 say, as a result of certain inquiries I have had occasion to make.
Since the sum the board has at its disposal for the construction of grade crossings is to be greatly increased, I trust the records kept by the board will be improved. I mention this because only recently I placed a question on the order paper, which was set out in Votes and Proceedings No. 52 at page "i", the issue of March 21, 1955. The subject was that of the Canadian National Railways crossing near Woodstock, Ontario.
The question was set out as follows:'
1.	Have any accidents occurred, since September 26, 1947, at the crossing where the main line of the Canadian National Railways from Montreal to Chicago crossed the Ontario provincial highway No. 2, approximately seven miles east of Woodstock? If so, how many?
2.	Has the board of transport commissioners considered giving assistance from the railway crossing fund towards the construction of an underpass at this point?
3.	If so, has the board yet reached a decision, and in what respect?
The answer given to me is as follows:
The board has no record of any accidents at this crossing since September 26,	1947. This
crossing is automatically protected with a wigwag and bells and to date no application has been received by the board for construction of a grade separation at this crossing.
The latter part of the answer is quite correct when it states that the crossing is protected by a wigwag and bells, and that no application has been made. However, it is my understanding, from information I have received from officials of the board, that, since this is a provincial highway, application would more properly be made to the province. This has not been done as yet.
I cannot understand however the first part of the answer, where it says-
The board has no record of any accidents at this crossing since September 26, 1947.
After receiving the answer I took the trouble to get in touch with the board by telephone, stating that I was somewhat surprised by the answer given, and suggesting that they make a further check and make another reply. The answer I received orally was much the same as the one I had received to the question I had placed on the order paper.
,
I have discussed this matter before, and the board must have some record of it. At the first session of this twenty-second parliament I raised the matter in the house on three different occasions, as indicated at pages 5167, 5615 and 6080 of Hansard for that session. In addition to this, on June 24, 1954, I addressed a letter to the then minister of transport, the Hon. Lionel Chevrier, in these words:
Dear Mr. Chevrier:
For your interest and information I am enclosing clipping from the Daily Sentinel Review, Woodstock, for Tuesday, June 22nd, with respect to my favorite railway crossing at Creditville near Woodstock.
The reply received from the then minister on June 28 is as follows:
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
This will acknowledge your letter of June 24th enclosing a clipping from the Daily Sentinel Review. dealing with the railway crossing at Creditville near Woodstock. I am sending this clipping to the board of transport commissioners.
Then on June 10, 1954, referring to a different accident, I wrote to the then minister as follows:
Since I made some remarks in the house about two weeks ago on the transport estimates with respect to an underpass on the main line of the Canadian National Railway seven miles east of Woodstock, known as the Creditville crossing, there have been two serious accidents.
I referred to one of these last Monday, page 5615 of Hansard. I am enclosing a news report from the London Free Press of yet another serious accident at this crossing which I think more than justifies my earlier comments.
I trust that you will refer this matter for consideration to Mr. Donald Gordon.
The minister's reply under date of June 14, 1954, is in these words:
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
I have your letter of June 10th with which you enclose a clipping from the London Free Press dealing with an accident at the underpass of the Canadian National main line seven miles east of Woodstock.
Then, under date of June 17, 1954, I have this notice from the board of transport commissioners:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 10th, which will receive the attention of the board.
In writing further on this subject, please refer to our file No. 26765-207.
And then the following:
Re underpass on C.N.R. main line Creditville.
In addition to that I would refer to an editorial appearing in the Sentinel Review of Woodstock, in its issue of June 24, 1954:
A coroner's jury found the Creditville crossing, east of Woodstock on No. 2 highway, "not up to date" in the inquest into a recent death at that crossing. The jury recommend the crossing be made safe.

In view of what I have just read, and the statements I have made, I find it difficult to understand how such an answer could have been given to the question I placed on the order paper. I would be glad to send this information to the minister. May I say that I have since been able to make inquiries from the Ontario provincial police which indicate that between Friday, September 26, 1947, and Saturday, February 5, 1955, there have been 77 accidents at this railway crossing in which 28 persons have been injured and one killed.
I do not wish to take further time of the house, but it must be obvious to everyone that this crossing is exceedingly dangerous; and I would hope that in the near future it would be dealt with by the board of transport commissioners, if it is within their power to do so. I express the further hope that the records the board has available to it will be kept more up to date in future.
Mr. Daniel Mclvor <Fori William): Mr. Speaker, I have much pleasure in commending the board of transport commissioners for pushing this increase, and the minister for co-operating with the board.
In the last 20 years I have had many dealings with the board and I must say that never once have I been disappointed with what they have done. Sometimes I did not get what I asked for, but at times I have found that the action taken by the board was better than that I had recommended.
In ward 1 of Fort William we had a very dangerous crossing, and for years there had been agitation to have a subway built. There were many tracks children had to cross when going to and from school. Then, when the long freight trains were passing through in the fall of the year one might have to wait 15 or 20 minutes at that crossing. Ambulances and doctors were in no better position; they too had to wait.
When the position was placed clearly and forcefully before the board of transport commissioners no difficulty was encountered at all. They sent out their engineers and, instead of building a subway to accommodate everyone, they built an overhead bridge to take part of the traffic, and a subway to serve pedestrians and school children. This was done at a cost of $100,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway, a similar amount to the city of Fort William, and $100,000 to the dominion government. I realize of course that other cities are not as fortunate in their city council as is the city of Fort William, where finances are handled in splendid fashion. The city paid $100,000 and the government paid $100,000 and now we are well protected. The
Railway Act
citizens of ward 1 are grateful to the members of the transport board, to the Canadian Pacific Railway and to the government.
Just about a year ago I made a plea for a farmer through whose farm the Canadian Pacific railway passed and cut the farm in two. When the farmer wanted to go to the other side of the track it cost him a lot of extra gas to go all the way round. Where half a mile would do it he had to drive about four miles. The board of transport commissioners put it up to the Canadian Pacific Railway and the result was that the railway paid the whole cost. It was not a heavy cost; it was more a fill-in than anything else, but they did it well.
I made many requests to the board of transport commissioners for stop signs. If you visit the riding of Fort William you will see that the board of transport commissioners had not neglected its job in this regard. Thank you.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few brief observations on this bill and to express my support of this legislation. The addition of the $5 million to the fund is to be welcomed and also the increase of the percentage to 60 per cent to be paid by the board and raising the maximum contribution to $300,000. That is all to the good.
Like some of the previous speakers, I wish the government had seen fit to increase the annual contribution to the fund; but, Mr. Speaker, I cannot resist the opportunity at this moment to point out to the house that the hon. gentlemen to my right, the members of the Progressive Conservative party, are some of the most illogical people I have ever listened to. On nearly every measure that comes before this house, they ask the government to increase its contribution to the legislation concerned, and when the budget comes down they howl at the government to reduce taxation. You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. We of this group realize the necessity for taxation. All we ask is a fairer redistribution of the sums collected in taxation. The hon. gentlemen to my right are somewhat inconsistent in their approach.
However, I do wish to bring to the minister's attention the fact that in my constituency there are quite dangerous railroad crossings that go through quite small village municipalities, municipalities so small that it would be completely beyond their capacity to enter into any arrangements for the building of an underpass, an overpass or anything of that sort. Because the problem is so general in Canada, I realize it is not possible to think of anything being done for some years to come. But I do want to suggest to

Railway Act
the minister that a relatively small expenditure on more vivid marking of crossings or the lighting of crossings at night, an expenditure that would be small compared with the expenditure required to build an overpass or an underpass, would be of great help. On many crossings there is simply a railroad crossing sign and nothing else. I suggest that in places where it is not possible at the present time to undertake those larger works, much more could be done with small expenditures to bring to the public's attention the fact that they are approaching a railroad crossing. The signs could be more dramatic in the daytime and they could be lit up at night. More could be done in that respect.
I have travelled over a number of crossings from time to time and I have realized how meagre the warning was that one was approaching a crossing where one might meet a freight train, particularly a freight train in my case, at any hour of the day or night. I do suggest to the minister that some money could be spent in that way to assist municipalities to protect such crossings; municipalities that are incapable of assuming the larger obligation.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much my ability to answer the hon. member for Kootenay West in connection with the blanket criticism of the Conservative party. However, I might mention that it is possible to recommend additional expenditures of money on a fairer basis than is provided by the present tax structure that we have and still criticize the budget which has been brought down. I might say to the hon. member that he neglected to add the additional fact that this party believes many millions of dollars are available if the proper economical type of government is provided for this country. However, I want to deal with one or two questions only. I am sure the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) will be very happy because he expressed himself in that way when I rose the last time.
We should remember that the figures we are dealing with are very misleading. If we check the history of this legislation we find that the initial contribution of the federal government was $5,000 for each project. That has been raised to $15,000 and $25,000. In 1928 it was raised to $100,000 and in 1950, to $150,000. I am wondering whether when we talk about $300,000-and my friends to my left continue to refer to this item-we take into account the serious inflation we have had in this country during those years. If we went back to the early years of this century and talked about $5,000, I am wondering whether it did not provide as much as the
[Mr. Herridge.3
$300,000 will provide that we are talking about today. That restriction is a very serious one in connection with the complicated type of grade separation we have in the larger metropolitan areas. Of course, the same criticism in connection with the increase from $1 million to $5 million in the total allocation to the fund would be a reasonable one. To a great extent the government is simply keeping up with the increased cost of this type of construction, and is not taking into account the thousands and thousands of additional motor vehicles that use the highways every year.
At the resolution stage I pointed out that this government collected approximately $250 million in various types of taxes from the motor-driving public. I know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) has reduced certain of the taxes on vehicles and has removed the tax on automobile tires and items of that kind, but this government still extracts from the motorists at least $200 million each year. As far as I can determine, it spends only $15 million a year on them. It is about time that some consideration was given to the motorist. He is paying the taxes; he should be provided with safety facilities to the extent that he provides the government treasury with dollars. Even with the tax reductions, the Minister of Finance is counting on an increased sale of motor vehicles to provide him with the same net amount of taxes that he was able to get last year. It would seem logical to me that the amount of money to be applied by the federal government to this fund should be tied in some way to the taxes that are collected from the motor-driving public. If a percentage formula were arrived at, at an adequate amount, it would provide for the additional vehicles which will undoubtedly be on the highways of this country in the future. There is no end to them. Over the week end I noticed in the press it is expected that in the next four or five years about half the families in the United States will have two automobiles. If that is the case there, I am quite satisfied that the same trend will take place here. Surely, I might say to the Minister of National Revenue, it is just as logical to have a fund of this kind tied to the sales tax collected on automobiles, because of the increased sale of automobiles, as it is to provide for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to receive the sales tax collected on television receivers. As a matter of fact it is probably much more logical when we look at the balance sheet of that corporation and find that it can pass over $6 or $7 million of taxes collected to be used in some future year at the whim and fancy of the corporation.

The second point with which I wish to deal has been referred to on numerous occasions by other speakers. The hon. member for Kootenay West again referred to the fact that what we are asking for here is a redistribution of the taxation base, and undoubtedly it is the municipalities who are having the difficulty in providing safety facilities of this type for the public. Until such time as a reassessment of taxing powers can be reached by agreement among all three levels of government, the municipalities are going to find themselves in a very difficult position. I have said this before, and I say it again. Their tax base is so close to them that they find it impossible to take advantage quickly of the various new people coming to the country who are paying sales tax on the items they buy and who are paying income tax by deductions from their pay immediately they begin to work. The municipalities have no such opportunity, and they are being placed in an increasingly difficult financial situation, which is pressing them to the utmost.
I have one further point. When the federal-provincial conference which has been called for the next week or so is brought together here in Ottawa, the federal authorities would be very well advised to suggest as part of the agenda increasing the contribution to be made to the grade separation fund by a reallocation of taxing powers for that purpose. This would also help meet some of the other pressing problems.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I should like to try to deal very briefly with some of the arguments which have been advanced during the course of the debate.
The first refers to the question of the increase from $1 million to $5 million in the annual appropriation to the grade crossing fund. On the part of a number of speakers the opinion has been expressed that this increase from $1 million to $5 million is inadequate and that it will not be possible with that amount to solve the problem arising from the existence of the many unprotected grade crossings which we have in Canada. As I think I said the other day in discussing the resolution, I do not believe
Railway Act
anybody would seriously consider that it would be possible, by merely appropriating an amount of $5 million a year, to solve the whole problem of grade crossings. The number which exists and the cost of even the simplest form of protection, I think, show how foolish it would be for anyone to believe that the mere provision of an increase from $1 million to $5 million annually would mean the end of the problem.
I would like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that the amount of $5 million was suggested in the report of the board of transport commissioners. I think the reasons which they have given are very eloquent and explain fully why the amount has not been made larger. I think it will be seen from reading the report that this might be regarded as an experimental figure. I wonder if I might read two extracts from the report, Mr. Speaker. The first of these appears on page 90 of the typewritten report, and is as follows:
In attempting to determine what might be the annual federal contribution to the fund, we recognize that while it cannot be determined with mathematical precision, it must reasonably reflect the practical aspects of the matter. Any amount which may be arrived at we think should also be sufficiently flexible in character to admit of modification in the light of actual experience. It would be difficult to justify a federal contribution which was not in reasonable accordance with the availability of highway authority funds. Certainly it would be uneconomic to cause a diversion of highway funds to grade crossing improvements in an amount which was not commensurate with the magnitude of the crossing problem. At the same time an increase in the contribution of the federal government, when related to the percentage distribution of costs as hereinbefore recommended would necessarily result in increasing the total potential costs to other parties-and regard must be had to the increased costs which the other parties may be economically justified in assuming. Furthermore, while we are aware that some provinces have sufficient funds to enable them to undertake a sizeable crossing improvement program, we cannot use their preferred position as a criterion of what other provinces may be able to undertake.
If I may summarize, Mr. Speaker, it was after long experience in administering the grade crossing fund that the board came forward with the recommendation that the annual amount be increased from $1 million to $5 million.
The report of the board continues to deal with the aspect to which some hon. members have referred, namely the fact that if in any year there is an uncommitted balance of $2 million or more, the appropriation for that year is to be reduced; that is obviously intended not to cut down on the expenditures but to avoid putting in the fund moneys not actually required for the purposes of the fund itself. The suggestion is that of the board, and I think it was quite obviously made in

Railway Act
order to avoid placing in the fund moneys for which they see no immediate use.
I would like to conclude my reading of some extracts from the report with these two phrases, which I think are rather significant. They say, speaking of course of the amount of $5 million:
The sum which we now propose cannot be regarded otherwise than an estimate of probable demands on the fund under the new conditions. It may well be two or three years before the most effective amount of the annual appropriation can be more definitely fixed.
That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, I said I thought that the amount of $5 million might be looked upon as being experimental.
The hon. member for Eglinton mentioned two other important features of this legislation, though I was not quite sure that the full significance of these changes had been fully grasped by him. The first was his reference to the increase in the percentage of the contribution of the railway grade crossing fund. He spoke of it, I think quite properly, as an improvement and said it is quite obvious that the increase of the contribution from 40 to 60 per cent will provide corresponding relief to the others who must also make contributions toward a project. But I think it must also be taken into account in connection with the other increase to which he also referred. That was the increase of, let us say, the maximum base for any project from $150,000 to $300,000.
I think we must not forget that these two changes are being made at the same time, so there is really a much more substantial increase in the contribution from the fund than would appear at first sight. For example, under the law as it stands at the present time, if a project costs $500,000 the maximum base is $150,000 and the contribution of the board would represent 40 per cent of that amount or $60,000. In that particular case there would be $440,000 which must be shared by others.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the minister right in those figures? Did he say the project was a $500,000 project?


George Carlyle Marler: I am suggesting that if we
think of a project which would cost $500,000, the present base limit is $150,000 and the contribution of the board is 40 per cent, whereas-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Forty per cent, or $150,000, whichever is greater.


George Carlyle Marler: That is right. In other words the maximum contribution at present would be $150,000, leaving $350,000 to be shared by others; whereas on the same project under the amendments the contribution would be

$300,000 from the fund and therefore only $200,000 by the others interested, so their contributions would have come down by $150,000 for this particular project. It seems to me it is important to realize that there is not only this obvious increase from 40 per cent to 60 per cent, but that these percentages are to bear on a substantially higher figure as a maximum than is the case under the existing legislation.
I should like to make just one final comment. A number of hon. members have referred to the municipalities and their unwillingness to participate in these grade crossing separations. I should merely like to tell them that, although I have been a minister for only a relatively short time, I have been surprised by the number of letters I have received from municipalities asking that something be done for them in connection with the elimination of these grade crossings. I suppose the board receives a good many more, because quite obviously the applications should not be addressed to me. I feel quite certain that there will be no dearth of applications.
While I realize that there are municipalities whose finances are not so flourishing that they will be able to undertake these extremely expensive projects, by and large I think municipalities have shown a desire to carry out these projects and in many instances have shown an ability to finance them. In the cases in which it is obviously beyond their capabilities, I think it is not unreasonable to ask that the provinces, which raise substantial sums through the taxation of automobiles, both in licence fees and in gasoline taxes, should come to the relief of the municipalities which are in need of assistance.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be useful for me to prolong the debate further. I think we are all agreed that this is a desirable step forward. I hope we shall have an opportunity at this time next year of reviewing the progress that has been made with the larger appropriation available to the fund.


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


George Carlyle Marler: the second reading of Bill No. 260, to amend the Radio Act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the minister going to make a statement?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes. Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the house in introducing the resolution which preceded this legislation it is proposed to make three amendments to the Radio Act. The first of these amendments would empower the Minister of Transport to make regulations regarding antennae for radio stations and private receiving stations. As it is somewhat complex I shall give a full explanation of the purposes we have in mind in proposing it.
Hon. members will agree, I am sure, that with the advent of television and the development of the elaborate outdoor aerials now commonly used, it would be desirable to take measures to control their mechanical features for safety purposes from the point of view of air navigation and protection of life and property. Because of its responsibilities for civil aviation and radio my department naturally is anxious to see that in the installation, erection, construction and repair of antennae, proper standards are maintained; but several municipalities and one of the provinces have also evinced interest in the matter by inquiries as to the making of bylaws governing television antennae.
It seems quite clear that the regulation of antennae is a part of the general field of radio regulation and, therefore, within the legislative competence of parliament. If confirmation of this assertion were necessary it would be found in the fact that in a number of localities in Canada television sets cannot operate without external antennae. Legislative authority in the matter being vested in parliament, we believe that the requisite legislation should be adopted to enable the Minister of Transport to establish the necessary regulations. The authority to make regulations would extend both to radio stations and to private receiving stations as defined in the Radio Act.
We have a measure of control at the present time over antennae for radio stations in that in administering the licensing provisions of the Radio Act we may control the nature and type of the antennae to be used, but we believe that it would be desirable to have general regulations respecting antennae that would be applicable to the various classes of radio stations. Though formerly the department had, through licensing, some control over private receiving stations, now that licensing of these stations has been abolished we no longer have any control over the antennae used by them.
In this connection I should like to tell hon. members that we propose to use as a basis for our regulations respecting the mechanical features of antennae for private receiving stations a set of standards for receiving 50433-185
Radio Act
antennae already prepared by the Canadian standards association which, as many hon. members know, is an industrial group which enjoys an excellent reputation because of the numerous standards it has laid down for the electrical and other fields.
I think I should make it quite clear that it is not our present intention to make these regulations concerning the mechanical features applicable generally, but only in those municipalities where the municipal authorities desire that they be made applicable and wish to undertake the responsibility of administration and enforcement. In these cases we contemplate appointing as inspectors under the act the municipal officials who carry out building inspection in the municipalities. We believe that arrangements along these lines would satisfy the municipalities which wish to see some control exercised over the elaborate antennae now being used.
Hon. members, therefore, will appreciate that in the circumstances we are not contemplating adding large numbers to the staff of the telecommunications division of my department for the administration of the proposed regulations. In fact at the present time I do not expect that any increase in staff will be necessary for this particular purpose.
The second of the amendments to be made by the present bill would empower the minister to adopt regulations exempting from licensing requirements numerous low-powered radio devices which technically constitute radio stations within the meaning of the Radio Act. Many hon. members are familiar with mechanical equipment such as doors in railway stations, garage doors, etc., which are actuated by an electric eye, and with interoffice communication systems which are not dependent upon the use of wires. I am sure hon. members will agree that it would be desirable to exempt the owners or operators of such devices from the necessity of obtaining a licence for them.
If this amendment is accepted it is intended to adopt specifications determining the maximum signal strength of the device that will be exempt. In this way we will avoid exempting devices that would interfere with radio reception and manufacturers will know that devices meeting these specifications will be exempt from licensing.
The purpose of the third amendment is to implement the obligations assumed by Canada under the international telecommunication convention with respect to the preservation of the secrecy of radio communications. By this convention Canada is obligated to impose secrecy restrictions on all radio communications not intended for the general use of the public.

Radio Act
At the present time the Radio Act provides that operators of coast or land stations or of mobile stations must subscribe to a declaration of secrecy, and the act prescribes penalties against such operators for the unauthorized use of information obtained by interception of any radio communication. The act also empowers the minister to make regulations to provide against any person divulging information received by means of a private receiving station. There is, however, a loophole which it seems desirable to close. Any individual can buy equipment that will permit him to receive practically any radio signal regardless of its frequency or wave length, and so to intercept private communications outside the ordinary or normal broadcast band. A receiver embodying this equipment does not fall clearly within the definition of a coast or land station or mobile station or a private receiving station, and consequently the operator is not subject either to the necessity of subscribing to a declaration of secrecy or to the regulations against divulging information applicable to operators of private receiving stations.
We do not propose by the amendment to prevent the ordinary private citizen from operating shortwave or other receiving sets; all we say is that, having become acquainted with any radio communication not intended for public use or information, a person may not make use of it or divulge it to any person.
In recommending this amendment we wish, of course, to implement and fulfil Canada's obligations under the convention to which I referred a moment ago, but we also wish to satisfy the complaints we have received in my department against the misuse of private communications.
In conclusion may I point out that questions concerning interference in the radio field, control of manufacturers and community television receiving systems are not within the scope of the present legislation. If hon. members wish to deal with these particular subjects I suggest that they might do so when the estimates of my department are under consideration.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement on this technical bill has been quite informative. In a matter of this kind, where the house is asked to pass legislation to confer powers upon a minister to proceed by regulation I think the house must ask itself whether the need for these powers has been clearly established. I feel the minister's statement does that. It is quite clear that with the rapid increase in the number of antennae being constructed, both around radio and television stations and on homes and apartments, to
rsir. Marler.l
the point now where in some cities these masts resemble a small forest, the time has come when some form of regulation must be introduced in the public interest.
As the minister has indicated, a number of municipalities have already entered this field out of regard for public safety and fears that are genuinely created by the unregulated erection of these masts which, if not properly secured, could in some circumstances do a good deal of harm. I am sure all members are aware of experiences in which these masts have blown down in storms and public safety has in consequence been jeopardized.
The second question that it seems to me the house properly asks itself in a case of this kind is, if a need exists for some form of power or regulation, in what way does the government propose to exercise it? No doubt the house was gratified and reassured to learn that the type of regulation the government proposes to exercise under the first of the powers contained in the bill will be the embodiment of a recommendation from the Canadian standards association.
As to the appointment of inspectors, it was also reassuring to hear the minister tell the house that he does not propose to appoint a large army of inspectors to carry out the inspectorial functions contemplated in the bill. The municipal inspectors are certainly the persons best qualified to carry out this type of inspection and, speaking for myself, I can tell the minister his statement in that regard is very significant in relation to the general purpose and effect of the bill.


John Borden Hamilton: Refreshing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) points out that this is a refreshing departure from some of the positions we have seen taken in the past with regard to the appointment of large numbers of inspectors.
I think the house will also appreciate the necessity for some form of exemption with regard to low-powered radio devices. I shall have some questions to ask in the committee with respect to some features, but I have no hesitation in saying that the bill, in the light of the explanation given by the minister, is one that I think can be said to be necessary.


[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-
Donald Methuen Fleming: I have a question respecting clause (ee). If any hon. member has a question on clause (e) I will give way to him.

Radio Act


John Borden Hamilton: As to clause (e), has the minister any record of any damage caused to anyone or of any injury to any person brought about by failure of the present type of antennae?


George Carlyle Marler: In answer to that question I think I should say I have no personal knowledge of any such complaints having been received or any such reports having been made to my department. I think what has originated the thinking with regard to this aspect of the bill has been the desire on the part of municipalities themselves to regulate the type of antennae that might be used.
I am quite sure hon. members will realize it would be a rather unhappy situation if we found that the municipalities were attempting to legislate with respect to antennae for television or ordinary radio sets, which to my way of thinking would be beyond the powers of municipal corporations. It seems to me that this bill is a much more effective and practical method of dealing with the subject. I think we will be agreed that there is no doubt as to the power of parliament to legislate with regard to this subject and I think, as the hon. member for Eglinton pointed out, that the municipal inspectors are the people who are best qualified to carry out the type of inspection needed to assure public safety so far as falling antennae and so on are concerned.


John Borden Hamilton: I wondered what prompted the municipalities. Were any of them in touch with the department concerning losses or injury to people?


George Carlyle Marler: In my own personal experience I can remember that when I was a member of the legislature at Quebec many municipal corporations applied for power to change their charters so that they might control the appearance of antennae from a purely aesthetic point of view. While of course one can fully understand that view, it would be a pity if aesthetics prevented people from receiving television signals.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With regard to clause (ee), I wonder if the minister would enlarge somewhat on the basis of exemption. He has indicated the general purpose, but I am directing my question more to the method or the formula by which the exemption shall be carried out.


George Carlyle Marler: My understanding of the
matter, in the discussions I have had with the officials of my department, is that they have not yet come to a final decision as to what level of signal strength should be set by the regulations so as to admit devices that 50433-185J
reasonably ought to be admitted and will not interfere with radio reception, as compared with those which should not be exempted.
As I said a moment ago, the intention is to adopt specifications in determining the maximum signal strength; I take it that is the factor which is of the greatest interest and the measure of interference with radio reception. I am sorry I cannot tell the hon. member the level we contemplate setting, but I do not believe it is possible to give an answer to that question at this time as no final decision has been arrived at by my officials as to the level they would recommend as the basis for the regulation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That may be regrettable,
because I am sure that decision will have to be taken before any regulations can be made that will have any efficacy. I would have hoped that this inquiry would have been made and the decision taken as to the strength that will be recommended to the minister as the determining point in respect of exemption.


George Carlyle Marler: I suppose the hon. member for Eglinton would realize, just as I do, that it might not be possible to provide a constant figure applicable in all circumstances. It seems to me there might well be circumstances in which a given level would be admissible, particularly let us say in the rather remote parts of the country, whereas the same level would not be admissible in the heavily populated centres where the number of radio receivers would be much larger.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My point was that whatever may be proper strength at any particular place, whether it is uniform or whether it is established at varying figures depending upon population density or other factors, it nevertheless must be established by regulation.


George Carlyle Marler: Quite so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If it is going to be possible at some time or other to establish that in any detail for the regulations, I say it is regrettable the house does not know now what the strength is. It is not a matter of supreme importance; I am not suggesting that, but I think for the information and guidance of the house in connection with legislation of this kind it would have been a helpful thing to know.


George Carlyle Marler: While I rather share the view of the hon. member, at the same time I am sure he will realize that that would rob us of the flexibility we would have in a simple power to make regulations, as opposed to making this limitation part of the statute itself.

Radio Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sorry, but the minister misunderstands me. I was not suggesting that the formula, if it is going to be elaborate, should be written into the legislation. I am simply asking what the breaking point is at which the power to exempt will be used, so the house would be guided now in determining whether or not the section before us is adequate.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Penalty for unlawful interception of radio communications.
Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister's statement
indicates the purpose of this clause, and it is clear enough. However, in this regard I wonder if the language is very happy. My first thought in reading it over was, what does it mean? The clause reads in part:
Every person who, having become acquainted with any radio communication not intended for public use or information, makes use of such communication or divulges it to any person, except when lawfully authorized or directed so to do, is guilty of an offence-
What is the meaning of that? It is saying that, in effect, if anybody does something that is illegal, unless he is legally authorized to do it, he is guilty of an offence. What does it mean?


George Carlyle Marler: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to conceive of a case in which there would be a particular authorization to divulge the substance or contents of a communication. But I might point out to the hon. member that this is virtually the same language as appears in section 7 of the Radio Act. I think the indication was that this new provision was to be similar to that which now applies to those who must subscribe to the declaration of secrecy to which I referred a few moments ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I understand the purpose of the section as outlined by the minister, but it is the language which I must say I find rather baffling.


George Carlyle Marler: I wish I could enlighten the hon. member further. Personally while it may be difficult to imagine circumstances in which a person would be lawfully authorized or directed to divulge, I suppose that could take place in the event of some litigation, or there might be circumstances in which the information ought to be divulged.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
The Chairman:: Shall I report the bill?


John Borden Hamilton: Just before the bill carries, I may say that in view of the answers the minister gave me in connection

with the fact there was no specific request for this legislation because of the danger of injury to people, I hope the regulations will not prevent the ordinary layman from constructing his own antenna, and that they will not limit the licensing to certain repair firms as the people who may construct this type of antenna.


George Carlyle Marler: I entirely share the hon. member's view on that subject.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Just following that up, there is no power to licence persons in connection with this legislation?


George Carlyle Marler: No, none whatever.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The only licensing will be of the equipment, and certain specifications in regard to the type of equipment used. There is no power to license those who are engaged in the business.


George Carlyle Marler: None whatever.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



RAILWAYS


George Carlyle Marler: the second reading of Bill No. 262, to approve an agreement between the Toronto harbour commissioners, the Toronto Terminals Railway Company, Canadian National Railway Company and Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: There is not much I can add at this time to the statement I made at the resolution stage of this measure. As hon. members will no doubt recall, this simple bill seeks the ratification and confirmation by parliament of an agreement entered into last fall between the Toronto harbour commissioners, the Toronto Terminals Railway Company, Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Rilway Company. This agreement has to do with the rehabilitation and maintenance of railway tracks built by the Toronto harbour commissioners for the purpose of serving industries located in the harbour area. Since the commission did not have sufficient funds to maintain and rehabilitate these tracks, they approached the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways with the object of having them take over the rehabilitation and maintenance thereof.
An agreement was therefore entered into to that effect on October 5, 1954. Since the Toronto Terminals Railway Company is not

empowered under its act of incorporation, chapter 170 of the statutes of 1906, to enter into such agreements, the present bill seeks to amend the act accordingly.
I wish to add at this time that it is proposed to move that the measure be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, after it has received second reading.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that we will have an opportunity in the standing committee to give closer scrutiny to this legislation. The parliamentary assistant has given the assurance that schedule A, indicating the additional lands involved in connection with the trackages, will be made available to us at that time.
Any member from the greater Toronto district is definitely interested in anything affecting the harbour area of that city. I know we will receive a full explanation of the clauses of the bill. I do feel some concern, however, about the fact that the commission may lose some of its power to do what it may wish in connection with some phases of development in that harbour area. I refer to those powers to which reference is made in the agreement between the terminals railway company and the commission.
The agreement involved in the legislation simply makes provision for funds which formerly were not available to the commission for the rehabilitation of trackage, and makes a further provision for the extension of such trackage. Under the terms of the agreement such trackage extension will be paid for by the commission, and one would assume therefore that they are sufficiently in funds to take care of that aspect of the situation confronting them.
I am not sure this could not have been done by a simple amendment permitting the making of a loan to the harbour commission during the strenuous period through which they are passing. Undoubtedly there will be tremendous expansion in the Toronto harbour area, and it seems to me that some type of loan could have been made. After all, this money has been put up by the Toronto Terminals Railway Company only on a temporary basis. It is to be collected back over a period of ten years through the imposition of fees on carloadings charged to the two major railway companies.
I believe these same features could have been handled by the commission, and it could have retained strict control of the development if a loan of the kind I have mentioned had been made to it. In this way they would not have lost any of the area in which they exercise discretionary powers.
Railways
I realize that the extensions are to be by agreement, and that decisions are to be made by arbitration if no other means is successful. However, there are sections in the bill I find difficult to understand. For instance, there is the provision for the disposal of used material. I assume this would be in the form of trackage taken up. It appears that this used material is to be left for disposal by the commission. It seems obvious that the terminals railway company and the two national railways would have much better facilities for disposing of this kind of equipment, and I find it difficult to understand why the commission should be handling it.
I also note that interest on this money is to be charged monthly, a provision which seems somewhat unusual. Under an act of the province of Ontario interest can be calculated only on a quarterly basis. I do not see much difference between this legislation and legislation of other kinds under which money would be obtained.
Perhaps because I, too, am a lessee of property under the control of the harbour commission I have some concern over the fact that in the legislation the terminals railway company and the two national railways involved in the agreement are exempted from the payment of municipal taxes. It is indicated that the commission will undertake this burden for the three railway companies. I am sure I would be very happy if they would extend this privilege, because it would certainly relieve the burden on many taxpayers in that area.
I do not see why the bill should contain a provision of that kind. It would seem that this is a straight business transaction under which the terminals railway company is to be placed in possession and is to have the full advantages of the use of the land in question for a period of ten years. It is to be permitted to collect tolls which, in turn, will pay for the rental of the trackage in the area. I suggest therefore that it might be worth while to take a second look at that provision.
I said earlier that we would have an opportunity of considering the bill clause by clause. Before taking my seat, however, I would like to add that a tremendous job has been done in Toronto by the commission in connection with the development of the waterfront area. However, a problem of great magnitude is now facing them. I am not suggesting that they have not faced great problems before; but we know that in view of the development of the St. Lawrence seaway the position held by the commission in Toronto becomes of vital importance to that city.	-

Railways
I am reluctant to see the removal of any authority or discretionary powers the commission may have in connection with the development of the area. Of course until we have schedule A before us we cannot know exactly what provisions are being made for the development to take place. The commission is already facing serious problems when it meets other authorities. The municipality of metropolitan Toronto has had super highways designed which will cross the area, and which I am sure the commission will not regard as helpful to the enhancement and proper development of the area. As a matter of fact, instead of taking away any discretionary power, probably they should be in a position even to expropriate some of the city streets to provide for the orderly development of the whole area, which will eventually give Toronto the seaport facilities to which it will undoubtedly be entitled with the coming of the St. Lawrence seaway.
That is a very serious problem. They should have discretion to see that this development takes full advantage of the seaport area and is not impeded in any way by either companies or other governmental agencies which may not have the same opportunity, or may have more definite interests at heart than the commission which has been designed to take care of those problems which exist in the south end of the city. We shall welcome the opportunity of having a look at each item in committee.


Robert Hardy Small: I should like to ask the minister a question in regard to the existing railway sidings, in view of the fact that there is a considerable number of crossings on Fleet street in Toronto at the present time. Is there any control over crossings being added which will multiply the transportation difficulties in the rush hours of morning and evening? Has the harbour commission or the city of Toronto any control over that, and over additional level crossings or sidings in the manufacturing areas?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Speaker-


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


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Speaker, dealing first with the remarks made by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton), I wish to remind him of a fact which he has apparently overlooked, namely that the Toronto Terminals Railway Company is jointly owned by the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. As I said a moment ago, all we are asked to

do here is to ratify and confirm an agreement which was entered into among the Toronto Terminals Railway Company, the Toronto harbour commissioners, the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. When the measure goes before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines we shall have as witnesses Mr. A. D. Macdonald, regional counsel for the Canadian National Railways, and representatives of the Toronto harbour commissioners, who will answer such questions of details as those raised by the hon. member for York West and by the hon. member for Danforth.


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


George Carlyle Marler: the second reading of Bill No. 263, to implement the convention on damage caused by foreign aircraft to third parties on the surface.
He said: This is a bill to implement the Rome convention on damage caused by foreign aircraft to third parties on the surface.
In 1933 certain nations signed at Rome a convention which set up international rules to govern the liability of air carriers for damage to persons and property on the ground. This convention was ratified by only five countries and was not effective. Since the war new developments in international civil aviation have emphasized more forcefully than ever the necessity for an international convention with regard to damage caused by aircraft to innocent third parties on the surface. It seemed desirable to the international civil aviation organization to make a fresh start on the problem and to set up, on the basis of the old Rome convention and in the light of the subsequent experience, a new convention which would ensure a just indemnity to third parties and give carriers the necessary protection against risk of liabilities so excessive as to make the cost of insurance a prohibitively heavy burden.
Though I shall not go so far as to say that the convention which is set out in the schedule to the bill is a perfect solution of the problem, I think it is a reasonable compromise of different views on legal principles and varying economic circumstances. I think in considering this legislation it ought not to be forgotten that, because the various countries concerned have different points of

view and different legal systems, an international convention is almost always the result of a compromise among their representatives.
The Rome convention was adopted at a conference held in 1952 in which Canada participated. Fifteen of the 32 countries represented at the conference signed the convention at that time; and though other countries, including the United Kingdom and Australia, have since added their signatures, only one country has ratified it. The Minister of Transport signed the convention on behalf of Canada on May 26, 1954.
The convention will come into effect when five countries have ratified it. I understand that some states are approaching the point of ratification, and I hope the convention will come into force in all countries in the world where civil aviation is developed.
The convention established a uniform measure of liability upon civil aircraft operators to any person who suffers damage on the surface when such damage, either in respect of loss of life or personal injury or in respect of property, was caused by foreign aircraft in flight or by any person or thing falling from it. It is based on the principle of objective liability; that is to say, from the moment any damage caused by a foreign aircraft in flight is sustained by a person on the ground, the carrier, that is to say the operator of the aircraft, becomes absolutely liable within the limitation specified by the convention.
The carrier can avoid this obligation only if he is able to establish (a) that the damage was a direct consequence of armed conflict or civil disturbance; (b) that he has been deprived of the use of his aircraft by act of public authority; or (c) that the damage was caused solely through the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the person who suffers the damage or of the latter's servants or agents.	.
The limit of liability is based on the weight of the aircraft but is of such an amount that full compensation will be paid in all save very exceptional circumstances. In the case of a small aircraft weighing 1,000 kilograms or 2,200 pounds or less, the maximum liability would be 500,000 gold francs which is equal to $37,000. As will be observed from article II of the convention, the maximum liability increases progressively with the weight of the aircraft. Thus in the case of an aircraft weighing 100,000 pounds the maximum would be approximately $775,000. The liability in respect of loss of life or personal injury is limited to 500,000 gold francs or about $37,000, for each person killed or injured.
Foreign Aircraft
The carrier is entitled to the protection of these limits of liability except in the case of a deliberate act or omission done with intent to cause damage, in which case the liability is unlimited. In this way a carrier is given very significant protection in the event of an accident amounting to a catastrophe.
A further protection to the carrier is the introduction of the rule of the single forum. The convention provides that actions under its provisions may be brought only before the courts of the contracting state where the damage occurred, though by agreement claimants may take action before the courts of any other contracting state. In addition to the advantage of the single forum, the convention provides that judgments delivered in one contracting state can be executed in another contracting state without further litigation.
The convention provides for security for the carrier's liability by insurance effected in accordance with the laws of the state where the aircraft is registered. Alternative means of security are provided by cash deposit, bank guarantee, or state guarantee when the state is prepared to waive immunity for suit in respect of the guarantee.
The air transport board is satisfied that implementation of the convention by Canada, would be in the interest both of Canadian carriers and the general public. Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian Pacific Air Lines Limited, both of which are engaged in international air transport, are in agreement and have strongly recommended Canadian adherence.
Looking at the Rome convention broadly, I would say that on the one hand it provides reasonable safeguards for the injured victims on the ground in respect of damage to life and property in that they would have an uncontested claim for much if not all of the damage they might suffer from an accident caused by foreign aircraft. On the other hand the carrier is not forced to bear the heavy burden of carrying insurance against unlimited risk. Having regard to the diversity of national laws covering international air transport, there is the great advantage of having a uniform set of rules to govern liability for damage caused by foreign aircraft to third persons on the surface.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I feel a little like the pinch-hitter who appears at every game. I wonder if it would be possible for the minister to have this bill referred to committee as well. The reason I ask this is that I have looked over the debates in the other

Foreign Aircraft
place and I find that there was a great deal of confusion about the meaning of numerous sections of the bill, or at least of the schedule. Perhaps it would be much easier to go through a lengthy document of this kind in committee than it would be in the house. If that assurance is not forthcoming I shall have to go on and deal with the bill.


George Carlyle Marler: If I might interrupt my hon. friend I think I should say this to him, that I am not putting the legislation of the house on a take it or leave it basis. That would be far from my intention, and I would not wish hon. members to think for an instant that was the spirit in which I approached this subject. But the fact remains that, just as was said in the other place, it is not going to be possible to change one word of the convention. I think hon. members must themselves make up their minds as to whether or not the convention should be accepted as it is or whether it should be rejected.


John Borden Hamilton: Then, Mr. Speaker, before we go into the committee of the whole there are a few aspects in connection with this legislation which excite my mind a little.
First of all, I feel that there is a possibility in connection with this agreement that we may find our Canadian air carriers priced out of the foreign market. Now, I am not using the term "priced" in its ordinary sense; I am using it in connection with the provisions here dealing with security. It reminds me a little of the GATT agreement. I am sure I shall be accused of being out of order in referring to that subject. It is nice to enter into these agreements, but it is not nice later when one of the contracting parties says, "There is an emergency here, and we are short of foreign exchange; we cannot allow you to send your products in here". It is possible for something similar to happen under this legislation. I am referring specifically at this time to chapter III, "Security for Operator's Liability," article 15, paragraph 4:
Instead of insurance, any of the following securities shall be deemed satisfactory if the security conforms to article 17.
Paragraph 3 and the three subparagraphs of paragraph 4 refer to the accepting of satisfactory insurance. Paragraph 3 states:
. . . the state overflown may refuse to accept as satisfactory insurance effected by an insurer who is not authorized for that purpose in a contracting state.

Paragraph 4 says that the securities provided in each case
. . . shall be deemed satisfactory if the security conforms to article 17:
(a) a cash deposit in a depository maintained by the contracting state where the aircraft is registered or with a bank authorized to act as a depository by that state;


George Carlyle Marler: Which paragraph?


John Borden Hamilton: Subparagraph (a) of paragraph 4. It would appear to me that subparagraphs (b) and (c), although the terms are slightly different in each case, provide the discretionary power for the contracting party to approve or not to approve of the type of securities provided. As I see it, if Trans-Canada Air Lines should be working under a bilateral agreement with any number of parties to this agreement, and if it should be determined at any time by one of those contracting parties that they did not like the services provided by the Canadian air line, I see nothing to prevent them from ordering a type of security which would have the effect of placing an embargo on our air services entering their country. That would appear to be one serious problem which confronts us here.
The minister might be able as well to give us some explanation as to the meaning of the amounts arrived at here, on the basis of dollars. I am not a monetary expert. I understand that the minister referred to the amount of 500,000 gold francs, and perhaps he can explain whether they are any different from the other type of francs used in France today.


George Carlyle Marler: Quite different.


John Borden Hamilton: We might have some explanation as to that, because if they are not, then obviously the liability here might amount to 10 cents, as far as we are concerned. If there is some stability to that type of currency which is provided in this international agreement, then I believe that the limits provided here exceed the minimum financial limits required by our own air transport board in connection with domestic air operations.
A third problem which confronts us is in connection with the ability of the contracting party to be cleared of any liability in connection with civil insurrection-I believe that is the term-in the country involved. I am wondering what would be the effect if, for instance, in a foreign country there was some type of civil uprising, someone planted a bomb in that case in a Trans-Canada Air Lines plane-this is not fantasy, by the way- and as the result of an explosion over a third country we found some question of liability.

Perhaps I have used the wrong air line. If it happened to be a foreign air line which was flying into Canada, say over Brampton, and some explosion of that nature occurred, is it possible under this legislation that complete immunity would be obtained because the accident was the direct result of, say, some civil problem arising in another state?
I also notice that there is for a period of time a continuing responsibility on the owner of an aircraft after the sale of the aircraft. This factor might have a distressing effect in connection with a Canadian operator of an aircraft. I know that under our insurance coverage it is provided-and I suppose the situation is the same in nearly all jurisdictions -that your car insurance continues to cover you after the sale of your automobile and, I think, for a period when you acquire a new one; but in this type of liability in which the owner may actually part with possession and legal ownership it is questionable whether there should be a continuing responsibility of this kind.
The minister has indicated that this agreement has the full approval of both Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian Pacific Air Lines. I feel some regret that neither of those companies, as I understand it, was invited to attend or to have any representative along with the representatives of the air transport board or the Department of Transport when negotiating this agreement. After all, they are certainly the two major parties in the country which are involved in connection with this legislation. I know that the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines has indicated that this legislation fills the bill so far as they are concerned, and that he feels satisfied with it. At the same time I feel that representatives of both these operating companies could easily have been included in the group which negotiated this agreement.
I am a little bit surprised as well that the minister has not been able to indicate the acceptance of this legislation by any great number of countries. Of course we are especially interested in the situation with regard to the United States. I understand that as yet there is no indication that the United States is even close to accepting this legislation. Without their acceptance of it I would think that one of our major problems in connection with air transport in this country-because several of their companies have certain rights in and through Canada-will be left uncovered. If the minister could give us any assurance that they are expected shortly to enter into this agreement I think a major problem would be overcome.
Foreign Aircraft
There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer. In connection with liability I have mentioned that the convention apparently provides limits which, so far as I am aware, exceed some of the limits set by our own air transport board. It also provides, of course, that where negligence is proved there is no limitation whatsoever. I wonder whether the provisions dealing with security are adequate to take care of the situation involving the negligent operation of an aircraft. After all, if there is an accident in which an aircraft of foreign registry is involved in Canada, it is quite possible that the only asset which will be available for execution will be the damaged aircraft itself after the minimum insurance coverage has been paid.
To a great extent this is a problem of property and civil rights, and in dealing with a problem of this kind it is a question whether the federal government should not go a step further and ensure that security be available to cover all losses, not just losses occasioned where no negligence is proved. It would appear that the legal rule of res ipsa loquitur has been used here. That would appear to solve only one part of the problem. The other part perhaps should have been taken care of through the same system.


[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-Short title.
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I think it might be useful and might facilitate the discussion if Mr. Matthews, chairman of the air transport board, were in the committee.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 1 carry or do you wish to wait?


George Carlyle Marler: I think clause 1 can carry. I do not think it gives rise to any difficulty.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On the schedule:
Edward Turney Applewhaite: That brings us to the schedule. Does the schedule carry?


Mr. McCann:: Let us take it up chapter by chapter.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The schedule is one clause but if it is agreeable to the committee we can call the schedule, for purposes of discussion, chapter by chapter. Chapter I is "Principles of Liability".


Daniel Roland Michener: May I ask the minister whether Canada would be bound by this

Foreign Aircraft
agreement as soon as five countries have subscribed to it, notwithstanding the fact that the other country involved in an accident was not a party to the agreement?


George Carlyle Marler: My understanding of that matter is that although Canada would be bound, it would be only in respect of the contracting states.


Daniel Roland Michener: That is what I want to
know. It would only be countries-


George Carlyle Marler: And who had also ratified.


Daniel Roland Michener: -who had ratified. If Canada ratified we would then be liable when their aircraft were here and they would be liable if our aircraft were there, but not otherwise.


George Carlyle Marler: That is so.


John Borden Hamilton: At the end of
the last sentence of the first paragraph there are the words, "in conformity with existing air traffic regulations". Would the minister advise us if all contracting parties to this agreement have common air traffic regulations, or are there different aircraft regulations in each of the contracting countries?


George Carlyle Marler: My information is that they are, of course, matters of separate regulation in each country. Just as Canada has the right to determine its air traffic rules, so would the other contracting states; but, as Mr. Matthews has informed me, there is a good deal of uniformity as between the various sets of regulations.


John Borden Hamilton: Does that mean that in each case it would be the courts of the individual country which would interpret the air regulations of that country?


George Carlyle Marler: I think the hon. member is losing sight of the fact that as a result of the convention the mere fact that the damage is caused by a foreign aircraft to a third person on the surface makes it unnecessary to go into the question of whether it was following the rules or was not following them. In other words, it is deemed to be liable and it can only escape liability under the condition set forth in article 5, which reads:
Any person who would otherwise be liable under the provisions of this convention shall not be liable if the damage is the direct consequence of armed conflict or civil disturbance, or if such person has been deprived of the use of the aircraft by act of public authority.
In other words, if an engine drops off and causes damage you do not have to prove negligence. You merely have to prove the fact of the damage.


John Borden Hamilton: The minister might enlighten us in connection with the

other instance, where there is negligence to be proven and where there is going to be unlimited liability. Will that not be according to the particular regulation and in the country's courts?


George Carlyle Marler: No. The point I was trying to make was that it is not necessary to prove negligence. All that is necessary is to prove damage. As the hon. member will notice in reading the convention, if the damage occurs in the province of Ontario, let us say, the person suffering the damage sues in the courts of the province of Ontario and he does not have to prove that the accident was due to negligence. He merely proves the fact of the damage. That obviously is the advantage of the convention, which is counterbalanced, I think hon. members will agree, by the fact that there is a limitation of liability. If we were to have no convention, as I understand the situation, negligence would have to be proved and there is no limitation on liability at the present time, with the result that it might be possible to get a judgment but it might not be possible to enforce it. The effect of the convention is, first of all, to eliminate the necessity of proving negligence, to establish the place where the suit must be brought, and to provide a fund, if you like, or security upon which the judgment can be realized by a simple process.


John Borden Hamilton: Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes. Do I not understand that this does not limit liability where negligence can be proven?


George Carlyle Marler: I am afraid the hon. member is misinterpreting the sense of the convention. Once the convention becomes effective, saving acts of deliberate damage to which I referred earlier, whether or not negligence is proven the liability is limited in accordance with the statement to which the hon. member alluded a moment ago. Perhaps I had better deal later with the question of the gold francs.


Mr. Churchill:: Chapter I, article 1, subsection 2, says that an aircraft is considered to be in flight from the moment when power is applied for the purpose of actual take-off until the moment when the landing run ends. Do I understand from this that taxiing into position at the start of a flight and taxiing to the unloading place do not enter into the question of liability here in case there is an accident during that particular operation? In other words, how do you determine when the actual take-off occurs and the landing run ends?


George Carlyle Marler: I think the convention is pretty clear on that subject. The aircraft is considered to be in flight from the moment when power is applied for the purpose of actual take-off until the moment when the landing run ends. As we are talking about aircraft and not craft lighter than air I think it is perfectly obvious that the convention does not apply during the so-called taxiing operation. I should like to remind the hon. member that this does not concern damage to people in the aircraft. It is damage to people on the surface.


Gordon Minto Churchill: People have been injured when airplanes have been taxiing into position or when the engines have been started, and so on, and I was wondering why that was not mentioned.


John Borden Hamilton: If a four-motor American Air Lines plane was warming up its motors at Malton airport and one of the propellers flew off and killed somebody, that person would not be covered under the convention?


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think the convention applies in that case.


John Borden Hamilton: Does the minister know of any particular reason for that?


George Carlyle Marler: Not having participated in the 1952 negotiations I am unable to answer that question.


John Borden Hamilton: Do I understand that under article 2 there is this continuing liability to which I referred previously, and that the owner may have parted with legal title and yet be considered responsible under the convention?


George Carlyle Marler: I think the answer to that is yes. If I may reply at this moment to what the hon. member said during the debate on second reading, I should like to draw his attention to the provision of subparagraph 4 of article 11 which shows what is the meaning of a gold franc. I am sure if he reads that clause carefully he will find that inasmuch as the gold franc is tied to a certain quantity of gold it can hardly be expected to fluctuate as violently as he implied a little earlier. I did say that 500,000 francs were the equivalent of $37,000, and by my arithmetic that would be 7-4 cents for a gold franc.


John Borden Hamilton: I was going to say that at the price the government pays for gold it would never change. Is there any particular reason-


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.
Foreign Aircraft


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Does the committee wish to complete the schedule or call it six o'clock?


Walter Edward Harris: At this point, Mr. Chairman, without asking you to resume the chair, may I say that we shall of course continue this matter after dinner. As hon. members know, I announced the resolution with respect to blind persons. I see that the hon. member for Lethbridge is here, and should that resolution be completed before ten o'clock by any chance, I wonder whether he would be prepared to continue his speech in the debate on the motion with respect to external affairs?


Mr. Blackmore:: Yes.


Walter Edward Harris: We could use whatever time was left before ten o'clock for that purpose.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: At six o'clock we were discussing chapter II of the schedule.


John Borden Hamilton: Can the
minister give us any idea why the 14-day period was selected for the continuing liability?


George Carlyle Marler: To which clause is the hon. member referring?


John Borden Hamilton: That is article 3.


George Carlyle Marler: I am looking at article 15 because I understand that chapters I and II had been adopted.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Chapter III starts on page 6.


John Borden Hamilton: I think we may have been under a misapprehension here. We were looking at article 3 on page 3 as the next item. Certainly that was the impression I had. I do not know whether or not any other hon. member had the same impression.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I do not think
there is any wish on the part of the committee to limit discussion, so perhaps we might revert to that article for the moment.


George Carlyle Marler: I think I could answer my hon. friend by saying that we do not know why the period of 14 days to which he has referred was selected. Evidently that was the agreement in 1952, and I do not think it has any particular significance.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall we pass on now to chapter II?

Foreign Aircraft


John Borden Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman. Article 5 on page 3 puzzles me a bit. If the owner of an aircraft is deprived of its use by the act of a public authority, whose responsibility is it? As an example, assume that an agency of the United States government seizes an American Air Lines plane flying into Malton to transport refugees, or whatever you want to call them. Is there any liability on that party then under this convention?


George Carlyle Marler: If I understand the hypothetical case to which my hon. friend refers, if the United States government deprives one of its citizens of the use of his aircraft and then flies it over Canada, I take it that under article 5 the owner of the aircraft is relieved from liability under the convention because he has not the control of the aircraft, as this public authority has taken it away from him.


John Borden Hamilton: Would the
state then become the operator and also be liable?


George Carlyle Marler: I notice that in another section of the bill, in defining the meaning of the word "person", it goes so far as to cover the state. If my friend looks at article 30 he will see that.


John Borden Hamilton: The only point in connection with that, Mr. Chairman, is that I think the two terms used have been "owner" and "operator" and not "person" up to this point. I may be wrong. No, "person" is used; that is quite right.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Anything further on chapter I?


John Borden Hamilton: Yes, article 7, which I have read along with article 13 on page 6, which is part of chapter II. Is it the intention here that both operators of the aircraft which subsequently injures a third party will be liable through the insurance fund or otherwise to the full extent of the coverage?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, that is correct.


John Borden Hamilton: Is that not an unusual situation? Ordinarily when third parties are involved is it not usual that the liability is limited to one stipulated amount?


George Carlyle Marler: I will not generalize, but as I understand the convention each aircraft will be liable up to the full limit that is mentioned in the convention.
Mr. Hamilton (York West)-: In other words this would be almost what you would term a double indemnity clause. If T.C.A. were involved in an accident over foreign territory
[The Deputy Chairman.]
and on a negligence basis were only responsible to the extent of 25 per cent, they would still have to pay the total amount out of this insurance fund?


George Carlyle Marler: That is the limit of the liability of each of them.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Anything further on chapter I? Shall we go to chapter II, "Extent of Liability?"


John Borden Hamilton: The minister spent a considerable time explaining to me the gold franc system, and the Minister of Finance has assisted me at various times as well. Is there no way this amount can be tied to a current price? The minister was able to explain that the limit of liability on a light aircraft amounted to about $37,000. I assume that was based on the present price of gold. Would it not be true, notwithstanding the formula used, that if tomorrow the United States decided $25 per ounce was going to be the price paid for gold, this formula would leave us paying out to an aggrieved party possibly only three-fifths of the amount the minister has mentioned. Is that not something that could take place?


George Carlyle Marler: As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, the significance of article 11, particularly the fourth paragraph, is that the measure of damage is expressed in gold francs and the gold franc is not expressed in currency but is converted into 65J milligrammes of gold of millesimal fineness 900. I take it that if there is fluctuation you have always to go back to what is the worth of 65J milligrammes of gold of that particular fineness. I would find it difficult, offhand, to suggest some other measure that would remain constant that would be better than this.


John Borden Hamilton: Under article 12, which is still in chapter II, there are paragraphs 1 and 2. They seem to leave unlimited liability in a case of wilful damage. Does that still envisage that the minimum amount under the convention insurance fund will be payable notwithstanding what the final judgment might be?


George Carlyle Marler: I think it is obvious that the purpose of this section is to remove the limitation on liability that we have been discussing. At the same time I do not suppose that the insurance is going to be for an unlimited amount. I take it that the insurance that would be required would be up to a certain limit. I think the provisions are stated further on. I do not think you could expect to recover more than the limits of the insurance.


John Borden Hamilton: Does the
minister understand that the same thing would take place as takes place in connection with automobile insurance? When $20,000 is covered out of a claim amounting to $40,000, does this paragraph contemplate that $20,000 must be paid, namely that the minimum requirement must be paid?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes.


John Borden Hamilton: From reading article 14 it would appear that in dealing with personal and property damage there has been a division of the amount available for the satisfaction of a claim. It would seem that it is divided into two parts, 50 per cent for personal loss and 50 per cent for property damage, with the overriding feature that in respect of property damage if the 50 per cent more than covers the property damage claim the balance available would go toward the payment of personal injury claims.
I would gather the effect might be this, that there might be claims in connection with personal injury amounting to $50,000, in which four or five persons would be involved, and that there might be only $25,000 involved in property damage suffered by different persons. They might get all their money, whereas those making claims for personal injuries might receive only a small percentage of those claims. Would that be the result, under the wording of this article?


George Carlyle Marler: My understanding is that this article applies only in a case where the amount of the claims exceeds the amount of the security. My understanding of the convention is that it provides that the first half shall be divisible among claimants in respect of bodily injury or loss of life. So far as the other half is concerned, it would be available not only to those claims in respect of damage to property but also to the first group so far as their claims remained unsatisfied out of the first half.


John Borden Hamilton: But does not this arbitrary division have the effect of separating the arrangement so that in one section we might have a situation where a total claim was paid out, 100 cents on the dollar, whereas in the other section it would be paid out to the extent of only 10 cents on the dollar?


George Carlyle Marler: No, I do not think so. I will not challenge the last figure, because I do not think it is relevant. But the position must be that the claims exceed the amount available for distribution. The point is that one-half goes to the claimants in respect of bodily injury or loss of life. The other half is divided up among the same group of claimants and the claimants in respect of property.
Foreign Aircraft
So far as I can see it is impossible that any group should receive payment in full. In fact,
I think if the hon. member would carefully examine the article in the convention he would find that it gives a sort of priority to those who have claims for bodily injury or loss of life.


John Borden Hamilton: I may be slow in understanding this, but if there is one group of people with personal injury claims amounting to $100,000 on one side and $25,000 property damage on the other, and there is a policy for $150,000-


George Carlyle Marler: You have too much money.


John Borden Hamilton: -and we
divide it under this system, I think you will find that the property damage people are getting all their claims, while the personal damage people are getting only a dividend on their claims. Is it possible that that might happen under this article?


George Carlyle Marler: In the figures my hon. friend just gave as to the amount of claims he started off on the premise that the claims were less than the amount available for distribution. Of course on that basis everybody would be paid in full. But if there is only $100,000, and let us say claims for personal injury of $75,000 and claims for property damage of $75,000, those who have the claims of $75,000 for bodily injury will receive half the $100,000, or $50,000. That leaves claimants of $25,000 for bodily injury, plus claimants of $75,000 for property damage to divide up the remaining $50,000. I think my hon. friend will realize that the claims in respect of bodily injury will receive another $12,500 and those in respect of property damage will receive $37,500. So that the claimants for bodily injury will be receiving $62,500 while the others would receive $37,500. I hope my arithmetic is right, and I think it is. But the principle is quite clear, according to the article in the convention.


John Borden Hamilton: Would it not be fairer if the whole amount were pooled and a proportionate dividend paid to all, pro rata?


George Carlyle Marler: Offhand I must say that I think the individual ought to be compensated in respect of bodily injury or loss of life before compensation is given for property damage. That may be a matter of opinion, but it was certainly the opinion of those who drew the convention.


John Borden Hamilton: But you do not
compensate him first. You just divide the fund; is that not right?

Foreign Aircraft


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think I can add much to what I have said.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Then we will pass on to chapter III, which deals with security for operator's liability.


John Borden Hamilton: This is the chapter dealing with the requirements of contracting nations in connection with insurance coverage requirements and/or the cash requirements and bank guarantees, or otherwise required to be filed covering the responsibilities of the various parties.
In connection with the interpretation of these articles-and I do not wish to refer to any one in particular-is it not possible for a contracting party to refuse any of the types of security mentioned here, as being unsatisfactory to it?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I think it might be said that under the convention there might be a dispute as to the sufficiency of insurance. There are provisions under which a contracting state may dispute an insurance payment. There is provision for discussion as to the insurance and the settlement of the dispute. I think paragraph 7(a) enables a state overflown to request additional evidence of financial responsibility. But, unfortunately, perhaps this is somewhat reduced in efficacy by paragraph 7(b) which provides that in the event of a dispute between states as to financial responsibility the insurance or guarantee shall continue valid until the dispute has been settled by an arbitral tribunal. I admit that is not a very satisfactory outcome, but on the other hand I do not think that anybody would be particularly interested in maintaining insurance that really was not effective because after all, as my hon. friend knows, if the insurer is not going to pay at the appropriate time the insured in this particular case is going to have to provide the moneys.


Mr. Palleit:: In chapter IV, provision is made for the commencement of an action within a certain length of time. Further down in the chapter reference is made to the possible revision of the whole action by the court of the other contracting party. Some provision should be made that would set out when the judgment will be final, rather than allowing it to be reviewed by the courts of the other contracting party. Look at article 19 of chapter IV and read article 20, paragraph 5. Article 19 provides for the commencement of the action and paragraph 5 apparently provides for a complete review.


George Carlyle Marler: I think that refers only to the execution of the judgment. As I understand it, article 19 says that the time for the

bringing of the action is six months, but the paragraph to which my hon. friend has just referred, as I understand it, deals with the execution of the judgment; that is to say, after the facts have been determined and the operator of the aircraft found liable.


John Borden Hamilton: In connection with chapter IV, article 20, paragraph 5, under the rules of which court of competent jurisdiction would the proceedings dealing with the reopening of the proceedings be taken? What might be considered as a fair service of notice under the rules of one court might not be satisfactory service under the rules of the other court. I can see this situation arising. The court where the execution is issued might be a foreign court, and it might refer to proceedings taken in the court where the judgment was obtained as not giving proper notice to the defendant. The court where the notice was given might consider that it was quite proper notice. Is there any indication here as to which rules will be followed, the rules of the court where the execution was issued or the rules of the court where the judgment was obtained?


George Carlyle Marler: I take it, of course, from what was said earlier in the discussion that the judgment is obtained in the state in which the accident occurred. I cited this afternoon as an example that if the damage were suffered in the province of Ontario, the action would be brought in the province of Ontario and judgment rendered. But I do not believe it would follow that the judgment of the Ontario court is necessarily going to be executed in, let us say, the place where the operator of the aircraft has his principal establishment. It might be found convenient to take proceedings for execution in the state of New York; and I take it that the rules which are set forth in paragraph 5 would be determined by the court in which the judgment creditor attempted to enforce execution of his judgment.
I take it my hon. friend would feel that it was not unfair that the court which was being asked to order execution of some foreign judgment might reasonably say, "Was the defendant given a fair and adequate opportunity to defend his interests?" I am quite sure my hon. friend would not wish to find that his client, for example, had been condemned by a court of some other country on what seemed to him to be totally insufficient motives. I think he would like to feel that his client would be protected at the crucial moment when execution was asked for, and to know that the court would make certain that adequate notice of the action was given originally.

Without having practised before the courts I must say that it does seem to me that in a general sense these provisions are intended to ensure that the person being asked to pay will receive justice.


John Borden Hamilton: I was thinking more of protection for our own operators in connection with obtaining execution of their judgments in a foreign country. Obviously, under this paragraph, it is quite definite that the merits of the case cannot be reopened, but the rules of the court dealing with service may be entirely different in country X than they are in the province of Ontario. I go further and say that under paragraph 7 I find that we are also subject to the whims and fancies of the public policy of the state in which the execution is requested. Country X may be down in South America, so far as I am concerned, and what may be public policy there from day to day may materially affect our air operators' opportunity of collecting a judgment.


George Carlyle Marler: Surely not of collecting, but of having to pay, is it not?


John Borden Hamilton: Well, I would say it is the ability to collect through the process of issuing execution under these paragraphs.


George Carlyle Marler: I think my hon. friend is forgetting that the people who are benefiting through this convention so far as these claims are concerned are third persons on the surface. The case that he has just referred to, I take it, is that of a resident of some foreign country in Central or South America who may obtain in the courts there a judgment against, let us say, Trans-Canada Air Lines, and I suppose that if he could enforce that judgment against property down there that would be the Trans-Canada Air Lines' misfortune. If it considered it did not receive adequate notice, the judgment would not be enforceable in the courts of Ontario, let us say, unless the conditions set forth in paragraph 5 were realized.


John Borden Hamilton: I may have used a wrong example. Perhaps I should have said a citizen of Ontario having obtained a judgment in Ontario and attempting to force execution in country X is subject, as I see it here and if I understand the minister's interpretation of the rules of court, to the rules of court in foreign country X so far as the efficacy of service is concerned and subject to the whims and fancies, if I may use that term, of public policy of that state. Is that right?


George Carlyle Marler: I think so, yes. But I should like to point out to my hon. friend that that
Foreign Aircraft
is the situation now. Regardless of the convention, if the aircraft is registered in some foreign republic and if an individual wishes now to enforce a claim for damages, he obtains a judgment from the Ontario court. If there is something within the jurisdiction of the Ontario court on which he can obtain execution, well and good. If he cannot, he knows that he has to go to the republic and in the courts there run his chances of being able to exemplify and execute a foreign judgment. I am sure the hon. member has tried to execute foreign judgments in Canada, and I am quite sure he realizes it is not a simple process.


John Borden Hamilton: This convention does not add anything to the person's rights?


George Carlyle Marler: I think not.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is there anything further on chapter IV? We shall now deal with chapter V, "Application of the Convention and General Provisions".
Mr. Pallet!: I have a question with respect to article 26. Is there any agreement between Canada and the United States with respect to payment to Canadian citizens for damage occasioned by United States military aircraft in Canada? This provision specifically exempts them. I was wondering if there was another provision that includes them.


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think the hon. member is right in saying that it exempts them. It excludes them from the operation of the convention entirely, and I think I should say to my hon. friend that I know of no agreement that exempts the United States from liability for accidents caused by its aircraft to Canadian citizens. Certainly article 26 does not grant an exemption which does not exist at the present time.


John Cameron Pallett: It does not include military aircraft.


George Carlyle Marler: No. In fact my understanding of the convention, Mr. Chairman, is that military, customs or police aircraft are excluded from the operation of this convention.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is there anything further under chapter V? Then chapter VI, "Final Provisions".


John Borden Hamilton: In connection with chapter VI, article 33, I wonder if the minister might be as specific as possible and tell us how many nations have signed this convention and, second, if he has any official notification of the attitude of the United States.


George Carlyle Marler: I shall answer the last part of the question first, by saying there is no

Blind Persons Act
official indication of the attitude of the United States. These are the names of the countries which have signed the convention. I take it that my hon. friend is not going to write them down, so I shall read them quickly:	The Argentine, Belgium, Brazil,
Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Spain, France, Israel, Italy, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, The Netherlands, Portugal, The Philippines, Switzerland and Thailand. After the convention was originally signed, it was also signed by Great Britain, Australia and Canada.


John Borden Hamilton: Would I be correct in saying that not more than three of those countries listed have aircraft now operating over Canadian soil?


George Carlyle Marler: I think I would say there are four or five. There are, of course, France, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Great Britain, and Australia.


John Borden Hamilton: Could you give us any idea of the proportionate number of flights they operate?


George Carlyle Marler: No, I am afraid I could not.


John Borden Hamilton: Would I be correct in saying that they operate a small proportion of the total number of flights into Canada?


George Carlyle Marler: I would think so, yes. On the other hand they represent 100 per cent of the foreign aircraft flying over Canada.


John Borden Hamilton: That does not include the United States, does it?


George Carlyle Marler: No.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Apple whaite):: When shall this bill be read the third time?


An hon. Member:: Next sitting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Next sitting of the house.



BLIND PERSONS ACT


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Blind Persons Act to lower the age for eligible recipients from twenty-one years to eighteen years, and also to increase the maximum annual incomes allowed to recipients.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Major James William Coldwell: Is the minister not going to say anything? Undue modesty!


Mr. Blair:: I welcome anything that will be of assistance to those who are suffering from this handicap, and the fact that the age is lowered from 21 to 18 years is a step in the right direction. Personally I feel-and I should like to hear the minister's comments on this matter.-that if the age were still further lowered to, say, 16, when other assistance in the nature of family allowances ceases, that money could be well used' at a time when it was necessary for the education of these people who have this affliction. I think education for these people at an early age is a very important thing and that such special assistance, even lowering the age two years more, would enable them to obtain further education and fit them to carry on their lives under their handicap.
I received, as I suppose every other member of the house did, sometime about February, a brief from the Canadian council of the blind and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. I am also very much aware of the splendid work being done by voluntary organizations in this line, and I would also mention the fact that medical science is doing a great deal in the way of prevention of this disability. But I note that the Canadian national council of the blind bring forth three recommendations; they comment on these, and at the finish of their brief they summarize these recommendations.
The first recommendation-and this was
made before the minister introduced his legislation-was that the Blind Persons Act be amended, substituting age 18 years for the present 21 years for recipients of the blindness allowance. So the present resolution covers the first recommendation of the Canadian council of the blind.
The second recommendation was that the means test ceiling provided in the Blind Persons Act be raised to statutory minimum levels for single and married persons now applicable in the Canadian Income Tax Act.
The third recommendation was that a special guiding allowance of at least $10 per month be provided by the government of Canada, free from the means test, to all blind persons from the age of 18 years for life.
In their general comment-and these figures are interesting, because I think figures produced by the organization are authentic- they point out that elimination of the means test on the present blindness allowance would affect only some 3,800 persons in the age

group 21 to 69 who are not now on the allowance, plus those who are on the allowance but tor whom the amount has been reduced more or less because of income in excess of the present ceiling. The explanations they make are interesting. They estimate that the elimination of the means test would cost approximately $2 million, and they say further:
Hence, the elimination of the means test would benefit only a few of the 8,000 presently on blindness allowance and none of the 7,500 on old age security.
Then they give revised recommendations. Again the first is that the age reduction from 21 to 18 would add approximately 290 to those on blindness allowance and would cost about $139,200 per annum. That is covered by the resolution. The second is that the increased ceiling recommended would add approximately 500 and would cost $240,000. The third is that a guiding allowance free from the means test would cover approximately 19,000 and would cost $2,280,000. So the estimated cost of the three recommendations made by the Canadian national council of the blind would amount to approximately $2,500,000 per annum. The first recommendation brought in by the minister today is going to cost $139,200.
They also pointed out that the principle endorsed by the world council for the welfare of the blind involves the payment of maintenance allowance to the less capable blind, subject to a more or less generous means test and a guiding allowance.
We welcome the resolution brought in by the minister. We think it is a good resolution. I am sure every person in the chamber will approve this assistance to these handicapped people. Yet one must recognize two other recommendations made by the Canadian council of the blind. In any future legislation I think we should proceed as far as we can toward implementing these recommendations from such a responsible body.
As I said, I welcome the additional amount that is being paid. I think it is a step in the right direction. But I think that the whole committee will feel that in future legislation we should proceed as far as possible toward implementing those recommendations.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I am going to be brief because I think there is unanimity in the committee in support of the proposals contained in this resolution. I join with the hon. member in saying that I think the age limit should have been lower than it is. I agree with him that
Blind Persons Act
when family allowance ceases the blind pension should begin. That would be at the age of 16. However, we have gone about this particular piece of social security legislation bit by bit and step by step.
I was here, of course, when the first blind pension plan was introduced. I had been greatly interested in the problems of the blind for many years. In fact at one time I had the honour of being honorary president of an organization in my own province and I was able to meet the blind people at that time, to understand their problems, and to realize how essential it was that something constructive should be done for them.
I quite agree that, after all, the education of the blind is of paramount importance. We have schools for them in various places, more particularly in the province of Ontario. One thing I should like to see is the adoption of a plan whereby the federal government might assist the provinces in building schools for perhaps two or more provinces. I should like to see one for the three prairie provinces so the children would not be obliged to go so far afield and be away from their parents for such long periods of time.
Many of the blind people, given the opportunity, are able partly to earn their own living. They are severely handicapped, hence can rarely make an income which is sufficient to meet all their needs. But given the opportunity they can at least partially provide for themselves. That is one of the reasons that I should like to see the ceiling on the earnings they may get from their labour, whatever it may be, increased considerably. I think the suggestion of the institute is reasonable, namely that the ceiling should be raised to the income tax minimum in the cases of single and married people.
But while I am of that opinion, I am much more interested in seeing the eligibility age reduced. I should like to see it reduced as soon as possible to the age of 16. As a matter of fact I should be inclined to go lower than 16, in order to help provide for the education of the child at an early age. After all, the parents assume an obligation and often a tremendous burden in caring for a blind child. Then too, the request for some allowance for a guide is, in my opinion, reasonable and fair.
While we are extending our social security system in various directions I think there is no more worthy cause than the extension of the system to those who are handicapped by loss of sight. It is true, I am happy to say, that modern medical science, as has already been pointed out, is doing much to remove

Blind Persons Act
blindness from our midst. Often sight can be restored. If the child is taken in hand soon after birth, often the threat of blindness can be removed by physicians. That consideration, of course, brings me to the hardy chestnut of our movement, namely that the provision of medical aid on a national basis is something that should round out our social security system. It would be of assistance in cases of this sort, where medical attention would be immediately available, and blindness sometimes would be prevented by speedy action by qualified physicians.
I do not think there is much I can add, except to say that we are and always have been wholeheartedly in support of this type of legislation. Speaking personally, I may say that I have always been exceedingly glad to support in this chamber any proposal which would assist this group of people in any and every way possible. I am happy indeed that this measure has been introduced. I hope that in another year at most we shall see amendments introduced designed to remove the ceiling or to raise the ceiling and reduce the age limit progressively, perhaps the next time, as requested to 16. I should like to go beyond that point and see the next step the reduction of the age below 16, before family allowance ceases.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, at this stage I would not think it necessary to speak at any length with regard to this resolution. However, I can say that we are grateful that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has seen fit to propose to the House of Commons a measure which will do the two things that are outlined in the resolution, namely reduce from 21 to 18 years the age at which blind persons become eligible for assistance, and increase the maximum annual incomes allowed to recipients.
At this stage we do not know how much the increase will be in annual income, but we are certainly in favour of both these things that are specifically mentioned in the resolution. We should like the minister to know that we would support a considerable increase in the ceiling on annual income allowed to blind persons because, as has already been pointed out, these people are carrying on under great handicaps. They require a much higher income than do ordinary persons, in order that they may do the things they are obliged to do. The cost of their training is much greater, the cost of assistance to get around is much greater, and all that sort of thing.
I am quite sure we are not telling the minister anything he does not already know. We are hopeful that he will take into full consideration the requests that have been

made by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, in which I believe they mentioned the necessity for granting some allowance to blind persons in order to help them pay for guides where it is necessary to have guides. I do not know anything at all about the cost of a guide. I have not the slightest idea of what it costs to obtain and to maintain a seeing-eye dog or even to obtain the services of a human guide where it is necessary. However, the cost must be considerable. I would think that is nothing more than reasonable that we should give careful consideration to the requests that have been made that these people be given a certain allowance each year for guide purposes.
We would prefer to wait until the measure comes before us to debate the matter at any length, and so we reserve our criticism until we come to second reading of the bill. Suffice it to say at this time that we are very happy to see progress being made in the right direction, and we do hope the minister has gone as far as it is possible for him to induce his colleagues to go along with him at this time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on the resolution. I have a great deal of sympathy for those who do not have their sight, and I believe it comes closer home to me than to most members of the House of Commons because of the fact that a daughter of mine was thrown from her horse some years ago, landed on her head and as a result of that accident became blind.
I know what a blind person has to go through in this life. I have had dealings not only with one blind person but with a great number, and. may I say they do not want sympathy. They want to be able to work on their own and do things themselves. That is one way the Canadian National Institute for the Blind has done a lot for them. They send teachers and instructors to the blind people if the blind people want them. These teachers and instructors have taught them to read braille. They have taught them to use typewriters and other machines that even the minister or I, having our sight, perhaps could not handle. They have taught them to do many things. They have taught them to earn their own living.
But these blind men and women who have gone out to earn their living have found that they cannot get the pension owing to the fact that their earnings are too great. At the same time it costs a blind person more money to live than it does the man working at the next machine, because the blind person has to have someone guide him to the bus and to the plant where he is

working. He has to be picked up again and taken home. In the home he has to be instructed to a certain extent, although not very much, in this and that, and shown where certain things are.
During the years the Canadian National Institute for the Blind has been in operation-and I speak particularly of the Peterborough branch with which I have had a lot to do-it has had to supplement the incomes of blind people in order that they might have fuel in their homes in the wintertime, proper clothing and medical attention and other little things they could not get on the blind pension or even when working and living at home. Most of these blind people are very intelligent. This is partly because of the fact that the Canadian National Institute for the Blind has supplied them with what are known as talking books. These are volumes of records on literature, history and geography. They have the Reader's Digest and the Bible in so many volumes, and the blind people can learn things by playing the records in these talking books. This is something else these people have to have in order to get along, but these books cost money.
There are many other things they have to have. The hon. member who just spoke mentioned seeing-eye dogs. Personally I am not very keen on blind people having seeing-eye dogs owing to the fact that they depend on the seeing-eye dog instead of depending on themselves. I think they lose something by having a seeing-eye dog, though these dogs will take them wherever they wish to go.
There is not much more I wish to say. In my opinion the lowering of the pensionable age from 21 to 18 is not good enough. It should be lowered to at least 16, as the hon. member for Lanark and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar mentioned, in order to pick up where the family allowance leaves off. There is a gap there of two years during which the parent has to look after the blind child. It is not fair. It means they have to deprive themselves and their other children, if they have any, of many necessities of life in order to look after the one child who needs extra attention. I hope that the ceiling on allowable income will be high enough so these people will not have to deprive themselves of things they have had to deprive themselves of in the past.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I regret that the minister did not choose to introduce this resolution with any remarks. I know he is waiting for us to conclude. However, I am pleased to see so much interest taken in the resolution at this time. I wonder whether
Blind Persons Act
the minister is so keenly aware of the situation, when the government is unable to see its way clear to give our blind people a dollar more out of every $10,000 of our national production. If we granted all the amendments to the act they asked for in their brief it would, as the hon. member for Lanark pointed out, cost $2 million, a little below 1 per cent of 1 per cent of our national production. I think their brief was like that presented to the government by the returned men of Canada. It was deliberately designed with the hope that it would appear so reasonable to the government that the government would not be able to find an argument as to why their requests should not be completely met.
I do not think the brief really represents what the members of the institute feel they should have. So far the only amendment about which we know anything definitely is that lowering the age of eligibility to 18. According to the brief that will cost the government only $139,200 a year. If I were a minister offering such a great social reform I would also hesitate to speak on the introduction of the resolution. After all, it would amount to only a relatively minor amendment.
In looking over the act I notice that this is another case where the federal government embarks on something in co-operation with the provincial governments on the basis of sharing the cost. I realize that possibly this is an invasion of provincial rights. However, I see no reason why this government has to limit itself to paying only 75 per cent of the cost of this pension. In these days we are particularly concerned about how we can rearrange the incomes of our lower levels of government. I think relief to some extent might be offered to the provincial governments if the federal government were to accept 100 per cent of the cost of blind pensions, just as they did in the case of pensions for our senior citizens over 70.
The leader of the group to which I belong pleaded with the minister to lower the eligible age for pension even more than the minister has offered. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked that the age be lowered to at least 16, and I was very happy to hear him use the words "at least".
I think the approach of the group to which I belong would be this. When such a tragedy happens to a family I think all of us in the community should say, not that we will shoulder the burden of this family-because no one who has a blind member of the family will ever admit it is a burden-but we should say we will shoulder the extra responsibility that you have as a result of having a member of your family who has the misfortune to be

Blind Persons Act
blind. I do not see why there should be any age limit to a blind pension paid on behalf of society as a whole, because if we say that a blind person must first reach the age of 18 to receive a pension, that person has already passed the age when a heavy outlay of money has to be made on his behalf.
Blind people like to feel that they also have a contribution to make to society and to the community in which they live. Before they can make that contribution they need training, the cost of which is away beyond the cost of an ordinary education. I feel, for that reason alone, that this pension should be payable at whatever age blindness occurs. I feel also that in many cases blind persons would have been able to regain their vision if an adequate income had been made available at an early age.
Another matter I wish to emphasize is that it seems to be taken for granted that we should pay no more in allowances to blind persons than we pay to old age pensioners. I was very happy to hear the hon. member for Peterborough place emphasis on the fact that a blind person has added expense. I believe we ought to get away from this idea of a $40 maximum for all those who receive pensions. If $40 is a suitable amount for old age pensioners, then certainly meeting the request of these national associations and allowing blind persons an extra $10 per month would not be out of the way. Even with $50 per month they would actually be receiving a great deal less than they need.
I notice the resolution mentions the maximum permissible income. We have no information as yet on what is proposed. I should like to see the legislation state that the means test will be removed altogether. I feel that the cost of administering such a means test must consume a considerable portion of the money that is saved by having such a test. This means test discourages the building up of self-respect in these people. I think they would like to find useful employment, and having a means test at all is merely discouraging these people from getting the training necessary to earn their own livelihood.
In reading the act I noticed regulations concerning the disposal of assets in order to qualify under the means test. We have gone through the mill in that respect with old age pensions. We have seen how the means test used to encourage people to illegally dispose of their assets in order to take advantage of the old age pension. I believe the Canadian people would be happy to hear the minister state that this government, in amending this act, had agreed to eliminate this means test.
In looking at the permissible income, I hope the minister will take a more liberal

attitude toward raising the ceiling than was taken when we amended the war veterans legislation. I see that the permissible income ceiling for single people is now $840 per annum. Ordinary taxpayers in Canada do not pay any income tax on the first $1,000. It is considered that one needs at least $1,000 in order to exist. I do not see why, if we are not willing to abolish the means test, we should not at least allow blind people the minimum exemption that is allowed by the Income Tax Act.
I have noticed other discrepancies which I hope to see removed when I see the bill. The maximum income allowed a single person is set at $840. Then we come to an unmarried person with one dependent child, and we see that the maximum permissible income is $1,040. This means that there is an allowance of only $200 for the care of one child for a year. I should like the minister to indicate that he is prepared to allow much more under the amendment. I feel that the allowance for one child should be at least $500 per year, because it costs even normal people that much to sustain one child for a year.
Then the maximum permissible income for a married person is set at $1,320. Again there is an increase of $480 per year over the amount allowed a single person. Surely blind people should not be asked to live on $40 per month, yet that is what we are doing when we say that single people will be allowed to have an income of $840 and married people an income of $1,320. When both the husband and wife are blind, we place a ceiling on their income of $1,440 per year or $120 per month. This $120 per month is only $10 per month more than a married couple on old age pension receive in some parts of the dominion. When both the husband and wife are blind, surely it is unreasonable for us to say that they have to get by on $120 per month.
There are not many blind people in Canada. I do not think anyone in this house will take part in this debate because of what the blind people may do at the next election. Throughout Canada there are only slightly more than 8,000 persons in receipt of assistance under the Blind Persons Act, and the total expenditures by this government under that act amount to less than $3 million a year. I feel that if the government had decided to grant all the requests of the Canadian council of the blind and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, the Canadian people might have said, "We have a liberal government in deed as well as in name". I do not think any opposition would have been registered from any section of the house had

the government seen fit to spend that extra $2 million a year instead of a miserable $139,000.


Mr. Rowe:: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of repetition I feel impelled to support the proposals made by several hon. members. Before the minister speaks I would hope he might reconsider the suggestion he now makes, so the age limit may be reduced to 16 years.
I have listened with interest on many occasions to appeals made on behalf of the blind and of others who, as the hon. member who has just spoken said, make up a small minority of those people in our country who sometimes, under our democratic system, are almost forgotten. I have not had the same experience as my hon. friend and colleague from Peterborough. Many of us who know him well realize how close he is to this problem.
I feel impelled, however, to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lanark, who has given serious study to this and other welfare problems. I would support, too, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar who has described explicitly the present situation. I shall not take the time of the committee to repeat what has been said. As was pointed out so well by the hon. member for Peterborough, the blind persons in this country do not want sob stories on their behalf; they do not want sympathy; they want assistance.
It is clear that from their infancy blind persons place heavy obligations upon their families. As parents and perhaps as grandparents some of us know what it means to protect children who may run out on the streets, and how much greater the obligation must be when the children are blind. It has been difficult enough to watch my progeny, even when they can see.
I cannot help thinking that we overlook the seriousness of the problem. There has been agreement in the house to give old age pensions even to many who do not need it. Then we have given pensions to others who may have wasted what they received, and we have been reluctant and hesitant-I think sometimes because they do not have many votes-to give pensions to those who are totally disabled.
It is 25 years ago since I first spoke on behalf of the blind in this country. We have always been reluctant to consider their case. As the hon. member who has just taken his seat pointed out, the numbers involved are of no great political significance, and the amount of money involved is comparatively small. But the principle at stake is great. I cannot help thinking that the ages between
Blind Persons Act
16 and 20 are ages of uncertainty. They are the time when boys and girls encounter great difficulties, and begin to wonder where they are going and what the future holds for them. Those are the years when their minds are in some state of turmoil. Surely if we can reduce the eligible age from 21 to 18 years we could reduce it to 16 and give these young persons a break, these children whose education is always more difficult and more expensive, these children who many times must travel long distances to get their education, and must be accompanied in their travels.
Hon. members know, I am sure, that among the blind are to be found some of the most brilliant persons in this country. I know many of them who are more capable of earning their living than some hon. members of the House of Commons would be if they were deprived of their indemnities. We know there is a vast difference in the abilities of those who can see. There are only a few who are in class A and are outstanding. Those who are in darkness the whole 24 hours in the day must be brilliant indeed, when they can survive. They are proud persons, persons who perhaps would not have been so clever had they been able to see. They have been forced by circumstances to develop their talents to meet the obligations their handicap involves.
Even though they may be trained in new scientific methods to help them meet their handicap, it seems a pity that their whole living becomes more difficult. Their earning capacity is generally depreciated, and in order to fit themselves to meet their handicap they must begin early. In these days, when we are spending so much money, and when we are so boastful of our social services, I would urge that we spend more on behalf of these unfortunate persons. Sometimes I think we have gone a long way in establishing social services in our rich country; but when we have established those services for those who are physically fit we should not quibble, we should not be niggardly, we should not argue about the amount involved when the suggestion is made that the age limit be reduced from 18 to 16 years.
There are not many blind in Canada today in that age group. The hon. member for Lanark has said that only $2,500,000 would be involved. Surely very little more would be needed to include those of 16 years of age, so they would be given the break to which they are entitled. Those of us who can see and who have our other faculties have never been forced to discipline ourselves as they have. Perhaps because of our indolence we do not

Blind Persons Act
realize the great care that must be exercised by the parents of blind persons so they may be fitted for their tasks in life.
Surely we can reduce the age to 16 years. After all, family allowance payments end at 16, as do mothers' allowances. What is to become of the blind child whose mother is unwell; how is he to survive in those most critical years of his life? Because we know they are critical years, even for those who can see; and certainly they must be tragic for those who cannot.
At this time, when the minister is reducing the age to 18 years-and I join with the hon. member for Lanark and others who have complimented him upon that action-why should he not reduce it to 16? I doubt if even that is far enough. If the age limit were reduced to 16 it would help meet during two more years the handicap of these unfortunate people.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, I think it is significant that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has remained on the sidelines for such a long time while this proposal has been debated in the committee.
I agree with the other hon. members who have spoken from this side of the house. The proposal is quite inadequate. When one considers our physical resources in Canada and the very small number of people involved in this legislation I feel sure we should go at least as far as the Canadian council of the blind and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind have suggested.
Other members have referred to the excellent material supplied to all hon. members by these two organizations. I do not propose to repeat any of the material that has been dealt with, but one paragraph has not been referred to. These organizations mentioned that in Canada we spend approximately $38 per month compared with $56 per month in the United States. When one considers that our resources on a per capita basis are very great I am sure that if we brought our contribution up in line with what is paid in the United States it would not place any great strain on us.
I realize it is not too difficult for hon. members on this side of the house to ask the government to increase its commitments for various projects, but when one considers the handicaps that this small handful of about 8,000 Canadian people face when they go through life unable to see, then this is a matter to which those of us who have the good fortune to have good health should give more consideration.
Many years ago when I was at university I realized what a handicap it is to go through 
life unable to see. A young chap came to Saskatoon to give a musical recital. He and his mother stayed with friends of mine. My friend telephoned and wondered whether I would take time to show this blind boy through the university. I of course was very glad to accept the invitation and we visited the gymnasium, the convocation hall and some of the lecture theatres. The president of the university was kind enough to shake hands with him and ask him some questions. Later that night around the dinner table the young blind chap told his mother and his hosts of what he saw at the university. Although I had been at the university for some time I would not have been able to tell a group of people in as great detail and with as much enthusiasm about the wonders of the University of Saskatchewan as this young lad who was unable to see was able to do. He never had been able to see, and would never be able to see.
When it is proposed, as the minister is now proposing, that we should make the pension available at 18, it should be explained to us why the Canadian economy will not stand the strain of commencing the pension at 16. As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam pointed out, any child in Canada with the misfortune of being unable to see should have a pension available as soon as his sight is lost. We should regard our expenditures in this field as investments that will pay rich dividends to all the Canadian people. It has been one of our mistakes in the past that we have regarded payments of this sort as charity, as something we must do without very much enthusiasm.
The minister should be able to convince the rest of his colleagues that it is our responsibility to those who are blind to see that pensions be given without any means test. Since we are able to provide family allowances without any means test, and since everyone on reaching the age of 70 receives a pension without a means test, therefore it is not unreasonable that everyone who has the misfortune to be blind should have a pension without a means test. If there be those who do not require this money the Minister of National Revenue will be able to catch up with them eventually through the income tax machinery. It is a very fair device. If there are people who get the old age pension or family allowances and who can get by without them, the Minister of National Revenue is able to make some sort of adjustment with them.
Therefore the minister should give careful consideration to the suggestions that have come from this side of the house to the effect that pensions for the blind should be made

available without a means test. If he is unwilling to recommend that the pension start when blindness occurs, he should at least meet the representations that when family-allowances are discontinued the payment of pensions for blindness should commence. Since the minister has not committed himself up to this time I hope he will agree to recommend to the cabinet that the suggestions that have been made from this side of the house be given favourable consideration by his colleagues.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps it might be appropriate at this time to say a few brief words on this resolution. I should like to think- and I do think-that the observations made by the hon. member for Lanark, who is always so constructive in his approach to matters in this house, and those of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar represent the best mood of this house in the constructive observations which they have just made.
I am sure the committee will not mind my making this observation, that if one had to introduce a particular measure on the occasion of an anniversary event, this would be the measure. My colleague the Minister of National Revenue and I-I do not know whether he is aware of it-are approaching the end of the anniversary of that day ten years ago when we were both sworn in as ministers of the crown. Being somewhat of a sentimentalist I rather think it is a happy note that I should be able to introduce a motion of this kind on this particular anniversary, which I would want to share with my colleague the Minister of National Revenue.
As the hon. member for Lanark has said, this resolution is a further step in our effort to improve the conditions of our blind population. As the hon. member for Peterborough has said, that group does not want from this house or from any other group in our country any sympathy whatsoever. It is a group that is self-reliant. The work of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, of L'Associa-tion Canadienne-frangaise des aveugles et 1'Institut Nazareth de Montreal and the Montreal association for the blind confirms all that I have just said about the self-reliance and the initiative which the blind people of our country are prepared to take from time to time.
This is not the first amendment respecting the blind that has been introduced in this house during the past few years. The age, which is now being lowered from 21 to 18, was lowered from 40 to 21 in 1947. Those of us, Mr. Chairman, who are making this proposal to the house at this time had the responsibility of sitting on your right when that amendment was introduced.
Blind Persons Act
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar mentioned the desirability of rehabilitation for the blind, and I am sure the committee will generally echo what he has said in that regard. I do not know of anything that is more constructive to assist the blind than the work of rehabilitation. In addition to that, under the national health program the government is now financing the cost of four glaucoma clinics, one in Toronto, two in Montreal, and one in the city of Quebec.
Glaucoma is Canada's most serious eye problem. We have urged every province to follow the examples set by the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec. In the past month we have approved a federal grant for the establishment of a glaucoma clinic for the province of New Brunswick in Fredericton, and also under the national health program we have provided financial assistance to a number of eye research investigations being carried out by the department of ophthalmology of the University of Toronto.
In addition, we have undertaken in the past seven years a program of remedial surgery to restore vision to blind pensioners where there is some hope of success. I think this particular story is one of the happiest I could relate to the house. Over 60 per cent of the cases which have been given remedial surgery under the arrangements we have made with the provinces for the joint assumption of full costs of the operations have been successful; vision has been restored to the point where the pensioner could resume a more nearly normal life, and in 60 per cent of all cases where remedial surgery was attempted the pensioner had vision restored and was taken off the blind assistance roll altogether.
That represents the determination and the desire of the administration to do what it can, not only to provide pensions but also to do something in a constructive way to improve permanently, if it can, the disability of failure in eyesight.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister spoke in percentages. What about the numbers?


Mr. Marlin:: The numbers are about 210, which is a very considerable proportion when we consider the total blind population of Canada, and I may say there is no limitation. Any blind persons now on these rolls and in receipt of this assistance can qualify for this kind of treatment, and the provincial governments in cases where agreements exist are prepared to arrange for the best of medical treatment in the effort to improve conditions.
Reference has been made to the six-point program of the C.N.I.B. I need not go into all the particulars of those six points except

Blind Persons Act
to say that all of them have been met by the government with the exception of two; and in those two cases, when we come to the bill we will see that a very considerable proportion of those remaining points have been constructively dealt with by the administration.
The second last point I should like to make is this. The hon. member for DUfferin-Simcoe, with his usual vigour, urged that the age should be reduced from 18 to 16. When the house passed the Disabled Persons Act it provided that a person benefiting under that act could qualify at the age of 18 years. At that time, as now, a blind person could qualify only at the age of 21 under the Blind Persons Act. The Blind Persons Act is disability legislation. It was the first legislation for disabled people in this country, and when from time to time I have met the various associations of the blind I have pointed out that improvements in the legislation which we had in mind for them would have to wait until such time as we could provide for the other classes of disabled persons for whom, up to that time, we had made no provision whatsoever.
I may say that the associations who came to see me were all agreed that we should do our best, first of all, to improve the lot of the other disabled classes of the country for whom no provision whatsoever had been made. What we are doing tonight with regard to the age qualification is to put the blind now on the same footing as that on which we have put the disabled persons.
Under the Disabled Persons Act the qualifying age is 18, and now through these present amendments we are making provision for the blind to be treated the same from the point of view of age as we treat the other disabled under the disability legislation; so I think, now that we have both these disabled groups in this particular on the same footing, whatever consideration is given at some later date can be dealt with on equal terms, now that we are face to face with the amendment before the house at the present time.
On this side, Mr. Chairman, with the support of the house we have in the last five and a half years lowered the age from 40 to 21; now under this legislation it is lowered to 18. We have abolished provisions removing from aliens, Indians, Eskimos and inmates of mental hospitals the disabilities which they suffered under the legislation before these amendments came into effect. We have abolished provincial residence requirements. We have abolished provisions for recovery from estates. We have abolished provisions which existed until 1947 by which married couples who were both blind received only half their

pensions. So in these and in countless other ways I think the administration has shown its concern and its desire to improve the welfare of the blind citizens of Canada.
There need be nothing else said on this occasion. When we reach the discussion stage of the bill we can go into some particulars already discussed, answer certain suggestions that have been made, and deal with the problem in a more specific way. But at this resolution stage I would want to join on behalf of the government with those who have taken part in the debate in noting the progress that has been made. Notwithstanding the criticism which may be levelled at what the government has done in this particular or in others, I think we may all say with conviction that every Canadian can feel proud that through this measure he is doing something to help those of his fellow citizens who bear the heavy handicap of blindness.
In time we can hope that medical science will prevent more people from losing their sight. We can be confident that new drugs and new skills will be developed to lead others back from the unending night of blindness; but those Canadians who are now without the faculty of sight and those who will lose it in the years ahead will continue, I know, to receive our admiration, our concern and our support. They can be sure of our unfailing and continuing help.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a brief word or two. First of all, I should like to congratulate the minister on the introduction of this legislation. It has already been stated that everybody is in agreement with it. I realize that at this time, in connection with the other legislation, it may not be possible to remove the means test entirely, but this is a step in the right direction. Perhaps a great many people in the country do not favour the removal of the means test in every phase of social security.
In this case I have had many resolutions sent to me from branches of the women's institute and various other organizations who favour the removal of the means test altogether. My own point of view is that when, some time in the future, financial conditions are such that the government feels able to remove the means test, the reason for doing so may very well be this. Since in this country equalization of opportunity is one of the principles on which the democratic way of life is based, and since the loss of a person's eyesight is the loss of one of his most valuable assets, a pension in a small way compensates a person for the loss of this

valuable physical asset and helps to make up for the opportunities he would otherwise have enjoyed.
There is one suggestion I should like to make for the consideration of the minister, and it is this. It is my understanding that, for the purposes of primary and, as it is sometimes called, secondary education the facilities now in existence are quite adequate for the blind. However, for those who are extremely ambitious and who have superior intelligence-and as the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe has pointed out, many persons who are blind have a high degree of intelligence and, because of their disability, have a great deal of ambition-some type of facility should be provided to enable them to have books printed in braille in order that they may advance to university education.
I realize that it would be impossible for universities all over the country to have these books, as they are extremely costly. I suggest for the minister's consideration that possibly the national library might be enabled to provide books giving advanced information in the arts and sciences and in technical fields, and that these books in braille might be sent out on loan to the universities. Or as an alternative-although I think this is a less meritorious suggestion-possibly one university could be designated as the recipient or holder of these books, and blind persons desirous of obtaining a university education could go to that university.
Those are just suggestions. I hope the minister will take them into consideration.
(Translation) :


Mr. Dufresne:: Mr. Chairman, I will take but a few minutes of the time of the house to make a few observations to the government regarding the resolution now before the house, and more particularly to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). Like all hon. members who have spoken before me, I wholeheartedly endorse this innovation and especially the resolution.
I will take the liberty-as I think this is a fitting occasion-of congratulating in a special way the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, which has played an important part in bringing considerable assistance to the unfortunate victims of, blindness.
Like those who have spoken before me, I would ask the government whether it would not be possible to lower the age of entitlement to the pension from 18 to 16 years, as requested a few moments ago.
Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that between the ages of 16 and 18 is the time
Blind Persons Act
when a child is most in need of a pension, especially if he belongs to a large family. I might tell the minister that the constituency which I have the honour to represent is a working class constituency, with large families, several members of which are afflicted with this unfortunate disease.
May I therefore make the following suggestion? If to receive the family allowance a child has only to be born, or again if to receive the old age pension one has only to reach the age of 70, I fail to see why any blind person, of whatever age, could not receive the blind pension from the moment medical science declares that person to be blind. Even in the case of a child under 16 the blind pension could be paid immediately in lieu of the family allowance paid until then.
Mr. Chairman, I might perhaps be allowed to suggest something to the minister. Many are those-there are some in my riding and I would like in particular to submit one case to the minister-who are not truly blind in a medical sense. However, the weakness of their eyesight prevents them from being gainfully employed. Nobody wants to hire them. May I be permitted to refer to the case I just mentioned and point out to the minister that a young fellow in my riding, a member of the Association for the Blind and a recipient of their help, requested a pension but was found ineligible under the law as a blind person, his eyesight being better than the minimum by one or two tenths, so that he is no longer considered to be blind, no longer belongs to the association and is left without any help from them as well as from the government. He is therefore reduced to public beggary.
I urge the government, which has just made a step in the right direction, to take a close look at this act in order to see if it would not be possible to make medical exams not quite so strict, so that those who are blind but are not recognized as completely blind under the Blind Persons Act may get some assistance.
Once more I unreservedly congratulate the minister on the presentation of this resolution. It is indeed a great step in the right direction, and I hope that the suggestions which have been made by some members of the opposition will enable the minister to draft the bill so as to bring another measure of relief to those whom Providence has not favoured in that respect.
(Text):


Mr. Zaplitny:: I have only a brief word I want to add, Mr. Chairman. I am, of course, in support of everything that has been said on this side of the house, and I do not need

Blind Persons Act
to repeat it. However, there is one phase of the legislation that has not been touched upon and to which I should like to refer, namely the residence qualification. I understand that at the present time it is required that the applicant must have lived in Canada ten years before the date of his application. I realize that there are similar provisions in our other social security legislation, but in this type of disability I believe there is a special case to consider.
When immigrants arrive in Canada they are obliged to pass a medical examination. If that examination is at all thorough and efficient their eyesight is tested. I believe it would be altogether justifiable to reduce that figure to five years. A while ago, when he was replying to some of the comments made in this chamber, the minister drew attention to the fact that Canadian citizens feel they would like to take an equal share in assisting their fellow citizens. After a person has been in Canada for five years he becomes a Canadian citizen if he has fulfilled all other qualifications, and I believe that would be the proper time at which to extend to that person the same rights and privileges that are extended to any other person in Canada.
I make a plea to the minister to consider the reduction of the residence qualification from ten years to five. There are many supporting arguments I could use in so urging, but I do not think it is necessary for me to do so. The minister is quite aware of the problem, and I can only hope he will give some consideration to the question before the bill is introduced in the house.


Mr. Montgomery:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to take very much time, but I notice that no one from our part of the country has spoken in favour of the resolution. We are just as much in favour of the legislation as anyone else. I believe the minister should be commended, and if there had been others here from my own province
and the maritimes generally I know they would have commended him for this amendment to the act. We have a school for the blind in Halifax.
I wish to concur in what has been said by other speakers this evening. I think the minister's explanation as to the age of qualification, which was one thing that was bothering me, is very satisfactory. I believe we should consider all people who have disabilities on equal terms. I think his explanation was satisfactory to those who felt that the age might have been reduced below 18, and that it is wise to deal with these people on the same terms as others.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Harris (for Mr. Martin) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 350, to amend the Blind Persons Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I announced before we adjourned at Easter, we shall begin the budget debate tomorrow. However, I said at that time that we would continue with it through this week. I should like to make an amendment to that, having in mind the fact that we did not complete the external affairs debate, as I expected we would, before we adjourned. Therefore the order of business this week will be the budget debate tomorrow and Wednesday. We will resume the external affairs debate Thursday afternoon and continue with it until it is completed.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 9.56 p.m.

Tuesday, April 19, 1955