1955-03-17

Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to record my personal protest, and I think that in so doing I express the feeling of most members in this house, against a glaring injustice reported by the newspapers yesterday afternoon.
I have in mind an arbitrary sentence passed in Montreal yesterday on a Canadian who is an example to the youth of this country, by his courage, his daring and his exceptional-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows perfectly well that all the remarks he made from the moment I rose to call him to order will not be recorded in Hansard. Secondly, it is not within the province of a member of parliament to raise a question of privilege in order to protest against a decision of this kind rendered in Montreal, against anyone.
(Text) :



SAINT PATRICK'S DAY


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William):: Mr. Speaker, on this fine day we bring to you greetings and we wish a happy day to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and other leaders and hon. members. Our wish to you is that you shall be as sober, sensible and successful as was Saint Patrick.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Regier:: How does the dominion bureau of statistics arrive at an estimate of tourist spending in Canada?


Mr. Dickey:: In estimating travel expenditures in Canada average expenditure rates per person or per vehicle are applied to the volume of various 50433-133
types of traffic. Average expenditure rates are obtained by sample questionnaires and figures on volume of traffic are based on a count made by Canadian customs and immigration officers of all non-residents of Canada as they enter the country. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the traffic it is necessary to sort out heavy spending categories from light spending categories and to apply suitable expenditure rates to the volume of each type of travel. Where possible, classifications already in use by Canadian customs and immigration officials are made use of and supplementary procedures are used where existing classifications do not provide a suitable breakdown of traffic. Separate records of arrivals from overseas are maintained by immigration officials according to country of last residence and type of transportation.
Customs regulations require the use of a traveller's vehicle permit for all vehicles which remain in Canada longer than 48 hours or which travel beyond the jurisdiction of the port of entry. This is the most important of all types of traffic entering Canada and is subjected to a very thorough examination. Principal items appearing on the permits are transferred to mechanical tabulation cards which enables a detailed analysis of this type of traffic. Heavy spending groups such as summer residents, commuters, and locals are sorted out and appropriate rates of expenditure applied. The remaining permits are subjected to a further breakdown by which the large number of cars which stay one day and two days are handled separately from the smaller number which stay for longer visits. Full detail is also made available for this group of longer term visitor. The source of the average expenditure rate is the question on the back of the traveller's vehicle permit asking how much was spent in Canada for all purposes, such as gas, oil, repairs, lodging, food, beverages, merchandise, amusements, etc. Although this is a voluntary question an answer is given on over 60 per cent of the permits.
The remainder of the non-resident automobiles not required to apply for travellers' vehicle permits is heavy in volume but the rate of spending is low due to the short visit and local nature of the traffic and is treated separately from the permit type. The expenditures of this group also are estimated on the basis on a substantial sample of reported expenditures.

Questions
Persons arriving by common carrier are classified by type of transportation used, namely, train, boat, through bus and plane. Sample expenditures are collected by the United States department of commerce and the average rates for each type of traffic are furnished to the dominion bureau of statistics. Appropriate adjustments are made to the records of the volume of entries by common carrier to deal with purely in-transit traffic where expenditures in Canada are negligible.
All United States travellers to Canada, not already referred to, are grouped into a residual class called "other travellers". This group consists of persons proceeding on foot or by ferry, taxi, motorcycle, bicycle or local bus. This group is also treated separately from other types of traffic as the average rate of expenditure is much lower than other types.


C.N.R. TOTAL AND SHOP EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What was the level of total employment on
the Canadian National Railways at the middle of each of the following months:	August 1954,
September 1954, October 1954, November 1954, December 1954, January 1955 and February 1955?
2.	What was the level of shop employment on the Canadian National Railways at the middle of each of the following months: August 1954, September 1954, October 1954, November 1954, December 1954, January 1955 and February 1955?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The	Canadian
National Railways	advise as follows:	
1.	System	Canadian LinesAugust 1954 ..	.. 122,043	111,192September 1954	.. 120,458	109,756October 1954 . .	.. 119,394	108,659November 1954	.. 118,691	108,490December 1954	.. 117,074	106,981January 1955 ..	.. 113,452	103,4342.	System	CanadianMain Shops	Lines Main ShopsAugust 1954 . . .	... 10,240	9,394September 1954	.. 10,264	9,351October 1954 . .	. .. 10,130	9,273November 1954	. .. 9,998	9,242December 1954	.. . 9,200	8,442January 1955 .	.. . 9,218	8,457The figures are	not available	yet for the
month of February, 1955.


C.N.R. TOTAL AND SHOP EMPLOYMENT, WINNIPEG AREA
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	In what area, division or section is the Winnipeg area included with respect to statistics maintained by the Canadian National Railways?
2.	What was the level of total employment on the Canadian National Railways in this area,

division or section at the middle of each of the following months: January 1953, July 1953, January 1954, July 1954, August 1954, September 1954, October 1954, November 1954, December 1954, January 1955 and February 1955?
3. What was the level of shop employment on the Canadian National Railways in this area, division or section at the middle of each of the following months: January 1953, July 1953, January 1954, July 1954, August 1954, September 1954, October 1954, November 1954, December 1954, January 1955 and February 1955?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1. The Winnipeg area is included in the
western region.
2.	January 1953	 36,729
July 1953	 38,989
January	1954	 34,581
July 1954	 35,600
August 1954	 35,795
September 1954	 35,454
October	1954	 35,257
November 1954	 34,957
December 1954	 33,772
January	1955	
31,9513.	January	1953	
4,501July 1953	
4,442January	1954	
4,144July 1954	
3,413August 1954	
3,119September 1954	
3,199October	1954	
3,203November 1954	
3,181December 1954	
2,929January	1955	
2,955
The employment level figures on the basis of a mid-month tabulation for the month of February are not yet available.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS OFFICIALS
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many vice presidents did the Canadian National Railways have in 1949?
2.	How many vice presidents have the Canadian National Railways today?
3.	How many superintendents were in the employ of the Canadian National Railways in 1949?
4.	Flow many superintendents are in the employ of the Canadian National Railways today?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1. 12.
2. 10.
3.	47.
4.	48.


T.C.A. TRIP CYCLES
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has any change been made in the cycle of trips assigned to pilots flying Trans-Canada Air Lines aircraft between Montreal and Toronto on the one hand and Bermuda and Tampa, Florida,

on the other, since the crash of a Super Constellation aircraft near Brampton, Ontario, on its return from Tampa, Florida, on December 17, 1954?
2.	If so, what were the details of any such
change?
3.	On what date was any such change made?
4.	If no change in this cycle of trips has been made, is any change under consideration?


John Horace Dickey: On January 5 a cycle change was made due to the fact that the loss of the Super Constellation at Brampton, coupled with the continuation of six weekly trans-Atlantic and one daily transcontinental Super Constellation flights required the exclusive use of North Stars on the services to Tampa and therefore a crew routing change, due to the difference in flying speeds of the two aircraft.
On January 10 a routine cycle change was made affecting the pilots' 'reserve' day.
On January 27 a further cycle change was made as at that time the usual seasonal reduction from six to five weekly services was made in the trans-Atlantic service, and this in turn permitted the use of Super Constellations again on the Tampa services, which in turn called for the reapplication of a cycle similar to that in effect prior to January 5.
On February 20 another cycle change was instituted eliminating a week-end crew layover at Tampa.
The cycle changes associated with the temporary substitution of North Star for Super Constellation equipment are unusual. The other changes are quite normal. Crew cycles alter frequently during the year, as changes are made in timetables, flight frequency and flight routing. No consideration is being given to any over-all reduction in pilots' on-duty time or airborne time from the figures called for in the current company agreement with the Canadian air line pilots' association, the terms of which in respect to maximum hours of flying have been in force for some years.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Sianton:: How many years back can the income tax inspectors of the divisional taxation offices check on the income and expenditures of the individual income taxpayer of Canada?


Mr. McCann:: The officers of the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue can check on the income and expenditures of a taxpayer in Canada for the purpose of assessing
tax-
(a)	at any time, if the taxpayer or person filing the return has made any misrepresentation or committed any fraud
Questions
in filing the return or supplying information under the Income Tax Act, and
(b)	within six years from the date of an original assessment in any other case.


C.N.R.-TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
Mr. Diefenbaker:: How many employees were in the employ of the Canadian National Railways on the 28th day of February, 1955?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: The Canadian
National Railways maintains a record of its employment level each month on the basis of a mid-month tabulation, and employment figures for the month of February, 1955, are not yet available.
FARMS NOT UNDER CULTIVATION Mr. Boisvert:
How many farms in each province of Canada were not under cultivation in each of the years, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954?


John Horace Dickey: Information not available. The 1951 census did not provide information on vacant or abandoned farms which were not under cultivation and no estimate has been made of their number for the years 1950-1954 inclusive.
MENTAL ILLNESS Mr. Macnaughton:
What steps is the Department of National Health and Welfare taking to assist the provinces to develop a program for the treatment and prevention of mental illness?


Mr. Robertson:: In its determined effort to reduce mental illness, the Department of National Health and Welfare has each year since 1948, when the national health grants program was established, set aside the largest single grant in the program-more than $7 million this year-for mental health grant purposes. These grants, aimed at developing community mental health programs on a nation-wide scale, are given to the provinces for a variety of uses as follows:
(a)	To assist mental hospitals with personnel and equipment.
(b)	To establish and support mental health and child guidance clinics.
(c)	To provide psychiatric services in general hospitals.
(d)	To support research into mental illness, te) To train key mental health personnel, (f) To increase services at the provincial
level.


IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Balcom:: Of immigrants entering Canada by ship in the period December 1954 to March 1, 1855, what

Orders for Returns
number came through: (a) the port of Halifax, Nova Scotia; (b) the port of Saint John, New Brunswick; (c) the port of Quebec, Quebec?


Mr. Pickersgill:: For period December 1,
1954 to March 1, 1955: (a) Halifax, N. S.- 8,252; (b) Saint John, N. B.-662; (c) Quebec, Que.-840.


COAL SUBVENTIONS
Mr. Brooks:: What amounts of money were paid in subventions for coal mined in and shipped out of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Alberta, respectively, for the calendar year 1954?


Mr. Prudham:: The amounts of money paid in subventions for coal mined and shipped out of the undernoted fields, respectively, for the calendar year 1954, were as follows: Nova Scotia, $8,790,557.36; New Brunswick, $141,513.37; Alberta and British Columbia Crowsnest pass area, $2,982,346.87; Alberta and British Columbia (export and bunker), $531.75.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


ENTOMOLOGISTS


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: 1.	How many full time entomologists were employed by the federal government in each province, and at what cost, in each of the years, 1952, 1953 and 1954, by (a) science service; (b) experimental farm service?
2.	How many full time weed control specialists were employed by the federal government in each province, and at what cost, in each of the years, 1952, 1953 and 1954, by (a) science service; (b) experimental farm service?



PENSION PLANS

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many pension plans in Canada, covering firms with 50 or more employees, include any provision for the employee to transfer his pension rights, including his own and the employer's contribution, to some other employment?
2.	Is the government taking any steps to facilitate the mobility or transferability of pension rights so far as employees (a) in private industry; (b) in public service, are concerned?
3.	If no action is being taken in regard to either (a) or (b) above, is the matter being studied? If so, to what extent, and what are the results of such studies thus far?



MEAT INSPECTORS

Mr. Bryce:: 1.	How many meat inspectors does the federal government employ?
2.	What packing plants are they employed at and how many at each plant?
3.	What is the longest period for an inspector at any one plant since 1945?
4. What is the average time an inspector is employed at any one plant?
5. What is the general rotating program of inspectors from plant to plant?



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT OF DATE OF PRELIMINARY MEETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will probably be interested to learn that April 26 has now been definitely arranged as the opening date for the preliminary meeting of the dominion-provincial conference. The dates of April 21 and 22 which were suggested originally were found by two of the premiers to be difficult to agree to. Their views were communicated to the other premiers and this morning I received the last answer that April 26 would be agreeable to all the provincial premiers, and I have notified them accordingly that this date has now been definitely set.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: May I
ask the Prime Minister how many days have been set aside for this preliminary conference?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No special number of days have been set aside. We will meet on the 26th as a conference of ten provincial premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada, and the course of the conference will be determined by the participants.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: In view of the statements made publicly by more than one provincial premier that it was desired to discuss the unemployment situation and the formula that can be accepted for responsibility for the unemployed, may I ask the Prime Minister if he has anything to report to the house in connection with the great interest there is in that particular aspect of their mutual discussions?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not have a special report on that aspect of the problem. It certainly is one of the important aspects of the fiscal relations between the dominion and the provinces.



SUGGESTED REINSTATEMENT OF ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if in connection with the interprovincial conference he has just referred to any representations have been received in the recent past from any of the provinces to the effect that the economic committee set up at the 1945-1946 conference should meet in advance of the

dominion-provincial conference, and if so what attitude the dominion government took to that suggestion?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have no recollection of any such representations, but before making a formal assertion I think it would be prudent for me to examine the letters I have received from the other premiers in respect of this dominion-provincial conference. I will do that as soon as I can find an opportunity to do so.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I
wonder if the Minister of Finance could give us any information as to the date when the budget will be brought down. Many people are awaiting this announcement with a mixture of hope and anxiety.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot as yet announce the date when the budget will be brought down.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of current press reports can the minister say whether or not the government is in a position to make an announcement regarding the trans-Canada pipe line?


An hon. Member:: No.


Walter Edward Harris: The answer has already been given; no.



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Is his department at the present time preparing a geographical atlas of Canada to be published in the near future? If so, is this atlas to be published in both languages?


George Prudham: Mr. Speaker, the atlas of Canada will be published in both languages.
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



CANADIAN WELFARE COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. On February 22 I asked the Prime Minister what consideration the government was giving to an invitation of the Canadian Welfare Council to the federal and provincial governments to meet and discuss the subject of relief for unemployed employables. He said the matter was under consideration, and I wonder if he could now answer my question.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I do not have with me a copy of the letter which I received this morning from the president of the welfare council. In it he informed me that in view of the announcement of the proposed dominion-provincial conference in April he had informed the premiers of the provinces that the welfare council no longer proposed to hold the meeting that had been suggested for April 1.



PHYSICAL FITNESS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister of health and welfare. In view of the news item published in the Tuesday, March 15 issue of the Winnipeg Free Press, a copy of which I have sent him, will the minister comment on the statement of Hon. R. W. Bend, minister of health and welfare for the province of Manitoba, that he had received denials from the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia that the federal government had given them any notice of intent to repeal the national physical fitness act?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. There is nothing I can add to what I have already said, except to say that what I have already said represents what did take place.
Long before steps were taken in this house to repeal the physical fitness act an intimation of our intention had been given by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in announcing the agenda for that session of parliament. When the repeal did take place no

Inquiries of the Ministry complaint was registered by any provinces whatsoever with the exception of the province of Saskatchewan, as I indicated a few weeks ago. The only declared disagreement about the action taken not only by the government but by parliament as a whole, including the hon. member, was about a month ago when he called my attention to something that had been said in the legislature of the province of Manitoba.


Owen C. Trainor: Are we to infer from what the minister says that the minister of health and welfare for the province of Manitoba is in error?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just another Liberal.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If it was a Liberal it would be one of the few occasions when a Liberal was in error.


Mr. F. S. Zapliiny (Dauphin):: Arising out
of the minister's reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg South I should like to ask this supplementary question. Were the governments of the provinces notified of the decision of the federal government to repeal the physical fitness act, or were they left to conclude that this had been done from what appeared in the newspapers?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member repeat his last observation?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Were the provincial governments officially notified by the federal government that it was the intention of the federal government to repeal this physical fitness act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know what my hon. friend means when he says "officially". If he means was there a message from Prime Minister to premier, I must inform him that there certainly was not, nor was there an official letter from me as the Minister of National Health and Welfare to any other minister. As my hon. friend knows, the national physical fitness act was administered in part by a council on physical fitness. In the early part of 1953 it was indicated to the members of the council that it was not the intention of the government to replace the members of the national physical fitness council, and it was not our intention to carry on that body. There is not an official in any welfare department in Canada who can say he was not aware constructively of our views in the matter.
It is unfair to suggest that the provinces have had no notice of this intention. We gave them a year's grace once the agreements


came to an end. We received no protests until a month ago. I do not think I need say any more about it.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fernand Girard (Lapointe):: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the statement made by the Prime Minister that his speech did not use the term "official" for the red ensign, is it the intention of the minister to ask for any correction in the news report of the British United Press published in La Presse of Montreal on March 10, which states that the minister did say the red ensign was the official flag of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think it
is within the sphere of activities of this house to ask a minister if he intends to ask newspapers to make corrections concerning a statement he is alleged to have made.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Yesterday the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) inquired about hangar storage rates.
Charges for storage of aircraft in hangars at Department of Transport airports are to be increased, effective April 1, 1955, in accordance with regulations approved by order in council P.C. 1955-128, dated January 26, 1955. The new charges represent the first increase in eight years in hangar storage rates and are attributable to increased operating costs. The new charges are to be based on the area required to store the aircraft instead of on wing span only.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: I
should like to ask a supplementary question arising from the reply of the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the deterrent effect this change in rates will have on light craft aviation in Canada?


George Carlyle Marler: 

MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to extend the benefits of the Municipal Grants Act and to provide for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, this resolution appeared on the order paper last year and, for reasons which I think were well known at the time, it was not possible to proceed with it during last session. It is the same resolution substantially, and the same results will ensue that would have followed upon the passage of the legislation last year. However, some slight change has been made in it and, because this is an extremely complicated statute and permits the payment of moneys for several different reasons to municipalities, I propose to read a statement as to what the legislation will bring about.
Hon. members will recall that the Municipal Grants Act providing for grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes came into effect on June 30, 1951, and its predecessor, the municipal grants regulations, on January 1, 1950.
It will be remembered that the act provides for three kinds of grants: ordinary or annual grants in lieu of real property taxes; transitional grants which provide a measure of relief to municipalities for loss of real property tax revenue in cases where taxable property has been acquired by the federal government after December 31, 1948; and grants in lieu of special assessments for local improvements.
The grants authorized by the act are related to federal properties considered necessary for the functioning of government. Such items as parks, monuments and museums are excluded and also harbour works, canals and similar engineering works. Properties administered by crown corporations, commissions, boards or agencies established to perform special functions are also excluded since these agencies have been instructed to make arrangements directly with municipalities for payments in lieu of taxes that are fair and equitable.
The program has been in effect for five years. During that period the grant formula has given reasonable satisfaction and the payments have assisted materially those municipalities which contain an abnormal concentration of federal property within their
Municipal Grants Act boundaries. This abnormal concentration has hitherto been defined as an amount of federal property exceeding 4 per cent in value of the total value of taxable and federal property in a municipality. At present 48 municipalities are in receipt of annual grants.
It is now felt that in the light of the experience gained in the administration of the act, the scope of these grants ought to be broadened so that a larger number of municipalities may qualify for these annual grants. It is proposed to increase this number by reducing the minimum percentage factor from 4 per cent to 2 per cent. The bill will also liberalize the formula in two other ways. The first will increase the payments by relating the grant to the ratio of federal property to taxable property only, instead of the ratio of federal property to taxable and federal property combined. The second will remove the 75 per cent factor. The combined effect will be to calculate the grants at the full real property tax rate.
These are the most important changes proposed in the bill, and they relate to the annual grants paid under section 5 of the act. Another change will make it clear that ornamental features which add substantially to cost, but not to functional utility, are to be excluded from the assessment base of annual grants.
It is also proposed to exclude certain buildings and the land appurtenant thereto from the property covered by the Ottawa grant, and make instead a separate grant related to the cost to the city of servicing that property. This treatment would be more in conformity with the grants paid by the United Kingdom government on the houses of parliament in London and other buildings.
It is further proposed to exclude Indian reserves from the definition of federal property, because our experience has been that recognition of the value of municipal services can best be dealt with by the government department supervising the reserves.
No substantial changes are proposed for the second and third kinds of grant to which I have referred, which are described in section 6 and section 7 of the act. However, in one respect the scope of both these grants has been enlarged. The present act excludes from a grant properties which, after acquisition by the crown, are put to such public uses as parks, historical sites, etc., which are by definition not federal property. The bill will permit grants under section 6 and section 7 relating to properties in this category notwithstanding their exclusion from the base of annual grants under section 5.
Under a further amendment, the minister may direct that crown property occupied by
2108	HOUSE OF
Municipal Grants Act a taxable tenant shall be included as federal property. This permits the inclusion in the grant base of such properties as married quarters developments, provided the municipality forgoes its right to tax the occupants. The government of Ontario, where the situation applies, has undertaken to provide the municipalities with the necessary powers in this matter.
Among the other amendments of lesser importance is a provision which makes it clear that a deduction may be made from an annual grant where the crown provides a normal municipal service to taxable property in the municipality. Examples are: Parks provided to the city of Ottawa by the federal district commission and fire protection provided to the city of Halifax by the naval fireboat.
The present act permits a municipality which qualifies for an annual grant to elect whether it will apply for a section 6 grant on real property recently acquired by the crown in right of Canada or whether it will instead include such property in the base for the annual grant. A provision in the bill will declare this option no longer available to the municipality. Since the annual grant will be equivalent to full taxes on the excess over 2 per cent this change will not occasion any significant loss to the municipality, but will simplify administration of the act.
The bill amends section 7 by removing a restriction which precluded a local improvement grant if the cost of the improvement had been levied as a special rate on the assessed value of the taxable property in the area of benefit, a method which is occasionally used by some municipalities. The change is not expected to increase local improvement grants to any significant extent.
The bill will also provide statutory authority for the annual grants to municipalities, instituted in 1952 pursuant to the rural municipal grants regulations and covered by an item in the estimates. These rural grants may be paid to municipalities containing or adjacent to those containing military stations on which reside federal employees. Payments made under these regulations are based on loss of taxes on lands used for military bases. The purpose is to reimburse them for unusual wear and tear caused to their roads by traffic from such stations and other incidental costs occasioned by the presence of such stations. Such municipalities could not qualify for annual grants under the Municipal Grants Act because they do not normally provide any municipal services of an urban type. This program started in 1952, and during the fiscal year 1953-54 the number of
(Mr. Harris.]

stations on which payments are being made is 24, involving 44 rural municipalities.
Aggregate payments to municipalities since the present act came into force are as follows:
1951-	1952	
$2,038,0001952-	1953	
2,495,000
97,000*
2,592,000
1953-	1954	  2,687,000
288,000*

Rural grants.
The changes proposed in the bill will about double the amounts being paid at the present time under section 5 of the act. All municipalities receiving grants at the present time will get increases in varying amounts depending on the percentage concentration of federal property in the municipalities concerned. I cannot give exact figures of the number of municipalities that will now come in under the scheme of annual grants. Municipalities will have to apply for the grants and submit their figures, and these figures will have to be checked. Preliminary estimates indicate that 45 to 55 municipalities will qualify in addition to the 48 now receiving annual grants. It is not expected that the amount of payments under sections 6 and 7 will be affected significantly.
The new measure will have effect as from January 1, 1955, and apply to the tax years of applicant municipalities commencing on and after that date.
It is estimated that the total payments for the fiscal year 1955-56 under the municipal grants legislation will be in the neighbourhood of $6 million.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few quite brief observations on the resolution. I think we can safely say that the minister is at least moving in the right direction, but the question is whether he has made any great progress. If my arithmetic is correct, the amount which will go to municipalities under the new legislation is something in the neighbourhood of $5 million.


An hon. Member:: Six million.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In other words it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of one one-thousandth of our total expenditure. I want to make a few observations going back to the original statement made by the minister's predecessor in 1949, because it seems to me that it got us off on the wrong foot. These payments have been regarded as ex gratia payments. That is clear from what the then

minister of finance said on November 14, 1949, as found at page 1704 of Hansard:
* * . in any program of federal grants in lieu of municipal taxes, it would be unfair to municipalities generally to base the grants on acceptance by the central government of responsibility for a full equivalent of ordinary taxes.
That does not seem to me a self-evident proposition at all. I do not intend to labour it. I am merely going to point out that it seems to me that background affects the whole thinking about this matter and really gives the government the comfortable feeling that if they do anything at all they are doing more than they are called on to do, and they feel full of virtue for whatever is done, however small it may be. I am not going to deal with the legal right of tax exemptions for crown property which has existed and which is confirmed by the British North America Act. The case of Great Britain has been instanced, but my understanding of the relationship of the unitary state of Britain with its municipalities is that it is infinitely closer than the relationship here; that the central government there has constant regard for the position of the municipalities, and therefore that illustration is really meaningless for all practical purposes.
Another thing which seems meaningless to me is the arbitrary figure of 4 per cent, now reduced to 2 per cent. The mere fact that a municipality has more than an average amount of federal property within its area does not necessarily mean it is the most necessitous municipality at all. It may be the municipality which needs help the least. We heard the other day of a municipality in New Brunswick where the children are not able to go to school because of the poverty of the municipality. I do not know whether or not there is federal property in that area, but if there is that is certainly a case where the need is superlatively great.
It seems to me it is perfectly clear that since confederation the burden on the municipalities has grown greater, just as the complexity of life has become greater. Municipalities have to do all kinds of things they did not have to do in 1867; but even if there had been no change, even if we had had no inflation of money, even if we had had no huge increase in federal taxation, I still think there would be a case for some assistance to municipalities.
But when we review the extraordinary change that has taken place in tax revenue to my mind the argument becomes infinitely stronger. For example, in the years between 1930 and 1948 dominion taxes went up by 718 per cent, in other words more than seven times. Provincial taxes rose by 303 per cent, in other words three times. Municipal 50433-134
Municipal Grants Act taxes only went up by 50 per cent; in other words they were only half as much again as they were in 1930. The percentage of taxes is also illuminating. In 1930 the dominion took 38 per cent of all taxes, whereas in 1947 the figure was 67 per cent and the share of the municipalities was correspondingly lower. In 1930 they got 39 per cent and in 1948 only 12-7 per cent.
The question arises whether the representatives of the dominion will say to the municipalities that they should go ahead and increase their taxes. Is that the answer? I think the dominion authorities would be very slow to say that is the answer, because we are told that already municipal taxes are so high they are making things difficult for young home owners. The house building program has been worked out with very close regard to the burden of municipal taxation, and I think it is extremely unlikely that any serious person will argue that municipal taxes should be greatly increased.
I come now to the proposal of the government. The dominion is proposing to pay somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5 or $6 million. Real estate taxes collected by municipalities last year were some $614 million. If you take the calculation of 4 per cent as the average amount of property owned by the dominion, then of the $614 million the dominion should pay about $24 million. I give that purely as a rough and ready figure of what might be taken as a reasonable calculation from these figures.
We come to the question of crown corporations. I know it is not strictly relevant, because we are talking here about property owned by the crown; nevertheless the situation with regard to crown corporations is affected by the attitude of the government because crown corporations are also apparently made to feel that they are not in the position of ordinary taxpayers, but are told to make a reasonable deal. That is not what the ordinary taxpayer does. He would like to make a deal which seems reasonable to him but he has to pay the amount exacted. It seems to me very hard to argue that when a corporation comes into a municipality and may be competing with other people doing business in the municipality it is not to be regarded as an ordinary taxpayer but as a specially privileged taxpayer that negotiates with the municipality with the expectation-and I imagine in many cases the result-that it will get off very much easier than the ordinary taxpayer. I do not see any real argument in favour of that, yet it seems to me that we have come very near to that position.
2110	HOUSE OF
Municipal Grants Act
There are some questions I should like to ask later, but I do not think I shall detain the committee longer at the present time. As I said, this legislation undoubtedly is a move in the right direction; but if you take cognizance of the difficulties municipalities are having-and I am not going to detain the committee to consider that now-it is hard to believe that an additional $2i million or thereabouts is going to go very far to meet a situation which we are assured by many most competent people in municipal life is serious enough at all times, and at the present time is greatly accentuated by the fact that the unemployment situation is in such a state of chaos. Being in a state of chaos, I think there is no question whatever that the people who have to take the rap at the moment are those who are closest to the situation, namely, the municipal authorities; so whether or not they are eventually relieved, at the present time their burden is added to.
So, Mr. Chairman, while I welcome this as a step in the right direction, it does seem to me offhand that it is hard to believe this small amount can go very far toward meeting the situation which exists. I hope later on the minister will tell us whether or not he believes the answer is for the municipalities to go ahead and increase their taxes. I think that is all I wish to say at the moment.


Mr. Argue:: We all naturally welcome any move that will result in some improvement in the financial position of our municipalities. As has already been pointed out, this measure will do very little to help solve the very grave problems that are faced by municipalities from one end of Canada to the other. The fact is that today municipal finance is in a critical state. The federal government has ample fields of taxation from which it can meet its responsibilities. The provinces have a narrower field, but they too have a much better opportunity to obtain the revenue necessary to fulfil their responsibilities. But when you come to the municipalities, I do not care in which province you look, almost without exception the municipalities are having a desperate time attempting to obtain sufficient revenues to meet their very important responsibilities. The cost of municipal improvements, such as improving streets, the cost of public works services, the cost of education, are all tremendous when compared to municipal revenues.
I wish in this measure the government had removed the 2 per cent provision entirely. I believe the federal government should pay municipal taxes on all government property. It is already being done in 

the United Kingdom, and Canada should not be lagging in this respect behind a country that faces all the financial problems-the much graver financial problems-that Britain faces.
Other countries have done better in many respects. I have looked over the provisions made by the United States government, which go a long way toward assisting urban municipalities in improving their streets through grants under a highway program. The amount spent by the United States federal government by way of grants for the purpose of improving traffic facilities within urban municipalities adds up to $175 million per year. If you compare even that one thing to what we are doing under this measure, related of course to our population, you can see that what we are doing in this country does not go nearly far enough.
The reason our municipalities are having difficulty in obtaining sufficient revenues is that their taxing power is confined almost exclusively to real property. The burden of taxation on real property, particularly homes, in almost all municipalities in Canada has reached a peak or what should be a peak. If you have high property taxes in any urban area it makes the problem of some slum clearance and home improvement very difficult to solve.
I have not been able quickly to find up to date statistics of the revenue position of the municipalities and provinces as related to the federal government. I have been able to obtain information from the dominion bureau of statistics about municipal revenue for 1952. It appears that the federal government obtains $4,500 million by taxation within Canada. The 10 provinces collect in total about $1,400 million. All the municipalities, that is all the rural municipalities, hamlets, villages, towns and cities in Canada together, collect only $900 million.
According to a rough calculation the percentage of revenue that goes to the federal government is something like 67 per cent; the percentage of the tax revenue dollar that goes to the provinces is about 20 per cent. The amount that goes to the municipalities is about 13 per cent, and out of that small percentage of revenue it is impossible for the municipalities to meet their important obligations such as the improvement of roads, public works and education.
You can pick up a newspaper in almost any city or municipality, whether it be Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton or any other city, and one of the critical problems you find mentioned is the fact that municipalities are finding it almost impossible to collect sufficient money to give their people

adequate services. Anyone can see this situation by walking the streets of almost any city in the country. You find the federal public buildings and provincial public buildings in most instances are adequate and reasonably modern and provide efficient service. But you look at the public buildings owned by our municipalities, look at our municipal halls or our fire stations, and in the vast majority you find the buildings are inadequate.
The federal government has ample sources of revenue, and most provinces are able to get by but municipalities are being starved for revenue. They are in a weak position. The federal government is the giant at the tax revenue table, and it has gobbled up most of the tax revenue dollar. There is precious little left for the municipalities.
As to the provisions of this act, which although inadequate are a short step toward equating the revenue that is available in a somewhat fairer manner, it has been pointed out today that the amount is infinitesimal compared to the total amount of revenue. Even though it is a crumb, it is well that it be taken from the federal government and added to the municipalities. The minister is preparing his budget speech. We are all looking forward to many good things in the budget. The minister is being given advice by members of parliament, municipalities, organizations of mayors and other groups, and I suppose it is the duty of any member of parliament to offer suggestions to him.
Naturally we will all welcome any general tax relief contained in the budget, but I do suggest to the minister that when he is considering important fiscal policy changes and before he goes too far in the way of giving tax relief to large corporations for example he should consider the plight of the municipalities. I think it is far more important as a general principle to reallocate the revenues to those at the table, instead of taking the revenues off the table by reducing taxes of corporations and some other groups in the nation who, in my judgment, do not need additional income as much as do our municipalities.
I put it to the government that the critical financial position of the municipalities today is something for which this government must share some responsibility and to which the government should be giving real attention. Although this measure is a short step in the right direction, it is inadequate and will not result in the municipalities getting any reasonable amount of relief so they can carry on their most important functions.
I do not see how we can have a rapidly expanding economy that will allow Canadians 50433-134J
Municipal Grants Act living in all parts of the country to have adequate services and to provide revenues on a reasonable and fair basis for all levels of government unless the federal government takes real steps to reallocate the tax revenues of the nation. There are some provinces that, under present circumstances, may not be having too much difficulty; but there are others, the have-not provinces, that are in continual financial difficulty; and almost 100 per cent of the municipalities are having financial troubles.
I suggest that the government should bring in additional legislation that would move in the direction of reallocating some of the revenues in this country so the municipalities may be able to discharge their very important responsibilities, and so the burden on real property-I am thinking chiefly of home owners and of farm property in rural municipalities-shall not be increased.


Mr. Low:: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is necessary for me at this time to repeat what has been stressed by hon. members from this side of the house who have spoken already. However, I do wish to say a word or two about the resolution now under consideration.
It would appear from what the minister said this afternoon that the bill to be based upon this resolution will make quite a number of changes in the Municipal Grants Act. Those changes seem to indicate a fairly wide coverage; and so far as I could learn, while listening to the minister as he spoke- rather rapidly, I thought-I would gather that the changes will be for the better. We welcome every single one he has mentioned.
However, I would add my voice to those who have already stated the desperate position in which the municipalities of the country find themselves as a consequence of their very narrow tax base, and the fact that they have to depend for their revenues almost entirely upon taxation of real property. Property owners in the country are now reaching the position where they just do not know which way to turn. Many municipalities are having to levy tax rates as high as 80 mills. Let us consider that for a moment; a tax rate of 80 mills, on a fairly high assessment. This is a terrible burden to carry, when one considers the fact that over a period of 15 or 20 years a person has to pay over to a municipality in taxes an amount equal to the total value of his property. This is a very serious problem, and I suggest to the minister that he should give it careful consideration.
He is making improvements through changes in the act which will make it necessary to pay by way of grants about $6 million. That is fine; but I would suggest that

Municipal Grants Act $6 million is far from the amount the federal government would pay in taxes to the municipalities if federal government properties were all taxed on a reasonable basis of assessment. And I suggest the government of Canada will never reach the point where it can say it is being fair and just in this matter until it is paying by way of grants sufficient to equal the taxes which would be paid to the municipalities at present rates of assessment.
I believe the minister should have gone much further this year than he has gone toward that point. He is going to have to do it one way or another, and it seems to me this Municipal Grants Act is an ideal instrument by which the government could be of some assistance to the municipalities of this country. I suggest, however, that the act is not being used to anything like the extent it could be used. I would point out that the minister might very well follow the example of some of the provinces, which have now assumed the responsibility of paying grants to the municipalities to the extent of the total amount of taxes that would be payable if government properties were assessed on a normal basis within those municipalities. For instance, the province from which I come has done this very thing, and I suggest the minister might take that as an example. When we are considering the bill perhaps he might be prepared to give a somewhat better measure of treatment to the municipalities.
However, I am glad to see this change for the better. Certainly we shall support the resolution and look forward with interest to the introduction of the bill.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, I recall that back in November, 1949, this government announced that grants would be paid to municipalities, in lieu of taxes, on federal property held in those municipalities, under certain circumstances. An order in council was passed in February, 1950, and the Municipal Grants Act was passed in June, 1951, putting into statutory form the provisions of the order in council to which I have referred.
Early in 1950, when I was mayor of a municipality, I made application to the Department of Finance for our share of those grants. However, we could not qualify, even though the crown property held in our municipality comprised one-third of the area of that town.
Let me congratulate the Minister of Finance for proposing to pay grants in lieu of taxes on federal property held in excess of 2 per cent, instead of 4 per cent, of the total assessment of the property in the municipalities.


The former minister of finance is reported as follows at page 4217 of Hansard for 1951: The grants provided by this bill are of three kinds: ordinary grants in lieu of general and school taxes; grants which provide a measure of relief to municipalities for loss of revenue in cases where taxable property has been acquired by federal government and thus converted into tax-free property; and grants in lieu of special assessments for local improvements.
The minister said at that time that the general principles and policies as laid down in this bill had worked out well, and that the municipalities were quite satisfied. With that I agree. I must say that I could not hear the minister very well today, but from what he said I am sure that many more municipalities have qualified for grants and those now receiving grants will receive larger grants.
However, there are other municipalities which I think should be able to qualify for the two types of grants enumerated by the former minister of finance, but they are prevented from doing so because of crown property that is considered to be an aid to navigation. I refer now to the municipalities along the Welland ship canal which, as you know, runs from Port Colborne on lake Erie to Port Weller on lake Ontario and passes through Port Colborne, Welland, Thorold and on to Port Weller.
On previous occasions the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Cavers) and I have spoken on this matter. We have called the attention of hon. members of the house to the fact that there is a great congestion of traffic on highways crossing the canal, and that the different municipalities are put to extra expense on behalf of the people of Canada because of the Welland ship canal. A canal beside or in an international waterway like the St. Lawrence river does not present the same local problems as is the case with the Welland ship canal, which passes overland.
The Welland ship canal interferes with or cuts across some of our natural drainage courses, and it causes a serious traffic problem when the bridges are up for the passage of ships. This is a very real problem in the city of Welland, the town of Port Colborne and on the various congested highways running toward the Niagara frontier. During the navigation season I have waited in a traffic line which stretched back fully three miles from the canal while the bridge was up to permit the passage of a boat. Then before I could reach the bridge after traffic had started it was raised again for another 20 minutes to permit the passage of another boat.
In order to handle the ever-increasing traffic in the Niagara district there should be at least two or three underpasses or overpasses. A check was made about two years

ago in Welland, and it was found by actual clocking that the bridges were up nearly seven hours in one 24-hour period. The same would be true, of course, of every bridge on the canal, but the congestion is worse in the cities and towns and on through highways.
Because of the canal and the frequency with which bridges are raised during the navigation season the municipalities, and particularly the larger municipalities, must hire extra police for the control of traffic. They must provide a duplication of certain services. For instance, they must have Are fighting apparatus and personnel and stations on each side of the canal. This is particularly true of Port Colborne. They must have a sewage disposal plant on each side of the canal. In the case of Welland provision has to be made to bring sewage from one-half of the city under the canal to the sewage disposal plant with expensive installations in order to cross under the canal.
I said earlier that the canal cuts across our natural drainage channels. In the building of the canal provision was not made for a sufficient number of siphons under it. Our townships have become urbanized. One such area in Thorold township has either to lead a large proposed drain containing raw sewage into the waters of the canal above the domestic water intakes for Thorold, Merritton and St. Catharines, or take the expensive course of leading it under the canal into the Welland river beyond the natural drainage outlet.
Four successive Welland canals have been built, and they have not followed the same course throughout their full length. This is particularly so from the top of the Niagara escarpment to lake Ontario. For instance, the last canal followed a course through the main street of Port Colborne and then continued on an entirely new course from the top of the Niagara escarpment to lake Ontario. This has resulted in the department owning much more land than is necessary for the operation of the present canal and it creates many local problems.
The conditions created by the topography of the land necessarily vary from one municipality to another, but I should like to give a brief description of my own town, and some of the features which I shall outline are common to other affected municipalities. The town of Thorold has an area of close to 1,500 acres, and approximately one-third of this acreage is owned as tax-free canal property. This includes the navigable parts of the canal with its locks, weirs, storage basins, power houses, electrical control buildings, waste land, etc.
Municipal Grants Act
Like other such municipalities the town is now coursed by two separate artificial waterways which divide it into three parts. This prevents the town being compact. It must build and maintain roads and other services such as water lines and sewers across the canal property and under the canal itself at considerable expense to the town. Because the town is situated on the brow of the Niagara escarpment the canal contains three sets of twin locks and one single lock. This makes it impossible for industry to make use of this part of the canal; therefore the municipality gets no compensating revenue from industries which might locate there.
Municipal services such as police and fire protection have been provided free to the canal for the last hundred years, or perhaps more. In this section of the canal the boats are necessarily slowed down, which gives an opportunity for the granting of short leaves to members of the crews. It also permits the hiring of some new crews and the discharging of others. Many vagrants come to the area to apply for work on the boats. The administration of justice costs a great deal in this area. I have seen as many as 22 men in our jail at one time. We have to feed them and transport them back and forth to the county jail in Welland. I checked and found that in 1954 our firemen were called out for two drownings, and they fought 25 canal fires-and all this at no charge to the government.
This is quite an item in itself, especially when you consider that the canal authorities pay $450 per call to the St. Catharines fire department when called to the canal to fight a fire. It has always seemed absurd to me that in our town we should have to buy our domestic water from the canal on a unit volume basis, that we must pay rental for running our water lines under their property, and then fight their fires for nothing. That has been going on for years. I do not think it is fair under these conditions to expect a residential area inhabited mainly by small home owners, paper mill workers and pulp mill workers to maintain expensive fire fighting equipment and personnel without some assistance from the government. I would say the government makes use of our fire department probably one-third to one-quarter of the time, in respect to the number of calls and the time spent on such calls.
Instead of the municipalities receiving, as the former minister of finance said, a measure of relief for loss of revenue where taxable property has been acquired by the federal government and thus converted into tax-free property, they are put to great expense in maintaining roads and services across these properties and are expected to
2114	HOUSE OF
Municipal Grants Act continue to provide the fire fighting and other services to which I have referred.
The argument is often advanced that the canal gives local employment. This is true, but the city of Ottawa receives a grant and many civil servants live here. The Welland canal was built for the benefit of all the people of Canada, and I think the people of Canada should help these municipalities to carry the load in connection with the services which are provided.
In the adjacent township of Stamford and in the city of Niagara Falls there is a similar situation. There are the hydro power canal, power houses and a concentration of power lines. The Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario has long recognized this condition and pays substantial sums to the municipalities in lieu of taxes. Successive governments in Ontario have also recognized that the people in these municipalities should not be penalized, when the hydro is for the benefit of all the people in Ontario.
I maintain that the position of the municipalities is similar in this respect.
In closing I would state that the second Welland canal which extends from the top of the Niagara escarpment, through Thorold, Merritton and St. Catharines has not been used for navigation for well over 65 years. Many of these old locks are in the process of disintegrating and some are scarcely holding up. There are stagnant level areas in the canal, and an unpleasant odour permeates the entire district. The stagnant areas of the canal are considered by the department of health of the province of Ontario to be a health menace. I am certain if any hon. members pass through that district at a certain time of year they will find they can easily determine when they are near the old Welland ship canal. The interested municipalities have petitioned the government in connection with the filling in and rehabilitation of the old canal and associated lands. We hope our request will receive fair consideration by the government.
I could not hear the entire statement made by the minister and I do not know if he included canal lands in his remarks, but I would appeal to him on behalf of the municipalities in the Niagara district to give us a fair break, because we have been providing these services for 100 years.


Mr. Murphy (Lamblon West):: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to labour this subject, and I shall speak only for a few minutes.
Since coming to the house in 1945 I have noticed that the plight of the municipalities has been coming to the fore more and more each year. I can recall many of the arguments advanced by my party concerning the


difficulties of the municipalities, which receive such a small share of the taxpayers' dollar. I recall that some years ago when we first proposed that the crown companies pay taxes a sound and reasonable argument was advanced that they should accept the same responsibility as other industries in the municipalities, and I think that argument applies to these suggested changes in the legislation. The arguments advanced in those days by the government were repeated in substance by the Minister of Finance when he introduced this legislation on November 14, 1949. At that time and for some time previous we were told that these crown companies were of great benefit to the municipalities and there was no reason why they should not pay money in lieu of taxes. The same argument is being advanced today with respect to the property of the crown.
It has been said this afternoon and on many previous occasions that Canadian municipalities are finding it difficult to implement construction projects as requested by the senior governments. I know this applies to the city of Sarnia, and I am sure it applies to many other urban and rural municipalities in this country.
Finally, after persisting in our requests, the government introduced a formula in November, 1949, whereby crown companies would make payments in lieu of taxes. This legislation was introduced simultaneously with the introduction of this legislation for payment by the government of an amount in lieu of taxes on crown property. The minister of finance of that day, Mr. Abbott, after dealing with the subject of crown property made a statement concerning crown corporations which is recorded on page 1706 of Hansard for November 14, 1949:
Finally, I wish to say a word about the position of property held by crown corporations. With respect to such property the situation is complicated, but in general the policy of the government will be to authorize its crown corporations to work out fair and equitable agreements with the municipalities in which their properties are situated.
On the same page in the next column he states:
In general, as I have indicated, the policy will be to have crown corporations work out arrangements with municipalities which are fair and equitable under all circumstances.
Nothing could have been fairer than the formula announced by the minister of that day. As a resident of the city of Sarnia where the Polymer Corporation is located I might say that the city received in the neighbourhood of $285,000 from that corporation in lieu of taxes this year. The point I am making is that this particular crown

corporation has accepted the government formula, and the amount contributed to the municipality has been calculated on a basis that is fair and equitable.
In that particular instance they have the Dow Chemical company on the one side and the Imperial Oil company on the other side. All three being chemical industries, it is not difficult to arrive at an amount that is fair and equitable. I say that is a fair and equitable way for a crown company to assume its responsibility.
My point is this. I do not see why the government cannot accept the same principle and apply it to payments on crown property to the municipalities in lieu of taxes. If it is fair for crown companies to pay on a basis that is fair and equitable, why is it not fair for the government to assume the same responsibility under the same circumstances and pay its share, instead of having a 2 per cent fringe which is going to keep most of the municipalities from getting some small amount which to them may mean a great deal?
This piffling amount of $4 million or $3,500,000 in addition to what is already paid is not a big factor. What concerns me is this. There are many municipalities today in this position. The costs of education, administration and everything else that is entailed in the proper management of a municipality are so high that the municipality has been scraping the barrel in order to get by. If they have a crown property subject to taxation on the same basis as adjoining property, it means something to them. In some instances it might be a matter of only hundreds of dollars, but I think there would be many cities today, which are not going to be included, that might benefit to the extent of $5,000, $10,000 or even $25,000.
Just before I close I am going to say this. At the moment I am not sure how this 2 per cent formula or 2 per cent fringe is going to affect a city like Sarnia, where we have a crown company and federal property. I hope that point can be clarified. While there may not be many cities in Canada that have crown companies such as we have-I refer to the Polymer Corporation-I think it would be only fair to consider whether or not the total assessment for this purpose should include the crown company assessment. I am not exactly wedded to that principle, because I think there may be an argument against it. However, perhaps before this legislation has passed through the house that matter can be clarified.


Mr. Cavers:: Mr. Chairman, I am happy at this time to support the able presentation
Municipal Grants Act made by the hon. member for Welland this afternoon. I consider that the Minister of Finance, in bringing in this bill, has extended a greater measure of relief to the municipalities in reducing the formula from 4 per cent to 2 per cent, so that it will include some more 48 municipalities. However, I believe the provision should extend to a modern inland navigable waterway such as the canal with its many additional lands, raceways, buildings for weir control, bridge control, elevators and additional types of buildings. We have many of these buildings in our area. A great deal of land as well is required for carrying out the uses of the Welland ship canal. I believe the actual assessment would be greater than the 2 per cent requirement now provided in the bill, if those lands were not particularly excluded. They would be farm lands, fruit lands, lands available for building and lands available for industrial sites were they not being used in the public service, and as such they would be available to the municipalities for assessment purposes. By reason of there being canals, the municipalities in the area are deprived of a great deal of assessment.
As has been pointed out by my colleague the hon. member for Welland, a good deal of service is required by the canal and by those persons using the canal, as for instance police service. In my particular area in the township of Grantham the Welland ship canal extends for a distance of some ten miles from the Niagara escarpment to Port Weller at the lake Ontario end. Through that area the township of Grantham is required to provide police and fire service for those people using the canal and for the canal buildings themselves.
I think some distinction is to be drawn between a canal which runs parallel and contiguous to the waterway that is to be avoided, and one which goes through a solid area of land. In that instance you find a collection of citizens or a collection of inhabitants on one side and an area of population on the other side. This raises the question of transportation. In our area we have great transportation problems in bringing people from one side of the Welland ship canal to the other side.
The city of Welland has been pointed to by my friend the hon. member for Welland. Those of us who have court appointments in Welland must always allow an additional hour when leaving the city of St. Catharines to go to Welland. In many instances it has taken me less time to drive from the city of St. Catharines to the city of Welland than to move from the west side of the city of Welland to the east side of that city. I am
2116	HOUSE OF
Municipal Grants Act sure this traffic hazard causes great inconvenience to the citizens of that city.
In my own area we have a provincial highway-I refer to the Queen Elizabeth way- passing across the Welland canal at Homer. At the Homer bridge we find there is great inconvenience to traffic. On one occasion I waited for some 15 or 20 minutes a distance of three miles back from the Homer bridge. On arrival at the Homer bridge we found that the bridge was up again and that we had to wait another 15 or 20 minutes before getting across at this point. Those are some of the difficulties experienced by citizens in the area.
In addition to the services that must be provided, my friend the hon. member for Welland has also referred to the nuisance, the noxious odours and resultant disagreeable conditions experienced by the citizens of St. Catharines because of the abandoned Welland canal. I shall say nothing further on that subject.
We are told that canals are good things for an area, and I agree. It is true that many people in our area find employment because of the Welland ship canal being there. But on the same principle there are many people residing in the city of Ottawa who find work in the various government departments. There are people in the city of Kingston who are provided with employment at the staff college and at the penitentiary. There are many citizens of Halifax who are provided with employment by the government. All these places come within the ambit of the legislation.
I believe the Welland ship canal is of great benefit to the people of Canada as a whole, not only the people of my area. For the grain grower of western Canada, for the mining interests of northern Ontario and our great shipping companies it provides convenient travel across the Niagara peninsula. I appeal to the Minister of Finance to give consideration to including in the legislation canal lands and other canal properties that to my mind should rightfully be considered as government property coming within the act.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to sincerely commend the minister and the government on the introduction of this resolution. As the minister pointed out in his speech presenting the resolution to the committee, it was originally hoped that legislation of this type might have been brought down last year. However, in spite of the inevitable delay I know the advent of the legislation will be gratefully welcomed by the citizens of Halifax, Dartmouth and the county of Halifax as well as by the Halifax
tMr. Cavers.]

city council, the town council of Dartmouth and the municipal council of the county of Halifax.
Before saying anything about the probable effect of the amendments to the act, I think a word or two might be appropriate on the principle of legislation of this kind in view of what was said by the hon. member for Lambton West. In discussing with many people the question of grants in lieu of municipal taxation, I have found that there is a popular idea that the immunity of the crown from taxation is an old fashioned concept that has no practical application. Of course that is not correct. The principle of the crown's immunity from taxation is based on the very practical idea that it is not very much use to have the taxpayers of one administration contribute taxes to a government and have some other government entitled to take part of those taxes for its own purposes. It is the ultimate in indirect taxation, and the principle has been recognized by all governments at all levels that assets and expenditures of other governments are for the general public good and that the taxpayers in general are no better off by one government exacting taxes from another level of government.
However, the principle of the legislation which we have had since 1949 recognizes the fact that the concentration of federal government properties and activities in particular areas does impose upon certain municipalities particular burdens which are not generally shared throughout the country. For that reason there is a good argument in favour of the general taxpayers of Canada making some contribution to the additional municipal costs imposed upon these particular municipalities. It was for this reason that in the original legislation a floor of 4 per cent was selected to indicate what was regarded as a normal level of federal government properties in municipalities across Canada, and the principle of the non-taxability of the normal amount of federal property was preserved by the establishment of that 4 per cent floor.
That exemption is now being lowered to 2 per cent. This will not have a great effect on the situation so far as municipalities which have qualified for grants in the past are concerned, but it will broaden the base of the act and bring under the act a number of additional municipalities. The hon. member for Lambton West referred to the instructions given by the government to crown companies to work out acceptable arrangements for payment of grants in lieu of taxation to municipalities in which they hold property. He suggested it might be reasonable for the government to apply the same

principle to all government property. With respect, I suggest to the hon. member, that obviously is not the case.
Crown companies in general are engaged in activities more or less comparable to commercial and industrial activities of various kinds throughout the country, and it is normal for substantial industrial concerns to treat the question of taxation in just about the same way. We all know that municipalities work out with industrial firms agreed assessments, special rates of taxation and so on which recognize the importance of the industries to the area and other special circumstances. That is also true of crown companies, and the hon. member indicated how satisfactory the arrangement is in his own constituency in connection with the Polymer Corporation.
But to say that properties of the federal government in municipalities across the country are on the same basis as commercial or industrial activities is of course quite erroneous. Federal government properties are in the main service properties. They are post offices, customs houses, defence installations and all that sort of thing. They are nonprofit organizations, and it is very difficult to imagine how the same principle could be applied to such properties. For that reason I think the proper and effective way to deal with the problem is by the means that has been selected by the government, grants in lieu of taxation.
Under the proposed legislation I understand that the city of Halifax and the town of Dartmouth, being recipients of grants in lieu of taxation, can hope for increases in the grants to the extent of approximately double the amounts they are now receiving. There will be individual differences and the increases in some cases may not be quite that large, but that is the general pattern.
These increases will be very well accepted indeed. I remember that before this legislation was first introduced my then colleague from Halifax and I were two of the members who, with others, were urging upon the government that some step of this kind should be taken. We were very pleased when it was taken and the measure introduced. I remember suggesting then that this was a very excellent beginning, and that the house and the country could expect the government to build upon this very good beginning. I remember there was a more pessimistic view expressed from across the house, but I am very glad that in this, as in other cases, the pessimism has been shown to have been unwarranted.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the third municipal body of interest to me which will benefit from
Municipal Grants Act this proposed legislation is the county of Halifax. In the past it has received grants under the rural municipalities grants regulations. I commend the minister and tell him how delighted I am that action has been taken to bring the rural municipalities under this bill. The question of calculating fair and equitable grants to rural municipalities in order to compensate them for the presence of federal government installations in rural areas is very difficult indeed. I urge upon the minister and the government that in future some consideration be given to the possibility of working out a more realistic and more favourable method of computing the grants that may be paid.
In my view, and I am supported in this view by many others, the method of computing the grants, taking into consideration only the services which are supplied by the municipality to these installations, is not adequate. I quite recognize that from some points of view it can be said to be fair, but taking a broader view I submit that a very good argument could be made for a more generous approach to the problem.
I believe the position of the county of Halifax is typical of what I have in mind. In cojnmon with all other rural municipalities the only asset of the county of Halifax is the land which it has available for development, both industrial and residential. If it happens that this land is occupied by federal installations, particularly where the location of that land is particularly favourable for industrial development, then the amount of favourably located land available for development for other purposes is severely limited. The existence of large federal installations in those areas, while the installations themselves do not necessarily receive much in the way of municipal services, by their very location do add to the cost of services provided to the other taxpayers in the immediate areas and limit very severely the additional tax revenues which could go to the municipality from the development of those same areas for industrial or residential purposes, which would otherwise come about with the passage of time.
While commending the minister and the government most highly upon this legislation, I ask them to give very careful and favourable consideration to the representations along this line that have been made and no doubt will continue to be made by the rural municipalities. Last year when this matter was actively under consideration a delegation from the county council of Halifax came to Ottawa and had a very satisfactory interview with the minister and his officials.
2118	HOUSE OF
Municipal Grants Act They placed their case before him, and I trust this is not the last word but that continued consideration will be given to the matters that were placed before him and his officials at that time.


Mr. Pallell:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Horace Dickey: Surely.


John Cameron Pallett: In attempting to deal with the suggestion by the hon. member for Lambton West concerning the addition of crown corporations to the schedule respecting grants under this legislation, the hon. member suggested these corporations were comparable to private industries which could make their own deals with the municipalities for fixed assessments. When advancing that argument, was the hon. member aware that that exact arrangement, private industries making deals with municipalities, is specifically contrary to the law of Ontario?


John Horace Dickey: No, Mr. Chairman; I am not a resident of Ontario, and I am not advised of the law of Ontario.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Would the
minister kindly give us the list of the 40 municipalities now receiving grants?


Walter Edward Harris: We shall give that on second reading.


Mrs. Shipley:: I should like to say a few words with respect to this resolution, Mr. Chairman. Like many others I welcome the improvement but I, too, would like to have seen the government go all the way. I feel it would be sound business if this government paid the full municipal tax on its properties, as like properties within the municipality do. However, I am very pleased to note the improvement.
I listened today as the hon. member for Assiniboia made an impassioned speech about the plight of the municipalities. I have heard similar speeches in this house before. The implication is that the difficulties the municipalities face are the responsibility of this government. Nothing could be further from the truth. In this particular instance it is our responsibility, but I know of no other instance beyond this where it is our responsibility. The municipalities are the creatures of the provinces. Let us take Ontario as an example. Provincial revenues have been doubled, if not trebled, with no increase in taxes and no new taxes, simply because of the great development that has been going on in the province.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And good government.


Marie Ann Shipley: Well, that is a point of view, perhaps, but let me continue. It is true that


the provincial grants to the municipalities have been increased, but I suggest not to the extent they should. The municipalities in this province are in a very serious financial condition, whereas the province of Ontario is not. It has enormous surpluses every year. I suggest it is up to the province to look after the municipalities. If the province is financially unable to care for the municipalities, then it is up to the provincial government to come to this government and ask for assistance.
I well recall that when I was a member of an Ontario municipal organization, before the last dominion-provincial conference, the municipal people felt very strongly that the only sound and intelligent approach to the problem would be to have a provincial-municipal conference first, and for once define and determine what were the responsibilities and proper charges against municipal real estate, home owners and so on. The Leader of the Opposition would recall what I am referring to, because he was premier of Ontario at the time we introduced this idea. He agreed that he would establish such a commission or committee. However, he left shortly after that for greener fields, and it took us six years of continual pressure to have such a committee finally established.
They have been functioning now for about four years and have defined nothing. Our problems are being dealt with piecemeal; and conditional grants, the curse of sound municipal administration, are being made. You have to spend more to get them. They carry with them certain restrictions by way of rules and regulations, and you never get from behind the eight-ball. We have never yet had this responsibility defined. What is the basis, and what is the proper charge?


Mr. Mcllraith:: It was defined in 1849; it is as ancient as that.


Marie Ann Shipley: Anyway, it has never been defined since. And I would like to tell the committee this about municipal organizations. At one time in a resolution we called on the provincial government to ask the federal government to give aid to the cost of education, the major charge against municipal real estate that makes it so difficult to carry on. The mayor of Hamilton, the present mayor of Ottawa and others were present and, much to our amazement, they vigorously-and I mean vigorously.-opposed the federal government being permitted to make any contribution in whatever manner to the cost of education in the province of Ontario, on the score that it would take away our autonomy.
Here we have the implication that the federal government is responsible for the

plight of the municipality. Any time that is said in the House of Commons it should be brought to the attention of other hon. members and, through the press, to the attention of the public that such is not the case. It is no wonder a great many citizens throughout Canada believe the government in Ottawa is responsible, because it is blamed for almost anything. Well, that is one thing that is not our responsibility, except at the request of provincial governments.
I suggest to hon. members that if the government went all the way and paid full municipal taxes on all federal properties it would improve the financial condition of only very few municipalities throughout Canada. A great number of municipalities would receive small amounts when, at present, they are not receiving any from this source. There would be a few outstanding examples, such as those described by the hon. member for Welland and the senior member for Halifax-and the city of Ottawa is in a similar position-where considerable advantage would be gained. But generally speaking, if the federal government paid 100 per cent of the proper municipal tax it would not do anything material to improve the financial position of municipalities today.
I am glad the bill is proposed, and I know the municipalities throughout Canada will be pleased. I would hope that some day we would be able to go all the way.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Chairman, I feel I should indicate my interest in this resolution, first because I come from a municipality that is a large recipient of this grant, and also because the senior member for Halifax made his usual political speech at the resolution stage.
The municipality of Saint John has now within it the new city of Lancaster, and no doubt they will be pleased to hear that they will receive some benefit under this legislation. The principle of the original measure, as stated in the discussion this afternoon, should be kept in mind, namely that federal buildings take up valuable property and in some respects are a burden upon the municipalities. Therefore grants in lieu of taxes are not exactly one-sided.
I have two points to place before the minister. He said the basis was being reduced from 4 per cent to 2 per cent, and I think the suggestion was made that the total amount of payments would be almost doubled. The impression I gathered while he was speaking was that there was to be some sort of doubling of the grants.
While I do not have the figures before me, from the arithmetical computation I have been able to make, somewhat hurriedly,
Municipal Grants Act I find that in connection with the larger grants there would be no instance of doubling, and that such an impression is not proper. Perhaps the minister would follow the example of his predecessor and, at the resolution stage, provide the list and the rates so we would be able to look after our own personal interests and comment on the increase made.
A strained relationship has grown up between municipalities and the federal government, and because of the difficulties under which municipalities are operating there is a considerable amount of feeling in connection with these grants. I think it should be pointed out that the cheques received by the municipalities are those to which they are entitled by reason of the burden placed on the respective communities. In my section of the country it has become a favourite trick to have these cheques highly advertised each year, as though they were some sort of gift from the federal government. I know the minister will agree with me that this is not so.
If care were taken to point out the real basis for these grants I am sure both groups would benefit, and later criticism against the federal government would be defeated in its early stages. I have nothing further to say, except that the increase is appreciated; but I would not want anyone in the Saint John area to think that things are rosy, so far as the municipality is concerned.


Mr. White (Haslings-Fronlenac):: I should like to ask the minister a question. As he has indicated, the government realizes that something should be paid the municipalities in lieu of taxes. He has said that only 48 municipalities are now receiving this benefit but that the number will probably be doubled under the new arrangement. Other hon. members who have spoken have referred generally to the very large centres of population, but the minister must be well aware that there are hundreds of other municipalities, including townships, villages and towns, that can never hope to receive anything in lieu of taxes so long as the 2 per cent provision, formerly 4 per cent, remains.
I would ask the minister to justify to the committee this discrimination against the smaller municipalities. They are still expected to supply services by way of streets, sidewalks in front of the buildings, lighting, fire protection, police protection and in other ways. I wish the minister would indicate why he thinks these small municipalities should supply such services free of charge to the federal government.

Municipal Grants Act


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I should like the minister to give me some information when hh closes the debate. I was pleased to hear that the percentage has been reduced from 4 per cent to 2 per cent, but I am particularly interested in the town of Selkirk. Would this take in such things as police buildings, barracks, post office, docks and shops? I made inquiry before I came away and I know that the town receives no relief by way of taxation.
The hon. member who spoke before me referred to the supplying of such things as sidewalks, fire protection and water services. The town of Selkirk provides these things. I listened attentively to the minister while he was speaking but there was some commotion in the chamber and I could not hear what he was saying. I shall read it tomorrow when Hansard comes out. I would not like to think that Selkirk is too small a place to participate in the benefits of this legislation. If the minister will give me the information I require I will not delay the passage of this resolution.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, it must be rather gratifying to the minister to hear so many complimentary remarks in respect to the fact that more assistance is to be given to certain municipalities which would otherwise not be eligible for assistance under this act. The hon. member for Timiskaming said that she would like to see the legislation go all the way. I was not too sure as to just what she meant because later on she said that she felt it was a provincial responsibility to assist municipal districts.
Undoubtedly she is right when she suggests that there is a provincial responsibility in that regard. The provinces should see that they carry their share of the burden. The municipal districts which will be affected will certainly approve of the resolution and I for one am heartily in agreement with the spirit in which it is moved. However, I wish the minister could find it possible at an early date to indicate those municipalities which will be affected so we may have some inkling as to what municipalities in our own areas will benefit.
The minister did indicate that about 100 municipalities will receive grants under this bill if it is passed. The hon. member for Peace River told us something of what Alberta is doing as an indication that that province recognizes its responsibility. Just to show that Alberta is not the only province that assists in this matter may I say that British Columbia is assuming a greater responsibility for educational costs which would normally be borne by the municipal district. This permits the setting aside of 
funds which ordinarily would go toward the cost of education to be used by the municipalities for other purposes.
I understand that in a great number of municipalities the mill rate has been reduced from 39 to 11, with the average being about 11 mills. That indicates considerable assistance to the municipalities. I agree again with the hon. member for Timiskaming in saying that I would like to see these grants based on the assessed valuation of the property and at the regular taxation rate. I realize that there are arguments for and against that idea but I certainly think it must be agreed that where the federal government has control of properties suitable for use as industrial or business purposes which are of considerable value they should not deprive the municipalities or the districts of the tax advantage they should receive. These municipalities have to set aside funds for protective reasons and to provide utility services for these buildings and many will be deprived of the benefits of this legislation if only 100 are to be eligible for these particular grants.
I would ask the minister to take this thought into consideration. All governments have a responsibility to the municipalities. In so far as the federal government is concerned, the bulk of its income comes from all parts of the country and the contracts that the government lets do not come back into those regions and therefore there should be some compensation on a priority basis.
I am satisfied that the minister knows that my own province is not getting its share of defence contracts for one reason or another. It may be that the bids are too high. I am sure there is some reason for it. These contracts help to build up other sections of Canada and bring in revenue in a material way. I submit that the other municipalities should receive some of that revenue in the way of municipal grants in connection with buildings and other property owned by the government. I ask the minister to just have a second look at this thing and keep this suggestion in mind.


Mr. Hamilion (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me as though the approach of the minister and the government to this whole problem can be likened somewhat to that of a very elderly man approaching his young bride. He is fascinated by the situation but is sluggish and apprehensive. When we look back over the situation we find that there is a clear-cut analogy here. The government seems to be fascinated by the idea that they might render unto the municipalities that which seems to be only their due and yet they are very sluggish about it. They would not do it at all at

first, then they did it with some reservations, and now they are doing it with a little bit less reservation. But they are still not doing what they should; they are apprehensive about taking the proper, adequate and final step.
However, I think most of us, while sincerely regretting that the government has not seen fit to go all the way and remove any restrictions on the taxation of federal government property in the municipalities, are ready to express our pleasure that they have at least taken this step in what we consider to be the right direction. Certainly it is a step which has been advocated for many years by the municipalities concerned and their associations.
It is necessary that this revenue come to the cities because at the present time there is probably not a city in Canada which is not urgently in need of any revenue which may be provided by this measure, and in most cases they are in need of revenue over and abbve what may be provided.
I recently had occasion to examine the budget of one Canadian city. I would like to cite this budget of the city of Montreal as a simple illustration because it is comparable to a greater or lesser degree to other cities in this country. We find, for example, the city of Montreal will spend in excess of $20 million for public works and roads alone in the coming year. It will spend almost $4 million for parks. Let us examine some of their other proposed expenditures in fields where one might expect the federal government would accept financial responsibility. Health, of course, is one of these things. The great city of Montreal plans to spend in the coming year over $2,600,000 in this respect. In the field of social welfare, which encompasses care for the unemployed as well, the city plans to spend almost $9 million. For services which are rendered directly as protective services to the buildings of the government situated in the city, and I speak now of the police and fire departments, the city anticipates an expenditure in the coming year of over $17 million. These are immense sums. Cities across the country, and I do not refer specifically to Montreal in saying this, are genuinely not in a position to accept this financial responsibility without receiving further financial support. Some measure of financial assistance would be welcomed by most municipalities.
I think the attitude of the municipalities concerning this particular measure is well expressed in the annual report of the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities dated September 1953. The president of the federation, Mayor A. J. Mason of Springhill.
Municipal Grants Act Nova Scotia, makes reference in the annual report to the need for the federal government to eliminate sales and excise taxation on purchases made by the municipalities. After drawing attention to this necessity he states in the annual report:
It would be most helpful if along with the exemption from the federal sales tax the federal government would eliminate the four per cent national average qualification which presently prevents most municipalities from benefiting under the federal plan to pay grants in lieu of municipal taxes on federal crown property. These two measures, exemption from the sales tax and grants equivalent to local tax rates on federally owned property would go a long way in helping to ease the difficult financial position most municipalities are in. It is these two measures above all which I believe the federation should continue to urge on the federal government.
That statement was made in September 1953. In March 1955, almost two years later, we find that the federal government is taking some slight cognizance of these recommendations but it is not going all the way in meeting the urgent requirements of the municipalities.
The senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) made reference during his remarks, and I am merely paraphrasing his words, to the fact that the taxation of federal government property was frequently questioned because it was taxation of one government by another government and was therefore merely a transference from one area to another of the revenues collected from the people. That concept may have been correct and acceptable and adequate at the time of confederation when the idea existed that federal government property should be exempt from taxation. At that time the federal government taxation policy was based on a minimum taxation policy. It envisaged the provision of essential public services and the provision of defence for the nation. The taxation policy of the federal government has changed since that time. This is not a debatable point; rather it is a point of fact. The federal government taxation policy has changed in several respects; first, it is an economic policy to be used under certain conditions, and second it involves a measure of transference of wealth from one group of individuals to another or from one area of the country to another. The taxation policy has become one of the major tools which the government has used to achieve the ends which it considers desirable. As I said before, this can hardly be a debatable point in the light of what we know today. If this is true and if, as has often been pointed out, there is a tendency for federal taxes to become higher, because the government wishes to do these things, than would be the case if it was a policy of minimum taxation, it seems
2122	HOUSE OF
Municipal Grants Act to me that the original argument that government property located in the municipalities should not be taxed falls to the ground. It is no longer merely an avoidance of taxation by the federal government. It is no longer merely a matter of transferring funds from one government to another. It is no longer a matter of alleviating the burden of the taxpayer in paying the federal government rather than the municipalities. It does mean, however, that revenues taken in by the federal government can be devoted to purposes which are far removed from those which the municipalities might consider necessary and which the municipalities might view with considerable disturbance. The federal government today is in business. Not only is it in the business of providing essential services but to a large extent its business involves the protection of the welfare of this country. In the process of these activities and when the government moves into a municipality why should it not have to make payment on the same basis as other organizations which are located in that municipality? Personally, Mr. Chairman, I feel that there is little justification-in fact,
I fail to see that there is any justification at all

for the stand of the federal government in protecting its own interests and throwing back on to the shoulders of the municipal taxpayers, in whatever degree, a burden which should legitimately and properly be borne by the federal government itself. The municipalities are in the business of rendering minimum services to their communities. They are in the business of giving police protection, fire protection, health protection where that is not done by the federal government, and dealing with the unemployed where the federal government is not, for whatever reason, dealing with them.
I shall now give you a brief example. In the field of parks and playgrounds alone which,, under our present-day set-up, seem to be a natural essential of city life, the city of Montreal in the years from 1944 to 1954 spent some $20,500,000 on operating expenses and some $12,800,000 on capital expenditures. Yet, Mr. Chairman, the federal government sees fit to come along and to say: You are doing all these things. To a certain extent we have said frequently that we believe they should be done and that we think they are wise things to do, but yet we will not help you to do them by even paying our fair share. We are going to leave as much of the burden as we possibly can to be borne by you taxpayers down there in the municipalities. That is unfair, Mr. Chairman, and unjust. While I view with pleasure the small step indicated today, I will view with much greater pleasure the moment when the federal government


adopts an attitude of complete fairness and equity with regard to the taxation of their property in municipalities.


Mr. Forgie:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to support these amendments and to speak of the situation in so far as it affects my constituency. I may say that there are three situations in North Renfrew that provide an interesting source of comment. First, there is the Petawawa military camp. Second, there is the atomic energy plant. Third, there is the Dominion Magnesium, Limited, plant in Haley. From the practical dollars and cents point of view, may I point out to you that the location of the atomic energy plant and the Petawawa military camp in my constituency has resulted in the location of two new industries in my section of the country. The payroll or the take-home pay from those two industries-I refer to the atomic energy plant and the Petawawa military camp- amounts to approximately $3,500,000 a year, an amount which is greater than that of the combined payroll of industry in the town of Pembroke at the present time. The money that is coming from those two enterprises in my constituency means a great deal to the people in my section of the country in the way of spending power.
It seems to me that the cart is being placed before the horse in some of the discussion that has taken place this afternoon. I should like to see a conference between the municipalities and the provincial government for the purpose of defining the fields of taxation. Having arrived at a solution in that regard, it would then be the proper time to approach this government in order to see what participation it would care to take with regard to matters that will come under discussion in connection with this act.
As I say, we have had three new industries brought into our section of the country by the federal government. As to taxation or the payment of grants in lieu of taxes, the amounts have been fairly satisfactory. While it is true that we welcome the increase that will flow from the amendments to this act, I must say that, as the result of the activities of the dominion government, my section of the country has benefited to the extent of three new industries, with a resultant substantial increase in the spending power of its people. For that fact we in my section of the country are truly grateful and thankful to the present administration.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a couple of questions I should like to ask the minister. As far as the members of the committee are concerned, I think it is unanimous that we support the provisions of this act and the suggested

changes. Can the minister recollect whether the support has been so widespread for this kind of a measure that any representation made to the government by any organization-whether a private organization or any other one-has supported this measure or has there been even one instance of opposition to it? My own feeling would be that everybody is in favour of it and in favour of extending it. The second question I should like to ask now is this. What is the estimated cost of removing the 2 per cent and making all government property taxable in the ordinary way?
Mr. Pallet!: If the minister is not going to answer the questions at the moment, I should like to say a few words. In addressing my remarks to this resolution, may I say that I am rather interested to note that as to governmental consideration of a matter raised on the orders of the day it requires three years to arrive at an answer. I refer you. Mr. Chairman, to Hansard of Friday, March 21, 1952. As reported at page 659 the then hon. member for Peel, the late Mr. Gordon Graydon, on the orders of the day asked the following question:
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the province of Ontario is now permitting provincial public buildings to be assessed and taxed by the municipal authorities, will the federal authorities do likewise so far as federal buildings are concerned?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) :: The answer is in the negative. I would point out that the municipalities are creatures of the provincial government.
Then the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) said this:
If I may direct a question to the Minister of Finance, will he examine the basis upon which municipal taxation is applied to provincial buildings, in view of the fact that the principle upon which that is done has no relation to their being creatures of the provincial government?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The Minister of Finance is always happy to examine anything.
I note that the federal examination has taken place some three years later. The new Minister of Finance, in his straightforward way, today has said that they would not consider the granting of aid under this act on the basis of the assessment of the municipalities. I would suggest to the minister that that is an unrealistic approach. They say there is some danger that municipalities will use some devices over which they have no control and, specifically, assess government buildings at a higher rate than others. I think that argument would have no weight whatsoever anywhere in this country. Surely the people governing municipalities are as sound as those who sit in this house and would not use devious means to achieve their own end. I suggest to the minister that
Municipal Grants Act approach should receive further consideration and, in line with what other members have suggested, the grants should be extended by doing away with the 2 per cent floor. It would appear at first blush that when the minister said the 4 per cent was to be reduced to 2 per cent the grants were to be doubled.


George James McIlraith: It does not appear that way at all.


John Cameron Pallett: I merely said it would appear. I did not say the minister said that. I said it would appear.


George James McIlraith: How would it appear that
way?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: From the figures that he gave.


John Cameron Pallett: The minister went on to indicate that the amount of the grants would be about doubled and that they would be extended to a larger number of municipalities. We are certainly very pleased and happy that these municipalities now to be included will receive some share of the money. The money they will receive might be called the municipality's mite because in amount it compares with what you would give to a beggar. It is practically nothing in the light of the needs of municipalities today. It is a step in the right direction of course, and I do not want to take anything away from the minister for taking the step, but it still does not go far enough.
The minister also mentioned that he was following three general principles that had been laid down for the giving of this aid. I suggest to him there is a fourth which perhaps applies particularly to my own riding, although it may apply to others. I refer to the operations of a branch of the government that have tied up certain lands and by so doing have prevented the normal benefit from those lands accruing to the municipality. This has resulted in a direct loss of taxation so far as the municipality is concerned. As the minister will know, assessments on vacant land are low so that grants to a municipality covering vacant land owned by any branch of the government would be practically negligible.
On the other hand, if these lands were released and put to some use whereby the municipality would materially benefit either from high residential assessment, high industrial assessment or the lands being made available for necessary services for the municipality, the result would be a substantial contribution to the municipality in question. I direct this argument to the Minister of Finance because I am sure he is interested in the general financial well-being of the

Municipal Grants Act country whether at the municipal, provincial or dominion levels. I commend to his personal consideration the financial aspects surrounding the release or otherwise of the property known as the Long Branch rifle ranges. The benefit which the release of these ranges would bring to the township of Toronto would far outweigh, financially and otherwise, any benefit that may be derived by the branch of the government that now owns the land. I know it is a problem of deep concern to that department of government but from a financial point of view the township of Toronto needs to have the land released, and it would be a way of giving a direct grant to the municipality without taking anything out of the coffers of the government.


Mr. While (Middlesex East):: Mr. Chairman, almost every angle of this question has been dealt with by those who have spoken today, but there are one or two things I want to say to the minister. I am one of those who believe the minister is proceeding in the right direction, although I had hoped that he would go the whole way at this time. However, I realize that other years and other budgets are coming and he will have an opportunity in the future to make amends for what he has not done now. On every possible occasion the opposition has urged that steps in this direction be taken.
In my own riding there are two quite large government-owned establishments. One is Westminster hospital, the second largest military hospital in the British commonwealth. It owns very valuable property in the township of Westminster. If that property were subdivided, as is the property on the other side of the road, the municipality would realize a considerable sum of money by way of taxes. I hope when the bill is before the house the minister will, if possible, indicate the position of Westminster hospital and the township of Westminster.
There is also in my riding the so-called city of London airport at Crumlin. As I understand it, the city of London owns the property, but R.C.A.F. operations are carried on there, the Department of Transport is also interested, and there are also civil aviation activities. No doubt some problems of administration would enter into the picture if the government assumed full responsibility for taxes in that particular instance.
I noted what the hon. member for Renfrew North had to say regarding the Petawawa and Chalk River establishments. I spent some time at Petawawa during the first world war and I can realize what a benefit the Petawawa and Chalk River establishments are to that area. Industries were established
[Mr. Pallett.l
there because of these government operations, but do not forget that industries that come to other municipalities pay taxes. These industries came to Petawawa and Chalk River and in a sense they are not paying their full share. Any private industry would have to pay all taxes, and I hope that the government will be able to see its way clear in the not too distant future, if not now, to accept full responsibility.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have one or two questions I should like to ask the minister, but first, as a matter of precaution, I should like to draw his attention to an item that appeared in the Toronto Star of November 26 last. That is a large paper published daily in Toronto. It is a dispatch by Bruce Macdonald headed, "Municipal Aid Promised by St. Laurent". The last paragraph reads as follows:
Mr. St. Laurent also Indicated that the number of items purchased by municipalities on which sales tax exemption was granted would be increased.
I take it this is not the proper time to discuss that but I bring it to the minister's attention in case he is not an assiduous reader of the Star. I think it is very desirable that this argument of the Prime Minister should be before him in the next week or two.


An hon. Member:: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Who said that? I thought there was only one chairman here. The question I wanted to ask of the minister is this. We have heard the explanation of the assistance to the municipalities, and so far as it goes it is good. I should like to ask whether these figures were plucked out of the air- take a number, double it and divide by two and so on

or whether they are supposed to have any relationship to the needs of the municipalities? The hon. member for Timis-kaming, who knows a great deal about municipal affairs, tells us that even in Ontario, which is supposed to be a prosperous province, there are a good many municipalities in a very serious condition. I have one or two other questions to ask the minister, but first I should like to ask, can we take it that in the consideration of this proposal regard was had to the condition of the municipalities or is this just a little soporific? Does the government feel that this is not really their job but the job of the provinces? I wonder whether the minister would answer that question first, and then I should like to ask him another.


Walter Edward Harris: I think the answer to that is obvious. Five years ago the government proposed and parliament approved a form of contribution to the municipalities in which there was federal property that might be

made taxable. This is an extension of the provisions of that measure, having in mind the experience of the past five years. This experience has indicated that we have been spending, I think, last year almost $3 million, and it was thought that perhaps the amount would have been larger than it turned out to be. Having that in mind, and having in mind the discussions we have had and the principles upon which the measure was originally placed before parliament, the government considered that the provisions of it ought to be widened so that other municipalities would benefit and those now benefiting would have a greater amount of benefit having in mind their tax problems.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My next question is, does the minister agree with the hon. member for Timiskaming that there is a serious municipal situation throughout the country and that there are many municipalities in difficulties?


Walter Edward Harris: Well, Mr. Chairman, this of course would be a personal view. It would not be the view of the Minister of Finance because I take it the Minister of Finance in this government is not primarily charged with the responsibility of considering the plight of the municipalities, except in so far as it relates to the legislation of parliament. I realize that there are some municipalities in which the tax rate has gone up considerably. I have been noticing municipal tax rates that have been referred to in the newspapers in the last two or three weeks. The suggestion seems to be that, in many cases, the rates will be increased.
It does seem to me that I happen to be on that side of the argument which says that the hon. member for Broadview, the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Peace River might better address their remarks to their respective provincial premiers-


George Harris Hees: The member for Broadview was not speaking.


Walter Edward Harris: I beg your pardon, the hon. member for Greenwood-with respect to taxing authority and the extension of it, if they feel it should be extended, rather than address themselves to me.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I believe that would be a much fairer answer if, in fact, the dominion government were not evading three-quarters-if my arithmetic is right-of its fair taxes. However, I do not want to dwell further on that because I take it the minister has crossed that bridge.
Then, I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for St. Paul's yesterday. There is a special situation which exists at
Municipal Grants Act the moment whereby the municipalities are bearing a heavy cost of unemployment. I just want to recall to the committee that yesterday the hon. member for St. Paul's pointed out, as recorded at page 2083 of Hansard, that in 1946 the Right Hon. Mr. Ilsley stated with reference to the dominion an offer to pay 85 per cent of the cost of unemployment, that that offer became effective when the dominion-provincial tax agreements were made. The reason I am saying this is that I am looking at the moral side of this question, the moral responsibility. Does the minister say that in considering this, all that was considered was that in 1949 they had made a beginning on the lines indicated-I read briefly from the minister of finance of that time-and at this time they have decided to go a bit farther, let us say, by guess and by God and not by any calculation of the need, not by any calculation of the fairness in paying taxes to a level of government which is not able to raise the taxes as much?
Finally, my question is this. Would the minister answer me by saying, "Let the municipalities go on and raise their rate of taxation"?


Walter Edward Harris: I believe the fact that this government has been in office for almost 20 years would indicate it does not act in the manner my hon. friend has suggested we might. We do give some thought to what we do before we do it. We have a principle upon which we do act, so that what we do stands up under examination.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am only asking to have those principles which we are asked to admire so much elucidated.


Walter Edward Harris: I am sure there are times when my hon. friend cannot help but admire them, though we would not expect him to say so here. The second question was whether I would say that municipal corporations ought to raise their tax rates, and I would not say anything of the kind.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What would the Minister of Finance say?


Mr. Weir:: There are one or two features of this legislation which should be viewed in the light of practical application within certain areas. We admit, as does the Minister of Finance, that it is rather difficult to pass judgment upon where the tax liability may be. In a city or town where certain government institutions have been established, we find that is looked upon as an advantage to that community. Other communities look at them with a certain amount of envy, wishing
2126	HOUSE OF
Municipal Grants Act they could have these institutions in their town. When it comes time to pay taxes, the view is different.
I am interested in the application of this measure as it applies to a rural area as opposed to an urban area. Naturally, I want to urge all the assistance I can persuade the Minister of Finance to give in my particular case. In this instance you have a community in which you establish a government institution nearby. The city gains the advantage from this institution, which in this instance happens to be an airport, but at the same time has a heavier load placed on its facilities. In so far as business is concerned I suppose the city has gained considerably, but at the same time in the matter of traffic and looking after the added number of people a considerable load has been placed on that area. These institutions are completely outside the city area and because of that the city has no opportunity to make a claim under the Municipal Grants Act. If anything has to be done in the way of building new roads to that area, the city has to provide for them and it gets no direct return. I do submit that, with all the traffic in some of these cases that has been brought on to city streets, and the control of that traffic, perhaps those cities have a claim at least to a reasonable degree.
But, then, I am looking in particular at a rural area surrounding a city in which two airports have been established-perhaps I should say two air training stations. These take up municipal land. They remove that land from the taxation rolls. The rural area gets nothing in return whatever-in fact, they have a lot of grief because of the added traffic, and things of that nature.
The only thing they ever did get was an assessment and payment in lieu of taxes equal to the taxes they would have collected if the land had remained farm land. On that score there should be no complaint and, indeed, there is not. However, the neighbouring municipality, which had no claim whatsoever and in which there was no government institution established, did have occasion to provide a certain amount of materials, in the nature of gravel, sand and things of that kind. These materials were hauled over roads and bridges. Those roads and bridges were almost destroyed, so that they have come along and have made a claim for added compensation for the use of the roads in connection with the building of the airports.
There is no way under this legislation to give help to cases of that kind except by taking a portion away from the adjoining municipality which, in the first instance, is entitled to help. The instance I have in mind fMr. Weir.]

was that of a rural municipality which had established entitlement in lieu of taxes in the amount of $2,000. The second municipality, not having any rights under the Municipal Grants Act, is placed in the position of receiving 25 per cent of the sum of money that should have been paid to the first municipality.
The result in this instance is that the municipality carrying the burden of the added expense is the one that becomes involved in paying the costs of another municipality which does not enter the picture at all. This is one feature of the legislation which I would hope might be given further consideration, as we proceed with this measure. My experience has indicated that this is a matter of some importance, and I would hope that a second look might be taken at it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I noted the
minister's remark about responsibility for municipal financing, when he said that if municipalities are having difficulty, then the remarks of hon. members might better be addressed to the provincial governments concerned. May I point out to the minister something he must know very well, that there are some provinces in Canada that have a relatively easy task to obtain sufficient revenue to meet their constitutional responsibilities. On the other hand there are other provinces that have the greatest difficulty meeting their responsibilities, because their revenues are inadequate.
And so in some provinces of Canada provincial and municipal revenues combined are inadequate to meet the needs of the people, whereas in other provinces the total revenues are reasonably adequate. The federal government is the only governmental body that has it within its power to take steps which would make it possible for Canadians in all provinces to receive at least the minimum standard of important services provided by municipalities. And unless the government takes proper steps we shall continue to have two classes of Canadians, those living in the so-called "have-not" provinces, where it is difficult to obtain revenues in adequate amounts to meet responsibilities, and those who are fortunate enough to live in the "have" provinces.
Is the minister in a position to answer the two questions I asked a short time ago?


Walter Edward Harris: I have noted what the hon. member has just said, but I do not propose to argue that point at this time.
He asked, I believe, whether there had been opposition to this plan or to the act from any sources we have been able to find.

While I admit I have not read all the correspondence on the subject, I am satisfied I have not seen any objection to an extension of the grants to municipalities. It would not be expected that they would object. It is much more convenient to have the Minister of Finance at Ottawa provide the funds than to have some other source do it. Therefore, as I say, I would not expect opposition.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then I asked what the estimated cost would be as a result of removing the 2 per cent provision.


Walter Edward Harris: I regret that I have not that computation, but I shall give the information before second reading.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister has said that so far as he knows there has been no opposition to the act, or any extension of it. I am pleased to hear that; indeed I would have been surprised if there had been any. I would point out however that under the provisions of the act, which gives grants in lieu of taxes, the formula is based upon the real estate tax levied in a given municipality. As was pointed out by the minister of finance on November 14, 1949, this refers to the general tax levied for municipal and school purposes.
I would point out that, in this instance, although in a small and inadequate way, the federal government is providing some assistance for educational purposes and, as the minister has said, the formula has met with no opposition. I am hoping that this formula for federal aid to education, which is operating without opposition, will be extended, and that the government will not hesitate to explore other means by which federal assistance to education may be advanced with a similar absence of opposition.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Harris thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 258, to amend the Municipal Grants Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RAILWAY ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 14, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Marler-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Railway Act following the "Report on the railway-highway crossing problem in Canada", made by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada to provide for an increase in the annual
Railway Act
appropriation to the railway grade crossing fund from $1,000,000 to $5,000,000 and for certain changes in connection with the administration of the fund.
George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with two aspects of this question which have not been dealt with by hon. members who have spoken thus far. The first is the feasibility of constructing grade separations during the wintertime, when seasonal unemployment reaches its peak; and the second is the need for the elimination of grade crossings as a civil defence measure.
I shall deal first with the question of wintertime construction, and I should like to quote the opinions of two men who I think are the best qualified in the country to express an opinion as to whether or not wintertime construction of grade separations is practical and desirable. First, I should like to quote what Mr. Raymond Brunet, president of the Canadian Construction Association, had to say in this regard when speaking at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, on September 11 last:
Techniques permitting construction during cold or inclement weather have been known for many years and the extension of the "building season" has been very marked in recent times. However, because of habit, pressure of work in design offices and the widespread feeling that winter construction work on all types of projects is excessively costly, most construction contracts are awarded during the summer months.
Winter work is often not as expensive as is commonly believed. It should be remembered that the higher costs only apply to the portion of the project in question and not to the entire job. Then again, contractors frequently quote lower prices during the slack time of the off-season than during the months of peak activity. Better supervision and planning is often possible and material and labour supplies are more plentiful. Wintertime construction work will lead to earlier completion dates and this fact often more than compensates the owner for any additional construction costs involved.
The second opinion which I should like to quote in connection with this matter is that of Mr. John N. Flood, immediate past president of the Canadian Construction Association. In a letter written to me on March 8 in reply to an inquiry I had made as to the practicability and desirability of doing this work during the winter, he had this to say:
As a construction man and as a member of the management committee of the Canadian Construction Association I can advise you that it is definitely quite practical to do this kind of construction in the winter time.
I can tell you further that it has been the consistent policy of the Canadian Construction Association and the subject of numerous briefs to the appropriate federal authorities that this type of work should be so arranged and scheduled that as much as possible should be done in the winter time in order to reduce the peak of unemployment. Modern techniques in the construction industry have made the execution of this type of work quite practical in cold weather, except under very extreme conditions which apply for only a small part of the time.

Railway Act
While the actual cost of any project may be stepped up slightly because of winter time operation, yet the overall cost is lessened when we take into consideration the giving of employment, and the relief of unemployment, the cost of which latter is borne by the Canadian tax payer, which includes the construction industry.
It is safe to conclude that the carrying out of projects of this nature during the cold weather is definitely an economic procedure in the light of the serious sag in the construction industry employment curve resulting from our winter weather. The construction industry has done a very great deal to ameliorate these conditions and the prosecution of work of this nature as suggested in the winter months would be a further help.
Those are the opinions of two men who are particularly able to express a worth while opinion on this matter, and they indicate clearly that this work is not only practicable but desirable during the winter months. I urge upon the government that when they are arranging for work of this kind to be carried out, they stipulate in the contract that the work should be started in the early part of November, when our seasonal unemployment begins to rise, and that the work be carried out during the winter months so that it would help to alleviate serious unemployment such as we are experiencing today.
Next I should like to deal with the elimination of grade crossings as a civil defence measure, in order to prevent the blocking of evacuation routes when air raid warnings are given. I think we must remember that if an air raid warning should come in the future, it will not be for a conventional type of bombing attack such as that to which many of us became accustomed during the war; it will be a warning of an atomic or hydrogen bomb attack. A great deal of information has been given out about the explosive effects of these bombs, and I do not think there is any doubt that a warning of this kind would be accompanied by a certain amount of panic.
Under conditions of that kind, I think it is clear that evacuation routes should be kept open so that there will not be any chance of even temporary blocking. We all know that when people are inclined to be panicky, even a slight hindrance or blocking will increase their panic manyfold, and the results could be catastrophic.
I think most hon. members of the house, particularly those who live in large centres, are familiar with grade crossings in their areas where great confusion would result if they were blocked, even for a short time during evacuation. According to the report of the board of transport commissioners on the railway-highway crossing problem, dated May 10, 1954, there is no major city in Canada for which less than five additional grade separations are recommended. These

recommendations range all the way from five to 38 in the case of my own city.
The other night the minister said that he would like to know of cases where grade separations should be carried out. I am glad to let him have a brief prepared a short time ago by the city of Toronto giving detailed information of work which is urgently needed there. There are two crossings in my riding with which I am quite familiar, where the Canadian National railway crosses Pape avenue and Logan avenue. I can speak from personal experience when I say that these are dangerous crossings. There is a great deal of congestion, even at normal times of the day, and this is particularly so during rush hours. I hate to think of what would happen if a train were blocking these crossings when it was necessary to evacuate the area because of an apprehended bombing.
There are also many instances where underpasses are too narrow to handle heavy traffic, such as would develop during an evacuation. One example that stands out quite clearly in my mind was pointed out to me last summer by residents of Halifax. This is an underpass beneath the Canadian National Railways line on the road out of Halifax to Bedford. This road constitutes one of the few exits from Halifax. I do not think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that if we should become involved in a war Halifax would be one of the main target areas, and it would be necessary to evacuate the population in case of an apprehended air attack. The congestion at this underpass, even during normal rush hours is considerable. If it were ever necessary to evacuate the city of Halifax, a vast amount of congestion would occur at this particular underpass and there would be a tremendous loss of life. I mention that just as one example. There are many others which could be mentioned, but time does not permit. I did want to draw that particular matter to the minister's attention, however.
I think the time has come when we in this country must take a serious view of civil defence. I feel we have failed to do so thus far. The elimination of grade crossings is a most important part of civil defence preparation. I think we are given two choices. First, we can treat civil defence as a serious matter, or second, we can continue in the present government's attitude, and treat civil defence as something which can be ignored or brushed off lightly. The government has not, to my knowledge, proposed any plan of action, nor has it indicated that it takes a serious view in the matter of civil defence.


George Carlyle Marler: Are we not getting rather a long way from the subject of grade crossings?


The Deputy Chairman:: I think I must ask the hon. member for Broadview to tie up civil defence with the grade crossing problem that is under discussion and not to use this resolution as an opportunity for criticizing the civil defence policy of the government.


George Harris Hees: I am speaking of the elimination of grade crossings as an important part of civil defence. In fact, I cannot think of anything which is a more important part of civil defence. One of the important elements of civil defence is clearing an area within a short space of time when a bombing attack is threatened. We all know the widespread effects of hydrogen and atomic bombs when dropped on a congested area. I do not believe the government has given any thought whatsoever to the problem of clearing routes to enable evacuation to take place. I do not think there is any indication that the government has considered the tremendous loss of life and the confusion that would occur if panicky traffic travelling along an evacuation route were suddenly held up because of a freight train. If there should be even a temporary halt, the panic would be unbelievable. When people get panicky in large groups, a great loss of life could occur, especially if some of them were in control of motor vehicles. For that reason I am trying to drive home the need for consideration being given to this particular aspect of civil defence. It is not my intention to use this discussion as a springboard from which I can make a civil defence speech. I am speaking of this as a most important aspect of civil defence and one which has not been dealt with, and I am trying to impress the government with it.
As I say, I do not think there has been any indication that the government has given leadership in this matter, nor do I think there is any reason for believing the government will not continue to treat civil defence as a matter of no particular consequence. As far as I can see, there is no indication that the government will look at this matter differently until perhaps we have had a bombing attack, or until one is threatened. At that time, the government will scramble to do something about it, but it will be too late then.
I think this government is acting on the assumption that this sort of thing simply cannot happen here. Mr. Chairman, it can happen here! It has become very evident that the enemy has bombers which can travel at tremendous speeds and drop bomb loads from great heights with great accuracy. To continue to act on the assumption that this could not happen here is the ultimate of foolishness, in my estimation.
Railway Act
I think when the people learn too late that this government has condoned unpreparedness in this matter, they are going to be shocked and outraged, but at that time it will be too late to prevent the loss of life brought about by this policy of unpreparedness. I believe the government's shocking attitude of unconcern in the matter of civil defence, when one considers the tremendous loss of life which can occur as the result of it, is nothing less than scandalous. We have all been greatly impressed by the almost unbelievable damaging power of the hydrogen bomb. When one thinks of what could occur as a result of panic caused by the blocking of an escape route, one realizes that civil defence is a matter which should demand our concern.
I therefore urge the government to enlarge its present program in respect to grade crossing elimination for three reasons:
First, because of the great number of lives that could be saved if a large proportion of our grade crossings were eliminated and grade separations were substituted.
Second, it will provide employment during winter months, when unemployment in this country reaches its height.
Third, because it is a vitally important civil defence measure, as I have attempted to point out to the government.


Mr. Maltais:: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Some hon. Members:: No.
(Translation):


Mr. Maliais:: Mr. Chairman, this resolution again brings to the fore the whole problem of level crossings In Canada. In this debate, some of my colleagues have called the attention of the house to conditions prevailing in various parts of the country, and I should feel remiss in my duty if I did not avail myself of the same opportunity to make a few comments on the increasingly serious problem of level crossings in the municipality of Ste. Anne de Beaupre, in the Quebec area.
Of course, the presence of level crossings in many communities can hardly be avoided, and the resulting difficulties being felt at this time are in many cases a consequence of the economic and industrial development of cities and towns, or again to the ever-growing use of the motor car in this day and age.
Level crossings in Ste. Anne de Beaupre were no trouble at all some 25 years ago; but as this municipality now receives over a million visitors every year, the prob-

Railway Act
lem has become acute to the point of causing grave concern to locai authorities and spurring nation-wide efforts to find a solution.
In this municipality, the Canadian National railway tracks run along part of the town limits, then cross the very centre of Ste. Anne de Beaupre, which has now become a national place of pilgrimage, visited by more than 1,800,000 pilgrims in 1954.
All of us are concerned about this question of level crossings, and for several reasons: first, because the problem is national in scope, for each year many people are victims of level crossing accidents and, secondly, because level crossings are a cause of congestion in larger communities.
The hazards involved by level crossings in Ste. Anne de Beaupre will be readily realized in view of the fact that 95 per cent of the visitors have to cross the railway tracks at various spots within the limits of this place of pilgrimage. The risks of accidents are many and continuous; and traffic congestion and inconvenience during the summer months will remain beyond any practicable remedial measures as long as the level crossing situation is not settled.
The official statistics which I got from the municipal authorities are a tragic illustration of the magnitude of this problem.
Each year, more and more Canadians and Americans visit the town and witness conditions that cannot be allowed to go on indefinitely. Here are the statistics on the number of cars and persons that have visited Ste. Anne de Beaupre in the last ten years:
Year	Cars	Persons1945 	
49,781	330,6201946 	
138,980	787,0001947 	
149,314	890,0001948 	
177,135	1,024,7001950 	
194,739	1,049,5001951 	
222,542	1,196,4001952 	
233,000	1,244,5001953 	
330,000	1,700,0001954 	
352,000	1,850,000
This continuous two-way traffic, which tends to increase from year to year, raises a problem that the municipality is no longer able to handle. The resulting confusion affects not only the district itself but the thousands of Canadians who, each year, travel to Ste. Anne.
Naturally, the fact that the railway tracks cut across the whole length of this national place of pilgrimage sets up a whole train of 
problems, because in this case, we have to deal, not with a single level crossing but with a whole series of them, in a comparatively small area, where thousands of people move about. This is perhaps a unique aspect of the situation in Canada, and that, no doubt, accounts for the fact that the commissioners made a very brief reference to it in their report.
At any rate, I am pleased to support the resolution and I hope that the resulting legislation will enable us to rectify, at least in part, the anomaly existing at Ste. Anne de Beaupre.
In conclusion, I should like to renew to the authorities concerned a previous request to the effect that the tracks of the Canadian National be moved eastward to the city limits, along the St. Lawrence river. The project would, of course, be very costly but, the problem being of national importance, I am confident that the kind co-operation of the national railway officials, coupled with the municipal authorities' genuine desire to deal with this situation, will lead to a solution, all the more readily as a consequence of this new legislation.
(Text):


Mr. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: May I call
it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word on this resolution with regard to the report of the board of transport commissioners on the railway crossing problem in Canada. Many of the previous speakers have indicated that this is a problem not only for the federal government but for all governments at all levels, municipal, provincial and federal. It is also a problem for all our highway safety organizations and, as the report indicates, as the number of automobiles has increased and their power and speed has become greater so has increased the incidence of death and disaster at railway crossings. The report indicates that to implement and put into force all the grade separation projects and all the mechanical devices necessary to protect the travelling public would cost an astronomical amount of money and take many years.

I realize that with the increase in the grade crossing fund many projects which have been impossible up to now will be carried out in districts and under circumstances where they are most necessary, but I feel, as the report indicates, that any measures that we might be able to take now to prevent accidents and death on our highways should be taken. I also feel that, as it is a problem that cannot be overcome in a physical way for years to come, everything possible should be done by educational programs and by corrective laws to reduce the effects of this hazardous situation. The report of the board of transport commissioners on this problem contains at page 44 various suggestions which were received by the board and which appear to have the greatest merit and warrant further investigation. The fifth suggestion is that crossings particularly dangerous by reason of poor visibility or for other reasons should have highway stop signs. I can remember discussing this question some years ago with a man in my own home town, and one remark he made stands out clearly in my mind. He said that the only sure way not to have an accident at a railway crossing is to have it firmly implanted in one's mind that it is always train time at a railway crossing.
In my opinion, with the speed at which cars travel today and the rapidity with which they approach level crossings, even present provincial laws, which set the speed at 20 miles an hour, are quite inadequate. I should like to read an editorial from the Drayton Advocate of Thursday, January 27, which to my mind indicates a measure that might be taken by the railways and provincial governments to help to alleviate this situation. It reads as follows:
Dr. Everon Flath. Toronto, a former Drayton physician, recently submitted the following pertinent letter to the Globe and Mail, who published it last Wednesday. It is of much interest and reads as follows:
"Almost every day we read reports of one or more automobiles being run down at unprotected level railway crossings. In Canada there are 32,553 crossings, with only 3,230 protected. In 1951 there were 463 accidents at these crossings, resulting in 191 deaths and 522 persons injured; not to mention the tremendous property loss.
In 1952, one out of every two persons killed in railway accidents died at highway crossings. One hundred and thirty-three out of 185 deaths occurred where these crossings were unprotected. At the end of 1952, 71-1 per cent of urban and 93-5 per cent of rural crossings had no protection, except for the familiar 'cross-arms' that we have seen from time immemorial, and to which many people pay little heed.
In June, 1954, the board of transport commissioners recommended that parliament increase its annual vote to the treasury's grade crossing fund from SI million to $5 million. Even this large amount will not be nearly sufficient to afford adequate protection at these death dealing places.
Railway Act
The cost of overpasses or underpasses for all crossings would be prohibitive, and it would take many years to instal them.
But there is a much less expensive and, I believe, a very practical and effective way of protecting our people from this hazard. I would suggest the installation of 'stop' signs on both sides of every crossing, making it obligatory for every motor vehicle to come to a complete stop before crossing the railway track, under penalty of an adequate fine for non-observance. This is not asking the impossible, for, even now, all buses and all Bell Telephone vehicles adhere rigidly to this rule.
In every town and city motorists are required to stop where signs command-this for their own safety and for the safety of others. Then why should they not take just a few moments to hesitate at these danger spots to ensure their own security? I would hope that my suggestion may appeal to both highway and railroad authorities, and that some action may soon be taken to reduce this unnecessary sacrifice of human life."
Such a step was advocated by many hon. members in 1950 when the fund was increased from $500,000 to $1 million, and was advocated by the hon. member for Halton and the hon. member for Wentworth in the house the other night. Therefore I suggest that consideration be given on the part of the railways to the erection of stop signs at all railway crossings not protected by mechanical devices and that laws should be passed making possible the imposition of an adequate fine as a penalty for non-observance and ignoring of such stop signs. I realize that this is entering the controversial field of dominion-provincial relations, but surely if there is any merit whatever in the suggestion these differences can be overcome when the lives of so many of our citizens are at stake.


Mr. McBain:: Mr. Chairman, many other members have spoken in support of this measure and I wish to join them in supporting the changes to be made in the railway grade crossing fund. I also wish to add a suggestion or two to those already made. The matter of solving the level crossing problem is not as simple as one might think. It involves finance and how to divide the costs, as well as the most economical way to spend the available money. We know that the only sure and safe protection to prevent accidents is by overhead bridges or subways. This means a grade separation which eliminates the crossing and therefore prevents accidents and loss of life.
In my constituency of Elgin there are six railroads. This means that we have a very large number of grade crossings on all types of roads, provincial highways, county roads and township roads, and a large number of crossings in the city of St. Thomas. Very few crossings at the present time have grade separations. With a population of 20,000 in the city of St. Thomas we have roughly 30 grade crossings, and at the present time only

Railway Act
three have grade separations. I have knowledge of one application which has been made to the board of transport commissioners for a grade separation. I think we will all agree that $5 million a year is only a drop in the bucket as far as providing sufficient funds for this program is concerned. We should also keep in mind that plans and specifications are not prepared and put into operation overnight.
The crossing to which I have made reference is the St. George street C.N.R. crossing, with which I am very familiar as it is near my home and I have crossed it many thousands of times. It is not my intention to put before the committee all the problems of my own constituency, but I do wish to bring to their attention some of the difficulties involved in reaching a solution to the problem before grade separations could be commenced. The elimination of this particular crossing has been talked about for at least 25 years, and is now in the second year of the planning stage. There are still many problems to iron out before construction can be started.
The problem presented by this crossing involves six organizations or municipalities, namely the Canadian National, the city of St. Thomas, the county of Elgin, the suburban roads commission, the board of transport commissioners and the province of Ontario. Many surveys have to be made, and the cost of each estimated and presented to those responsible for making the decision as to what type of grade separation is required.
There are other crossings that I wish to mention, one of which is the crossing west of Rodney. Today this county road follows the north side of both the New York Central's double track and the Chesapeake and Ohio single track, crossing these tracks one and a half miles west of the village and then recrossing the same track one and a quarter miles farther on. Endeavours have been made for years to have this road rerouted to eliminate one of the crossings.
I note that there is a provision in the act which states that the board should be empowered to make contributions towards the cost of highway projects which involve the construction of grade separation and the closing of an existing crossing or the diversion from the existing crossing of nearly all the highway traffic using it. I hope that when enacted this provision will lend sufficient aid to enable the improvement of this important artery of traffic in this part of Elgin county. I doubt if there is any Canadian line over which trains travel quite as fast as the United States lines do over this part of the road. In talking with engineers in St. Thomas I have been told that this portion of track is

the fastest in the Canadian division of these United States companies, and I believe it goes without saying that it is the fastest in Canada.
I feel that when consideration is being given to these changes and grade separations, we should be building for the future and not just for the next 10 or 20 years. With the greater demand for speed being made on railroads, there is a possibility that trains will be going much faster in the years ahead. Dieselization has increased the speed of freight trains from between 40 and 45 miles an hour to between 60 and 70 miles per hour. What the future holds in this regard it is hard to predict; but we can be sure that trains will not be going slower.
Many of our highways in Canada have grade separations which were built for the horse and buggy era and are far from adequate to take care of the extremely heavy highway traffic of today. Many of these separations are too low and too narrow to accommodate the large freight carriers that travel our highways today. Provincial highway No. 3 has an overhead pass over the New York Central tracks just east of St. Thomas but in order to negotiate this, traffic must make a reverse angle crossing. This creates a serious hazard to traffic, and seldom a week passes when there is not at least one serious accident on this bridge.
The bill also contains a provision that the fund should be made available to aid reconstruction and improvement of grade separations at crossings when the proposed legislation comes into force which, because of their location, design or size are inadequate for the highway traffic using them, the contribution in any case not to exceed 30 per cent of the cost of reconstruction nor the sum of $150,000. I hope that I have taken the right interpretation of this provision, and that up to $150,000 will be made available for the reconstruction of this and many similar inadequate overpasses which must be in existence from the east to the west coast.
In closing, there is one recommendation to which I would ask the Minister of Transport to give consideration. I refer to the provision which states that in any year in which there is an uncommitted balance of $2 million in the fund, the appropriation for that year should be such sum as with the uncommitted balance would amount to $7 million. It is my thought that the $5 million should be added to the fund each year, regardless of the amount of the uncommitted balance. There could be a year in which many projects would be in the preliminary stages, and therefore the amount required from the fund would be relatively small. The following year or years, these

same projects could have reached the point where they would require the full amount from the fund. I should like to see the limitation of $7 million on the fund eliminated or at least altered to a much higher figure.


Harry Oliver White: I just want to say a word or two about this debate before it passes. Almost everyone who has taken part in the debate has agreed that this is a necessary step. When the fund was first set up in 1909 the purchasing power of the dollar was far greater than it is today. In fact, I doubt if $5 today would do as much work, as far as the elimination of grade crossings is concerned, as a dollar would back in 1909. On that basis it can be seen that no consideration has been given to the enormous increase in traffic that has taken place, the increase in population or the speed at which our modern vehicles move. In the light of these considerations the fund proposed is still inadequate. I believe the fund has made no gains since 1909 when the increase in population, the increase in the amount of vehicular traffic and the increased costs are taken into consideration.
Both the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways cross the area I have the honour to represent, the lines running from east to west. There is the London to Stratford line of the Canadian National which crosses No. 2 highway right at the eastern approaches to the city of London. This is a dangerous crossing in a sense, and also has the disadvantage of holding up long lines of traffic. The fact that these two main lines of railway run east and west through the city of London makes it necessary for north to south traffic to cross these two lines of railway. This is especially true at the eastern approaches to the city.
Out in the riding there are also many dangerous crossings, the elimination of which possibly cannot be attempted for some time to come. There is a limit on the amount of funds that may be allotted to any one project. In view of increasing construction costs it would seem to me that that amount could be increased to take care of the increasing costs. As I said at the outset, Mr. Chairman, we welcome this measure but it is still far from adequate and it is time we got on with more of this type of work.


Hayden Stanton: In rising to take part in this debate today, Mr. Chairman, I feel it is my duty to bring before the committee certain very dangerous and disagreeable grade crossings which we have in the constituency of Leeds, which I have the honour of representing.
Railway Act
I am sure we are all very appreciative of the recommendation of the commission to increase the appropriation for the elimination of these hazardous railway crossings from $1 million to $5 million. Personally, I am of the opinion that we definitely must not be niggardly in our appropriation to eliminate, as far as possible, the danger that has taken the lives of so many of our citizens. Many of those citizens were in their early manhood and womanhood, and in the youth and vigour of life, and had it not been for their untimely death would have contributed much not only to the community in which they lived, but to the dominion as a whole. We cannot be unmindful of the fact that we should do everything reasonably possible to banish these hazards.
Dangerous railway crossings have been with us ever since the first railway was built, but in the early years we did not notice it so much as the only means of transportation was with horse-drawn vehicles. But now, with the advent of automobiles, trucks, and transports, the danger is brought more forcibly to our attention.
The crossings over a double track are far more hazardous than those over a single track railway. We read so often of people whose lives have been snuffed out at such grade crossings as these because a long passenger or freight train, travelling east or west as the case may be, had shut off the view of a train coming in the opposite direction. I could recite numerous accidents, many of them fatal, in my own county of Leeds and the adjoining county of Frontenac, which have been caused because the visions of the occupants of the car was obscured by a passing train.
In the year 1954, we had some fatal accidents in the Brockville district, and again in 1955. Just a week ago there was a fatal accident in the same district. We may read in the press concerning the different accidents across Canada, but when they happen right in our own community, they bring most forcibly to our minds that something should be done. Indeed, something must be done to stop this appalling loss of human life, or perhaps many months of suffering.
I was in hopes that the commission investigating the level grade crossings would have recommended even a greater increase of money appropriated for this purpose. However, as they recommend an increase to five times the original amount, it is a step in the right direction. We should use every device possible, such as gates, wigwags, overhead crossings, and subways, to eliminate these catastrophes.

Railway Act
I wish to draw specifically to your attention the condition which we have in Brock-ville that I mentioned in my remarks when I spoke on the speech from the throne. We have, on William street, a crossing which is extremely inconvenient as well as dangerous; a combination of highway No. 42 and No. 29 pass over the tracks at this point just a short distance before they merge with highway No. 2. All the passenger and freight trains, when they stop at Brockville station, shut off the traffic across this particularly heavily driven highway, and there are many, many trains every day that pass along this route owing to its being a double track. Not only that, but shunting engines are constantly going back and forth, making up freight trains at this particular point. I believe there are few crossings in Canada that have the amount of rail and highway traffic that there is at this place in Brockville but have either a subway or an overhead crossing.
Not only that, but two very large schools have now been built just north of the tracks, and those children should not be required much longer to walk this hazardous path, which is ever a fear to their parents from the time the children leave their homes for school until they are back home again.
I hope that this crossing will receive every consideration, and that something may be done to decrease its danger and inconvenience. I have spoken of this particular situation before in the house, and I shall continue to do so on every occasion that affords me the opportunity.
Again I say, let us do everything humanly possible to make our arteries of travel safer, not only for the people who are travelling on them today but for the rising generation.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not wish to prolong the consideration of this resolution, but a few comments have been made during the course of th.e discussion to which I think I should refer before the debate is closed.
First may I say, with a certain amount of diffidence, that I think there is general misapprehension as to the role of the grade crossing fund in connection with the projects to which most hon. members have referred. 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. And it is the function of the board to apportion the cost of a project among the various interested parties.

Consequently if hon. members will look back at reports of the board in the past years, and particularly the report on the grade crossing problem, they will find that the contributions the board has made in the past have actually represented a little bit more than a quarter of the cost of the various projects in the reports.
I mention this merely to emphasize the fact that for every dollar placed at the disposal of the board through the grade crossing fund, approximately three dollars have to be found and paid by the railways, by municipal corporations or by the provinces. I mention this for two reasons: I do so first of all because I think it is important to realize that the money to be placed in this fund will be more than matched by other funds and, secondly, because the very fact that the board does not pay the whole cost obviously imposes some limitations on the amount which may be spent each year in carrying out these projects.
One aspect upon which most hon. members have been unanimous is the fact that this contribution, which we propose to increase from $1 million to $5 million, is inadequate. I would like to say immediately that I do not think anyone for a moment believes that merely by increasing the amount from $1 million to $5 million the problem of grade crossings thereby would be settled once and for all. I think it is not flattering to anyone to believe that the magnitude of the problem is not appreciated. But I think those who have taken the trouble to read the report of the board carefully will find that the commissioners were very much impressed by the necessity of taking account of what funds would be forthcoming from the municipalities and the provinces, and that it would not be sufficient merely to place large sums of money in the hands of the board and consider that that would solve the problem.
For example, at page 90 of the report I find these words:
It would be difficult to justify a federal contribution which was not in reasonable accordance with the availability of highway authority funds.
And this further quotation from page 91 which, I suggest, is of even greater significance, where the commissioners say:
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.
In other words, until we have had some further experience with appropriations of the order of $5 million annually, it is going to be difficult for the board to say in a definitive fashion whether $5 million will be

enough, or whether it may be too much. In that connection I would like to mention in passing that the increase in the percentage of the contribution from the fund will play an important role in deciding the adequacy of this annual amount. Until the board has had some experience with these increased percentages I think it will be difficult for them to decide whether the $5 million will be enough or not.
Hon. members will perhaps recall that in the explanation I gave the other day to the committee I said that the board had referred to the possibility that all of an annual appropriation might not be spent in one year. They had recommended that if at any time the uncommitted balance was more than $2 million there should be a corresponding reduction in the annual appropriation for the following year. I hope that this condition will not come about and that the board will find it convenient because of the availability of other funds to spend each year all of the appropriation of $5 million and that it will not be found necessary to defer expenditures because others unfortunately have been unable to match the moneys available from the grade crossing fund.
I should like to refer briefly to two other points. I said the other day in my opening remarks on this resolution that we had accepted all of the recommendations contained in the report of the board save one which referred to a proposal by which the board would make contributions up to $200 toward the annual maintenance and operating costs of automatic signals. I merely want to say in explanation of the decision of the government not to accept that recommendation that it was our thought that the moneys in the fund ought to be devoted primarily and principally to the elimination of grade crossings and to the installation of protective devices rather than to the payment of maintenance costs. At the start these might represent only a relatively small amount but they might soon become quite a substantial item. Consequently, after careful consideration the government decided that it would not recommend the adoption of this recommendation of the board. Perhaps I should add that if we became convinced at some future date that this would be a useful addition to the powers of the board in respect to the fund we would be quite prepared to consider it.
Finally, there is just one further point I should like to make. Many hon. members have referred to the use of the grade crossing fund as a means of alleviating unemployment. I want to say that this resolution was not introduced with the thought that $5 million added to the grade crossing fund 50433-135i
Railway Act
would exercise a profound influence on employment in Canada. I want to say right away to the committee that this measure is not being considered as an unemployment relief project.
I can merely add, to what has been said by those who dealt with this aspect of the matter, that if at any time it was thought that further funds ought to be made available for these purposes I do not doubt that the government would be inclined to follow precedents of the past where funds have been voted for the purposes of grade crossing elimination but without the restrictions which existed as to percentages and as to limits applying to individual projects.
I have tried to deal with the various criticisms that have been voiced during the course of this debate. There is just one further thought that I should like to mention. Some hon. members spoke of the rigidity of the formula. I have since looked up the provisions of the statute and I do not think they have the inflexibility or rigidity which hon. members have mentioned. In fact I think the percentages and amounts which are contained in the board's report are to be looked upon as maxima and not as fixed percentages to apply in each case. I notice that the percentage of 40 per cent has been looked upon as a more or less constant figure, but quite frankly I do not believe that one should conclude that invariably and in all circumstances the percentages should be fixed at those I mentioned when I presented the resolution. I think we shall find that the more flexibility there is left to the board, the better will be the administration of the fund.


Mr. Small:: Mr. Chairman, in effect the minister said that the initiation of these projects comes from the municipality or the railroad-


George Carlyle Marler: Or the province.


Robert Hardy Small: Could the minister tell the committee how many projects have been applied for by municipalities?


George Carlyle Marler: I am afraid I have not any information with me that would permit me to give the hon. member an answer to that question. I read over the last report of the board of transport commissioners but I cannot find any classifications which would permit me to say that a certain percentage or a certain number had resulted from applications made by municipalities, a certain number from applications made by provinces, and a certain number from applications made by the railways. What I wished to say was that the origination of the project seemed to be the responsibility of one of these three bodies.

Railway Act


Robert Hardy Small: May I ask a supplementary question with regard to the statement by the minister about the $5 million and the board having sufficient experience to decide whether the amount was adequate or inadequate. I ask this in view ol their statement that they are setting up a hypothetical program of building grade separations and they set the amount at some $665 million. To take care of these speedily and to accomplish it in a few short years they would set up an amount of $33 million. How does the minister reconcile that with the fact that they would not know whether $5 million was enough to take care of it from year to year when there is an admission that $33 million is not enough?


George Carlyle Marler: The point which I tried to express to the committee was that it was the board which had made these comments with regard to the $5 million. I think it is perfectly clear from reading the report that the board is fully impressed with the magnitude of the problem. I think it was fully impressed with the immensity of the figure of $665 million to which my hon. friend has just referred and to which he referred the other evening. But I do say that notwithstanding these figures, which I think were given to illustrate the dimension of the problem, the board in its report comes back and says, as I said a moment ago:
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.
Consequently it simply results in this, that there would be no purpose in placing such a sum, let us say, as $33 million in the grade crossing fund and removing it from the funds currently raised by taxation unless there were some possibility that the other parties to these projects would wish to spend a corresponding amount of money to carry out the projects.


Robert Hardy Small: Could the minister obtain a rough schedule or list of the priorities which would be necessary in order to have some discussion on it when the bill is up for second reading? How many projects are involved in the whole of Canada? If we had that information we would have a better picture of the whole situation.


George Carlyle Marler: I think perhaps the hon. member misunderstands the situation. When he spoke the other evening I noticed that he expressed what I would describe as a mild criticism of the fact that the board itself had not gone further in making an estimate of the cost of grade separations and in establishing a list of the separations that
	I
ought to be carried out. At the same time, however, he pointed out that the number of grade crossings was rapidly approaching 30,000.
All I can say in answer to his question, as to whether or not there is a list of priority, is that I believe there should not be a priority. I believe those who come before the board should not be made to feel that there are other projects before them and that a mere priority in the date of a previous application would preclude their application being given immediate consideration if the board thought it was a project that ought to be dealt with right away. I do not really believe it would be possible for the board to prepare a list of projects and to assign an order of priority to them. If the work were to be carried out by the federal government I suppose quite naturally it would have some idea about priorities, but having regard to the fact that it may be the railway, the municipality or the province which initiates a petition I do not think it would be possible to establish a list or to assign a priority to a particular project.


Mr. Ellis:: The minister spoke about the rigidity of the formula and he suggested that at no time was it understood that 40 per cent would always be the amount of the grant under the existing legislation. In speaking of rigidity, is it his intention to convey the impression that the grant might be less than 40 per cent but never more? Does he mean, by having a certain amount of flexibility under the existing legislation, that the maximum might be 60 per cent but the grant will never be more than 60 per cent and might well be considerably less than that?


George Carlyle Marler: I was really thinking of the fact that during the debate the other evening there was a suggestion that invariably the cost of a project will be divided so that the fund will pay 40 per cent and the municipality or the province will pay 30 per cent and the railway will pay 30 per cent. My thinking on the subject is that the shares contributed by the participants should not be subject to a rigid formula in that way because I think there are a great many factors which ought to be given consideration.
Judging from the experience of last year when the contributions were invariably 40 per cent, and in view of the fact that we propose to raise that percentage to 60 per cent, I think it is a practical inference to say that in all likelihood the board will contribute 60 per cent, where previously it contributed 40 per cent.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The minister suggested that when the government brought forward this legislation it had not taken into consideration the unemployment situation. I would ask the minister if he feels, in view of the extremely serious unemployment situation in Canada, that he could recommend to his colleagues in the cabinet that they make a supplemental appropriation to this fund with particular reference to the unemployment situation of which we are all keenly aware today.


George Carlyle Marler: I think I should say categorically I would not feel that the present time was the appropriate time to increase this sum of $5 million about which we have been talking. I will say however that conditions may change, as they have in the past, and a time might come when the government would desire to supplement that appropriation and perhaps put at the disposal of the board funds which are not subject to the limitations and maxima referred to in the existing legislation.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I asked my previous question because the minister intimated earlier it might be possible that the $5 million would not be entirely used during the coming year. I think the minister will agree the reason that the money might not be used is not a lack of projects in the country. Rather, it is because under the formula many municipal authorities might find they are not in a financial position to enter into agreements under this legislation. The minister suggested that the government might be prepared to consider appropriating money to this fund without strings attached; that is to say, that money would be made available for grade crossing protection without the limitations set forth in this legislation whereby the fund would pay a certain percentage and the balance would be contributed by the municipalities. Under those conditions I suggest that the municipalities certainly would be able to avail themselves of every cent of such a supplemental appropriation. Does the minister feel there would be any doubt in the mind of the government that any supplemental appropriation might not be taken up by the highway authorities in Canada?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. Before the minister replies I think it should be pointed out that while the remarks the hon. member for Regina City is making are certainly directed to the possible expediency of increasing the grade crossing fund, I do not think I should permit the discussion to develop into a discussion as to the ways and
Railway Act
means of relieving the unemployment situation, which is quite obviously not the prime purpose of the bill.


George Carlyle Marler: I certainly did not wish to deal with that aspect of the question. I think the hon. member will realize there is not only the question of the capacity of the municipality and the province, there is also the willingness of the province or the municipality to use its funds for this particular purpose.
I know that in my own province there are many grade crossings which could be improved by grade separations at perhaps considerable expense. I also know the provincial government has at times seemed unwilling to devote highway funds to this purpose. I think they have to be left free to decide whether or not they should use their highway budget for grade separations. I think I would be somewhat difficult to convince that with a budget of approximately $325 million, as is the case in Quebec, the province would be unable to bear its share of a reasonable list of useful projects of this kind.


Robert Hardy Small: I would like to ask the minister one further question. He stated that if this project were to be carried out by the federal government the question of priority might be considered. I do not think he fully understood what I meant when I referred to priority. I was not referring to priority in regard to how much money is going to be allotted. I had in mind that the larger municipalities with a greater number of grade separations to construct would soon exhaust the small amount of money which has been appropriated for this purpose and the small municipalities would be out of the picture in that they could not secure money for the construction of grade crossings.
In regard to priority I had in mind that there should be a schedule established so every municipality which made application for construction of grade crossings would receive fair consideration. I think this is necessary in view of the fact that the $5 million which has been appropriated for this purpose seems to me to be too small a sum to accomplish an extensive program of grade crossing construction.
There is no need for the board of railway commissioners to gather experience in this field in order to learn whether or not the appropriation is adequate. It is obvious to us in this house that there is not sufficient money to support the project.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.

Radio Act
Mr. Marler thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 259, to amend the Railway-Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RADIO ACT


George Carlyle Marler: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Radio Act to control the mechanical features of radio antennae for safety purposes and to provide for the appointment of inspectors in relation thereto; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


George Carlyle Marler: I think that the purport of this resolution is clear from its text, but perhaps hon. members would find it convenient if I were to explain a little bit more fully than is done by the resolution the three changes which it is sought to effect by the bill that it is proposed to introduce if this resolution is adopted by the committee.
The first amendment deals with the control of the erection of radio antennae. Such control is needed principally because of the use of high and elaborate structures which could be hazardous to life and property unless adequately designed and properly erected. The proposed amendment would permit satisfactory regulations to be made to cope with this problem. Perhaps I should say that I am thinking principally of antennae for receiving purposes. It is also intended to provide for the appointment of inspectors for the enforcement and administration of these regulations.
Another amendment contemplates the exempting from licensing of radio devices which operate through the use of very weak radio signals such as, for example, automatic garage door operating devices. Hon. members can probably think of other examples of the same kind. Under the present provisions of the Radio Act, these devices are subject to licensing because they come within the definition of a radio station. As hon. members will well appreciate, enforcement of the act would involve inconvenience to the owner and unnecessary expenditure of public funds.
Another amendment is deemed necessary so that Canada may fulfil an international commitment regarding the prevention of unauthorized interception and use of radio

communication not intended for the general use of the public. The commitment to which 1 refer is that which this country assumed when it became a signatory of the international telecommunication convention.
The amendments it is proposed to make are the result of long and serious consideration by the officials of my department. It is believed that the suggested changes will facilitate the administration of the Radio Act and at the same time be of beneficial effect so far as the general public is concerned.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, although the committee listened with interest to the statement made by the minister, I cannot quite follow him in the view he expressed to the effect that the resolution indicates quite clearly the purport of the bill. I scanned this resolution, as did some of my colleagues, and I think it is not unfair to say that, after repeated scanning of it, we came to the conclusion that we knew exactly as much about it then as we did when we began. I have rarely seen on the order paper a more uninformative resolution than this one. It speaks vaguely about amending the act to control the mechanical features of radio antennae for safety purposes and to provide for the appointment of inspectors in relation thereto; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act. However, I suppose the resolution has served the purpose of complying with that rule of the house which forbids the introduction in the house of any bill involving the expenditure of money that is not preceded first by a resolution. I doubt whether it has contributed anything to the information of the committee.
Mr. Chairman, the minister's oral explanation has, I am sure, been listened to with interest. I think it probably indicates that little can be usefully said at this stage of the discussion until we have the bill before us. I therefore propose to reserve more extended remarks for the second reading of the bill.
Briefly, Mr. Chairman, the matter of aerials for receiving sets, particularly television, is one that has been agitating many municipalities, not simply in relation to safety but also with respect to other considerations which have moved some municipalities to wish to go more extensively into the field of licensing. The precise form of the legislation will therefore be awaited with interest.
What the minister had to say with reference to the type of electric devices such as the so-called electric eye suggests, I think, that the act should be amended for the

exempting purpose indicated, for it is certainly far beyond the power of any department to enforce legislation if it is to be applicable to devices of that kind.
I believe the committee will need more information concerning the type of commitment the minister indicated was the reason for the final portion of the resolution relating to the administration of the act. Before the resolution is reported I should like to ask the minister to give some further information in that respect, for his statement with regard to it was, I think, all too brief.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps the minister would just say a word on the subject to which I have referred.


George Carlyle Marler: I was waiting inasmuch as I thought others might wish to make a few comments. My notes are to the effect that by the international telecommunication convention which is now in force Canada is obliged to impose secrecy restrictions on all radio communications not intended for the general use of the public. The proposed amendment would therefore consist of the addition to the act of a section which would enable the fulfilment of this obligation.
I might just add, Mr. Chairman, that the sort of thing of which we have had complaints is particularly with respect to short waves where signals are broadcast-for example, by a taxi company-and where others than those to whom the signals were directed have made use of those signals for their own purposes although they were not part of those intended to profit from the signals. I believe the same thing applies to radio used for ambulance purposes, for towing vehicles service and a variety of cases of that kind where a signal intended for an individual has been made use of by others to whom the information should not have been communicated. The purpose is to assure secrecy of communications within the spirit of the act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to the proposed appointment of inspectors. How many inspectors is it expected will need to be appointed in order to carry out the intent of the resolution, and what expense is involved in that regard?


George Carlyle Marler: I am afraid I am not able to answer that question at the moment. I shall try to inform my hon. friend when we come to second reading of the bill.


Mr. Bryson:: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Eglinton, I think the resolution
Radio Act
is rather obscure. Certainly from what I can gather from it, I am not in opposition to all of the proposals that are in the resolution as I read it, but I am rather disappointed by reason of its obscurity. I hope I will not be disappointed when the bill comes before the house and that it will contain some of the things I had hoped to see in the resolution. Certainly I am in agreement that the government should have some control over the mechanical features of antennae systems.


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think I spoke of antennae systems. I spoke of antennae.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: In the resolution reference is made to radio antennae. I take it that also includes television.


George Carlyle Marler: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I think it is really unfortunate that we have got to have these Buck Rogers contraptions on the rooftop of every house. From my very limited knowledge I am convinced that the time is not very far distant when we will not have to have these contraptions on the tops of houses. As a matter of fact, I think there are a great many areas where they are completely unnecessary. When I go around the city of Ottawa and see these weird and wonderful rotating stacked arrays I am completely flabbergasted. Somebody really has some good salesmen on the job. I can think of no more depressing sight than to visit new housing projects and see these antennae on the roofs of the houses. I hope the day is not far distant when we can dispense with them entirely.
I am glad to see that the government is giving some consideration to this proposition because the other day the board of trade of the city of Prince Albert discussed the passing of a bylaw to levy a fee of $2.50 for the installation of every T.V. antenna in the Prince Albert area. Television antennae in urban areas are very mediocre jobs compared with what one sees in the rural areas. There they have really got something that is out of this world, and they are a danger to life and limb. I am glad to see that the government is giving consideration to that matter.
So far as the actual inspection is concerned, I have had a great deal to do with the radio inspectors of the Department of Transport, and I do not think there is any department of the government that has more conscientious people working for it than those who go about the country as radio inspectors. It is also my opinion that the decision of the government a year or two ago to dispense with the collection of radio licences gave these men a great deal more free time, and I am convinced that because of their strategic position and the

Radio Act
time they now have they can look after the inspection of these structures very well.
There is one other thing I should like to see in the bill which I spoke about last year, and I am going to refer to it again now. I think that much unnecessary criticism is levelled at the Department of Transport because of reception interference. When the bill comes before the house I hope there will be something in it to remedy that serious situation. I do not think it is right that the taxpayers of Canada should be asked to pay for inspectors to run around the country in an effort to run down and remedy interference when there is nothing they can do about it. It adds nothing to their prestige in the community and it certainly adds nothing to the prestige of the Department of Transport. The frequencies of the radio stations in Prince Albert and Saskatoon are 900 and 600 kilocycles, and reception on many A.C.-D.C. receivers is completely blocked out because of interference caused by the horizontal sweep oscillator in the T.V. receivers nearby with the result that the radio inspectors of the Department of Transport are called upon to locate and rectify the interference. The citizens are concerned about the matter, and many of them are more than concerned. The men in the department cannot do anything about it for the simple reason that the companies making television receivers and other kinds of electrical apparatus do not see fit to add filters to their products to combat such interference. It can be done by the expenditure of just a few cents.
I think that the Department of Transport should ask the manufacturers to co-operate a little more. The odd manufacturer is now doing so. I imagine that most people know what radio interference is. If you buy a Remington electric shaver and it causes interference you can send it back to the company and they will refund your money. They realize that they are at fault, but I understand they are the only company that will make restitution. I think the time is long overdue for the people who make these pieces of electrical equipment to co-operate with the Department of Transport because there is nothing that the officers of the department can do to remedy the situation short of that co-operation.
I hope when the bill comes before us there will be something in it to bring about co-operation by the electrical manufacturing companies. I am not sure what the minister meant by his reference to secrecy. In my view there is possibly a lot more stock put in that than is needed. I am sure it causes the Department of Transport inspectors much extra work. I cannot deal with the bill until

I see what it contains, but I do hope in all sincerity that the government and the Minister of Transport will give serious consideration to the question of radio interference. Until I see the bill I have no more to say.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Chairman, there is just one question I want to bring to the attention of the minister. I do not intend to debate the resolution at this time. There is hardly enough information before us to do so, and I shall wait until the bill is before us. However, with reference to antennae, I have had a situation drawn to my attention that I want to put before the minister now. As the minister knows, the city of Banff is located right in the mountains and it is very difficult there to get decent radio or television reception. I do not know whether or not it is possible because I am not an expert in the field, but it has been suggested to me that it may be possible to erect one large antenna from which leads could be run to the different homes. If that is so, I can see a tremendous advantage to the listeners of that town because it is impossible for the people who have receiving sets to build antennae sufficiently high to get proper reception. If something like that could be done I think it would be of service to the people there as well as in similar localities. Can the minister give us any information?


George Carlyle Marler: I may say to the hon. member that question is under consideration by my department at the present time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does the
Department of Transport intend to confine inspection to incorporated villages, towns and cities or do they intend to extend it into the country also?


George Carlyle Marler: I have tried, Mr. Chairman, in my rather brief remarks to suggest that the first purpose of the proposed resolution was to enact legislation concerning the structure and safety of antennae, and the inspectors to whom I referred would be those who would be empowered to see to the enforcement of these regulations concerning antennae.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: With this extra job of inspecting, which will cost many thousands of dollars-


George Carlyle Marler: I think that is unlikely.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Well, it will cost many thousands of dollars. Each inspector will cost some few thousands of dollars, and many will be needed. Is it the thought of the transport department that they will use some of the money now being collected

through the 15 per cent excise tax on radios and television sets, and which the C.B.C. is now getting? This is going to be an extra burden on the taxpayer. Mention has been made of the fact that the Department of Transport inspectors are doing a good job, and they are doing a good job; but they have many difficulties with which to contend. The hon. member for Bow River mentioned special towers being erected, but they would cost a tremendous sum of money. In addition, there is a tremendous amount of leakage in long lead-ins and the T.V. picture would not be as good as with a short lead-in.
There are many things like that to consider in checking antennae, but I think one of the most important is to see that they are properly grounded against lightning. Otherwise, there is great danger of fire. I should like to know if the expense of this undertaking is to be borne entirely by the Department of Transport.


George Carlyle Marler: I think there is no doubt about that whatever, Mr. Chairman. The expenditure would be met through the budget of my department.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister say another word about safety because it is a little difficult to see just how far this type of inspection is going to go, and how it may or may not fit in with certain types of municipal regulations that are now in the course of being set up. When the matter of safety is mentioned in the resolution, is it the safety of the installation; is it the safety of persons who might be injured, for instance,' if the antennae falls off a roof, or is the resolution thinking also of safety in respect to air traffic overhead?
There should not be any problem about air traffic overhead except in the case of very high antennae such as those used in connection with transmitting stations. No aeroplane, unless in distress, would be flying over a built-up area at such a height that there would be any question of danger arising from the presence of an antenna over a house. Of course, we have the danger with which we are all familiar, that of the high antennae now used in connection with transmitting stations, either for radio or television purposes. I wonder if the minister would indicate more clearly what is the type of hazard against which it is intended by this legislation to provide safety measures?


George Carlyle Marler: In my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I said that it was principally because of the very high and elaborate structures which could be hazardous to life and property unless designed and properly erected. Those are the objects we have in mind.
*0433-136
17, 1955	2141
Members' Retiring Allowances Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it, then, there is no thought of extending the inspection to individual domestic television aerials, we will say on a home. One hon. member was speaking about the multiplicity of some of these television aerials. In some parts of some cities they resemble a forest. I ask the minister if there is any thought of extending inspection to these domestic aerials, or is he thinking simply of the more imposing and elaborate structures?


George Carlyle Marler: Quite obviously the latter; so far as what we might call domestic antennae are concerned, I think we have all seen examples when we have wondered if it was safe to pass nearby. I think the purpose is to make sure the public is not being exposed to unnecessary danger from these antennae which, as the hon. member has said, are to be found almost like a forest in some parts of the country.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would this inspection also cover telephone station apparatus that they have at the present time?


George Carlyle Marler: No, only radio antennae.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Well, that is radio.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Marler thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 260, to amend the Radio Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT RETIRING ALLOWANCES ACT


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 183, to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: As I
indicated while speaking on the resolution, one or two inconsistencies have come to light as a result of experience in the administration of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act over the past year which call for amendments in the act.
Both of these cases occur as a result of the provisions dealing with payments for prior service. Hon. members will recall that on electing to contribute for prior service, a member has the choice of paying in a lump sum immediately or in instalments either regular or irregular or of deferring payment
2142	HOUSE OF
Members' Retiring Allowances Act until he is eventually eligible for an allowance. The lump sum calculated at the time of the election is made up of the contributions which would have been paid during that prior service had the act then been in force, together with interest from the end of each prior session to the time of election. If the lump sum is not paid immediately, then an interest penalty is charged on the amount owing from time to time.
The most important of these cases arises out of the fact that the act provides that if a withdrawal allowance is payable, any amount still owing by a member for prior service may be written off, provided that he pays the interest owing on the balance of the lump sum which he originally elected to pay for that prior service. I should perhaps recall to hon. members that the withdrawal allowance is payable when on ceasing to be a member he is ineligible for an annual allowance or on death if the contributions, excluding any interest, exceed the benefits received under the act. On the other hand our law officers say that, as the act is now drafted, if no withdrawal allowance is payable the amount owing cannot be written off.
This has led to the result that there is a claim on the estate of a former member who died after he was eligible for a pension but before the first instalments of allowance had paid off the balance owing and the benefits received exceeded the contributions, excluding interest, and so no withdrawal allowance was payable. Had he died a few months earlier when his contributions exceeded the benefits a withdrawal allowance would have been payable and-this is the anomaly-there would have been no claim on the estate.
In addition the act operates unfairly for the member who pays for his prior service before retirement compared with the member who defers his payments until he is eligible for an allowance. If neither becomes eligible for the allowance the former loses all his interest, while the latter loses only the relatively smaller amount of interest on the lump sum he originally elected to pay.
In fairness to all, the government felt that the act should be revised one way or the other. Either every member should be required to pay all the interest included in the original lump sum owing at the time of his election to pay for related prior service, or that interest should be included in all returns of contributions, and at death the unpaid balance of the lump sum should be written off.
The second alternative is in line with normal pension plan procedure where it is
[Mr. Benidickson.l

generally regarded as undesirable to have a claim on the estate after death and the government decided to adopt it. Moreover, our actuarial advice is that the effect of this on the financial position of the plan would be a minor one.
I should make it clear, however, that any penalty interest subsequently paid on the lump sum calculated to be due at the time of election or on the balance of that lump sum would not be returned. This is done because the fund should be earning the interest related to the unpaid lump sum, and in fairness to the member who pays in full immediately and therefore has not the use of the money.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, when we were at the resolution stage I asked the parliamentary assistant a question which seemed to me to cover the important point-whether this act was going to affect the actuarial soundness of the fund, and he said that it would not. The explanation he has given as to the anomalies which have arisen seems reasonable. It seems to me that, in fairness, they should be corrected. We are assured that these provisions have been carefully prepared by the Department of Justice and are believed by experts to be technically effective to produce the results desired.


[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.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, after this bill has been dealt with I wonder if the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance would take up with the officials the possibility of a memorandum being prepared and distributed to hon. members so that all might know exactly what would happen to their estates in the various circumstances to which he has referred.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would raise one small point, on a matter of wording. I would refer the parliamentary assistant to line 25 where we find the words:
Where the person described in section 12, 13 or 14.
Actually there are three different kinds of instances given in these three sections, and I submit the implication is that it is one and the same person. Should it not read "a person". I am not pressing the suggestion, although I am saying that the word "the"

would indicate that it is the same person described in sections 12, 13 and 14.


William Moore Benidickson: I suggest that "the
person" would be the individual person described in either of the three paragraphs.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I admit that is a possible reading, and I am not pressing the point.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 184, to amend the Financial Administration Act.


[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-Salary.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a very brief statement on the record. After all, this is one of the great offices in our system of administration, and as it has come up for discussion it would be worth while to put on the record a very brief statement appearing in Jennings' book on "Parliament", where he describes the way the office originated. I shall read briefly from this book because I think it may be of interest to hon. members, and useful to have on the record.
This quotation refers to the Auditor General, whose office by the way was established in Great Britain only a very short time before it was established here. At page 320 of the Jennings book I find this:
The present system of control has been developed not by the mere accretion of formality to formality, but as the result of a long experience of abuses. From 1780 to the present day there has been a constant process of reform. Some great statesmen, Mr. Burke, Mr. Pitt, Sir Robert Peel, and Mr. Gladstone, owe their reputations primarily to their financial reforms. Others of lesser rank . . . would be forgotten if they too had not been administrative reformers. Above all, there has been a great host whose names have been almost forgotten, who have sat on committees devising means for protecting the public revenue. Honesty in public administration involves primarily financial probity, and that has been attained. The British constitution is a system of checks and balances of a kind that Burke did not contemplate. In this sense the Comptroller and Auditor-General is the guardian not of red tape but of the British constitution.
Primarily, then, he is a referee in the football sense. He sees that the rules are observed. He 50433-136J
Financial Administration Act blows his whistle when he observes an infringement. Though he sends nobody off the field, the treasury, pressed by the public accounts committee, may.
Even many of those who have studied such matters are hardly aware of the revolution in the public accounts that has taken place under the Exchequer and Audit Act, through the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, addressed to the House of Commons.
These reports are submitted to the judgment of the public accounts committee, and every irregularity, which in former days would have been judged and buried within the walls of a department, is examined and reported on, and the financial administration of the civil departments is then subjected to public criticism. It may indeed be maintained that, if the first lord of the treasury, or a secretary of state, should order expenditure contrary to act of parliament, or to the established rules of the service, or of the department over which he presides, the fact is certain to be made known to parliament by the independent auditor in his report upon the appropriation account of the vote to which such expenditure is charged.
I put that on the record partly to remind the house that this institution is one of the many results of the wisdom of our ancestors and is one more cornerstone in our constitution. I did not want this bill to go through purely as a matter of form without trying in this way to underline its importance.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Coming into force.
Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Will the minister tell us if there is any particular reason why this date should be July 1, 1954?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, there is a particular reason. In July last year the government decided upon a general increase in the salaries of senior civil servants. At that time we included the Auditor General in the group but of course his salary could not be increased by order in council. It is fixed by statute and that is why we are doing it in this way. But it was agreed at that time that he should have an increase as of that date.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Bill reported.
Walter Edward Harris: the third reading of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



WINNIPEG AND ST. BONIFACE HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS AMENDMENT RESPECTING QUORUM AT MEETINGS

George Carlyle Marler: the second reading of Bill No. 195, to amend the Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour Commissioners Act.

Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Speaker, at the present time the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commissioners consist of seven members-three appointed by the city of Winnipeg, two by the city of St. Boniface, one by the municipality of East Kildonan and one by the municipality of West Kildonan. These commissioners serve without remuneration. Under the existing provisions of the act the quorum for the transaction of business is six.
The corporation has reported that because the members have a variety of business interests it is frequently found impossible to arrange for attendance of the present quorum. In the circumstances the corporation is desirous of having their act amended to provide that the quorum shall be simply a majority. This would serve to place the corporation's attendance requirement on the same basis as for the other harbours.
This bill is required to amend the act in accordance with the request of the commissioners.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Langlois) has indicated, this bill proposes a very minor change in the Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour Commissioners Act. Nevertheless I would not want hon. members to think that it is not an important bill or that the harbour of Winnipeg and St. Boniface is not one of the important harbours of this country. I agree with the request that has been made by the harbour commissioners of my city and district, that the quorum should be reduced, but there is a suggestion I should like to make in connection with this important piece of legislation.
As to the matter of the quorum, I think hon. members will be interested in knowing that at the present time the quorum is six out of seven members. That does seem to be a rather high quorum particularly in view of the fact that the quorum in this house is only 20 out of 265 members.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That bill is not on the order paper at present so I am not out of order. This situation arises from the fact that when the Winnipeg and St. Boniface board of harbour commissioners was first established it consisted of five members, three from Winnipeg and two from St. Boniface. In that situation it would have been obviously unwise to make a bare majority the quorum. Under those conditions the three Winnipeg members
[Mr. Marler.l

could have constituted a quorum and done business without the presence of the representatives from St. Boniface.


George Carlyle Marler: Or vice versa.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two would not have been a majority; I think the minister has a little more arithmetic to do before he can back up that statement. By a-later amendment to the act it was provided that if any of the other municipalities in the area were brought within the scope of the act, for each such municipality brought in one more member would be added to the board and the quorum would be increased by one. As a result of the application of that amendment the board was increased to seven and the quorum was increased to six. I think it will be obvious that that is a difficult situation under which to work and the request to reduce the quorum to a majority of the membership of the board, which will now be four members, is a reasonable one and I am sure the house will agree to it.
The suggestion I wish to make has to do with the form of the legislation. As hon. members know, it is not very long since we had a work known as the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952. Every 25 years or so the statutes of Canada are revised and consolidated. Most hon. members and people who have to do with the statutes of this country assume that if they have the latest set of revised statutes they can throw away all the old books. As hon. members who are lawyers know, that is not the case. The fact is that laws passed by parliament previous to the last set of revised statutes are still on the books and if there are any that have not been repealed or are not spent, even though they are not consolidated they are still in effect.
That is the situation with respect to the legislation having to do with the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commissioners. If one takes the trouble to look up the appendix to the revised statutes of 1952 to find out what happened to the Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour Commissioners Act he will find that it was not repealed and was not consolidated. So it is not included in the revised statutes of 1952.
Being a Winnipeg representative I was a little offended to think that this legislation was not revised and consolidated in 1952. I went back and discovered that the same treatment was given to the Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour Commissioners Act in 1927. In that year when the revised statutes were produced the original act was listed as being neither repealed nor consolidated. Now here is the picture, Mr. Speaker. The revised statutes of 1952 are for all practical purposes the basic

law of Canada; but when you come to the Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour Commissioners Act you have to look in three separate volumes of the statutes. You have to go back to the statutes of 1912, chapter 55, to find the original act. Then you have to go to the statutes of 1938, chapter 17, to find the amending act which made it possible to bring in other municipalities such as those referred to by the parliamentary assistant. And now there will be a third statute which will appear in the statutes of 1955 to complete the picture. But you have to refer to all three of these sets of statutes to get that complete picture.
I suggest that if an act is in the process of being spent or is not going to continue to be a basic act in any sense, that sort of treatment of legislation is perhaps in order. But this legislation is the constitution of the board of harbour commissioners of Winnipeg and St. Boniface and I submit it would be better to have it put together in one act. I would hope that the minister would consider the possibility of substituting for this bill an act which would repeal the act of 1912 as amended by the act of 1938 and would substitute one complete Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour Commissioners Act so that it would appear in one place in consolidated form.
I have before me a report on the tonnage of goods in and out of the Winnipeg-St. Boniface harbour but I will not take the time of the house to read it in detail. I might say that the harbour consists of the waters of the Red and Assiniboine rivers within the areas of Winnipeg, St. Boniface and East Kildonan and West Kildonan, as indicated by my hon. friend. This report shows a considerable tonnage of fish, hay, flour and so on, as well as a large tonnage of unenumerated goods. In other words, this is not something which is purely academic. This is a harbour which is an active place in the open months of the year and I think it is only fair that the legislation underlying this board should be in one place. My suggestion is that since those who revised the statutes in 1952 did not bring the two previous acts forward in consolidated form it should be done at this time. I have no objection to the bill being passed as far as second reading is concerned but I would hope that before third reading a change would be made. In fact, I would ask that that be done and that the Minister of Transport in consultation with the Minister of Justice and the law officers of the crown might consider my point that this legislation instead of being scattered in three acts from 1912 to 1955 might be put in the form of one complete act.
National Parks Act


[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-Chairman and quorum.
Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister two questions. What is the tonnage, or perhaps I should say the poundage, of freight which goes through this harbour in a year and what is the remuneration of these commissioners and who pays it?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I believe the hon. member was not here when 1 made my statement a while ago in which I said that the commissioners were not being paid for the work they do. I am sorry I do not have figures at my fingertips as far as the tonnage is concerned but one might judge from the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that it is indeed an important harbour.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would just say that as long as there is no cost to the public treasury of Canada I do not care.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe the question asked by the hon. member for Calgary North deserves an answer. The figures I have which are the most recent available would indicate that over 4,400 tons of goods pass through this harbour. In addition to that in the last year for which I have figures there were 5,900,000 f.b.m. of lumber and considerable quantities of other goods such as bricks, shingles, barrels of cement, steel rails, etc. In other words, my hon. friend's question is well put. It is indeed an important harbour.


An hon. Member:: Well answered.


Owen C. Trainor: I do not think I should allow this opportunity to pass, in the light of what the hon. member for Calgary North has said, without paying tribute to the gentlemen who serve on this harbour commission, as he intimated, at no cost to the treasury of Canada. These are public-spirited citizens serving without remuneration and I wish to pay tribute to them.
Bill reported.



NATIONAL PARKS ACT


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Parks Act respecting the use of water in the parks; also to authorize the levying of certain taxes for hospital services; further to provide for the withdrawal of certain lands

National Parks Act
from Waterton Lakes national park; and finally to establish a national park in the province of Newfoundland.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder if the minister would give an explanation of the resolution. Just what is its purpose?


Jean Lesage: The resolution is for the introduction of a bill to amend the National Parks Act respecting the use of water in parks. Until now, as the act now reads, it has been possible to set up waterworks in parks and to sell water to people who have domestic establishments adjacent to parks. It was not possible under the present wording of the act to sell such water to motels or hotels that are also adjacent to parks, and the amendment is for that purpose.
Another amendment will authorize the levying of certain taxes for hospital services. As hon. members are aware, there is a system of hospitalization, in the province of Alberta especially, which interests the people who live all the year round in Banff park and in Jasper park. They want to take advantage of this provincial law. However, the provincial law says that the contribution in lieu of taxes or the levy under their hospital scheme will be made by the municipal authorities. There are no municipal authorities in either Banff park or Jasper park. Hence the provincial laws are going to be amended to say that in the parks the contributions can be levied from the population by the parks superintendents or persons authorized by the park authorities. Our bill is to authorize the government, through the park superintendent, to receive these contributions paid by people for these hospital schemes which would be established. They could be so established only after a referendum has been taken, according to the provincial acts, in the parks or in the townsites, I am not sure which at this time. It will be easier to follow when I have the bill.
There is a further amendment to provide for withdrawal of certain lands from Water-ton Lakes national park. A few years ago, when the chief mountain road was built in the Waterton Lakes park, this road had to go over part of the Indian reserve. The right of way was expropriated and the Indian band was never compensated for that right of way. The Indian band has had a meeting and is ready to accept, as compensation for that land, a certain piece of land which is north of that road and which we are ready to give to them. When the natural resources including lands and forests were transferred to the western provinces in 1930, it was part of the transfer that if any parcel of land which had

been kept by the federal government at the time of the transfer for parks land would become not necessary any more as parks land, it would revert to the crown in the right of the province. Hence it is impossible for the federal government at this time to give it back to the Indians in compensation for the right of way. It will therefore revert to the province, but we have an understanding with the province that the province will turn it back to the federal government so that we can give it in compensation to the Indian band. This amendment is for that purpose.
The last amendment is for the creation of a national park in the province of Newfoundland. I believe that this subject has been discussed in the house sufficiently so that I do not need to give any more detail at this time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It seems to have been my fate during the past three or four days or perhaps during the past ten days to be faced with one after another of these resolutions which I can only call grab-bag resolutions. I have protested against each one of them in turn and I should like to protest again about this one. I do not like this business of bringing in three, four or, as we had with regard to the Department of National Defence the other day, some 24 matters in the one resolution without any real indication of what the legislation to be based on the resolution is going to contain. I might say that this resolution is better than the others with which we have been faced in that it gives a reasonable indication.
However, of the four things which are mentioned here, the first is the use of water in the parks. I should like to ask the minister-and perhaps he could reply after I have finished speaking-as to how the people in Banff national park and Jasper national park have been getting their water to date-the motels, the hotels and all of the ordinary residents-if it has not been possible to sell them water.


Jean Lesage: I said "adjacent"; I did not say "in the parks". I said it was in order that we may have the power to sell the water in areas outside the parks but adjacent to the parks. I thought I had said "adjacent to the national parks".


Douglas Scott Harkness: Apparently I misunderstood what the minister said.


Jean Lesage: It is my accent.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. The minister's accent is very good, as a matter of fact, and very clear. I think I just misunderstood him. I heard "adjacent", but I thought he was talking about the fact that they could sell this water

to people who were adjacent to the parks but could not sell it to motels and so on within the park.


Jean Lesage: Oh, no.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is a very small point about which I think there is no argument or difficulty.
The second matter is that provision to enable people who live in Banff national park and Jasper national park particularly- and I suppose it will probably apply in the British Columbia parks also-to come within the provisions of the provincial hospital tax act. I think it is something which perhaps should have been done some time ago, that everyone will welcome it and will be glad that the matter is now being fixed up and put on a reasonable basis. As I understand it, the provision is going to make it possible for a park to be considered really as a municipal authority as far as the provincial hospital taxes are concerned, and for the tax to be collected in that way.
On this third matter of reducing the area of Waterton national park, I may say that as a general rule I do not like the idea at any time of reducing the area of any particular park. I imagine that the reduction in this case is very small. Perhaps the minister might tell us just how much land is involved in this reduction. I shoulj also like to know what Indian band is concerned because there is no Indian band which has land adjoining-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. If the hon. member is likely to have some extensive remarks to make, perhaps this might be a convenient time to him to call it ten o'clock.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think I could finish in about two minutes, Mr. Chairman.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it agreed that the hon. member be allowed to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like the minister to tell us what Indian band is concerned because, as far as I know, there is no Indian band which has land adjacent to this park.


Jean Lesage: Not adjacent; in the park.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It seems to be quite a complicated transaction from what I can make out of what the minister had to say. I would trust that the amount of land involved would be small. I would fancy it is probably for timber purposes for some band which lives some considerable distance away. I would just express the idea that possibly these Indians could be compensated in some other way rather than by reducing the area of this park and giving them a slice of it.
National Parks Act
As far as the park in Newfoundland is concerned, I am delighted to hear that one is going to be established there.


Jean Lesage: There is one thing which is not mentioned in the resolution. Another area will be subtracted from the St. Lawrence islands park. It will be taken off from the park but it will remain crown property because it is going to be flooded by the St. Lawrence seaway project.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to speak at any great length at this time but there is one part of this resolution about which I am somewhat concerned, namely that part that is going to affect the town of Banff. I know that the government proposes to make some changes in order that the hospital tax may be collected by the park superintendent, I suppose. That detail will be revealed to us, I suppose, when the bill comes down. As of the moment we do not know what the plan is, and it is going to be interesting to find out exactly what the government has in mind. I think the minister is aware that I have discussed this matter at some length with some of the officials of his department. We have been very much concerned about this problem for the last two or three years, very actively so in the past two years. The matter has been under consideration for at least that length of time.
The province of Alberta has agreed to amend its legislation in such a way that the federal government will be able to collect the tax for them. There is some confusion in the minds of the officials of the Banff advisory board, and I believe there is some objection to the method by which it is proposed the tax will be collected by the federal government. The minister is probably aware of this. I simply mention it now so that he will be in a position to discuss the matter more fully when the bill is before us. I expect to have more to say about it on that occasion, but I shall leave it for the moment. I am very glad indeed that the federal government is now going to make the necessary amendments to the parks regulations so that the people of the town of Banff will be able to participate in the dollar a day hospitalization plan. I am sure the people there will appreciate that.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Lesage thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 261, to amend the National Parks Act and to establish a national park in the province of Newfoundland.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we would like to take Bill No. 242, to amend the Criminal Code, first. It is a very simple bill, as hon. members will see by reading it, and we would hope to put it through all stages so that it may obtain the royal assent at the earliest convenient moment. Then we will take the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport with respect to the Toronto harbour commissioners; then second reading of the bill to amend the Canada Grain Act; second reading of Bill No. 190, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act; second reading of Bill No. 257,

respecting the Canadian forces. If time permits we will then take the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport to set up a sessional committee on railways and shipping. If time still permits we will continue with second reading of the bill to amend the Municipal Grants Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just one word of precaution. I hope the minister does not take any silence tonight as indicating that we necessarily agree to the Criminal Code bill going through all its stages tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
It being six minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 18, 1955