1955-07-11

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable J. W. Estey, judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Administrator, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Monday, the 11th July, at 9.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative)



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
Hon George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this is the time in proceedings at which ministers ordinarily make statements in regard to matters of urgent public importance connected with their departments. In view of the impact upon governments and others throughout the world of the statement presented by the scientists in London on Saturday, I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs has any comments to make that would assist the members of this house in interpreting, in the light of our own responsibility, the importance and significance of that statement?
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secrelary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the statement on the nuclear peril made in the name of nine eminent scientists, including the late Albert Einstein, draws attention once again in compelling terms to the fact that, if the perils of nuclear war are to be avoided, war itself must be avoided. This statement, it seems to me, warrants the most careful examination and consideration. Perhaps it is particularly appropriate that this emphasis should be laid upon the relationship between nuclear dangers and the dangers of the possibility of war at a time when the four big powers, which include those which possess nuclear armaments, are about to meet in Geneva to examine the ways and means of
reducing the possibilities of war. The government and people of Canada will follow closely these deliberations, hoping earnestly for constructive accomplishments at this conference.
It should not be overlooked, however, Mr. Speaker, that so long as the world is divided by deep discords between the communist and non-communist groups of powers, and so long as the fear of aggression exists, the prospect of mutual nuclear devastation is one of the important deterrents of war. It must be, therefore, the aim of statesmanship in this nuclear age to find a more stable and enduring basis for the preservation of peace than the certainty of common destruction if all-out war begins.
The statement of the scientists also contains the timely reminder that the nuclear peril is one which confronts the whole of humanity. Radiation hazards, in particular, are no respecter of curtains, iron or otherwise. The study and solution of the problems posed by this peril call for a co-ordinated international effort, regardless of ideological, political or any other barriers, in order to overcome the danger of cumulative lethal radioactivity, which scientists warn us may ultimately threaten the extinction of the human race.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it was peculiarly appropriate that the statement of the scientists should appear just a week before the gathering at Geneva, and particularly that it should have been supported, as it was, in a posthumous statement by one of the greatest scientists concerned with the basic discoveries that led to this new terror, which at the same time may also be one of the greatest boons to mankind. It does seem that in approaching this problem the following parts of the statement have special significance:
The only hope for mankind is the avoidance of war. To call for a way of thinking which shall make such avoidance possible is the purpose of this statement.
Then later on:
The question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?
The cool but nevertheless ominous terms of these scientists' words have great meaning at this time. They state unreservedly that a nuclear war could mean the end of our life

Atomic Energy
on this planet. I am glad to have the assurance of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the full impact of this is recognized. I also will subscribe, as I know all hon. members and all Canadians will, to the fact that we must always bear in mind the dangers that are inherent in the situation and that we must in no way lessen the preparations to defend our freedom because of the dangers that exist. I was impressed, however, as I think most hon. members have been, with the statement of this comprehensive survey of the situation by the scientists who put it forward, that we have to learn to think in a new way. I do not think that anyone in this house has been more emphatic than I in his comments about the evils of communism itself. I have sought to emphasize the fact that we have common ground in that the Russians as well as ourselves want to live. In the light of that simple reality it would seem to me that this is the time, when, without in any way lessening our feeling of repulsion for the doctrine of communism, we might extend the context. I hope that, informal though the invitation may be, in the light of this statement now before us and the increasing evidence of an attempt to cross the iron curtain, physically as well as in thought, the minister might reconsider his decision; he might think that it would be advisable to visit Moscow, mainly because we are above any distrust from the point of view of aggression and, secondly, because we are one of the important nations in the development of atomic energy, for peace mainly but also as a potential for war.
Whatever may have been said before, it seems to me most advisable that discussions should be opened which would be in no way suspect and which might well have broad consequences of immense importance for the whole world.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong this discussion, but may I say that those of us who heard Bertrand Russell's outline of this report last evening and the answers he gave to the questions asked were deeply impressed by one question and answer. That question was, "Is it possible to abolish the hydrogen bomb?" Bertrand Russell gave it as his opinion that that was the difference between the peace propaganda from the communist side and our own thinking, in that you could not abolish the bomb, you had to abolish war.
Before I sit down may I say to the minister of external affairs that I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) in his suggestion that the minister should go to Moscow. But may I go one step further and

say that I think some reconsideration should be given to the invitation to parliament. It was not an invitation sent in the way in which parliament should get an invitation, but if an invitation in the proper manner were given to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Speaker of the other place, that a parliamentary delegation should visit the Soviet union to exchange views, I think that should not be overlooked. I think that we might give proper consideration to such a suggestion.
But I quite agree with the Leader of the Opposition that not only intellectually but physically this iron curtain has to be penetrated and the world must be relieved of this terrible menace of mutual destruction which faces us.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that mention has been made of the invitation which was extended to me in San Francisco by Mr. Molotov to visit Moscow, I should say that I informed him that a visit this summer would not be possible. Since my return to Ottawa I have informed the Soviet government through their ambassador that I hope that possibly in the autumn, if a time satisfactory to both governments can be worked out, I may be able to make such a visit, and we are in touch with the Soviet government to that end.


George Alexander Drew: I do not wish to press the subject further, nor in any way to open a debate, but while I recognize that the Secretary of State for External Affairs along with others has been under some pressure during recent weeks, nevertheless I would place before him for consideration the thought that there is a momentum in international thinking at the moment and he might well consider the advisability of an early visit which would fit into the general desire for contact between the east and the west without in any way disregarding the heavy responsibilities which rest upon him as Secretary of State for External Affairs at this time. I would urge the consideration of a visit earlier than in the autumn.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government has taken appropriate measures to impress upon China and Russia that the significance of this announcement applies to them too.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling three copies in English and in French of an exchange of notes between Canada and Japan respecting the waiving on a reciprocal basis

of non-immigrant visa fees; also an exchange of notes between Canada and Ethiopia constituting a commercial modus vivendi to regulate commercial regulations between the two countries.


ARGENTINA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on June 21 the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked in the house whether the government intended to make a protest to the Argentine government regarding the improper detention of Douglas Blanchard.
We have now received a complete report on the incident from our embassy in Buenos Aires. Mr. Blanchard was arrested at about 2 p.m. on June 16 while he was taking pictures of the fighting and the bomb damage in the centre of Buenos Aires. His release was effected by General La Fleche at about 11.15 p.m. on June 17. He left Buenos Aires at 10 a.m. on June 21 by one of the first civilian aircraft to leave the country following the revolution. Mr. Blanchard informed the embassy:
-that "under the circumstances he was not ill-treated" and that he did not believe that representations were justified "either about his imprisonment due to the circumstances prevailing at the time nor about the transmission of his stories, as he was not an accredited correspondent, some of whom encountered similar difficulties despite their accreditation."
In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, we do not believe that there are any grounds for a protest to the Argentine government in this matter.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Was a statement secured from Mr. Blanchard with regard to the alleged ill-treatment to which he was subjected before a decision was made by the department not to make a protest?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes. X just quoted from Mr. Blanchard's statement to us that he was not ill-treated.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Is James A. Beamish employed as a full-time employee of P.F.R.A.?
2.	Is he an official, or connected with the Prairie Excavating Company Limited?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The department maintains no record on which an answer can be based but employee reports he owns shares in the Prairie Excavating Company Limited.
Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Ashbourne:: 1.	How many lighthouses are there in the province of Newfoundland and where are they located?
2.	What are the various classifications of these lighthouses?
3.	Who sets up such classifications and Is responsible for changes in same?
4.	What are the salaries of the lightkeepers and
assistants?
5.	What holidays with pay are allowed these light-keepers and assistants?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Return tabled.



P.F.A.A.-FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, DAUPHIN, MAN.

Mr. Zaplitny:: With respect to persons employed by the government in the federal constituency of Dauphin, for the purposes of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in 1954 and 1955:
1.	What are the names and addresses of all such
persons?
2.	For what purpose was each such person employed?
3.	For what period of time was each such person employed?
4.	What amount was paid to each such employee in: (a) remuneration; (b) expenses?



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if a decision has been reached regarding the Indian News. I should like to know if it is going to be printed in French, and when.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Indian News is printed at the present time only in English, because the contributions to it so far have been made only in the English language. As I think all hon. members know, the vast majority of the Indians who speak either of the official languages of this country in fact speak English, even in the province of Quebec. It is the intention of the department, when there are articles available in the French language, to print them in French in the same edition as the English articles. I understand in doing this we shall be following the same procedure as is followed in similar publications by the Oblates, who are the Catholic missionaries to the Indians


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are some of the writers who contribute articles to the Indian News being paid to write these articles by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration?

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, I understand there are no paid articles appearing in the publication. There are certain contributions from members of the department and from other people interested in Indians, and quite a number from the Indians themselves. The whole purpose of this newspaper is to provide news about the activities of Indians for the other Indians. It is true that the newspaper has a very limited circulation, among people who are specially interested in the activities of the Indians. It has no general circulation whatsoever, and it is not intended to have.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Public Works if he can tell us when the reconstruction of the parliamentary library is likely to be completed and when the library will be open for reoccupation?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, the contractor will have completed his work on the library by about April of next year. It will, I understand, be ready for use next fall. Both of those dates are subject to correction; I have not reviewed them.


Mr. Fulton:: When will the hammering cease?



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government yet had any request from the Manitoba government for assistance owing to flood conditions in Manitoba?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has, of course, been considering the problem of flood conditions in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I think perhaps we ought to leave it to him to deal with the matter.

The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe.



SENATE REFORM

Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, when this debate was interrupted


at the hour of adjournment the other night we were engaged in an exchange that suggested that I might be guilty of making some uncomplimentary remarks concerning the other house. As I renew the discussion this morning, I want to point out again that such was not my intention but rather that I was trying to indicate that I believe the Senate has a useful function to perform in our parliamentary system, one that could be performed much more effectively and efficiently if reforms were carried out in that body.
Some of the other hon. members who have spoken in this debate have already suggested some reforms that might be made. Just to indicate that I have no desire to stand alone in my opinion on this subject, I want to refer to MacGregor Dawson's book, "The Government of Canada", which suggests that his viewpoint, from a non-partisan, objective position, is much the same as that being expressed by hon. members on this side of the house who have spoken on this matter. The author has an excellent chapter dealing with the whole subject of Senate reform. I feel that the opening paragraph expresses the heart of the matter and I should like to place on record just a few sentences from it. At page 329 he says:
The Senate-the upper house in the legislature- is all too clearly being undermined by forces which threaten to lead to eventual obscurity and obsolescence. Some years ago its end as an effective branch of government seemed imminent: it had. through the acts of others and its own lack of assertiveness, become so sluggish and inert that it seemed capable of performing only the most nominal functions. Recently, however, there have appeared periods of industry; and it would now seem possible to hope that the patient may be emerging from the long coma and might, if given the proper stimulants, become a useful, even though not an extremely active, member of political society.
I submit that emphasizes the point I was trying to make in the discussion, that there are certain features of the other place as it exists today which should be considered very carefully. There are excellent members of the other chamber, and if we instituted the necessary reforms the Senate could be an outstanding part of our political society.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, discussions on the reform of the Senate tend to be limited to members of the opposition. I say that is unfortunate because the position of members of the other place does not enable them to deal directly with some of the observations made in this chamber. They are dependent upon the government and its supporters for any defence of the other place that might be made in this house. This being the case, I for one hope that we will hear from government supporters on this important matter, and in view of the number of vacancies existing in the

Senate at the present time, some 22, it would be particularly helpful if we could hear from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). There have been hints in the newspapers from time to time that reform is being contemplated. Certain groups in the country, particularly organized labour, have made representations to the Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet. As a result of these representations there has been the gentle hint that reform, particularly in the method of appointment by making appointments on other than a partisan basis, might be the result. Unfortunately nothing has happened in this chamber to suggest that these hints appearing in the press from time to time are other than the usual rumours. I am having difficulty, Mr. Speaker, hearing myself, to say nothing of others being able to hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is quite obvious that a subject that has been debated so frequently and over such a long period of time is in urgent need of consideration. The possibility of attracting men and women of the desired calibre to the upper chamber has become somewhat easier as a result of the recent increase in the indemnity. When the subject of Senate reform has been discussed formerly the suggestion has been put forward that it would be a fine thing to have outstanding men and women sitting in the upper house deliberating on the affairs of state, men and women of the necessary moral and intellectual qualities, men and women who would consider the issues of the moment from the standpoint of the actual circumstances rather than from any party viewpoint. I feel that should be assured as a result of the recent increase in the indemnity.
It is a truism that the Senate is only as good as the men and women who make it up. Here, in regard to the second chamber, we are in an excellent position, because the selection is made not on a basis of election but rather of appointment. Because of that we are in a position to have an outstanding group of men and women brought together, thereby enhancing and embellishing the deliberations of Canada's parliament. We can have leaders from all walks of life and all areas of human endeavour, men and women who have already established themselves in their respective fields.
There are special categories from which suitable selections might be made. During the past four years, while I have had the privilege of being a member of the House of Commons, I have received representations on this subject from time to time. I have discovered that most frequently these representations
Proposed Senate Reform come from women's groups in Canada. I believe the first appointment of a woman to the Senate was made in 1930, and since that time other appointments have been made. The suggestions, which I have received from groups such as the Manitoba women's institute, the Manitoba provincial council of women, the university women's clubs of Canada and the league of women voters of the city of Winnipeg suggest that there should be at least one woman representative from each of the provinces; and I would not disagree with that viewpoint.
The women members of the Senate already in that place have been the more active members; and it would seem to me that the position of women in Canadian society today would justify the appointment of at least one woman representative from each of the provinces.
Then another suggestion has been made. It has been pointed out that one of the basic functions of the Senate is to protect the interests of minority groups; and in the selections of personnel for the upper house that function has been taken into consideration. However, it seems remarkable and strange that we have not had a representative in the other place of the first citizens of this country. I refer of course to a representative of the North American Canadian Indian group.
More recently, as the result of legislation passed in this chamber, the emphasis in our treatment of the Indian population has been toward the removal of paternalism that has tended to keep our Indian population segregated and in an inferior position. Both in the special committee on estimates and in later discussion in this chamber the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) pointed out that it is the desire of his department to do something, and to do it quickly, by way of ending the long period of segregation and the paternalistic attitude toward our Indian population.
I feel that if this program is going to be carried out successfully there could be no greater assurance than to have a representative of this native group appointed to the upper house, to keep this desirable and very important objective continuously before the other place, so that it would have a continuing influence on the thinking of members of both houses of parliament.
Unfortunately the Indian belongs to a group who tend to be neglected, because the general public of Canada is not too keenly aware of his inferior position. The very policy of segregation on reserves has tended to place him outside general participation in the life of the community, with the result that there has been public apathy toward the problem.

Proposed Senate Reform
Anyone who has had occasion to visit our reserves-and I realize of course that there are exceptions to this suggestion-becomes aware of the gross deficiencies in housing and sanitation. These are matters that could be solved more easily if a representative of our Indian population were appointed to the other place. Already in one or two instances the North American Canadian Indians have succeeded, on their own initiative, in finding places in the provincial legislature. Indian affairs are of course federal matters. If we have an earnest desire to have their voice heard in both the upper chamber and the lower house, this problem would be greatly helped by having a spokesman in the other place continuously.
So much for special categories. One could of course mention other groups who might well be represented there. However, under the regulations now prevailing, this is a problem for the governor in council. I believe Senate reform could be carried out on three levels, the first of which would be a change in the method of appointment; secondly, there should be some restriction in the period of tenure of occupancy of position in the other place; and, thirdly, there should be an increase in the amount and kind of work performed by the upper house.
The method of appointment has been one of the chief drawbacks in providing an efficient and effective upper chamber. This subject has been discussed many times in the House of Commons, when it has been pointed out that down through the years appointments have been made on a partisan basis. Those appointments have resulted in a fairly balanced upper chamber so long as from time to time there was a change in administration in the lower house. However, as a result of the problems of sectionalism, regionalism and diversification in Canada, political parties, once selected, tend to perpetuate themselves in office for some considerable period of time. The result has been that, both before and since the turn of the century, the Senate chamber has repeatedly moved toward a condition of party lopsidedness. This situation has been the cause of the cry for reform by the "outs" down through the years. However, the situation today, when one party has been in power for so long, is such that I think it would be in a safe position to make the necessary changes in the method of appointment, and thus place the upper chamber in a position to serve well the people of Canada.
At the present time we have heard the hints, to which I have referred, that there be a series of non-partisan appointments to the upper chamber. I would heartily support

such a suggestion. Perhaps there is some validity in the point of view that is expressed from time to time. It has been expressed by MacGregor Dawson, for example, in chapter 15 of his book on "The Government of Canada", that we might find a suitable solution for the dilemma by placing the task of appointments in the hands of the provincial governors in council. Certainly, with appointments coming closer to the local level of the scheme of things in this country, we might realize a state of affairs where men and women of the necessary qualifications would find their way to the upper house.
The period of tenure has been the chief drawback, however, because with appointment for life it is inevitable that the psychology to rest on one's oars becomes the dominant attitude among the members of the upper chamber. I feel this has been expressed very pointedly on page 341 of Dr. Dawson's book in poetic form when he said:
Surely, slumber is more sweet than toil, the shore
Than labour in the deep mid-ocean, wind, and wave, and oar;
Oh rest ye, brother mariners, we will not wander more.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it is inevitable, where we have appointments for life, that there is going to be a tendency on the part of those thus involved to relax and take an easy-going attitude towards the responsibilities and the discussions that are in hand. The formula for determining a suitable period of tenure could easily be worked out. The one complaint is that in thus restricting membership by age we might lose a representative of outstanding ability. Various examples are given of statesmen who have served their day and generation longer than the biblical three score and ten years. I feel that if it is a problem to consider at all, we certainly can work out some method of reappointment in exceptional cases. If we had new faces, if we had younger representatives, if we had a more rapidly changing personnel in the upper chamber, without doubt some of the criticisms that it has fallen heir to would be rapidly overcome.
Even the House of Lords at Westminster has a more regular infusion of new ideas, new blood, than does our own upper chamber. If we can thus revitalize the membership, I feel that the third reform would almost take care of itself. That is the type of work that is assigned to our upper chamber. The upper chamber at the present time is fairly restricted in its legislative program. It is well, of course, that it be kept in an inferior position to the lower house because the House of Commons, as we all realize, is the

more important legislative body. However, we hear the complaint in this chamber that we are bogged down in legislative congestion. The increasing complexity of the country has produced a program of legislation quite impossible for the House of Commons to cope with adequately and thoroughly.
As far as I can see, there is no reason at all why some of the government's legislative program could not be initiated in the upper house and given the very careful consideration that that chamber is capable of and has demonstrated down through the years, before being passed on to the lower chamber. Certainly, it would relieve the problem of growing congestion in the House of Commons.
There is also the need from time to time for investigations to be carried on. We are aware that the committee work of the Commons is increasing with each passing year. This year we have a committee on estimates for the first time. It seems to me that in this lower chamber we are becoming so burdened with committee work that there is hardly time, when the committees are going full blast, to give attention to the regular work of this chamber as well as to the constituency responsibilities and the many other duties that lie within the field of a member of the House of Commons. The other place has demonstrated outstanding ability in its committee and investigation work. For example, the special committee on public expenditures, which meets from time to time, has done outstanding work in reviewing and examining our program of public spending. Therefore, if it is necessary to provide a more challenging work-load for the upper chamber, there is certainly no shortage of work to be done in that direction. With these two suggestions, Mr. Speaker, I think we have something that would add immeasurably to the prestige and to the effectiveness of the upper house.
Finally, I should like to point out that just because this problem has been with us all these years is no reason why it should be ignored. Very often the more we talk about a subject the less direct attention it needs. The solution is within the hands of the Canadian parliament. The need is obviously there. Any authority you read on the subject is strong in his demands that we should do something to bring the upper chamber into esteem and into greater prestige in the deliberations of public affairs in this country. We have groped and we have hoped long enough. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that action is needed and urgently needed at this time.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker,
I shall not detain the house very long on
Proposed Senate Reform this question. I would say at the outset that I have the greatest respect for the ladies and gentlemen who now occupy Senate positions. I do not think it is their fault that the circumstances are such that they find themselves impotent and have nothing to do.
I stand, of course, for the abolition of the Senate, and if not abolition then, of course, very drastic reform. Certainly, if the Senate is to be constituted as it now is, it should be abolished. To me, it is a ridiculous thing that there are in the Senate at the present time- I shall be corrected if my figures are wrong- only six people who have been appointed by a Conservative regime. No one, irrespective of his political opinions, would say that is a fair division. As for the other parties in this house, they are not represented at all. I am speaking now of course from the point of view of appointments to the Senate being political, with which of course I do not agree.
One reason why I think the Senate should be abolished or drastically reformed is that it has ceased to perform the function for which it was created, that is to give a wise after-look as it were to the legislation which we young sprouts in this House of Commons pass, we who are inclined at times to be carried away by our enthusiasm. I suggest that the Senate has ceased to do that, and one reason is that it is composed of men who favour the political party which for the moment is in power.
I would say that at present the chief function of the Senate is the consideration of divorce cases. If you pick up any document relating to the Senate, such as the report of the Senate debates, you will find that most of the space is taken up with decisions in regard to divorce. The attitude of my party is well known in that regard. We think that that particular thing should not be the function of the Senate, nor should it be the function of this house.
As I said, the Senate has become a completely one-party chamber and that will have to be altered. If this government is to stay in power for some time to come, and apparently it thinks it can, then by the course of nature there will be no one in the Senate who is not of Liberal persuasion. I shall not accuse the government, but I have heard rumours, certainly in my constituency-it is an unfortunate thing that the Senate, this body of fine men and women, should have become simply a jest in this country, should have become the subject of jokes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recall that, when this debate was last under way, a similar remark was made and it was suggested to the hon. member that under standing order

Proposed. Senate Reform 41 and various authorities, which I shall be glad to quote to the hon. member, such remarks really have no place in this debate.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I was not present when the debate took place before and therefore was not aware that that ruling had been made.
I shall not transgress any further. It comes to my mind that there are many vacancies in the Senate at the moment, the reason for which I do not know. I suggest that the government and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) have not too high an opinion of the necessity of such a chamber when they do not keep it manned with the personnel it should have. I think under the present set-up the total personnel should be 102, and I believe that there are about 26 vacancies.


Walter Edward Harris: Twenty-two vacancies.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Twenty-two vacancies at the present time. I know that if I had a crew of some sort working for me I would not want it to be so completely under strength if its work were particularly important. If the Senate is to be retained as a sort of career and reward for service rendered to the country, then I would suggest that the reason for appointment should not be political, that the politics of a person should not be considered in any way. I suggest that it is a luxury which this country cannot afford; but if it is thought it is a luxury that can be afforded then I submit that appointments to the Senate should be on the basis of service to the country rather than service in the political field. Men in business, those who have performed great service in connection with labour, outstanding men in the arts and sciences, in the professions and in education, in literature and so on should be appointed. That is the way appointments should be made. Unless the other parties are to be given something like a pro rata representation, I think the idea of political appointments should be stopped entirely.
I should have mentioned that I do not believe in an appointed body of any sort having to do with the legislation of this country. I think it is out-moded, I think it is out-dated, and I think it is undemocratic. Starting with the parliament act of 1911, the power of the House of Lords has been constantly lessened until now I do not think anyone contends that that august body, with the many fine personalities that go to make up its membership, has any great function to perform. I believe the total membership of the House of Lords is in the vicinity of 600 and I am informed,

and I speak from my own experience gained by sitting in the galleries, that the average attendance is around 30.
There are other ways in which the Senate could be reformed but I am not going into them. I think there should be an age limit.
I was going to say that I would favour some form of election rather than appointment, but since I am in favour of abolishing the Senate completely I do not think I shall say more at this time. I have tried in these few words to make my opinion clear on the broad matter without going into any further detail at the moment.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there is one thing that I think we should do. We should cast the beam out of our own eye and then we might be able to see clearly to cast the mote out of our brother's eye. To be spending the time of the house at this time in trying to reform the Senate is out of order.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, the Senate is entitled to be judged on the basis of its performance. I should like to give some attention to a piece of work which the Senate finished recently. Under date of June 16, 1955, the Senate issued to the public the proceedings of its standing committee on finance which sat under the chairmanship of Hon, T. A. Crerar.
On March 16, 1955, the Senate passed the following reference to the Senate finance committee, and I quote from page 295 of the Senate Hansard of March 16, as follows:
That the standing committee on finance be authorized to examine the expenditures proposed by the estimates laid before parliament for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1956, in advance of the bills based on the said estimates reaching the Senate; that the said committee be empowered to send for records of revenues from taxation collected by the federal, provincial and municipal governments in Canada and the incidence of this taxation in its effect upon different income groups, and records of expenditures by such governments, showing sources of income and expenditures of same under appropriate headings, together with estimates of gross national production, net national income and movement of the cost-of-living index, and their relation to such total expenditures, for the year 1939 and for the latest year for which the information is available and such other matters as may be pertinent to the examination of the estimates, and to report upon the same.
That the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records.
I submit that with a reference like that a body of members of the Senate, having no particular responsibility upon them except that of acquiring information, understanding and soberly contemplating the information available to them, ought to have been able to turn in a job which would be of the greatest benefit to the whole Dominion of Canada if not to the world.

I have read through the report several times endeavouring to determine the purpose of those who prepared it. The committee recognizes that the report falls short of discharging the responsibilities imposed upon the committee by the wording of the Senate reference. The reasons given are, first, that many of the members of the committee were engaged in other duties, and, second, that the reference was delayed in reaching the Senate.
In paragraph 1 of the report, page 143, it is indicated that in previous reports the committee had given considerable attention to "the effect of inflation". The words "that factor is still at work" appear. It is cause for surprise and regret that the hon. members of the committee do not confide to their readers what Their Honours consider the word "inflation" to mean. One gathers they would say that any rise in price of any commodity would be inflation regardless of what factors might have caused that price rise.
Let us consider a case in point which, of course, was not before Their Honours at the time they were considering the matter. Within the last few days in the United States a strike threat for higher wages caused an increase of $7 and more per ton in the price of steel. Would Their Honours of the Senate committee call that price rise inflation, and would the members of this house call it inflation? That is an exceedingly important question at this particular juncture in Canada's history. That increase in steel prices will force up ultimately the price of nearly every commodity in the United States by directly increasing the costs of production. Would Their Honours characterize all those secondary price rises as inflation?
Let us all bear in mind that there was no increase of money supply in circulation in the United States, no increase that had anything to do with that rise in the price of steel. The labourers demanded more money; that was all, with certain other increases in the cost of producing the steel. So I repeat, it is cause for regret that Their Honours of the other place have omitted to define more precisely the meaning of inflation. Real inflation is a rise in prices resulting from too many dollars chasing too few goods, to put it in common understandable terms; there is involved in genuine inflation, first, a relative scarcity of goods, and second, a relative surplus of money. Of tremendous importance is clear and accurate comprehension of the true meaning of inflation; and the causes of actual inflation cannot be too emphatically impressed upon the whole country today.
At the close of paragraph 4 of the report, on page 145, Their Honours indicate an awareness of the true definition of inflation.
Proposed Senate Reform I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we could have the members who want to talk so much go somewhere else where they can talk in peace. I do not see why a member speaking should have to face the opposition of five other members speaking at the same time. In that paragraph of the report it is stated:
A progression of years with "deficit financing" will mean ruinous inflation.
I feel certain that on second thought the members of Their Honours' committee would agree, though, that if a surplus of goods had accumulated in an economy, as has happened in Canada, together with a relative shortage of purchasing power in the hands of the people, resulting in falling prices, unemployment and bankruptcy, as has happened in Canada, then the addition of the right amount of money by even deficit financing might not cause that rise in prices which they seem to call inflation.
I say this in defence of the position taken by the Minister of Finance in his budget address and in his budget this year. The remark which appears in the Senate report would seem to call in question the wisdom of the Minister of Finance in his position this year. I shall not say that the Minister of Finance needs to be defended, but he is on sound ground on this occasion.
In paragraph 5 of their report, on page 146, the members of the Senate committee indicate that they realize that inflation is a rise in price resulting from too much money in circulation in relation to the goods available for purchase. They write the following two sentences:
It should not be forgotten, however, that inflation is still a powerful factor in our economy. The important thing here for all governments is to strive to keep their spending within their income.
That certainly indicates that they have in mind the monetary consideration and also the goods consideration. Nevertheless one gathers from the report that Their Honours would do well to give more consideration to goods and services available for purchase in relation to money supply whenever hereafter they meditate upon inflation. I would suggest that to them, in connection with all future activities of the kind which we are now discussing.
Apparently, to support their position in respect of inflation and its causes, Their Honours have included certain statistics under the headings of exhibit 6, page 161 of the report, and exhibit 7, page 162 of the report. Exhibit 7 gives us the consumer price index for Canada from 1945 to 1955. One cannot help asking why this index did not begin with 1939, as did the index given by the Minister of Finance at page 30 of his budget papers for 1955. The members of

Proposed Senate Reform the House of Commons need to ask that question quite trenchantly. The purpose of giving this index in the Senate report, presumably, is to enable us to see how prices have risen. Why not have the picture from the outbreak of world war II, as the Minister of Finance wisely gave it to us? This would help us to see what has happened to our prices, at least partly as a result of world war II.
May I take the liberty of quoting the index under exhibit 6, and of supplementing it with the figures from 1939 on, and of placing alongside the so-called consumer price index -which the minister used and which they in part quote-the much more enlightening cost of living index as it was employed before 1949? I am giving first in this citation the consumer index which is now being used, followed by the cost of living index as was used before 1949:
1939	
63-2	=	101-6256001940	
65-7	=	105-6456001941	
69-6	=	111-9168001942	
72-9	=	117-2232001943	
74-2	=	119-4744001944	
74-6	=	119-9568001945	
75-0	=	120-6000001946	
77-5	=	124-6200001947	
84-8	=	136-3584001948	
97-0	=	155-9760001949	
100-0	=	160-8000001950	
102-9	:	165-4632001951	
113-7	=	182-8296001952	
116-5	=:	187-3320001953	
115-5	=	185-7240001954	
116-2	=	186-8496001955	
116-0	=	186-528000
May I now draw attention-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. For some time now I have been listening to the hon. member and hoping that he would finish laying his groundwork and would proceed to the amendment which we have before the house at the present time. I am afraid that he is making a speech on inflation which has little, if any, relevancy to the amendment of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) which is before the house. I feel sure that, after I have resumed my seat, the hon. member will rise and assure me that his remarks are relevant to the amendment and that I will soon see the relevancy. May I tell the hon. member that I would consider that he has already had an ample opportunity to lay any necessary groundwork. I would ask him to co-operate with the Chair in discussing the amendment which merely relates to reform of the Senate. The reading of these long statistics confirmed me in my opinion that there was little, if any, relevancy in the remarks which the hon. member had been making.
	_ |


John Horne Blackmore: As I recall it, Mr. Speaker, the amendment offered by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe was a resolution in favour of reform of the Senate. In my opening remarks I said that the Senate ought to be judged by their performance. I have taken one example of their performance. I am analysing that performance and am endeavouring to assess it and appraise its value as a performance of the Senate worthy of the Senate or unworthy of the Senate. If that is not discussing the matter before the house, it is hard to see how we can discuss it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I point out to
the hon. member one fallacy in his argument which immediately presents itself to my mind. The committees of this hon. chamber make many reports in the course of the session. If the hon. member carried his line of argument to its logical conclusion, if he disagreed with any paragraph in any report of any committee of the House of Commons, it seems to me that he could make a speech on it advocating reform of the House of Commons. As he says, I think the hon. member is entitled, when speaking to the matter of reform of the Senate, to refer to the actions of the Senate. That is admitted. But at the same time I do not think that an amendment of this kind gives the hon. member an opportunity to make a complete speech on a subject which, after all, is not directly related to the amendment.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with you completely but I maintain that this discussion is directly related to the amendment. It is far more related to the amendment than is 99 per cent of the argument that has been presented to us up to the present time concerning this matter; and if necessary I will go right through what has been said, page by page, to prove my point. If the Senate is doing a job which it ought to be able to do, and is doing it in a manner in which it ought to do it so that its work is of value to the country, to this house and to the Senate, then by all means that fact constitutes an argument for retention of the Senate even as it is. If it has fallen short, then that fact certainly constitutes an argument for doing something about the Senate, either in the way of reforming it or of suggesting a means by which it might improve its effectiveness before the country. So on that basis, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that I am perfectly in order in considering this piece of work which was submitted to the country as recently as June 16. I will now proceed, and if Your Honour still feels that I am out of order in discussing a thing which is eminently

in order, then I must defer to your ruling and leave unfinished this job which I have only just started to do.
May I draw attention to the cost of living figures for 1943, 1944 and 1945. I would ask you to notice that they are 119-47, 119-95 and 120-6, while in the consumer index they are 74-2, 74-6 and 75, thus indicating only a most moderate increase in prices during those years of relative scarcity of goods when we were at war-1943, 1944 and 1945-and indicating that there was during those three years nothing that could be called inflation to speak of, even though a rise in price alone might be termed inflation. But notice what happens in the next three years, namely 1946, 1947 and 1948, when certainly there was a rapidly growing supply of goods. Let it be remembered that I am discussing a report which purports to advise this house and this country on the matter of inflation. May I draw attention to the figures for the next three years, 1947, 1948 and 1949. The cost of living index indicates a figure of 124-62 for 1946, 136-35 for 1947, and 155-97 for 1948, showing an enormous increase in prices in those three years, 1946, 1947 and 1948. Something serious happened after 1945. What was it? Do Their Honours point out just exactly what it was or do they not?
Do you men across the floor have a speech you wish to deliver? If you have not, why talk loudly enough to get on Hansard?


An hon. Member:: We were not intending to.


John Horne Blackmore: I accept your apology.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, just a word-and I may be slightly out of order in this connection-let me say there is a tremendous importance to be attached to the question whether we use the realistic cost of living index based on 1939 as 100, or whether we use this artificial consumer price index based on 1949 as 100. The picture which is given is absolutely different. In the case of using the 1939 cost of living index, one can see exactly what occurred to prices, as a result of world war II, but in the case of the consumer index based on 1949 as 100, almost the whole of the increase is covered up or at least is blurred. I wonder why Their Honours saw fit to choose the consumer index based on 1949 which in large measure covered up what had occurred, rather than to take the minister's index going back to 1939. Why did they choose the consumer index, which takes 1949 as a base and indicates that 1939 prices were away down the scale, instead of using the cost of living index showing that 1939 was up to a sort of point of normalcy? I think this matter has a good deal of significance with respect to 50433-375J
Proposed Senate Reform. what we can judge of the attitude to their work taxen by the hon. members of the other place.
No mention is made in the report of the Senate committee, which was appointed to do this very kind of work, of the fact that in 1945 controls were removed perhaps two years too soon, two years before supply caught up with consumer effective demands, whereas up to 1945 they had been retained. Consequently the increase in prices after 1945 would be due to the removal of controls before goods were sufficiently plentiful, and not to spending too much money into circulation, as Their Honours endeavour to indicate. It is interesting to note that Their Honours do not tell us that in April of 1946 there was an increase of $5 a ton in the price of steel agreed to by the Ottawa government, and that there was a successful strike of the steel workers for higher wages. This increase in price and of wages resulted in an increase in the cost of production all across Canada in every industry and was a direct reason for the tremendous increase in prices during 1946, an increase which however one would gather from the general tenor of the remarks of Their Honours, was the result of spending too much money into circulation! Surely I have gone far enough to show now that in a general way Their Honours adopted an attitude to their problem which was fundamentally unsound.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I accept that opportunity to say that the hon. member has also gone far enough to convince me that he is still not directing his remarks to the amendment. I feel sure that if the hon. member considers his remarks carefully he will agree with me that they are directed to inflation, controls and other financial matters. The hon. member has certainly referred from time to time to the report of the standing committee on finance of the other place, which report I now have in my hand. But I feel sure the hon. member will agree, as I am sure other hon. members will, that his speech is not directed to Senate reform but rather to the particular financial matter which he has pursued.
The hon. member invited me to interrupt him if I felt that was still the case, and I do so at this time in the hope that he will co-operate and direct his remarks particularly to the subject matter of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe).


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, if you want me to say a whole lot of unkind things about the Senate I can do that. It will not be a bit difficult for me to arraign them before the

Proposed Senate Reform court of parliament in a way that will humiliate them. I can do that. If that can be in order while the kind of thing about which I am talking cannot be in order, I must submit there is something wrong with the rules of the house. I can build up the Senate and laud it to the skies. I can talk about what fine fellows the senators are, how valuable the Senate is and all that kind of thing. If that can be any more in order than to talk about a problem considered by the finance committee of the Senate, examine the way in which the Senate committee has addressed itself to the problem, and the efficiency, effectiveness and value of the report- or the lack of these-based upon their studies, then all I can say is that the fact constitutes a most damaging reflection on the rules of the house.


Walter Edward Harris: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether my hon. friend is not confusing two points of view. He is in fact criticizing the decisions of a committee of the Senate. That is, of course, the privilege of a member of this house when he is considering a subject matter that the Senate has considered. On the other hand, that is not the point at issue in this debate. What is at issue in this debate is whether or not the Senate ought to be reformed and the manner in which reformation may take place. The issue is as to the constitution of the Senate, its powers, and all other constitutional matters. It is not as to its conduct of its present powers. I think my hon. friend is perhaps not in order. I have followed the discussion fairly closely because I know it affects my own department and I may be called upon to answer the points raised some day. However, I think the hon. member should confine himself to a discussion of whether the constitution of the Senate should be altered and not discuss its conduct of its powers.


Mr. Nicholson:: On the point of order, I think the Minister of Finance has raised an important point. He has invited the hon. member for Lethbridge to discuss the issue he has raised when the minister's estimates are before the house. Although the discussion is very interesting, it would appear to me that it would be in order then and is not in order now.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, after these bits of timely, brotherly counsel from my fellow members I will read the amendment. If I feel then that I should defer all the rest I have to say, except for condemnation or fulsome praise of the Senate, then I will


probably discontinue. The amendment is found at page 5335 of Hansard of June 27, and reads as follows:
That all the words after "That" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted tr.eref or:
'the government should give consideration to initiating the necessary consultation and inquiry respecting reform of the Senate so that all appropriate steps may be taken, including such matters as the method by which the members of the Senate should be chosen and their tenure of office so t.iat the Senate may more effectively discharge the constitutional function it was intended to serve as an integral part of our parliamentary system."
You will notice that the two items which have been mentioned are only two parts of a general statement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I assist the hon. member in this respect. In his reading of the amendment I noticed that he used the words "and their tenure of office". I understand that those particular words are no longer included in the amendment before the house which, if the hon. member will forgive me, reads as follows:
"the government should give consideration to initiating the necessary consultation and inquiry respecting reform of the Senate including such matters as the method by which the members of the Senate should be chosen so that all appropriate steps may be taken in order that the Senate may more effectively discharge the constitutional function it was intended to serve as an integral part of our parliamentary system."
Those are the exact terms of the amendment as it is now before the chair.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I will admit I was discussing the Conservative amendment rather than the later C.C.F. amendment, inasmuch as I felt that the whole debate had been precipitated by the Conservatives. If it is your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that it would be out of order for me to discuss the performance of the Senate-


Mr. Rowe:: Oh, it is, definitely.


John Horne Blackmore: All right. I must say that it would seem the amendment is a very shoddy kind of thing to be discussing. After all, what we need to know is how to make the Senate just as efficient as possible, whether or not it is possible to make it efficient, whether or not it is efficient today, and all that sort of thing. I am not now going to pursue my study before the house any further, because there will be plenty of opportunity later.
Perhaps I should say that in my judgment the Senate is all right. There is not anything wrong with the Senate. Perhaps we should have a different method of selecting it, but I say that, in a general way, it is a constitutional part of the parliament of Canada; and all the talking we do here is not going to

change that. The way matters stand today, we would be unable to abolish the Senate, even if we wanted to, without referring the matter to the British parliament. And if we did abolish the Senate without referring the matter to the British parliament we would be amending the constitution of Canada without reference to that British parliament, and would be confronted with all the irregularities to which that would lead. So that the discussion we have had to the present time has been absolutely idle and futile, so far as anything we can do is concerned.
But when it comes to taking the Senate as it stands today, I would point out that it consists of a number of men and women of the highest character, of fine qualifications, high ideals, great information and standing, wide experience in public affairs, and generally of sound judgment, men and women who are sober and serious, and who in the main, I know, take their responsibility seriously. If we are discussing the question of how we might help that group of people by using them more or co-operating with them, with the object of making them more efficient in the year 1956, and after that, then we will be talking about something that is thoroughly worth while.
Apparently your ruling, Mr. Speaker, indicates that I would be out of order in discussing anything that is worth while, though I would be quite in order if I were not to discuss what is worth while. Therefore I bow to your implied ruling, and defer my discussion of the subject.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I thank the hon. member for his co-operation. However, I would like to clarify just one point. He indicated that my ruling was to the effect that I did not allow him to discuss the performance of the Senate. Actually, my ruling was only to the effect that I did not wish him to discuss one particular subject matter which had been under discussion, and was the subject matter of a report of the committee of the other place. I would just like to clarify that part of my ruling.
The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) may proceed.


John Horne Blackmore: May I say just a word. If a person undertakes to discuss the performance of the other place, he should discuss something they have done that he is in a position to know something about Now, it just so happens that I have given 25 years of my life to a study of the subject of finance and, if I may say so modestly, I know my way around a little bit in that subject. Consequently I am in a position to judge their performance in connection with that matter.
Proposed Senate Reform
I will say this, that half of the material uttered in this debate has been uttered by people who did not know anything about what they were talking about. So, Mr. Speaker, that is the reason I chose this opportunity to speak about a piece of work the Senate has done; namely the preparation and submission of a report on inflation.
By the time I got through I had intended to show the good, as well as the poor, work the Senate committee has done in this case, and the danger the Senate is in when it takes dictation and direction from some higher masterminding source, which is clearly indicated in this report; and the danger we and the country are in if we accept the findings of the Senate in a report, just because that report comes from the Senate.
Those are matters I wished to talk about, and I suggest they are quite important matters. So now, having made that clear, I give way to the hon. member who has the floor.


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just taken his seat has discussed certain operations or work carried out by the Senate. I am not going to attempt to enter that field of discussion; I shall be content to discuss briefly and in a general way the resolution before us.
The Senate is an operative part of the parliament of Canada. While the hon. member who has just taken his seat suggested that this discussion would not be worth while, I would point out that there are many distinguished precedents for a discussion such as that in which we are now engaged. Because when one looks at the records of the Quebec conference, where the foundation for confederation was established, he finds some interesting material. I did some reading in the matter over the week end and I find that, of the 14 days spent in those preliminary discussions, more than six were spent in a discussion of the creation of the Senate chamber. In other words, all the other matters, including the division of powers between the provinces and the dominion, and the relationships which developed in laying the foundations for the completely new experiment of a dominion, took only eight of those 14 days.
Within one year after the Senate was set up, I find, a resolution was passed by that body suggesting how it could improve its procedure and perform more efficiently its functions as part of the parliament of Canada. In 1874 there was a resolution, such as we have before us today, suggesting that a joint committee be set up; and there were other resolutions all through the years. So

Proposed Senate Reform it is a matter which one might say is somewhat threadbare and shopworn; and yet it is a discussion concerning part of the parliament of Canada, and one in which I believe the people generally are interested.
Certainly, from a political standpoint, it has been assumed in the past that it is a subject of particular interest because if one reads Hansard of some years ago, and the election speeches on public platforms of the right hon. gentleman who was at one time the prime minister of Canada and the leader of the Liberal party, he will find that that gentleman and his followers spent days and weeks in the House of Commons and on the hustings in urging what he described as reform of the Senate.
It is interesting now to read the reports of some of those speeches, where it was suggested that the Senate was a refuge for privilege and a gathering of wealthy men- and of course the suggestion is that the right hon. gentleman was opposed to privilege and wealthy men. When one goes through the Parliamentary Guide today-and let it be understood that I am not criticizing privilege at the moment-and sees the larger number of directorships listed on the part of the members in the other place, I think one would say that, whatever may have been the propaganda of the past about the Conservative party being the party of privilege and wealthy men, that situation has greatly changed today. I say that because we find listed in the Parliamentary Guide over a hundred directorships, largely of national corporations, -held by representatives in the other place. So I suppose that shows simply that there is nothing new under the sun, and that the wheel turns.
These discussions still go on. Regardless of what may have been said in the past, I think the people of Canada are interested in this matter today, and I suggested that it would be well if we were to consider this matter, not critically, but coolly and dispassionately, and that it would be wise to have a committee set up to consider ways and means of dealing with the matter- because I am sure there are differences of opinion among all of us with respect to it.
I have heard views expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite, and some on this side of the house, with which I am not entirely in accord, so far as the Senate is concerned. Let me say at the outset that I am not in favour of the abolition of the Senate- and one would expect that I would take that position, coming from the maritime provinces because the Senate did play some
TMr. Nowlan.]
little part in the thinking which motivated the people in the maritime provinces when they entered confederation.
I think one reason there has been criticism of the other place is that its functions have not been properly understood. Sometimes people say that the Senate does not do enough, or that it does not understand this or that. If they read the discussions which took place at the Quebec conference, if they understood the working of our constitutional system, they would realize that the second place is supposed to be a place-I think Sir John A. Macdonald or Cartier said it should be a counterpoise, which I think is a very fortunate expression, to the more hasty action which may be taken in the lower chamber.
It has been called a judicial body, which I do not think is a very happy term or an appropriate term. It has been called a body of review, and at least that is the primary function of the second place. It is not the place where one initiates all sorts of legislation, although it has the constitutional right to do so. It is a body which is supposed to sit in consideration and in review of legislation which is passed in this house. Criticisms are sometimes made of that body without realizing its limitation. Whatever may [DOT]be said whether one criticizes the membership of the body or whether one praises it, the fact remains that the hon. gentlemen sitting in the other place have no control over that whatsoever. They have no choice in the appointments that are to be made to that body. These appointments are made on the prerogative of the Prime Minister. So far as the work which they do is concerned, we are the body which considers and debates matters-perhaps people sometimes think too long-and then they are sent down to the other place where they receive their final passage.
I have sometimes thought it might be very appropriate if the people in the other place decided they would spend more time in considering legislation and we might have to stop and wait for the three knocks to come on the door. We might be delayed sometime waiting for the three knocks to come, but at least they have not done that. That would be their prerogative in giving more consideration to legislation which we pass and send down there.
A great deal of legislation has been initiated there and a great deal of good work done there. As I recall, the shipping act and the Bankruptcy Act were initiated there. I think about three years were spent in considering the Bankruptcy Act. It was noncontentious. It was very involved and very technical. It ran into hundreds of sections.

An exhaustive study was made of that legislation by committees in the other place. Finally, that act was approved and sent down here. As I recall, we passed it in a relatively short time. The same thing applies to the Criminal Code, which was a non-contentious matter in so far as partisan politics is concerned at any rate. A great deal of time was spent and a great deal of work was done by Their Honours in the other place in reviewing and considering the Criminal Code. It is true that when it came here, because it was a matter of great concern to the public, we spent considerable time going over the same matter. The work done in the other place certainly facilitated the work which we did here. In other words, we would have spent much longer on it had it not been for the work done in the Senate.
Something was said about appointments to the Senate and the various classes of people who should be appointed there. I quite agree with that. It is desirable to appoint representation from as many classes of people as possible. But we must not forget, sir, that the fundamental basis on which the Senate was established was a reasonable one. When the fathers of confederation met, and in the preliminary discussions which took place prior to that time, they were faced with very great problems. You had the province of united Canada following the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, and you had the cry of representation by population, which created a great deal of doubt, particularly in the minds of those from Lower Canada. Yet it was realized it was hard to work out and achieve a democratic parliament unless we did recognize the so-called principle of representation by population. But there were associations with that, particularly in the province of Upper Canada, which raised the greatest doubts in what was then the province of Lower Canada. The people there felt, I think properly-we would all think the same way if we were in their position- that to come into confederation you were going to have a lower house and probably an upper house elected on the some population basis. Then the fathers of confederation also saw the problem between Upper and Lower Canada, and they saw another problem as well.
We in the east were separated by hundreds of miles of what was then woods and forests. The provinces in the east were, as the name implied, maritime in outlook, maritime in discipline. We were looking toward the sea. We had no great economic associations. Originally the area looked with a great deal
Proposed Senate Reform of doubt upon entering confederation. They felt that if they did, because of their relatively small population, they might be entering a government which was based on a popular assembly or an elected lower and upper house, where their voices and their views would be completely submerged and their section would be ignored. It was because of that that the two fundamental principles were accepted: One, that the Senate was to be appointed and not elected-one could develop the reason for that at length but time does not permit it; second, and more important, there should be a regional basis of appointment, namely, 24 members from what had been the province of Upper Canada, 24 from Lower Canada, and 24 from what had been the maritime provinces. There were these three divisions of 24, and it was written right into our constitution that there could be no increase in that number except one for each one of the areas, and even when that one had been appointed by the governor in council an additional one could not be appointed until another one died. In other words, you are keeping in balance the 24 members between the three areas. Otherwise, if the number had not been limited, one can easily see what could have happened.
I well remember what happened in the province of Nova Scotia. I happened to be a member of the legislature there when it was decided to abolish the legislative council. The government went to the privy council and found there was no restriction whatsoever on the number of legislative councillors who could be appointed. The government of that day proceeded to appoint a large number of legislative councillors. When the measure came before that body to abolish it they passed the measure and the legislative council was abolished. As the hon. member for Lethbridge pointed out a little while ago, that could not be done in the parliament of Canada because we could not abolish the Senate, even if we wanted to, unless the legislation was passed by the upper house as well, and under our constitution there is no possibility of increasing the number of senators. The number is fixed.
We did finally achieve confederation because of that. That is the thing that one should remember when discussing the Senate. Some people ask: is it worth while? Does it cost too much? Is it efficient? A whole lot of other questions are asked which could be answered in the affirmative or negative, depending upon one's views upon the subject.
I want to say this, sir. It is my considered opinion-in fact, I am sure it is the opinion of anyone who studies the matter at all- that if it had not been for the Senate there

Proposed Senate Reform would be no Canada today. I think we have to accept that as a fact. One may question its efficiency today, or the wisdom of its actions. But it is because there is a Senate that we have confederation. If there had been no Senate, if there had not been some similar body-you may call it anything you like, but it had to be an upper house on a regional basis-if it had not been for that, Lower Canada would never have come in. Cartier makes that very plain in his statement at the time of the conference at Quebec and afterwards. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick leaders also made it very plain at the time. In fact, the province of Prince Edward Island was so suspicious of the matter that it would not come into confederation at all at the time because it felt that, even with a Senate, its views might be overlooked.
From my own point of view, Mr. Speaker, the investment was worth while. It is those who served this nation in which we all have pride and which has developed from the Atlantic to the Pacific and is now rolling northward. It is a contribution which we believe we are making, but I think we should remember, when we are inclined to be critical of that other place, that at least it was on that cornerstone, even more so than in this chamber, that Canada was established as a nation. The price which we have paid is very little for what we have obtained.
As far as checks and balances are concerned, when one studies the record he finds that very often it has reviewed legislation which this house has passed rather hurriedly. I remember reading a debate which took place in the late 1890's. At that time bicycles were more numerous than automobiles are today. There were cyclists' associations all over the country and these groups brought pressure to bear upon the House of Commons and legislation was passed providing that the railroads had to carry bicycles free of charge. In other words, you could put your bicycle on a train, carry it anywhere, cycle back home and the railroad could not charge any freight. Obviously that was a situation where the House of Commons had been under some pressure and had made a rather hasty reaction to public opinion. The Senate promptly threw out the bill and the railroads were able to charge freight for bicycles carried. It is not for me to say whether that was a good or a bad thing. I cite it simply as an example of one check which was made.
It is within the memory of some hon. members that a certain bank in the province of Ontario failed not very many years ago. It was suggested, and I think partially politically, that the bank had failed because the government of the day had failed to scrutinize
[Mr. Nowlan.l
its charter as carefully as it should have done. Political pressure was brought to bear upon the House of Commons to say whether the failure had been due to the fact that the charter had not been checked sufficiently in order to avoid this bankruptcy. People lost a lot of money because of this failure and a bill was passed through this house under which the Dominion of Canada would pay the depositors what they had lost. I do not think anyone looking back will say other than that that was a piece of clumsy political manoeuvring. The Senate threw out that bill as well.
One could go on and give many examples where the same thing has been done. I think all of us realize that pressure groups do exist in this country as evidenced by the number of resolutions and the propaganda and material which we are getting every day. These organized groups are growing up in this country and they bring pressure to bear on the House of Commons and the same things could happen in the future as happened in the case of the bicycles or the bank depositors. So I say that there is justification for a second body to review the legislation which is passed.
When one compares the situation which existed when Canada was established with the situation which exists today he can easily see why a study should be made. For instance, in those days all the government of Canada was carried on in the building which stood where this building stands today and the east and west blocks. Those buildings housed all the machinery of the government of Canada. Today you cannot wander anywhere around Ottawa without running into government buildings, new buildings which are being erected or old buildings which are being torn down to be replaced by new government buildings. In addition, there are many buildings being rented by the government. The same thing applies to other cities in Canada. It used to be that the main objective was to get a post office, but now they want a federal building, or maybe two or three of them, and then other buildings must be rented as well. I am not saying this in any critical sense but simply to indicate what is now necessary to take care of the machinery of government.
Then there is the situation with respect to the prerogative of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). Undoubtedly at the time the Senate was created it was thought that appointments, besides having to be on a geographical basis, would be much more regional than is the case today. The situation which has developed in the last 80 years in respect to the office of prime minister is entirely different. Perhaps one of the most

important changes is the length of time a government may be in office.
We must remember that when the fathers of confederation laid the foundation for the British North America Act they had had the experience of governments in Upper and Lower Canada where governments rose and fell like mad. You would have a government of one party in power today, then that government would be defeated and the government of another party came in tomorrow. You would have a coalition in order to get the budget through. Then parliament would be dissolved and there would be another election. In the days of Upper and Lower Canada a government which stayed in office for six months gained a reputation for longevity.
It was with that experience in mind that it was decided that senators should be appointed by the governor in council. It was assumed that there would be a fairly rapid change in the political situation from year to year. However, since Canada was established we have had a long history of stable political government. There was one period from 1867 to 1896, with the exception of four years, in which one government was in office, and now we have had a government in office for at least 20 years.
Then the machinery of the Senate set-up under our democratic government could be much different. At one time at least two prime ministers sat in the Senate, and at nearly all times there was a minister or two who sat in the other place. As I say, we have the machinery of government spread all over this great nation and today we find no more than one minister, generally without portfolio, sitting in the other place. He is the only means of contact between the whole government of Canada and the members of the Senate.
It is because of these changing conditions that I think it is most appropriate that a committee should be set up to consider this whole problem of what should be done in connection with the Senate. I hope that that committee can be set up. If it is, I know that something constructive will come out of its studies. There are some suggestions which I should like to make with respect to the work of the committee, and I would now move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Nowlan the debate was adjourned.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
Defence Production Act
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, July 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe, Port Arthur (for Mr. St. Laurent) for the second reading of Bill No. 256, to amend the Defence Production Act, and the proposed motion of the Minister of Finance: "That this question be now put".
Righi Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would be mistaken in my appreciation of the processes of the minds of members of this house and of the gentlemen up above us who represent the press if many of them had not been assuming that the Leader of the Opposition and I had been conferring in the last few days about the way in which it might be possible to bridge what seemed to be the narrowing and narrowed gap that existed between the suggestions that had been made from this side of the house with respect to the bill that has given rise to quite a long protracted debate and the requests or suggestions that had come from the other side of the house.
Hon. members will remember that the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) declared on the 13th of June, almost a month ago now, that it was the intention of the government, when the bill reached the committee stage, to propose the addition of a third section to provide that orders made under the Defence Production Act, either by the governor in council or by the minister, shall, in addition to the normal publication in the Canada Gazette, be laid upon the table of both houses of parliament at the earliest possible moment after they are made and that a notice of motion signed by 10 members praying for the repeal or amendment of any such order if given within seven days of the tabling of the order in either house shall be debated at the first convenient opportunity within the next four sitting days.
Then, just a week ago today, in view of the propriety that I think everyone conceded of there being from time to time a review of the existing circumstances to determine whether it required powers as extensive as those which are now provided in the Defence Production Act, I suggested in that connection that we would undertake, if any private member moved for the repeal or amending of those provisions, after the bill had been introduced, to provide for its consideration in its various stages as expeditiously as could be conveniently arranged. That seemed
5938	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act to me to provide an opportunity for the matter to be brought before the house and given the consideration of the house, and a further opportunity for the house to have and retain the responsibility for the existence of such powers.
But that was regarded as assuming, perhaps not too modestly, that we would still be in office on this side of the house to carry out that kind of undertaking. We looked upon that assumption as quite a reasonable one for us to make, but it seemed that there were others who considered that they should not be required to concur in that kind of assumption and that, if there were propriety in bringing the matter up for reconsideration at a future date by parliament, the government in office at that time should take the responsibility of bringing in the measure that would call for reconsideration.
As a matter of fact, with respect to results, it does not make very much difference who does introduce the matter for reconsideration and discussion. The hon. Leader of the Opposition and I have conferred about it. I had conferred about it with my colleague, the Minister of Defence Production, before he left on Thursday evening to fulfil longstanding engagements-engagements which I consider are not only desirable to have fulfilled in the interests of those who had made them, but desirable in their possible indirect results for the people of Canada generally. The Leader of the Opposition and I, of course, each maintained our own views about the propriety in the first place of this Defence Production Act, but we both attempted to be realistic; and we both came to the conclusion that it might be, if not entirely satisfactory, tolerable, if the undertakings that had come from this side of the house were reaffirmed and if they were coupled with the undertaking of the government that these special powers would expire unless the government-whoever happened to be heading it and whatever party it was made up of-itself took the responsibility of coming back to parliament at the appropriate time. The situation is that I am now in a position to state to the house that, when this bill has had second reading, I shall ask one of my colleagues to propose amendments. I do not know if the house would care to have them read at this time.


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It can all be done in two amendments. The first one would be to deal with the reconsideration of such orders as may be made, and the second to provide for the expiry of certain powers fMr. St. Laurent.1

unless there is renewal. Section 41 is the section which makes it expire on 31st July, 1956:
Section 41 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"41. (1) Every regulation, as defined in the Regulations Act, made under the authority of this act that is required to be laid before parliament under section 7 of the Regulations Act and every regulation made under section 9 of the Regulations Act in relation to a regulation made under this act, shall be laid before both houses of parliament as soon as may be after it is made.
Hon. members will remember that section 7 of the Regulations Act requires that regulations be laid before parliament and provides that certain kinds of regulations, those that are orders affecting only a small group, for instance, orders affecting the matter of operating aircraft or operating broadcasting systems and things of that kind, may be exempted, but that every order exempting an order from publication has itself to be brought before the house under section 9. This means that every order that would require to be tabled under the Regulations Act will require to be tabled under this act itself.
(2)	Where a regulation has been laid before parliament pursuant to subsection (1), a notice of motion in either house signed by 10 members thereof, and made in accordance with the rules of that house within seven days of the day the regulation was laid before that house, praying that the regulation be revoked or amended, shall be debated in that house at the first convenient opportunity within the four sitting days next after the day the motion in that house was made.
(3)	A regulation that has been laid before parliament pursuant to this section need not be laid before parliament under section 7 or 9 of the Regulations Act, but nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting or limiting the obligation under section 6 of the Regulations Act to publish the regulation in the Canada Gazette.
That is the drafting of the legal officers to give full effect to the undertaking that was made on June 13.
Then, section 42 reads:
Sections 23 to 31-
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) will note that this is more inclusive than those he had mentioned. He had mentioned 23, and then 26 to 31, but this goes from 23 to 31 without leaving any out.
Sections 23 to 31 shall expire on the 31st day of July, 1959, unless parliament is in session on that day, in which case those sections shall expire on the day such session ends or is adjourned sine die or to a day being more than 30 days from the date of adjournment.
I had drafted something perhaps a little more explicit. What I had drafted was that it would expire at that time, unless at that time parliament was in session and had before it a bill providing for the extension, in which case it would not expire until the bill

had been disposed of or parliament had adjourned, the reason being that if parliament were seized of the matter it should not be just talked out but should be decided in the affirmative or negative and not expire merely by reason of the delay. But this will provide that it will expire on July 31, 1959, unless parliament is sitting at that time, in which event it will not expire until the end of that session or the adjournment of that session for a period of more than 30 days.
Now, I think that fully covers the suggestions that had been made in the first instance by the hon. member for Peace River, and I think it follows pretty closely the suggestions outlined by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in his last participation in this debate. I am told by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) that it makes it a tolerable situation which will possibly enable us to bring this debate to a close and transfer the consideration of the matter to the other place.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I first wish to commend the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for asserting and vindicating, in what he has said, a high parliamentary principle. There has been an exchange of ideas between the Prime Minister and myself which has led to the measure of agreement that he has accurately described in the remarks he has made. I think that this, Mr. Speaker, is parliament at its very best. We do welcome the unqualified assurance by the Prime Minister that an appropriate amendment will be introduced when we are in committee of the whole house to make the defence production department a permanent department of government, with appropriate administrative authority, and to place a limit of three years after the termination of the present Defence Production Act upon those special powers which have been under discussion in this long debate.
In addition to this vitally important amendment, the Prime Minister has referred to the amendment which was proposed by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) on June 13, and which would have the effect of bringing before the house a discussion of the orders in council or ministerial orders made under the provisions of this act when it becomes law. This assurance has been interpreted in the amendment which the Prime Minister has read, and which would become the amendment before the house when we are in committee.
It would provide that in addition to the publication in the Canada Gazette, the orders in council or ministerial orders under this act would be tabled forthwith and that there
Defence Production Act would be a procedure by which an early debate could be assured upon the petition of 10 members.	,
I would recall, Mr. Speaker, that at the time we indicated the proposal of the Minister of Defence Production did not, in itself, satisfy our demands for a time limit upon the special powers. I wish to emphasize further that we never suggested that this provision, in association with other appropriate amendments, could not satisfy a very useful purpose. On the contrary, we think it is a useful amendment to the act, and in combination with the amendment now proposed by the Prime Minister, could be very valuable indeed. While we would have preferred to see the whole act rewritten, I agree with the Prime Minister that we have discussed this in a realistic manner. We recognize that the government has the responsibility of introducing legislation. We are not forgetful of the fact that the government has a majority to support its position.
At all times since the motion to introduce this bill was placed before the house, we have sought to obtain certain results. The statement by the Prime Minister in regard to the amendment which will be placed before us in committee of the whole substantially meets all the demands that we have made. This amendment in fact, Mr. Speaker, alters vastly, totally and fundamentally the whole character of the amending bill now before us. There are some powers in section 15 which we do not like. In our discussion we have criticized the effect of these powers in combination with some of the other sections of the act falling within that group of special sections which now will have a time limit placed upon them. Nevertheless, we must recognize that, desirable or undesirable, those powers contained in section 15 are already contained in the Defence Supplies Act, which is still on the statute books and which would become operative again if the Defence Production Act came to an end.
We do not withdraw any argument we have made in this debate. Those arguments expressed our firm conviction that sweeping powers such as those contained in sections 23 to 31 should not be continuing powers in this or any other act. Between now and the time these sections come to an end under the amendment which the Prime Minister has read to the house, there will be ample opportunity to consider the whole act, and the parliamentary principles which we have asserted over these past few weeks. That in itself, Mr. Speaker, we regard as a satisfactory safeguard to the principles we have enunciated. Whether the next government be formed by the Liberal or by the Conservative
5940	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act party, that government will not be likely to forget that any attempt to disregard those principles would unquestionably produce a similar debate.
What we have been doing during these recent weeks is to prevent, if possible, by proper parliamentary procedure the passing of a bill to which we have the strongest objection, in the form in which it was presented. I can assure the house we were ready to continue that legitimate obstruction for some considerable time yet. In fact, the excellent attendance of our members today demonstrates how ready they were to continue this debate, and I can assure you that they were ready to proceed. That is now unnecessary; at least, I hope there will be an agreement among the members that it is unnecessary. The result we sought has been substantially achieved. It is, therefore, my hope that without further debate we can now proceed with second reading and in committee of the whole house adopt the amendment proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I would also hope that we could then approve of third reading this afternoon and bring this debate to an end.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to prolong an already lengthy debate. All I am going to say is, I am very happy indeed to know that a solution has been found to the controversy that has raged in the house over a considerable length of time. I have believed throughout that some time limit should be placed on the special powers in the bill. That has been achieved. If special powers are given I believe that the legislation containing them should come before the house from time to time for reconsideration. From the outset I have believed that the principle of the bill was sound. To continue the department was absolutely essential. To give these powers, subject to review at a subsequent date, was also essential because I am convinced that in the light of world conditions today it is necessary for the government of Canada to exercise a considerable amount of control whenever necessary over the raw materials needed in the national interests and also over industrial and other efforts in the interests of the nation.
Consequently the proposals made this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and accepted by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) are quite in line with my own thinking. I have not taken any particular part in the debate because, our position having been made clear at the resolution stage by our spokesman, I did not think, with the debate going on as it was, it was necessary to intervene with the exception of last week


when I felt we should make it very clear indeed that we were anxious to see the kind of compromise effected, if you can call it a compromise, that has been effected this afternoon. I join with the Leader of the Opposition in hoping that we may adopt second reading now, consider the bill and the amendments in committee, and at the earliest possible moment, in conformity with our usual consideration of procedures, give final approval to the bill, if possible, today.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I take a moment to express the gratification that I and my group feel that a common-sense solution has been found to what appeared to be a rather difficult impasse that has existed in the house for quite some time. I want to commend the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on the statement he made this afternoon and the assurance he gave that in committee the amendments he read to us will be embodied in the bill. Those amendments are entirely satisfactory to us. As a matter of fact they go somewhat beyond what I proposed in the house nearly a week ago as a satisfactory solution, I then believed, to the controversy that had raged for some days.
May I also take this opportunity to congratulate the opposition on what I thought was a good fight on a principle in which they believe and in which I believe. We stood with the opposition on that principle because we believed in it. We wanted to see the government have their Department of Defence Production made permanent, but at the same time we expressed at the beginning, and have continued to express right down to this time, our determination that there should be certain portions at least of the bill setting up the department made subject to some sort of reference to parliament periodically so that we would have control of those sections here. I congratulate the opposition on their good fight, one that has sustained a principle in which they believe and in which I believe, and has also gone far to establish and maintain the supremacy of parliament in which we also believe.
At the same time may I express sincere congratulations to the Prime Minister because I believe it takes considerable courage to face up to what the government has faced during the past two or three weeks. In my judgment it takes courage, and it also takes courage to come forward in a conciliatory spirit and yield to the overwhelming desire of parliament, as I have been able to size it up, to achieve this compromise and a settlement of what was a real controversy.
I congratulate him and I congratulate the government on seeing that we were determined to have a change in the bill. On the

assurance they have given us we will support second reading of the bill and we hope that we will be able to go through the committee stage and get third reading this afternoon.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: With unanimous consent, may I say only one more word? Personally I feel that I deserve the hon. member's congratulations more for what I stated a week ago than for the change in form expressed in my statement this afternoon. I thought that a week ago I was giving away the substance, and I appreciated that perhaps it would not be a fair request of human nature to ask others to share in the assumption upon which my ability to carry out that undertaking was based.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the mover of the
amendment wish to have it withdrawn by unanimous consent?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to put the amendment.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, just so that the record may be understood, although we objected to the amendment now before the house we are not going to call for a division upon it. I wish it to be understood that when I say "on division" it will only be for the purpose of leaving on record the fact that we do not approve of this procedure, but we intend to precipitate neither a debate nor a division on the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? The question is on the amendment. It is moved by Mr. Harris and seconded by Mr. Campney that the question be now put.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The question has to be put or we cannot have second reading.


William Earl Rowe: You had better put it or withdraw it.


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


George Alexander Drew: On division.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment agreed to on division.
Motion (Mr. Howe, Port Arthur, for Mr. St. Laurent) agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Repeal.


Walter Edward Harris: I wonder if I might have unanimous consent that I should not read the amendment, but that you, Mr. Chairman, read
Defence Production Act it. The amendment will be as presented a few moments ago by the Prime Minister.


William Alfred Robinson: It is moved by Mr. Harris:
That clause 2 be stricken out and the following substituted therefor:
"2. Section 41 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"41. (1) Every regulation, as defined in the Regulations Act, made under the authority of this act that is required to be laid before parliament under section 7 of the Regulations Act and every regulation made under section 9 of the Regulations Act in relation to a regulation made under this act, shall be laid before both houses of parliament as soon as may be after it is made.
(2)	Where a regulation has been laid before parliament pursuant to subsection (1), a notice of motion in either house signed by ten members thereof, and made in accordance with the rules of that house within seven days of the day the regulation was laid before that house, praying that the regulation be revoked or amended, shall be debated in that house at the first convenient opportunity within the four sitting days next after the day the motion in that house was made.
(3)	A regulation that has been laid before parliament pursuant to this section need not be laid before parliament under section 7 or 9 of the Regulations Act, but nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting or limiting the obligation under section 6 of the Regulations Act to publish the regulation in the Canada Gazette.
42. Sections 23 to 31 shall expire on the 31st day of July, 1959, unless parliament is in session on that day, in which case those sections shall expire on the day such session ends or is adjourned sine die or to a day being more than thirty days from the date of adjournment."


Walter Edward Harris: May I take just a minute to say that the first section in the amendment of course carries out the undertaking made by the Minister of Defence Production some three weeks ago. The second section carries out in more extended form the answer the Minister of Defence Production made with unanimous consent on Thursday afternoon, during the course of the debate, in which he intimated there were special powers which could be subject to limitation as to time.


George Alexander Drew: I do point out that the fundamentally important part of this amendment, from our point of view, is the striking out of clause 2 of the amending bill, which would have written these regulations, and particularly the wide powers under sections 23 to 31, into the permanent laws of this country. Therefore the striking out of clause 2 complies fully with our request in that respect.
I would further point out that the amendment as proposed and read to the house now carries out fully the understanding I had with the Prime Minister in our discussion, and I would hope therefore that the house might adopt this amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
Transport Act

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think the house is aware of the order of business we might take from now on. We shall take the amendment to the Transport Act, then the amendment to the Radio Act, followed by the amendment to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.



TRANSPORT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 449, to amend the Transport Act-Mr. Marler- Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
William Alfred Robinson: May I inform hon. members that this bill was considered in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and has been reported with certain amendments, which are to be found at page 844 of Votes and Proceedings for Friday, July 1.
On clause 1-Agreement for charges.


Mr. Green:: As the chairman has pointed out, there were some amendments to this bill in the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. It might be helpful if the minister were to explain those amendments to the committee, and also let us know whether he has in mind making any further amendments at this stage. There are one or two points he agreed to consider, and perhaps he would make a statement now.


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to respond to the invitation of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and try to give just a brief outline of the amendments which are proposed and which were discussed in the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and which, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, are to be found at page 844 of Votes and Proceedings for Friday, July 1.
The first of these amendments adds to subsection 1 of section 32 words which are intended to have the effect of limiting agreed charges to the transport of goods from one point in Canada to another point in Canada. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that this language was agreed upon as best meeting the unanimous desire of members of the committee that agreed charges should apply only to transport in Canada, and not to other parts of the world.
When this amendment was proposed, I think it was hoped at that time that the language woud be sufficiently restrictive to meet the objections of certain non-conference
[Mr. Drew.)
shipping companies which felt that certain practices now carried on by the railroads discriminated against them, and so, by limiting in proper legal language the agreed charge to the transport of goods in Canada, the main objection which they had raised would be overcome.
Then, Mr. Chairman, the second amendment was not one of very great substance. Hon. members will recall that at present where an agreement for agreed charges is from or to a competitive point, or between competitive points, it is necessary for both railways to become parties to the agreed charge. The change in wording was to make possible the making of an agreed charge by one railway if the other railway which was not interested in carrying the kind of goods covered by the charge was agreeable to the charge being made.
The third amendment, Mr. Chairman, is merely a question of going back to the language used by Mr. Justice Turgeon in his report with regard to the cases where a carrier by water joins in the making of an agreed charge. There is no substantial difference between the language of the amendment and the original language of subclause 5 of the bill as introduced in this house.
The fourth amendment involves the replacement of clause 33 of the bill by a new clause 33 which I think, it will be found, makes only one substantial change in clause 33. In the bill as originally drafted there is a provision by which a carrier, or an association of carriers, either by water or by rail, or an association or other body representative of the shippers of any locality may, under certain conditions, complain to the Minister of Transport that an agreed charge is discriminatory or that it places the business of the complainant at an unfair disadvantage. In those conditions, the Minister of Transport is empowered in Bill No. 449 to refer the agreed charge to the board of transport commissioners for investigation.
During the course of the discussions before the standing committee representations were made by the Canadian Trucking Associations and, as I indicated a moment ago, by representatives of two non-conference shipping companies which, it seemed to me, made it desirable to broaden the conditions under which a particular agreed charge might be referred to the board of transport commissioners. The essence of the amendment which replaces the original clause 33 appears in subclause 2. It empowers the governor in council, if he has reason to believe that

an agreed charge is undesirable in the public interest, to refer that agreed charge to the board of transport commissioners for investigation.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the sum and substance of the amendments which are recommended by the committee. I think I should say that the effect of the amendment to clause 33 is that it opens the door wide to an agreed charge or to one or more agreed charges being referred to the board of transport commissioners whenever there are circumstances which would seem to justify an inquiry being made by the board into the agreed charge which is the subject of reference, or if there be more than one, to all of those covered by the reference. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this change puts into the bill the necessary amount of flexibility so that if, as I said in the committee, broadly speaking, the agreed charges are found to contain provisions which are discriminatory against any form of transportation, it will be possible, if the governor in council is of the opinion that the practice is undesirable in the public interest, to refer the agreed charges to the board so that it might investigate them.
It will be found that the amendment, just as the bill itself, enables the board upon a reference to cancel or vary the agreed charges referred to it.
During the course of our discussions a question was brought up by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra which perhaps I should attempt to deal with. As far as my memory serves me, this is the only item as to which I undertook to give further consideration. I should like to say to the committee that, after considering the matter fully, I do not think any further amendment ought to be made to the bill. I think that the point raised in committee has been adequately taken care of.
The point I refer to is the contention which was emphasized rather strongly by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, namely, that the agreed charge should by the statute itself be required to be compensatory. I promised the hon. member during the committee stage that I would reconsider the question of whether it could be definitely put into the bill or not. I came to the conclusion that not only was it adequately covered under the present legislation but that it would be practically impossible to amend the legislation by providing for a more direct reference of an agreed charge to the board of transport commissioners in order to determine whether it was compensatory or not. I feel perfectly sure that if hon. members reflect upon the matter they would agree that if we are to
Transport Act
make the agreed charge the effective instrument it should be, we cannot at the same time add further procedure which must be observed so that in effect by doing so we shall make the new procedure just as long, just as complicated and just as uncertain as the procedure followed at present.
As hon. members will perhaps recall, under the existing legislation the present practice is that when the agreed charge is arrived at between the carriers and a group of shippers, it must be submitted to the board of transport commissioners for its approval. One of the points which must be investigated at present is, what is the effect of the agreed charge on the net revenue of the carrier?
Now, Mr. Chairman, we have found that the necessity of submitting every agreed charge to the board of transport commissioners for its approval before it becomes effective is robbing the agreed charge of most of its efficacy as an instrument of competition. The main principle of Mr. Justice Turgeon's recommendation is that the procedure should be simplified so that the railways may be placed on what would be regarded by them as a more nearly equal basis of competition with the trucking industry. If we go back to the present requirement that the board must decide whether or not an agreed charge is compensatory I fear we shall be robbing the agreed charge of a great deal of its utility and usefulness as an element of competition. Consequently I do not think that I can accept any amendment which in fact is going to put the agreed charge in the strait-jacket it was in and which it still is in under the existing legislation.
I do not want hon. members to believe that the proposed legislation does not imply that the agreed charge must be compensatory. I know that the requirement of Bill No. 449 is not identical with the legislation which it replaces. I am not for an instant attempting to create in the minds of the members of this committee the impression that the two bills are identical from a legal point of view, but I do say that Bill No. 449, with the amendment to which I referred a moment ago, makes it abundantly clear that the agreed charge should be compensatory. If an agreed charge is referred to the board of transport commissioners one of the first things which they must inquire into is the effect that the making of the agreed charge is likely to have on the net revenues of the carrier who is a party to it. That is just as clear as the language of the existing statute and in my view it is perfectly clear that the principle of the legislation we are now discussing is that the agreed charge should be compensatory.

Transport Act
Let us suppose for a moment that the conditions which were imagined by some members of the committee came about and the railroads, because they were seemingly not under any direct legal prohibition against doing it, deliberately made a number of agreed charges in a particular area for the purpose of eliminating other forms of transportation. In the first place, I think that that is an assumption that could scarcely be raised in practice because I think the kind of traffic that would have to be covered by the agreed charges to which I have just referred would cover so many items that in the first place it is unthinkable, even if the railroads were so intentioned, that they could arrive at that point. Second, I cannot help thinking that, even if a large part of the railway's traffic were affected by agreed charges, that would merely have the effect of opening new avenues of competition for the trucking industry. Therefore I do not believe that the railways are going to make a large number of agreed charges for the purpose of extinguishing or wiping out other forms of transportation.
But assuming for the moment that such a thing came about, and I cannot believe that it would, the fact remains that under subsection 2 of section 33 it would be considered a matter of public interest and the governor in council would have the right to refer the single agreed charge or the series of agreed charges to the board of transport commissioners which would have the fullest powers, as is perfectly obvious from reading the amendment.
Having regard to the fact that it is really only a theoretical necessity that the agreed charge should require to be compensatory, I think for all practical purposes this is taken care of adequately by the amendments we have discussed. Having thought about the matter very fully since the sittings of the committee, I have come to the conclusion that I could not accept any further amendment which was intended to say more specifically that the agreed charge should be compensatory. I think the bill was gone into with great care in the standing committee and I think that the amendments which have been suggested are an improvement on the bill as originally introduced and I hope that with the amendment the bill will commend itself to the committee.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, there are three points in connection with this bill which I should like to place before the committee. The right of a railroad to enter into an agreed charge is a very drastic and far-reaching right which runs counter to our whole scheme of freight rates in Canada.

It is designed primarily for the purpose of meeting competition. It comes about in this way. A railroad can enter into an agreement, say with an automobile manufacturer, to carry 50 per cent, 75 per cent or 100 per cent of his product between two areas. With the traffic being tied up under an agreement of that kind, all other competitors are deprived of any chance of getting any of that business. So this right of making an agreed charge is a very powerful and drastic right. As I said a moment ago, it is designed for the one purpose of helping the railways to meet competition. The main provision of the act is contained in section 32, subsection 1, and when the amendment recommended by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines has been incorporated into that subsection it will read:
Notwithstanding anything in the Railway Act or in this act, a carrier may make such charges lor the transport from one point in Canada to another point in Canada of goods of a shipper as are agreed between the carrier and the shipper.
Before the committee a representative of the province of Manitoba urged that there be included in that subsection the words "to meet competition", so that the pertinent part of the subsection would then read:
Notwithstanding anything in the Railway Act or in this act, a carrier may to meet competition make such charges-
The minister was unwilling to accept that amendment in committee and I am going to suggest to him this afternoon that he give further consideration to the proposal by the government of Manitoba. I hope he will accept that amendment today. This idea of meeting competition is one reason why the railways are given the right to make an agreed charge and they should be restricted to the making of an agreed charge for the purpose of meeting competition. For example, without those words it would be possible for a railway to make an agreed charge with some company which happens to be a friend of the president of the railway company.


George Carlyle Marler: They would have to be friends of both railway companies.


Howard Charles Green: That may be, but it might be possible for some firm to have friends in Montreal who are on the directorate of the Canadian Pacific Railway and thus be able to get an agreed charge. Surely there can be no objection to meeting the request of the government of Manitoba to add the words, "to meet competition" so that an agreed charge could be negotiated only for the purpose of meeting competition. That is my first point. It would do no harm to the bill to add those words and it would make it

clear in this key subsection of the bill that an agreed charge was for the purpose of meeting competition.
Then the minister dealt at some length this afternoon with another suggestion which was made in the standing committee, namely that there should be a provision written into this act that an agreed charge must be one that will at least pay the railway for carrying the goods; in other words, that they are not allowed to make an agreed charge which means carrying the goods at a loss. That is a very important matter for those of us who live on the west coast, because it is not so many years ago that the railways put out of business a steamship company operating between the west and east coasts and carrying goods at a lower rate than the railways had been carrying them. The railways put that steamship company out of business by dropping their rates below the rates the steamship company was charging. Then, once the steamship company had been put out of business the railways restored the rates to the old level.
I think it was clear that that was not done by way of an agreed charge, but rather by dropping the competitive rates. However, it could be done by agreed charges. We now have another line operating ships between Montreal and Vancouver and possibly through the St. Lawrence, though I am not sure about that. Of course they can carry goods cheaper by water through the Panama canal than the railways carry them overland.
On the west coast we cannot see any reason why our merchants and our consumers should not have the benefit of these cheap rates. There is the possibility here that the railways, by entering into agreed charges covering the bulk of the goods that are carried by ships, will be able to put that shipping line out of business.


George Carlyle Marler: That would be because the rates were too low, would it not?


Howard Charles Green: I would not quarrel with that, if the railways do not drop below what it costs them to carry the goods. But the minister has refused to write anything into this act which says the railways must not make an agreed charge which is below the cost of carrying the goods. That is where I quarrelled with him in the committee. He has refused to write in an amendment of that kind. I pointed out, and others in the committee supported me, that under the present agreed charge law, which is found in subsection 15 of the present section 32, the board of transport commissioners cannot allow an agreed charge to go into effect unless the railways show that the agreed charge will earn
Transport Act
them some money. In other words it should not mean that they would carry goods at a loss.
The minister meets my argument by saying, "You are trying to make the railways go back to the board of transport commissioners before an agreed charge can be put into effect".
I am doing no such thing. I am saying a provision should be written into section 32 that an agreed charge must be compensatory; in other words, no agreed charge can be below the actual cost to the railway. There are other similar provisions in section 32. Subclause 6 of this bill says:
An agreed charge shall be made on the established basis of rate making and shall be expressed in cents per hundred pounds or such other unit of weight or measurement as is appropriate; and the car-load rate for one car shall not exceed the carload rate for any greater number of cars.
The railways do not have to go to the board of transport commissioners about that, and nobody is asking that they should. I say, why could the minister not write in a clause 6 (a) which would say that the agreed charge shall be on a compensatory basis, in other words that it shall not be a charge which means carrying the goods at a loss? Then you would have that standard set up by the law that the railways must follow. I do not ask that the railways should have to go to the board of transport commissioners for prior approval, but I think the minister is carrying credulity a long way-


George Carlyle Marler: Did you say "nobility?"


Howard Charles Green: Credulity, perhaps that is the wrong word-when he takes the position, "the railways are not going to carry this business at a loss anyway; we shall leave it to them". The railways would carry goods at a loss fast, if they thought they would put that shipping line out of business that was carrying some of their traffic.


An hon. Member:: They are doing it now in some places.


Howard Charles Green: I think the minister is wrong in refusing to put in an amendment of this type. It is supposed to be another of the foundations for an agreed charge. This agreed charge law has been on the statute books since 1938, always on the basis that the rates must be compensatory, that there must be no cutting of costs by means of an agreed charge to such a great extent that the railway carries the goods at a loss. So I am hoping the minister will not be obdurate about this suggestion and will give further consideration to writing a provision into section 32 of the Transport Act that the rates must be compensatory.
The final point has to do with motor truck competition. The motor trucking industry is

Transport Act
very much afraid of this legislation because it believes this legislation is designed to enable the railways to drive them out of business. The C.P.R. representative made it very clear in the committee that the railways wanted an easing of the agreed charge provisions so they could put an end to rate cutting. He used words to this effect- unfortunately the transcript is not yet available-


George Carlyle Marler: I shall let the hon. member have my copy if he would like it.


Howard Charles Green: He said in effect the agreed charge puts an end to the rate cutting war. The truckers across this country-and there are many thousands of them carrying on well-established and well-conducted businesses- are afraid this law is designed to help the railways drive the truckers out of business. The only protection the minister is giving the trucking industry is what can be found in this new subclause 2 of section 33, which provides as follows: The governor in council- which, as you know, means the cabinet-if he has reason to believe that an agreed charge may be undesirable in the public interest, may refer the agreed charge to the board for investigation.
You will notice, Mr. Chairman, that this does not mention the trucking industry at all. It merely says the government can, if it believes that an agreed charge is undesirable in the public interest, refer that particular agreed charge to the board of transport commissioners. That may or may not meet the situation, but it is cold comfort. The trucking industry will have to go to the cabinet and sell the cabinet on the idea that a particular agreed charge is undesirable in the public interest.
We have had very convincing evidence in the last few weeks that some, at least, of the members of the cabinet take a whole lot of convincing. I am very doubtful whether this clause 2 of section 33 is worth the paper on which it is written. I hope it will be some protection, but I am very doubtful now whether anybody, the truckers, shipping people or anybody else, will ever be able to get very far under the terms of that clause.
There is a further right contained in the new section 33, subsection 1. The truckers asked that they be given the benefit of that subsection 1, which reads as follows:
Where an agreed charge has been in effect for at least three months
(a) any carrier, or association of carriers, by water or rail-
I point out that this cannot be attacked for a period of three months, and it only

covers a carrier under the Transport Act. It is not of any benefit whatever to the trucking industry. As a matter of fact it is of no benefit to a shipping firm doing business beyond the island of Orleans, because the Transport Act only applies to the great lakes and the St. Lawrence river as far as the island of Orleans; also on the Mackenzie river system. It does not apply on the west coast, and it does not apply in the maritime provinces. Therefore the words, "any carrier, or association of carriers, by water or rail" are very restrictive. Then the section continues:
(b) any association or other body representative of the shippers of any locality-
The right of any one individual shipper to complain is taken away. It can now only be an association of shippers. You will notice there is no mention of the trucking industry there at all. The section continues:
-may complain to the minister that the agreed charge is unjustly discriminatory against it or places its business at an unfair disadvantage, and the minister may, if he is satisfied-
That section will now read:
-the minister may, if he is satisfied that in the public interest the complaint should be investigated, refer the complaint to the board for investigation.
That subsection provides that any carrier under the act, or an association of shippers, can complain not to the cabinet but to the minister and then if he thinks there is discrimination the minister can refer the agreed charge to the board of transport commissioners. I believe the minister might very well have given that protection to an association of motor vehicle transport operators. I made a motion accordingly in the committee, and I believe they should have been given the right to apply to the minister in the hope that he would then refer the complaint to the board of transport commissioners.
It does seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that the government is not facing up to the facts of life in regard to transport in Canada. The government has no national transport policy. Some years ago the royal commission on transportation headed by Hon. Mr. Turgeon dealt with the question of a national transport policy. Very little has been done to work out such a policy, and in fact we have none today. The railways and some shipping are under the dominion; the trucks are under the provinces; pipe lines, which are another means of transport, are in part under the dominion, and there is great confusion in the transport industry in Canada.
I do not believe the minister can simply push the motor truck industry into the

background and not have them given some consideration under federal legislation. In some of the provinces, notably Manitoba and British Columbia, the railways, although they come under dominion jurisdiction, are able to go to the provincial transport boards and complain about the rates being charged by the trucks.


George Carlyle Marler: Not the rates, surely.


Howard Charles Green: In British Columbia and Manitoba I believe that is right. There was also evidence given the other day that in the minister's province of Quebec they can do that.


George Carlyle Marler: Not against rates.


Howard Charles Green: They have the right to appear before the provincial body in Quebec, and in Ontario they have the right to appear and protest the granting of a licence for a route to a trucker. It seems to me that in view of the fact that we have no over-all transportation policy, the trucking industry has a right to ask that it be allowed at least to make representations to the minister under this new section 33 in respect to agreed charges. There should be reciprocity. If the provinces are going to hear the railways, then I think the dominion should make some provision at least for the trucking people to be heard when the question of agreed charges is involved to the extent that it may be running them out of business.
Those are the three points I wish to place before the minister this afternoon. I hope he will give consideration to further amendments to the bill. There is no reason why this situation I have mentioned could not be remedied today. I think if steps of that kind are taken, then this bill as it goes back to the house will be a great improvement on the bill in its present form.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to deal with just one phase arising out of the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra having to do with motor truckers in the various provinces of this country. I hold no brief, indirectly or at all, for them, but I believe in a measure of equality of opportunity and in fairness to all. I cannot understand why under the new section 33 motor truckers should be denied the equality of opportunity and equality of complaint that other recognized carriers under the law have.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra suggested to the minister that some amendment at this time might be acceptable. I think today we witnessed something in the history of parliament, when parliament was not only supreme but sublime in the stand taken by the Prime Minister. I suggest that
Transport Act
a similar attitude in respect to this matter on the part of the minister would further the recognition of the fact that parliament is made up of a government and an opposition, and that the opposition's function is not "to oppose everything and propose nothing", to use the Tierney epigram, but is to advance arguments and through a community of counsel arrive at what is best in the drafting of legislation. Certainly parliament had an example of that today. Parliament showed itself sublime in the maintenance of parliamentary supremacy and supreme in the carrying out of that function and responsibility.
I ask the minister why the motor transport industry of this country should not have an equal opportunity to complain. That would not mean they were going to secure any advantages over railway transport. It simply asks, it simply suggests, it simply demands that they have the right to complain. Why should the minister not accept the suggestion that when any agreed charge has been in effect for at least three months any carrier, by water or rail or motor transport, or any association or other body representative of the shippers of any locality may complain to the minister that the agreed charge is unjustly discriminatory against a carrier or shipper, or places his business at an unfair disadvantage? Then the minister, if he is satisfied that in the public interest the complaint should be investigated, may refer the complaint to the board for investigation.
The motor transport industry, the truckers across Canada, have a large investment. In no way do I plead that they should be placed in an advantageous position, but why should they be placed in a position where the railway companies or any other carriers have the privilege of fixing their rates at an uneconomical and unprofitable level, and thereby through unfair competition destroy a competitive carrier? Certainly the experience in other fields of endeavour so far as monopoly privilege is concerned is that when it is uncontrolled and not subject to punishment by the state it brings about the destruction of its competitors through the use of its financial resources and the power of its authority to interfere with competition among those less favourably placed.
The reason we have the Combines Investigation Act is to protect the public interest against injustices that might be perpetrated against weaker competitors. No one in business has the right to expect a market to be provided for him, but the essence of free enterprise is that each, whether great and powerful or weak, shall have equal opportunity in the market that is available. Why should the motor transport groups across the

Transport Act
country, the various truckers, be placed in the position where, no matter how unjust, unfair and discriminatory a rate may be, they cannot even have the privilege of making a complaint to the minister? If they do make a complaint it will be in the nature of a gratuitous complaint upon which the minister cannot act, no matter whether he concludes that what has taken place is unjust and undesirable in the public interest.
What possible justification can there be for placing those who have invested their money in private industry and who are in a legitimate line of business in the position of not being permitted to complain that unfairness is being perpetrated against them and unjust agreed charges are being promulgated and utilized? I ask the minister to reconsider his stand, for certainly unless section 33 as it now stands is amended it simply means that any railway company or other carrier in this country can put into effect agreed charges that will be so low and uneconomical as to secure all the business available, which will place them in the position, having secured the business and driven out competitors, of being able to raise their charges again when the competition is removed.
The section in its present form is an invitation to destroy the competition of the motor transport industry. Under the law as it is now being brought into effect the motor transport industry has no right to be unjust and unfair to the railway companies, and there is every power to prevent them being so. Should they not also be placed in the position where gross unfairness to them will mean that they will at least be permitted to make a complaint so the minister, having considered their complaint and concluded that the rate is discriminatory or the agreed charge is undesirable in the public interest, will be free to refer the question to the board in order that the whole matter may be investigated and a fair and proper decision arrived at?
I must say that the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is a challenging one. On the face of the argument advanced and on the knowledge I have of the difficulties in connection with that type of competition, I must say that his suggestion would assure at least a modicum of fairness to an industry that has been built up and has expanded tremendously in recent years. So there will be no misunderstanding, I repeat that I want to see no unfairness on the part of the motor transport industry as against other carriers, but I do not want to be a party in parliament to placing the other carriers in a position where they are above 
those rules of fairness and justice, those considerations of the public interest, which certainly should be the concern of parliament but which will not be provided unless a change is made in this regard.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, we in this group pretty well take the same attitude toward the bill as previous speakers. Sitting in this corner of the house we very often find ourselves at a slight disadvantage, in that the arguments are sometimes fairly well covered by the time our turn to speak arrives. But I do wish to say a word or two along the same line, and to go on record as supporting the trucking industry at least to the extent that they should have the right to complain to the minister, and that right should be written into the legislation.
This is something the members of this group who were on the committee suggested at the time. In fact I proposed an amendment in the committee and asked for a recorded vote. The amendment was defeated. The minister did not feel he could lend his support to my amendment, and as a result it was lost.
It is all very well to say that the trucking industry can complain if it wishes. That is not a very weighty argument, because I know I could make complaints if I wanted to, or John Doe on the street could make complaints. We could all do that, and write to the minister; but unless what we want is written into the legislation it will do very little good to those who are vitally interested in the matter of transportation.
We heard from counsel representing the railway companies and, like good lawyers, they made a good case. I fancy if the same lawyers had been employed to argue on the other side they could have made just as good a case. So I do not place very much stock in the arguments of corporation lawyers.
There are other people who have studied this problem and who do not speak on behalf of any particular corporation. They speak for those interests for which they feel they are responsible. When the board of transport commissioners met some months ago some distinguished witnesses appeared before it and gave evidence as to why the agreed charge, as it was understood at that time, should not be permitted to remain. When the board met in Edmonton I noted that both the mayor of Calgary and the mayor of Edmonton appeared and presented arguments which, in my view, were very strong indeed. When Mayor MacKay of Calgary appeared before the board he said that the principle of agreed charges should find itself completely and without reservation included in the one and one-third rule. He added that the

railways' new wrinkle, as he described it, was a woeful disregard of the intent of that principle. That is pretty strong language, and it does not come from just any Joe on the street; it comes from the mayor of an important city. The press article quotes the mayor further in these words:
We cannot continue to favour one section of the country at the expense of the other, and excuse ourselves on the theory that western provinces must be sacrificed upon the altar of competition that may exist on the coastal waterfronts of this country.
The mayor of Edmonton made statements along similar lines. Mayor Hawrelak of that city said that agreed charges were a calculated and deliberate attempt on the part of the railways to circumvent short-haul rates to Alberta that were exacted three years ago. The newspaper article quotes him further as stating:
We suggest that the present result of the application of agreed charges has been mischievous and has resulted in absurd consequences.
To say the least that is strong language, but it comes from men who should know what they are talking about. Then Mr. McCullough appeared on behalf of the federation of automobile dealers' associations and, according to the article in the press, said:
If the agreed charge method of freight rates is applied to the movement of automobiles, the highway transport of automobiles and trucks from eastern to western Canada will disappear altogether.
While the minister and those who are responsible for the present bill may not express alarm and may not feel too greatly concerned that the trucking industry will suffer, the fact of the matter is that some of the long-distance automobile conveyors are going off the road right now. I am told they are standing idle in some of the used car lots because there is no further use for them.
My information is that large sums of money have been invested by the trucking industry in the construction of refrigerated trucks, and that this policy of agreed charges will result in a tremendous loss in that connection. In the trucking industry refrigerated vehicles are an innovation, but considerable sums of money have been invested in this kind of equipment.
The concession asked by the trucking industry was not unreasonable. Their amendment was very simple, and I cannot see why the minister could not have agreed to it. The amendment states that-
Any carrier, or association of carriers, by water or rail-
Transport Act
And then they advocate the addition of these words:
-or any motor vehicle transport operator, or association of motor vehicle transport operators,
or-
They asked only to be included with others in the right to appeal to the minister. They said, "Give us the same right as anybody else." For the life of me I cannot see why an amendment of that kind could not have been accepted.
In committee I asked one of the witnesses if he would agree that the principle of agreed charges was similar to that of the loss leader in merchandising. The minister interjected by stating, "It cannot be like the loss leader principle, because an agreed charge must be compensatory." I did not go into any detailed argument, but I must admit I am somewhat confused as to the exact meaning of "compensatory" when used in this connection.
I do not claim to be an expert in matters of cost accounting but, in a small way, I do know that if a person is going to make a profit on an article or a service, then of necessity he must bring into his accounting every possible cost that could be included in the manufacture of that article. He would have to include depreciation on his building; he would have to include amortization of loans. So far as I can see, in respect of compensatory charges the bill is worded in such a way that I doubt very much whether all the cost factors in an agreed charge are included. For instance, I do not know whether depreciation of trackage would be calculated in that computation. If all that is calculated in the costs involved in an agreed charge is what it costs to run a train, then I cannot see how that could be considered a compensatory rate. Possibly they would have to figure out everything it takes to run the railroad across that particular given mileage.
If it does not take into account all the cost factors, then I claim it would be something akin to the principle of the loss leader. If that is to be done, then I would say the only reason it would be done would be to cut the throat of the trucking industry. I hope it will not be done. If it is done, there is no recourse. It is not written into the legislation that the trucking industry, which is a very considerable industry now, has the right to go through the proper channels and make their complaints.
I shall not take up any more time of the committee, Mr. Chairman. I know the minister and the government are aware that as time passes by industries arise which for a few years are inconsequential, but eventually they become part of our national life. Take the

Transport Act
trucking industry. A few years ago a five-ton truck was considered to be a pretty hefty truck. It was not much of a threat to the railroad. The same can be said of airplanes. But as time went by a five-ton truck became a very small truck. Farmers used them. For instance there was a time when cattle were driven into the stockyard in the small town and then shipped by rail. In most of these small towns now, as you pass by them, you see these stockades. They may just as well not be there; they are seldom used. Why? Because today the farmer puts his stock, his hogs, or whatever he has, in his five or ten-ton truck and hauls them 100 miles, to the nearest city where there is a packing plant. That has happened because the process of time has brought certain types of progress to us. Today it is not a five-ton truck or even a ten-ton truck. It is not unusual to find on our highways today a 25,000-ton truck.


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Carlyle Marler: That is quite a lot of tons.


Ernest George Hansell: A 25-ton truck. Let me get my figures straight. That truck has a trailer which is capable of carrying another 15 or 20 tons. Those things are common on our highways today. We have to meet the situation. It is no use saying we are just going to cut the throat of that industry. We cannot do that. We have to meet the problem in some other way. I urge again that if it is at all possible at this late stage, the minister give consideration to putting these simple words in the bill so the trucking industry will be able to present its case. That is my belief today.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take just a minute or two to place before the minister specific examples of the things about which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, the hon. member for Prince Albert, and my colleague, the hon. member for Macleod, were speaking. I want to bring this to the attention of the minister because it does exemplify the thing about which the hon. members have been complaining, and I think it will convey to the minister the need for doing something that affects not only the trucking industry-I am not complaining about that-but the people themselves
Here is the situation. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that the Hart highway was completed about two years ago between Prince George and Dawson Creek. Trucks began hauling great quantities of goods over the Hart highway from Prince George into the Peace river bloc of British Columbia, serving that whole area that had not been served by a railway except the Northern Alberta

railway as it comes in from Edmonton as far as Dawson Creek in British Columbia.
Almost immediately the truck traffic began to grow in size the railways, the Canadian National Railways in particular, entered into agreements with shippers up in the Peace river bloc to bring 50,000-pound carload lots of certain kinds of goods into Dawson Creek at a rate of $1.50 per hundredweight from Vancouver. The only way they could get to Dawson Creek, British Columbia, from Vancouver would be around by way of Edmonton, then up over the Northern Alberta railway line through Grande Prairie and into Dawson Creek, which would be, I would say conservatively, 800 to 850 miles farther than it would be directly from Vancouver to Prince George and then by truck across the Hart highway and into Dawson Creek. However, on December 31 last the Canadian National Railways did introduce this new $1.50 per hundredweight agreed charge from Vancouver to Dawson Creek.


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think it is an agreed charge.


Solon Earl Low: I think it was negotiated, as a matter of fact, between the railway companies and the shippers, which would make it an agreed charge.


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think it is, though.


Solon Earl Low: Well, perhaps not; but at any rate it does exemplify the thing about which we are complaining.
The regular rate from Vancouver by way of the Canadian National Railways and the Northern Alberta railway, just to Grande Prairie, which is 90 miles less in distance, is $2.44. In fact it has been $2.44 for quite a long time. The situation is simply this. The railways, in order to destroy-not just to meet-the competition, to destroy the truck competition up into the Peace river bloc of British Columbia, introduced this new rate. It has been found by competent investigators that the rate is below the cost of haul. It is not compensatory. A good many protests were made on the ground that the rate is not compensatory. I can say that it could have been introduced for only one reason, namely to destroy this competition rather than to meet it.
I agree with my hon. friends when they say that whenever the railways do set up a rate under the agreed charge provision of the act, which is a reduced rate to meet competition, they should go to the board of transport commissioners to make absolutely certain that it is compensatory. It should be written into the act. May I draw to the attention of the minister-


George Carlyle Marler: May I ask a question?


Solon Earl Low: Yes.


George Carlyle Marler: If the hon. member will permit me. He said a moment ago that these rates have been found to be non-compensatory. Who found them to be non-compensatory?


Solon Earl Low: It may interest the minister to know that boards of trade and chambers of commerce all over that north country have had their statisticians and accountants working on this ever since last fall, and the conclusions they have come to are that they must be non-compensatory rates. They tried to figure it out, but they have not access to all the figures and, as the hon. member for Macleod said, it is difficult for a layman to know what does constitute the true cost of hauling by rail. I am told they have several devices they can use on occasion to indicate that they are not charging the full cost of hauling. They can draw something out of the hat to support whatever contention they may be making. I agree at once with the minister that no one will know whether these rates are compensatory until such time as the board of transport commissioners examines them. I believe there is considerable evidence available to show that they believe they are.
There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the minister to show how ridiculous these things can become, when an agreed charge of this kind is applied in one area and other areas nearby examine the situation. This happened in the Peace river bloc in Alberta. They found that they could ship goods by carload into Dawson Creek, which is 90 miles further along than Grande Prairie, haul them back that 90 miles by truck and still save 59 cents per hundredweight on the carload.
That is the sort of thing that drives people wild; that is the sort of thing that makes it necessary for shippers to resort to many things which should not be necessary. For instance, instead of shipping their goods directly to Grande Prairie where they need them, they find they can save money by shipping from Vancouver to Dawson Creek and then hiring trucks to haul them back. By that method they deny the railroad the rates which they normally would charge, rates that would be fair, rates the railroads could get. They are denying the railroads business and the railroads do not seem to realize that they are cutting their own throats by this price cutting, this business of trying to get below the actual cost of transportation.
When a ridiculous situation like that develops the railroads discover that they have
Transport Act
lost something on their year's business and they come to parliament to ask for a grant. I submit that wherever the railroads have lost business they should show that they have not been cutting rates below cost; otherwise we should not be subsidizing them in order to help them destroy their competitors.


Mr. Ferguson:: Mr. Chairman, we all realize that the two large railroads and the smaller ones are having a most difficult time getting along and showing a profit, or even keeping in business. I believe the railroads have had the most difficult time of any business in Canada over the last 40 years. The Canadian National Railways have continued to lose money for the taxpayers of Canada, and have had to be subsidized by the country. But when we find that the boards of strategy of the railroads figure they can make money by cutting rates so low that they can put the trucking concerns out of business I think we should stop such nonsense and face [DOT]this transportation situation fairly and squarely.
If this country had a population of 30 million people we would be able to use our waterways for the transport of goods to a much greater extent. In other parts of the world, such as the countries bordering on the Danube, the Thames, the Rhine and many other great waterways, they are manufacturing goods which compete against the manufactured products of this country. Those countries use the cheapest forms of transportation; they utilize their canals, rivers and inland lakes. Unfortunately the population of Canada is not large enough to permit the use of small trading ships from port to port on the great lakes. Such pick-up ships could be used, and then they could transship to larger ships coming in from Europe or going out from this country.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra mentioned one ambitious shipping company which endeavoured to give the people of Canada a cheap and efficient transportation service. However, the railroads who come to parliament for subsidies brought the rates down so low that this shipping company was put out of business. That case should be investigated. I know the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra believes that the facts he outlined were the truth, and if that is so no contribution should be made to the railroads by the taxpayers of Canada.
I can remember when a ship owned by the Kirkwood Steamship Company plied between Hamilton, Toronto and Vancouver. A great deal of enthusiasm developed over this service, but it lasted for only a season or two. The idea was to ship manufactured products and other commodities from the east to the

Transport Act
west and then transship for the prairie provinces. They could undercut the railroads.
The people of Canada are looking for methods that will advance progress in this country, and we should do everything in our power to turn out goods and services at the least possible cost. The railroads would be better off, and so would the brains of the railroads who now work out the sort of thing referred to by the previous speaker, where goods are shipped 900 miles at a cost of $1.50 per hundredweight, then sent back by truck 90 miles at a cost of 50 cents, making a total cost of $2 as compared with the direct freight rate of $2.40. Anyone who knows anything about transportation knows that is a crazy and ridiculous situation. There is something wrong.
I hold no brief for the truckers or for the railroad companies; the only brief I hold is for fair play and proper treatment for the citizens of Canada. We wonder why the railroads are losing money, but I can give a case from my own experience. A freight agent came to me and wanted to know why I was not shipping by Canadian National. I was bringing in thousands of tons of freight a year. I asked him if he was sure they could do the job. I had seven pieces of valuable, necessary and short-supply machinery shipped from Chicago by rail. When they arrived in Collingwood five of the seven pieces were lying on their sides, damaged to such an extent that it took six months to get them back into working condition. I did not want compensation in the form of money; I wanted the machines, which were urgent and necessary.
The railroad adjuster came to see me but I was not interested in how it happened. He said, "That is the shunting engine; they have shunted it and knocked it around." He said they would pay for it, but who wants to be paid when you have to wait six months before you can use your machines? I can assure you that I have never shipped a dollar's worth of goods by railroad since that time. If they do not give service to the public of Canada and cannot stay in business without having the protection of this government, the sooner they are both out of business the better. I believe there is a great need for the railroads, but I believe there is a great need for far more headwork on behalf of the railroads in many ways that will ensure their success and stop their nonsense of cutting rates in order to put a man or a concern out of business.
The first railroad in Canada ran from the city of Toronto to the town of Newmarket in 1845. In the second year they ran to my home town of Collingwood, and the following

year they ran the railroad from Toronto to Montreal. At that time the trains travelled at about 14 miles an hour. Today the roadbed is so lousy-and there is no other word for it, because it causes you extra travel-that the average rate of speed allowed to the engineers is 35 miles an hour. Who in the world would want to take three hours to travel 90 miles, when they can travel it by car in two hours on a four-lane highway?
I have a pass on the railroad, but I do not use it because I would have to sit in the city of Toronto for one hour longer than I want to, which I am forced to do if I use the railroad. I must sit in the oldest, most dilapidated cars on the C.N.R. railroad for three hours. I would far prefer to use my own motor car and have my wife drive me to Toronto and back than use the pass to travel on that railroad.
There is room for improvement. People did not wish to travel for such a long time on the railroad from Meaford to Toronto on a Sunday night on almost the oldest railroad line in Canada. The result was that that line had to be taken out of service this year. Some people were horrified because they were going to cut out this service, but if the railroad line does not pay and is calling on the taxpayers of Canada to make it pay, it should be stopped. That railroad could have been made to pay if they had travelled the 90 miles in 1J hours. Then you would not see many people using motor cars.
I lived in Philadelphia for some years. It is 90 miles from Philadelphia to New York. Every hour on the hour a train leaves Philadelphia and a train leaves New York, and they travel that distance in one hour and fifteen minutes day in and day out. Let us get down to having a real country with real railroads. Let us face up to the facts and cut out the lines that are not paying, and not try to put a firm out of business by giving ridiculously low rates. Let everybody-the truckers, the steamship companies and the airline companies-appeal to the Minister of Transport for fairness and justice. Do not leave this in the hands of people who say that the only method of survival is to put a trucking firm or a trucker out of business. These people are entitled to justice the same as any other body of people. They all look to parliament for such justice. I am sure the minister wishes to give justice to the most lowly and humble as well as the highest.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Simeoe North has an extra hour in Toronto we shall be glad to find him a comfortable and pleasant place to stay between trains.


George Carlyle Marler: No advertising, please.

Mi. Hamilton (York West): As a matter of fact, if I have got off to a bad start it is because I am unaccustomed to my lofty surroundings in this row in the house. It seems to me that the major problem we are facing here is that we are making a deviation from the normal line of rate making for railway transportation companies. I am wondering if it cannot be traced back to the argument of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, when he indicated that we appeared to lack a firm national policy in connection with transportation matters.
It might be wise for the minister to consider an investigation of some kind into all the problems of the railways in connection with their rate making position, and also the various problems which confront the shippers, as referred to by the hon. member for Simcoe North, the truckers, and the latest addition to the large bulk carriers, the airlines. I am sure there are a few problems that are going to require some fairly close attention in the near future.
It appears that in connection with this problem of agreed charges we are swinging over from the position formerly taken and expressed, I think, in the Railway Act, that the railways are common carriers and to a great extent public utilities, and that in their position, dealing with specific problems of rate making, those problems are of national interest. When we come down to the problem of agreed charges it seems that we are substituting the yardstick of public interest for national interest, and it may be that we must look at the plight of other transportation companies, the truckers, the airlines, the shippers, in a wider sense than that which is envisaged under the agreed rate charge set-up.
I point this out because I believe the railways have existed to a great extent because of the role they have played in the national interest. Now we are allowing them to move their arguments into the realm of public interest in a manner which may very definitely affect the fortunes of the other types of carriers. I am sure no one can point his finger at me and say this is a strong argument against the railway position. I happen to be the son of a railway man, and I have heard the arguments of the railways put forth on a broad and sound basis for many years. But when we start to deal with the public interest in any given locality, it may be that they are allowing a system to creep in which may affect the other methods of transportation on a national basis, and it is going to be a problem of ours to see that there is no legislation or there should be no legislation which will have that overriding effect.
Transport Act
One of the things I have seen here is the chance that with this type of agreed charge rate making we may in fact be legislating against decentralizing of industry. I believe everybody in this house has said from time to time that one of the most important things we must look for in the future of Canada is the spreading out of industry from one end of the country to the other. Let me take this as a specific example. Someone establishes a new plant in the west. He establishes it at a certain place because the labour market is good. He is close to a concentrated public demand for his product. He is in a position then to set up business, and he may have a very good price, competitive with a firm which is manufacturing in one of the populated areas in eastern Canada, Montreal, Toronto or some place like that.
Now, the manufacturer in eastern Canada goes to the railway and enters into an agreement for an agreed charge to the western area. The new manufacturer out there has invested his capital and may be the sole or major industry in the town; the employees are dependent upon him for their livelihood. The agreed charge given to the processor in eastern Canada enables him to lay down the product in that western market at a price less than that at which it can be produced right at the place where the public demand for it exists.
That manufacturer in the west may say, "I am going to complain about this." As I understand the provisions, he complains and what is his answer? He is told, ''We will give you the same treatment as is given to the other manufacturer. You may now ship your product to Toronto or Montreal at the same rate the manufacturer there can ship his product out west." Obviously that is no answer to his problem. He has located there because he is in a position to meet competition, which is on a high level of production, and to supply his market at a reasonable price. He is not in a position to enter into an agreed charge, probably because of higher overhead, higher wages and perhaps the market is not as large. He is not in a position to ship back into the concentrated area and take advantage of an agreed charge. I would say this was one of the failures of the so-called complaint system which is provided by this legislation. I would suggest to the minister it certainly would bear looking into.
If we are switching over, if we are entering into a new phase of rate making, then I feel we should insist upon ironclad rules in connection with the compensatory provisions. We have been asking the question, what does compensatory mean? Boiling it down to layman's language, it probably means any rate

Transport Act
has to give back to the carrier all his costs plus something to boot. If this particular formula is not adhered to, then I think it will result in what I started out to prove following the line of public interest; we are going to be in a position where the national interest will not be served in that the competing services will not be able to bear up under that type of competition.
I believe one of the speakers here used the term "loss leader''. I feel it would be easy enough in various places in the country, where there is a concentration of population and of manufacturing resources, to force other modes of competition out of the picture by the use of this method of rate making. If they are forced out of the picture there, we cannot expect them to carry on in what we term the fringe areas.
There is one other thing I have noticed about this particular legislation. It seems to me that here again we are faced with what we are faced with in connection with many pieces of legislation that come before us. We are substituting the discretion of the minister for the opinion of a board. Where previously matters of this kind came before a board, we now concentrate the power in the hands of a minister and say, "You make up your mind as to whether or not there is a valid complaint in this case."
These amendments do not go the whole way. I do not think anyone took the position that was taken by the truckers' association. I believe it is agreed that we should not put anything in the administrative way of the railways being able to make quick decisions, being able to more or less make decisions on the spot in connection with this type of rate making. I do not believe the amendment .suggested in committee by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra did go the whole way. It did not say that as soon as an agreed charge was published the truckers should be allowed to bring a complaint.
As I recall the hon. member's amendment, it allowed the agreement in respect of the agreed charge to be entered into by the shipper and the railway, and if after the three months had elapsed a complaint arose, that was the time for the truckers' association to be included in the group of people who could bring their complaint forward and have it heard.
Certainly this does not seem to be asking too much. It is difficult to understand what does amount to discrimination here. I feel people should be allowed to come into some of these hearings in the same way I know they can before the air transport board, as a member of the general public. If such a person wished to put some representations

in writing he is given an opportunity to be heard. Here are a group of people who are as close to this situation as they possibly could be, and they are not given an opportunity to be heard.
It seems to me this has nothing whatever to do with the efficacy of the legislation; whether they have a good complaint or a bad complaint has nothing to do with the right to be heard. Surely the minister might think again about what we all feel is a very reasonable request. We are not taking sides in the matter, but these people should be allowed to come forward if they think they have been hurt and put their case in a reasonable manner.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister going to deal with these points that have been raised?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. Quite a number of points have been raised during the discussion this afternoon, and I shall try to deal with them in the order in which they were raised during the discussion.
The first is a suggestion that we should include, in subsection 1 I think it was, the words "in order to meet competition". A good deal of stress has been laid on the fact that agreed charges are an instrument intended to meet competition. As I said in the standing committee, I do not think we could properly put those words in the definition of an agreed charge without creating difficulties which I think ought to be avoided.
When the subject was discussed in the standing committee I referred to an agreed charge that had been made for the carriage of canned goods between points in eastern Canada and points in western Canada which, in fact, were points situate either in British Columbia or Alberta. This agreed charge, which I think is typical of quite a number of agreed charges that have been made by the railways and shippers, provides altogether for, I suppose, 50 different points of destination. If we insert the words, "in order to meet competition", that is going to have the effect of excluding from the benefit of an agreed charge any point at which there is not in fact competition with rail services.
During the discussion before the committee I tried to pick out one of the points in British Columbia which might not have truck competition with the rails. Unfortunately I picked the wrong place, and I was told it was right in the middle of Vancouver. But I think it is quite possible to find that among the destinations included in almost any agreed charge there are several that are not served by other means of transport. Therefore if you include the words that the agreed charge

must be "in order to meet competition", you thereby exclude consignees in those places from having the benefits of an agreed charge. Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I had to say in the committee that I was not prepared to accept that amendment.
This afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra laid a certain amount of stress on the fact that this amendment had been suggested by the representative of the province of Manitoba, and therefore I should perhaps reconsider the question. But, Mr. Chairman, after the committee had met on the subject I received, quite unsolicited, a note from Mr. Shepard, who was the representative of the province of Manitoba, in which he said to me:
Manitoba's suggested amendment to section 32, subsection 1, is no longer necessary in the light of your proposed amendment to section 33.
I think that should dispose effectively of the suggestion that we would improve the agreed charge, as something which is of benefit to shippers and consignees, by restricting it in this way. I think there is no doubt that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra would like to improve it. He would like to see the agreed charge as an instrument of competition, as we all regard it. I consider there is a great difference between describing it as an instrument of competition and using words which in effect preclude non-competitive points from having any advantage from it. Therefore I hope the hon. member will not further urge such an amendment.
The next point that was raised was that the agreed charge ought to be compensatory. I should like to tell hon. members what has been the experience under the existing legislation. Before doing so, I should like to emphasize the fact that the agreed charge has formed part of the Transport Act since it was introduced in 1938. It is not a new device at all. It is not a new method of rate making, as seems to have been suggested this afternoon. It is merely a way by which carrier and shipper can get together and agree on terms for carriage of a part or all of the shipper's goods to be transported between one group of points of origin and, let us say, another group of points of destination. The practice has been in effect since 1938. What we are proposing to do now is not to institute another and different scheme of rate making but, if I may use very simple language, we are endeavouring to streamline the procedure for making an agreed charge effective.
I told the committee there have been cases under the present legislation in which an agreed charge has been arrived at between the carrier and the shipper and submitted to
Transport Act
the board at the end of April or early in May, and because someone represented to the board that he wished to make representations concerning the agreed charge approval was delayed until the month of September. Under the present legislation everybody who is interested in postponing the coming into effect of an agreed charge will naturally object so as to delay the' evil day, let us say, as long as possible.
What we are doing under this bill is to arrive at a simpler procedure, one by which the agreed charge takes effect from the time the contract is made between the parties and filed with the board, and after notice is given in accordance with the provisions of the bill that is now before us. In other words the agreed charge is not a new method of arriving at the charge to be made for the transport of goods. The agreed charge has long been established in England and has been part of our transport law in Canada since 1938.
There seems to be an impression that during the last period of approximately 17 years agreed charges have been used to carry goods at rates which were less than compensatory. Nothing could be further from the fact. In the first place, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra pointed out, the existing law requires the board of transport commissioners, in considering an agreed charge, to see what is the effect on the net revenue of the carrier. Therefore, so far as what has happened up to date is concerned, it cannot be said that an agreed charge has been made that was not compensatory, because that was one of the points which the board had to check before granting approval of the agreed charge under the present legislation.
In the committee it was suggested that an agreed charge had been used to put out of business the operations of a company called Monsen-Clarke which at some time a number of years ago, around 1949 I think it was-perhaps it was 1938 or 1939-


Howard Charles Green: It is since the war.


George Carlyle Marler: I understood it was 1949, but the date really is not material. It was stated before the committee, and I think in perfect good faith, that the reason this shipping company had gone out of business was that agreed charges had been made which were non-compensatory. This was stated to be the reason this company had been put out of business. When I had the opportunity of inquiring into the facts I found that no transcontinental agreed charge had been made until several years after the company had

Transport Act
given up business, and therefore it was manifest that agreed charges had no influence whatsoever in respect of the decision of this company.
One fact which I think must be borne in mind in considering competition between rail and ship is the fact that where, as in the case referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, there was a shipping service established from the east cost of Canada to Vancouver, the rail companies were entitled under the Railway Act to put in competitive rates in order to enable them to compete with the shipping companies. Everyone who knows the Railway Act knows that under section 334 the companies may be required to establish that these rates are compensatory. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I do not really believe one can point a finger at agreed charges and say that instrument put out of business a shipping company which was providing a service to the west coast.
In considering such competition there is a rather important distinction to be made between agreed charges and competitive rates. As I understand the law, the railway companies may establish competitive rates as long as the competition is there, and the moment the competition ceases the rate ceases. But an agreed charge is an entirely different thing. An agreed charge is made for a term and continues to be operative until the end of that term or until, pursuant to the provision of the proposed legislation so far as the future is concerned, one party gives notice to the other after a whole year that he wishes to terminate the agreement. So there is a marked difference between competitive rates which are, let us say, temporary and ephemeral, and the agreed charges which must exist for a specified term.
I would also like to touch on the subject of whether there is adequate provision in the draft bill now before the committee to cover the question of whether or not an agreed charge must be compensatory. I think I made it perfectly clear that there is not in Bill 449 the same kind of clause as there is in the existing legislation. But I do not believe the matter can be solved in the simple fashion which was suggested earlier this afternoon, namely that all one has to do is say something along these lines, "An agreed charge shall be compensatory."


Howard Charles Green: Was that not the intention?


George Carlyle Marler: I think, if I might answer the question before going back to my argument, it is perfectly clear from the bill now before the committee that the agreed charge must be compensatory because, as I shall show in a moment, the question of whether it is or is not

compensatory is one of the first things ivith which the board must deal when the agreed charge is referred to it. I shall come back to that later. I am not running away from it, but I would prefer to develop the argument in the way in which it was offered by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. He says, in effect, the law should say, "An agreed charge shall be compensatory". But unfortunately that is not a thing which can be determined in the same simple fashion as the other matters which are referred to in subsection 6. Subsection 6 covers two or three points. It says that-
An agreed charge shall be made on the established basis of rate making-
There cannot be any quarrel about whether it is or whether it is not on the established basis. No one has any interest in departing from the established basis. Then it says- -and shall be expressed in cents per hundred pounds or such other unit of weight or measurement as is appropriate-[DOT]
It seems to me that does not lend itself to much interpretation. And then it continues: -and the car-load rate for one car shall not exceed the car-load rate for any greater number of cars.
That, it seems to me, is also something that does not require any examination or consideration. When you say that an agreed charge shall be compensatory, while for the sake of satisfying my hon. friend I would like to put that in, I do not believe it would dispose of the matter, because that is an incomplete provision. One would have to go on and give power to the board of transport commissioners to determine it. That involves some reference at some stage to the board of transport commissioners for the express purpose of determining whether or not a rate is compensatory. And that I think, as I said earlier, is just another difficulty of procedure which would be added to something which is intended to be simple, and which is intended to provide an effective instrument of competition.
Leaving aside for the moment the desirability of having some simple phrase of that nature, such as is suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, surely it is impossible to examine the legislation and conclude that it is not clearly intended that an agreed charge shall be compensatory. We find in subsection 3 of the amendment:
In dealing with a reference under this section the board shall have regard to all considerations that appear to it to be relevant, including the effect that the making of the agreed charges has had or is likely to have on the net revenue of the carriers who are parties to it-*
That of course is not saying specifically that they shall be compensatory; but that is

the language which is used in the present law, and obviously when you say, "examine the effect on the net revenue" this is merely another way of saying that agreed charges shall be remunerative or compensatory.
Therefore I do not think there is any purpose in suggesting that, if the board at some stage or another may be called upon to look into the effect of an agreed charge on the net revenue of the carrier, any further provision is necessary to warn the carrier that the charge must be compensatory, because I infer that the board of transport commissioners on a reference would cancel it or vary it, just as they could refuse to approve it under existing legislation.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, after thinking about the practical effect of putting in some such provision as that I have just referred to, I came to the conclusion that there was no better way of dealing with this question of the compensatory aspect of an agreed charge than is done under this draft amendment, and that in fact was done under the original bill itself.
I would like to say one further word with regard to agreed charges. There does seem to be the impression prevailing, at least among some members, that the agreed charge is some kind of cut rate. I would like to go back to what was said a moment ago by the hon. member for Peace River-and I shall deal with that presently-but it does seem to me that there is an impression that an agreed charge is a cut rate.
Not only is there no evidence of the railways making agreed charges at rates less than cost, but the board of transport commissioners way-bill studies showed that agreed charges are among the most remunerative of railway rates. For instance, last year the average ton-mile revenue of railways from all their traffic approximated 1J cents, in contrast with 3J cents from agreed charge traffic. So that in round figures it was about 2 cents a ton-mile higher f>r agreed charges than it was for the general run of their other business.
I think that should dispose of the thought that agreed charges are some form of cut rate introduced to get business at a loss. There is no such thing as agreed charges at a loss at the moment because, as I said a moment ago, there is this express provision that the agreed charge must be compensatory; and I think this is adequately taken care of in the legislation we are now talking about.
I should like now to talk about the right of those engaged in the motor transport industry to complain against an agreed charge.
Transport Act
The first point I would emphasize is that, despite what has been said, the motor transport industry is not a regulated industry. We heard some very interesting evidence before the committee with respect to the extent of regulation, and I do not think it is an exaggeration of the situation when I say there is virtually no regulation of rates in the trucking industry at the present time, and certainly no regulation of interprovincial highway transport.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra referred to regulation in British Columbia. I do not know whether the railways are permitted to complain against rates fixed by whatever regulatory body there may be in British Columbia. I know in the province of Quebec, to which he refers, that the railways have been permitted to present evidence with regard to public convenience and necessity, when it came to the granting of a franchise to an operator. But my understanding is that there is no discussion on the question of rates, and in the case of Quebec at least there is no regulation of rates for interprovincial trucking.
It seems to me the railways have no place in the discussion of those rates, any more than the truckers have a place in the discussion of rates to be charged by the railways. They have never had any such right under the Transport Act or under the Railway Act; and those who are now arguing for it are saying in effect, "We will allow the truckers to come in to complain against the rates to be charged by the rail carriers on the agreed charges," whereas the railways have neither the right nor the opportunity to complain as to the rates charged by the motor vehicle operator who is attempting to get business in the two points between which he operates. We all know it is a very simple matter for a truck operator to telephone a client or a prospective client and ask him whether he will ship all his goods through him or part of his goods through him between Montreal and Toronto, for example. There is nothing to stop those two people from concluding an arrangement over the telephone. I am not suggesting that the railways should be allowed to do the same thing. I am suggesting that the railways should be allowed to compete on more even terms. I am not asking for a preference for the railways, nor am I asking for a preference for the truckers.
It has been suggested that the truckers should have the right to complain. The suggestions have been in one of two forms; first, that the individual trucker should be permitted to complain, which I understand was the suggestion made by the hon. member for Prince Albert, while the hon. member for

Transport Act
Vancouver-Quadra suggested that an association of truckers should be allowed to complain. But when you examine the provisions of subclause 1 of clause 33 you find that the ground of complaint is that the agreed charge places the business of the complainant at an unfair disadvantage. Well, now, in actual practice, as it was perfectly clear from the evidence given before the standing committee, every trucker feels that he should have the right to complain whenever an agreed charge is made which may have the effect of reducing his business.
While I sympathize with those who are affected by competition in this way, I am not asking for a preference for the rails over the trucks; I am asking for something approaching equality for the rails with the trucks. I do not feel it is proper that an individual trucker should have the right to complain against an agreed charge on the ground that he is going to lose some of his business.


Howard Charles Green: I did not suggest the individual trucker should have the right.


George Carlyle Marler: But the hon. member for Prince Albert made a suggestion which I interpreted in that sense. Perhaps I may have misunderstood what he said. But I do not think it is important whether it was the individual trucker or the association, for the reason that the association itself is not in business. Surely the association must come back again to the individual. With all respect for those who propose changes of that kind, I realize you would have to bring it down to an individual basis, just as we do in subclause 1, where we say:
-that the agreed charge is unjustly discriminatory against it or places its business at an unfair disadvantage.
Well, we cannot deal with the problem of the trucker on an individual basis. It was clear from the evidence before the committee that complaints would be of one of two kinds: either because some business was lost or because the shipper had agreed with the railway to give the railway what the trucker would regard as an unsatisfactory percentage of the shipper's business. In other words, where a shipper or a group of shippers and the rails agreed that the agreed charge should affect 85 per cent of the shipper's business, the trucker would like the right to complain that it should not be an 85 per cent figure, a figure arrived at perfectly freely by the parties concerned. He would like to be able to come in and say no, this should be only 65 per cent, or it should be a lower percentage, or none at all.
I do not believe it would be practical, Mr. Chairman, to suggest that the trucker should

have the right to complain against either of those aspects of the agreed charges.
I was very much concerned, after hearing the evidence and realizing the anxiety in the minds of the trucking association, that while an individual might be hurt in some specific case, there might develop a situation which could constitute a threat to the existence of the trucking industry operating between two specific points. As I said in committee, no one wants to see the elimination of any mode of transport. There is no question at all that every mode of transport we have serves a useful purpose in transportation in Canada, and we should be very hesitant about doing something which would have the effect of extinguishing any form in particular. I say that, being as much interested in the preservation of trucking as an industry as I am in seeing that the railways get a fair break.
During the course of this session we have heard many questions and comments with regard to the lay-offs of employees of the Canadian National Railways and, it might also be added, of the Canadian Pacific. We can build up employment in the railroads only if there is more traffic to carry. While I am not trying to give more traffic to the railways by this bill, yet I am trying to give them, if I may use the words of the hon. member for Prince Albert, an equal opportunity for the market that is available; in other words, to give everybody a chance to compete for the business that is there to be carried.
No one would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the trucking industry should disappear. In fact the evidence given before the royal commission demonstrated that the rather pessimistic forecasts that have been made in the past have not been realized. In 1937, when it was first proposed to introduce legislation concerning agreed charges, the trucking industry said they were about to be wiped out. The same thing was again said in 1938, I believe. When the royal commission on transportation was held in 1950-51 much the same thing was said. Then in the latter half of 1954, when Mr. Justice Turgeon presided over the commission on agreed charges, the same thing was said again, that the trucking industry was menaced with extinction.
But when one looks at the figures and finds that in 1953 there were some 824,159 motor trucks in operation as contrasted with some 220,000 in 1938, one would have to admit quite honestly that agreed charges have not put the truckers out of business. Everyone who stops and reflects for a moment will realize that the trucking industry is going to survive even under the most intensive competition from the rails.

In the brief which the truckers' association presented to the committee they referred to a questionnaire which had been sent out by the association of the United States railroads. The shippers were asked by them to state the primary reasons for their use of common, contract, and private trucking services. The information the questionnaire elicited was very interesting. This is to be found on page 36 of the typewritten brief presented by the Canadian trucking association. First on inbound traffic, shorter transit time was given by 78 per cent of the shippers as their reason for using trucks. That is something I cannot believe, despite what the hon. member for Simcoe North said about the trains between Philadelphia and New York, can be overcome by the railways. I think the trucks, for a very large part of the goods to be transported, are going to have the advantage of a shorter transit time; and that if one were to take an information survey on the subject he would find in Canada that a tremendous number of those who are using trucks now will go on using them because they provide shorter transit time than rails can provide.
If I might go on quoting from the brief, lower costs were cited by 12 per cent, and a variety of other reasons, particularly less handling, less marking and packing and less loss and damage were cited by 10 per cent of the shippers. I think this quotation is sufficient to demonstrate that the truckers occupy a useful role in the transportation economy of Canada, and that it is not going to be agreed charges or competitive rates or any other form of rate competition that is going to stop the competition between the trucks and the rails. Trucks have a useful service to render which rail transportation can never give.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister mentioned 800,000-odd trucks. Are those transport trucks or would that number include private and farm trucks?


George Carlyle Marler: I think that is the total figure, just as was the figure of 220,000 for 1938. What I think must be guarded against is the possibility of agreed charges being made which are going to have the effect of putting out of business some segment of the transportation industry. It is because I felt there was a theoretical possibility that ought to oe guarded against that I decided it would be necessary to amend the original bill to open the door wider to references of agreed charges to the board of transport commissioners. Hence the provision of clause 33 (2) which does not contain the time limit of three months to be found in subsection 1 and which enables the governor in council,
Transport Act
if he has reason to believe that an agreed charge may be undesirable in the public interest, to refer the agreed charge to the board for investigation.
It seemed to me that was a reasonable way of providing to the trucking industry that protection against what would be an unfair situation, where agreed charges were being used as an instrument for extinguishing competition rather than attempting to meet it. An amendment was proposed to the committee and accepted by it. This morning I received a letter from the president of Canadian trucking associations dated July 7, 1955, reading as follows:
Dear Mr. Marler,
On behalf of the members of Canadian trucking associations, I wish to express our appreciation for the amendment to Bill No. 449 which you introduced on Wednesday, June 29, at the hearing of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I can agree with you that the amendment went a long distance towards meeting the case submitted by CTA. Needless to say, it is most gratifying to the association to have obtained a safeguard for the over-all position of the trucking industry in the new agreed charge legislation.
Although it is only a year since you assumed the responsibilities of Minister of Transport-
I do not like to read this, as I am not soliciting free advertising.
-it is very pleasing to our key association officials, and to me personally, to note that the tension which had existed in the relationship of the trucking industry with the government has eased very considerably. This much to be desired development bespeaks the conviction of our industry that, subject to your responsibilities in regard to all forms of transportation, the trucking industry will continue to obtain from you just and equitable consideration of its problems.
I am sorry I was forced into the position of putting that on the record.
I should like to deal with another point raised by one hon. member with regard to an amendment he had suggested before the standing committee when he said, as I recall, that the board be permitted to disallow any agreed charge. I should like to say at once that the reason I could not accept such an amendment is that I think one of the essential parts of the agreed charge under the new legislation is that the parties should feel that when it has been made, except in the most unusual cases it will not be disturbed until its life has run out; that there will be no delay in bringing it into effect and once it has been made, except in the rather exceptional cases provided for in section 33, it will not be challenged during the term of its life.
If we were to accept this suggestion that the board might disallow an agreed charge at any time it would mean there would be no security for the agreed charge, and it might be called into question at any time on

Transport Act
complaint to the board or by the board's own motion. It does seem to me, and I say this quite sincerely, that clause 33 does provide adequate opportunities for the referring of an agreed charge to the board of transport commissioners if conditions exist which justify a reference of the charge to the board for investigation.
I should like to point out that the present legislation goes a good deal further than the existing legislation. First of all, previously shippers were not permitted to make any complaint to the minister. Now an association or body representative of the shippers of a locality has the right to appeal to the minister and the minister may under the conditions set forth in subsection 1 refer the complaint to the board for investigation. Then there is the broader provision in respect to the governor in council. Whenever a condition arises which in the public interest ought to be investigated, he may refer an agreed charge to the board. Under these circumstances I do not think it is reasonable to give the board the power to disallow a charge except under the rather exceptional conditions which are outlined in section 33.
The hon. member for Peace River has referred to the transport of goods between Vancouver and Dawson Creek and the lower rates that the railways are now charging. To the best of my knowledge that would not be the result of an agreed charge. I think what has taken place is that the railways have introduced what might be regarded as a competitive rate which also would be-I am speaking without having had the opportunity of verifying the details-a constructive rate in the sense that a certain mileage is not charged for because it is assumed that there is a rail line descending from Dawson Creek more directly to the south and the haul would therefore actually be much shorter.
I believe the shippers are being given the benefit of a line that is not there in fact, but which is assumed to be there for the purpose of setting the rate. I am sure it is not under an agreed charge; it may be under a competitive rate. I can only say to the hon. member for Peace River that if it is under a competitive rate, section 334 of the Railway Act requires the rate to be compensatory. If his friends believe that it is non-compensatory they have recourse under section 334 of the act. At all events the situation of which the hon. member complains is not that people are paying more, but rather that they are paying less than they ought to pay. It is interesting to hear of a complaint that the railroads are not charging enough, so that in that respect the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River are quite unusual.


Solon Earl Low: That would apply in the case of the areas served by the lower rates, but I am referring to people in an adjoining area.
I think the minister will admit that those people have a just complaint when they can ship through to Dawson Creek at the $1.50 per hundredweight rate, then have the goods trucked back 90 miles and still save 59 cents over the old $2.44 rate.


George Carlyle Marler: It sounds to me like the situation which would develop under a competitive rate established between two points where competition exists. The points between which competition does not exist would not get the benefit of the competitive rate.
Then there was the case an hon. member cited earlier with reference to Edmonton and Calgary. That was not a matter of agreed charges; it had to do with the contention of the province of Alberta that the one and one-third rule should also apply to agreed charges. That was the subject of the reference to the royal commission. I hope I have dealt adequately with the various points raised by hon. members.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister explain just how he envisages the working out of an application under section 33 (2)? That is where someone has to complain to the governor in council.


George Carlyle Marler: The sort of example I might select would be if in the making of agreed charges the railroads developed a practice of including in the agreed charges something that might be regarded as discriminatory against some other form of transport. Let us take an example that is quite fresh in the minds of members of the standing committee, the case where, let us say, without admitting it bears any relation to reality, the railways stipulate in their agreed charge that if the traffic is to be carried overseas it must go over a particular shipping line. If that were brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport, I think he would feel that it was a case in which that kind of agreed charge ought to be referred to the board for investigation, because it seems to me that is of a discriminatory character, against which no one seemingly would have the right to complain under subsection 1, and it would be a case in which the agreed charge ought to be investigated.
The truckers might reasonably be able to present facts to show that if the agreed charges put into effect between two points in Canada were pursued and continued, the extinction of the trucking industry would be inevitable. I take it that if such a case were made out to the satisfaction of the minister,

he would perhaps be able to persuade the governor in council that the agreed charges ought to be referred to the board of transport commissioners for investigation. I take it one of the things that would happen would be that the board would examine the question of whether or not the rates charged by the railways were compensatory or not.
I take it the board would then be faced with the question of deciding what ought to be done if the rates were truly compensatory and the truckers were complaining that the service was being provided at a lower cost, seemingly, than the rate at which they wished to do business themselves. I think those are two good examples in which a reference could be made.


Howard Charles Green: The application would have to be made through the Minister of Transport?


George Carlyle Marler: The act does not say so, but I think that might be inferred from it.


Ernest George Hansell: I should like to move an
amendment to clause 1, section 33.


William Alfred Robinson: Perhaps I might be of assistance by informing the hon. member that clause 1 of this bill covers sections 32 and 33 of the original act.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the minister's argument against the truckers having a right to complain in this matter. His argument seemed to be that if they had that right there would be no security to the agreed charges. The simple answer to that is that if the agreed charge is not fair, or if it is discriminatory in any way, it should not have any security. Furthermore, why would not the same argument used by the minister apply to carriers or an association of carriers by water or rail in the same way? They have the right to complain and bring about an appeal, but the truckers do not. I believe the house should have an opportunity of expressing itself on this by way of a vote. I am going to move that section 33 be amended by inserting after the word "rail" in line 23 the following words: or association of motor vehicle transport operators.


George Carlyle Marler: Might I suggest that we defer consideration of the amendment until we reach that section of the bill, at which time it might be brought forward?


Solon Earl Low: There is only one section.


George Carlyle Marler: Are we going to take it en bloc? That is agreeable to me. I cannot accept the amendment for the reasons I have already given. If the hon. member will reread the amendment he will find it is not effective, even within the limits of the clause it proposes to amend.
Radio Act
Amendment (Mr. Hansell) negatived: Yeas, 14; nays, 40.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Peace River drew to the minister's attention the freight rate change from Dawson Creek to Vancouver from $2.44 to $1.50, which the minister said was not an agreed charge. There is a question that does arise normally. The minister said the rail rate under an agreed charge must be compensatory-and "compensatory" means that the freight must not be hauled for less than cost. Last year there was a loss, which means that the freight rate should have been increased; yet we find it being decreased from $2.44 to $1.50 a hundredweight. How can you lose money and reduce the rate, and then say that the rail rates now being charged would be compensatory in a case such as that, if it were an agreed charge?


George Carlyle Marler: In reply to that question I think I should say that if the rate of $2.44 does not get the business, then probably it is more profitable for the railway to be carrying the business at, let us say, $1.50 than it is to be not getting it at $2.44.


Frederick George Hahn: Let us go a step further and say that the Canadian National lost $28 million last year. If that is so the rates could not be compensatory. If any rate is below the rates we have today I just do not see how you could say it is compensatory, because compensatory means you are going to carry the traffic at a profit above cost. We had to subsidize the railway last year to the extent of $28 million, so how do the rates become compensatory?


George Carlyle Marler: They can be compensatory and the railway can still lose money because of the burden of fixed charges. I think if my hon. friend would read the provision of the Railway Act, he would see it relates to the effect on the net revenue of the company, which does not mean to say it adds to the net profit.


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


George Carlyle Marler: the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 260, to amend the Radio Act.
5S62

Radio Act


Mr. Fleming:: I take it the minister is going to make some statement in explanation of the amendment.


George Carlyle Marler: I have no objection to making it now but I thought of making it when the bill was in committee. If the hon. member would like me to make it now, I shall do so.
As I explained when this bill was first introduced and again on second reading, one of the changes in the Radio Act to be effected by this bill was that provided for in clause 2, which deals with the privacy of radio communications. This clause provided for the addition to section 8 of a new subsection 2 making it an offence for a person who becomes acquainted with any radio communication not intended for public use or information to make use of such communication or divulge it to any person, except when lawfully authorized to do so.
I am informed that when the bill was considered in a committee of the other place it was suggested that the proposed subsection did not make it clear how a person was to know whether a communication was intended for public use or information; and that it did not specify who was empowered to authorize or direct a person to divulge such a communication, nor did it place any limitations on that power.
In consequence the bill was, with my knowledge and concurrence, amended in the other place and a new clause 2 inserted in place of that passed by this house. The new clause would add to section 8 of the Radio Act a new subsection 2 making it an offence for a person who becomes acquainted with a radio communication transmitted otherwise than by a broadcasting station, to make use of it or divulge it except as provided in the regulations made under the Radio Act or the Canada Shipping Act, which already contain provisions to protect privacy of communications.
The new clause will not come into force until a day to be fixed by proclamation. This new clause makes it clear that there is no restriction on the use or divulging of information transmitted by broadcasting stations, but all other transmissions are to be treated as private communications except as provided in the regulations.
Before this clause is proclaimed I shall amend the general radio regulations under the authority of the Radio Act and the ship station radio regulations under the authority of the Canada Shipping Act, so as to except from the prohibition of this clause transmissions such as those containing weather information for ships and aircraft, and distress, urgency and safety messages. In addition

the regulations will specify the conditions under which a person may be authorized or required to divulge information. Such authority to divulge might be desirable, for instance, in the case of a formal inquiry in connection with a shipping casualty or an aircraft accident, or in the case of a prosecution under the Radio Act for the operation of an unlicensed station.
I believe the new clause is an improvement over that first proposal, and I commend it to this house. It does seem to me to be desirable if signals broadcast by what we regard as broadcasting stations are regarded as public communications, and if the secrecy provision is restricted to those stations which do not fall into that class. I think hon. members will appreciate the desirability of enabling communications to be transmitted over the air as to which the provisions of secrecy should apply, and that we should make it as difficult as possible for people not listening on the ordinary broadcast bands either to make use of or divulge messages that are obviously intended for private sources.


Donald Methuen Fleming: As the
amendment with which the house is now dealing was proposed by the Senate our procedure does not make any provision for resolving the house into committee of the whole to consider it. I feel it would be much more satisfactory in a situation like this if the house could resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider such an amendment. I am satisfied that there are some aspects of this amendment, and some questions arising out of it, which could be more appropriately dealt with under the freer procedure permitted in the committee.
The minister has indicated that the Senate amendment was made with his concurrence, and he considers the result to be an improvement over clause 2 as it originally appeared in Bill No. 260. There is one question that arises immediately before I come to one of the other difficulties. The stated purpose of clause 2 of Bill No. 260 being to implement the obligations assumed by Canada under the international telecommunications convention with respect to the provision of secrecy for radio communications, I naturally ask if the clause in its amended form will accomplish the same purpose in the view of the law officers of the crown and will conform with the obligation assumed by Canada in the international telecommunications convention.
I turn from that to another aspect of the subject. The purpose of clause 2 of the bill was, as I stated, to define unlawful interception of radio communications, and having

created an offence out of such unlawful interception to attach a penalty to the offence. In the Senate amendment we have a rather different approach to the problem. Provision is made at the outset for certain exceptions, but then it is provided that subject to these exceptions, two in number-
. . . every person who, having become acquainted with any radio communication-
Then the next seven words are new:
-transmitted otherwise than by a broadcasting station, makes use of such communication or divulges it to any person is guilty of an offence . . .
Then the penalties are set out. The new words relate to the two exceptions at the outset and then to the definition of radio communication, "transmitted otherwise than by a broadcasting station." I do not think there is any far-reaching difficulty arising out of the words "transmitted otherwise than by a broadcasting station", although the expression is very broad. There are two exceptions laid down in the opening words of the clause as amended. The first involves a class of exceptions to be created by the minister under the power given to him to make regulations under the act, and the second arises under regulations made under the Canada Shipping Act.
The minister has indicated to the house he is prepared to make regulations excepting from the provisions of this new clause of the act communications about weather for ships and aircraft, communications relating to safety and communications relating to casualties. It is a little difficult in this brief discussion now to know how far he is prepared to go in that respect. There is always a problem, it seems to me, as to the proper function of regulations in a matter of this kind. Here you have a general provision in the legislation providing that those who become acquainted with any radio communication transmitted otherwise than by a broadcasting station and who make use of it or divulge it are guilty of an offence, subject to exceptions to be made by the minister in the form of regulations.
It seems to me that is not a very satisfactory way to proceed by legislation, to give the minister power to create exceptions to what is otherwise a general rule laid down by statute. The minister may have a perfectly good intent with regard to the kind of exceptions he proposes to create under this regulatory power, but I am very doubtful if it is a proper use to make of regulatory power, or if the house ought to pass legislation which gives the minister power to write exceptions to the general rule laid down in the statute law itself.
50433-377i
Radio Act
No one else in the house knows at the moment and perhaps the minister himself does not even know, how far he proposes to go in excepting from the general language of the section communications in relation to casualties, for instance. I do not know whether the minister is aware of it, but there is a situation involved here in which, if we pass the legislation in the form in which it has come from the Senate, it seems to me we are likely to create serious difficulty. I am referring now to the practice of newspapers, particularly in the urban centres, having their own receiving stations and having them tuned in on the shortwave transmitting facilities of both the provincial and local police. This is a very general practice in the urban centres. Indeed, I believe in the case of practically all the big daily newspapers they have special shortwave radio receivers which are tuned in on the shortwave transmitting facilities of both the provincial police and the urban police. I know the three big daily newspapers in Toronto all have facilities for tuning in on the provincial police transmitter located at Aurora, just a few miles north of Toronto.
A reporter in each of these newspaper offices is detailed to listen to the receiver. To the great majority of the messages that come over it, perhaps even 90 per cent of them, he perhaps pays no attention, but in the case of accidents on the highways it is by this means that the newspapers receive their information. If word of an accident comes over the receiver it is then within the power of the newspaper to direct a local correspondent, if there is one in the area of the accident, to go to the scene if the accident is sufficiently important or serious; or if the accident happens close enough to the newspaper office and is serious enough it may be that a reporter or photographer will be sent to the scene.
The same applies to the shortwave facilities used by the municipal police. Indeed, at municipal police headquarters in Toronto I am told there is a small press room containing a receiver tuned in to the city police wavelength, and each of the newspapers maintains a reporter in that press room whose main if not sole duty it is to listen to the police calls. Formerly the receiver picked up only messages given to the police cars by the police dispatcher, but at the request of the newspapers the set was altered so it also receives reports from the police cars to the dispatcher. The police not only tolerate the listening in by the newspapers but fully co-operate to ensure that the newspapers are adequately informed.
It seems to me that the amendment we are now asked to approve is going to make

Radio Act
it an offence for newspapers to listen in on the transmission of these oftentimes important messages from the police. Let it not be thought that there is any danger of abuse here. Some may say, what about raids? Is it right that messages of that kind should go to the newspapers? The fact is that messages concerning raids are not sent out by the police over the shortwave facilities. Similarly, what about reports of arrests? The fact is that reports of arrests are not broadcast in this manner either.
I do not know whether this point has been brought to the attention of the minister previously or whether, if it has, it is the sort of matter he proposes to except from the provisions of the act under the power given to him by the amendment to pass regulations for the purposes of creating exemptions. But I am quite certain that the house does not wish to pass legislation the effect of which would be to make it an offence punishable by both fine and imprisonment for a newspaper to listen in with their approval to the shortwave messages sent out by both the provincial and municipal police authorities.
I mentioned earlier that the procedure we are bound to follow when we are dealing with a Senate amendment does not permit us to resolve the house into committee, where we might have some further opportunity of a more informal discussion than is permitted by the procedure in the house. However, may I call it six o'clock and ask the minister, if he has not already concerned himself with this point, to give it consideration and perhaps say something to me about it later.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the spirit of agreement as between the government and the opposition in the matter of amendments seems to be growing contagious today. Perhaps we had better take hold of ourselves and see how far this is going to go.
Prior to six o'clock I was raising a problem to which there are some serious aspects, and which result from the Senate amendment to Bill 260. I indicated I did not favour the idea of exercising the regulatory powers conferred by the section on the minister to create a special exception. Whatever is done in this respect should, if possible, be done so that there is generality of application of some principle.
In conversation I have since had with the minister it would seem that he is prepared to bring forward a suggestion which may

meet the needs of the situation. I refer to the situation which pertains today under which many of the large daily newspapers in urban centres, by permission and with the full knowledge of the provincial police on the one hand and the municipal police on the other, are able to tune in and receive messages on the short wavelengths assigned to the police authorities.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to say about the proposed amendment. Generally speaking it appeals to me as a measure which serves to protect the freedom and privacy of speech, and to the extent it is applied in that fashion I am quite prepared to support it.
However, I happen to come from an area where radiotelephone communication is a medium used to a great extent as a means of communication between our fishing fleet and the west coast. When the drafting of these regulations is under consideration I would ask the minister to keep in mind the fact that radiotelephone communication is a good deal like the old party telephone line, in that a good deal of gossip takes place back and forth. I would hope that the manner in which the regulations are drawn will be such that people in the area will not live in constant fear of infringing the law, if it should happen that they passed along some particular piece of gossip they may have heard.
The exceptions the minister referred to are primarily the ones with which those people will be concerned; the passing on of weather information, reports on fishing conditions and that sort of thing. I should imagine those regulations would be broad enough to cover the relaying of that sort of information back and forth among those who are using the radio as a means of communication in coastal areas.
I hope the minister will clarify this point when he speaks again.


Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether or not the legislation as amended contemplates the circumscribing of privileges which heretofore have been enjoyed by radio amateurs, or if they are in danger of penalty because of contravention of the law. As hon. members are aware, radio amateurs have had a fairly large measure of freedom in the past, and each night they hear a good deal of information which they have been in the habit of passing on. It would be a great pity if their liberty in this respect were circumsci'ibed. I would ask the minister to elaborate on that point.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker-


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


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, if I might reply at once to the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Trainor) I would say that as I understand the law at present, radio amateurs are obliged to subscribe to a declaration of secrecy. I do not think they are specially affected by the legislation now under consideration. I believe they are bound to a much greater degree than are others in connection with making use or divulging of information they are able to obtain.
The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) raised this afternoon an interesting point with regard to the secrecy of police calls. I would point out to the house in connection with police calls that some municipalities have already made complaints to my department against the use of shortwave receivers which enable individuals to intercept police calls, because these municipalities regard such calls as intended for the benefit of the members of the police force. They have actually submitted cases to the department in which it was quite obvious that the information transmitted by the police radio system had been misused.
On the other hand, as the hon. member for Eglinton pointed out this afternoon, there are police departments in other cities which are perfectly agreeable to police calls being intercepted by receivers installed in offices of local newspapers and in some instances, I am told, by photographers.
There is no intention on the part of my department to interfere with an established practice of this kind. I have made inquiries from those who administer the radio licensing regulations, and I am told that it is the standard practice where a wavelength is allotted to some licensee for the purpose of transmitting messages, to issue commercial receiving station licences to those who are to receive the calls. For instance, in the case of a police department, each of the cars would be licensed to receive the signals sent out by the police department radio.
Therefore we would have in mind in administering the proposed legislation that where police departments have no objection to newspapers or others receiving their particular signals, we would issue commercial receiving station licences to those newspapers and others, if the police department in question had no objection to such licences being issued. And, as I had an opportunity of saying to the hon. member for Eglinton during the dinner recess, there would be no reason why a licence should not be issued if for example a newspaper office wished to be
Radio Act
licensed to receive calls, we will say, from (he provincial or local police, or the fire department, if none of these transmitters had any objection. Under these circumstances we would be prepared to issue the licence and enable the licensee to receive calls from all three sources, provided they did not object. I might add for the information of the house, Mr. Speaker, that the licence fee is a nominal amount. I am told that at the present time it is $2.
I should also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the same views would prevail with regard to calls from municipal fire departments. If there is no objection to newspaper officers being licensed to receive those calls, the department itself would have no reason to object. In essence, those who are effecting the transmission are in a position to say whether they wish it to be public or private; and when they say they have no objection to the newspapers listening in, it is quite obvious they regard them as public.
There are two other points I should like to deal with. One is the question of whether the bill as amended would implement our undertakings under the international telecommunications convention and the regulations made under it. I understand our legal advisers are satisfied that the bill would accomplish this purpose.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Eglinton expressed the view that it would be more desirable to proceed by setting forth in the bill the cases in which the secrecy provisions were to apply rather than to proceed by way of exception, as the amendment does. I would say, Mr. Speaker, it would be preferable if we could in some simple way follow that process. But I may say that when the subject was examined-and it was examined very carefully-it was found that it was not possible or practical to proceed in that way, and it was necessary to provide that we should proceed by way of exception rather than by a principal provision which would define exactly the body of people to whom the secrecy provisions were intended to apply.
It may be that after we have had some experience with the legislation we shall be able to find some simpler language than that now used in the amendment, but all I can say for the present is that we shall endeavour to administer the legislation, if it passes, in such a way as not to create difficulties where difficulties ought not to be created, and not to impose secrecy restrictions where they will be merely a handicap and a hardship on those who would be listening to the messages with which we are dealing


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
Prairie Farm. Assistance Act PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 481, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, these amendments are set forth in Votes and Proceedings, and in general consist in the removal of the words "of sections" from the several sections, namely 6(a), (b), (c) and paragraph 2.
I think they meet a situation that is causing considerable difficulty in the administration of this act. Recently I had occasion to be in Saskatchewan and to hear many complaints from farmers regarding the denial in so many instances this year of payment of the prairie farm assistance allowance for 1954. One of the reasons has been the rather narrow, confined act and I think, too, the more than usually confined interpretation of the act. 1 believe that arising out of the 1954 crop failure, there has been a too literal and too narrow interpretation of the act. These amendments will in part meet the situation.
Some indication of the need of amendments-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member so that he and I may understand each other? When he talks about the effect of these amendments he is, I take it, referring to the amendments as a whole and not to the amendments which have been made by the Senate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the changes that have been made by the other place in improving the bill that was passed by this house. In giving the details I cannot separate the number of turndowns and refusals of payment that are directly attributable to the law as it was and as it is now being amended as a result of the recommendations of the Senate. It is impossible for me to enumerate how many of the 227,000 applications under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act would be covered by the amendments in question as suggested by the Senate, but certainly-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member again to tell him that I find it difficult that he should take in so much territory, when the amendments made by the Senate merely strike out words for purposes of legal
[Mr. Marler.l
clarification. The hon. member is perfectly aware of what Bourinot says at page 535, as follows:
When amendments made by one house to a bill from the other house are received back, and are under consideration, it is not regular to discuss the bill itself, or its principle, or the policy of the government thereon; but the debate must be confined to the amendments. Nor on a motion for disagreeing to an amendment of this kind, is it regular to enter into a general discussion of the principle of the bill, but all debate should be confined to the amendment and the reason for the same.
The remarks I make at this time, the hon. member will understand, are precisely to avoid having a general discussion of the amendments as a whole when we should be discussing merely the changes which have been made by the Senate and nothing else.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is what I am trying to do, to keep within the rules. I am trying very hard, Mr. Speaker, because it is so difficult to separate these sections to which reference was made by the Senate, and which are the subject of deletion from the bill passed by the house. It is impossible to separate one from the other, except to say that 20 per cent of the applications have been turned down this year. If Your Honour feels that one cannot deal with that, then all I can say is that these amendments are going to remove, at least in part, a very serious situation under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, these amendments are very insignificant indeed. They just clear up the faulty draftsmanship of the bill. It was intended that a block of land of a certain area should be ineligible or eligible, depending upon which class was affected. As the bill reads with the words "all sections", a section of land has a certain legal definition, and therefore certain river lots, mainly in Manitoba but in Saskatchewan as well, might not be covered if the words "all sections" remain in the bill. The Senate has suggested that they be deleted. Since this amendment is inconsequential and is merely clearing up faulty draftsmanship, I do not think there is any need to delay the house with it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.
Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee of supply.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that by consent you will leave the chair and

we will take up the estimates of the Department of National Defence, and the motion on the order paper will stand for discussion tomorrow.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services-
236. To provide for the Canadian forces, the defence research board and other expenditures relating to defence, including contributions toward the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; to authorize expenditures in the current year out of the amount hereby provided, not exceeding $175,000,000, under the provisions of section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, and to provide that, notwithstanding subsection (3) of that section, where equipment or supplies acquired by the Canadian forces after March 31, 1950, are transferred, the estimated present value thereof shall, if the governor in council so directs, be credited to this vote instead of being paid into the special account mentioned in the said subsection (3), and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian forces; and notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act to authorize total commitments for the foregoing purposes of $4,269,726,540 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $2,443,441,346 will come due for payment in future years), $1,729,285,194.


Mr, Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose the other night we were discussing the reorganization of the reserve army and I had asked certain questions, as had the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, which were not answered.
In order to bring the matter up to date and on the chance that the minister has not already refreshed his memory on the matter we were discussing, may I say he had suggested that there were 10 regiments in Canada, as I recall, which had lost their identity through this reorganization. I had asked the minister to give us the names of those 10 regiments or battalions and also how many of them had served overseas as units maintaining their names. I had asked also about the protests which I understood had been forwarded to the department with regard to this reorganization.
I believe the minister told the hon. member for Saint John-Albert that he had not received any protests with regard to the Nova Scotia battalion, although he had received protests with regard to battalions in other places. I have since received a wire from the officer who was in command of that brigade, telling me that in August, 1954, protests had been registered with the department with respect to this reorganization. I should like to have the minister's comments on this matter.
Supply-National Defence


Mr. Campney:: When we were on this item some days ago I stated that out of 27 infantry battalions involved there were three instances of conversion from infantry to armour and 11 instances of amalgamation of infantry units. On looking over the list of amalgamations, if I recall correctly I think the situation was about as the hon. member has suggested. Of those involved in the amalgamations there were only two which retained their original names. Those which lost their identity were the Winnipeg Light Infantry, the Midland regiment, the regiment de Quebec, the regiment de Levis, the regiment de Montmagny.
The Perth Regiment and the Highland Light Infantry were amalgamated as were the Oxford Rifles, the Canadian Fusiliers, and the Essex Scottish and the Kent regiment. The regiments in Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick were amalgamated under names embracing part of the old names, but not in exactly the same form as previously. Of those battalions which I have mentioned, I think except for the Saskatchewan regiment, the Nova Scotia regiment and the New Brunswick regiment there was only one regiment which served as an entity overseas, the Saskatoon Light Infantry. I should add that a second regiment, the Perth Regiment, also served overseas as an entity.
With regard to the observations made by the hon. member in connection with protests which were made, I took the trouble to look up the files. He is quite right in what he says, because in August or September the first letter was received with regard to the Nova Scotia regiments, but that was two or three months after the announcement had been made. There have been several representations made since that time.


George Clyde Nowlan: The minister says the first protest he received was in August; is that correct?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The first I have on my file.


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not know whether the official files disclose this, but I am sure the verbal reports the minister would have received would indicate that there had been verbal protests registered with the officer commanding the eastern command. Many conferences took place prior to the official protests being registered in August. They may not have reached the minister's desk, and I certainly accept his statement that a protest did not reach his desk until September, but I am told that there was a protest registered in August, 1954.
As I said the other night, when you get officers who have given many years of their lives in association with these regiments, in

Supply-National Defence both peace and war, feeling compelled to go to the public press and make the statements which they did in August, there is something behind all this. I am sure the minister's press clipping service is good enough that he must know that in August, 1954, statements were appearing in the maritime press signed by the brigadier and other officers who had formerly commanded these battalions, protesting against this reorganization. I say kindly and with respect that it does not lie in the mouth of the minister to say that no protests were received until it was too late to deal with them.
I think I can pay the minister a compliment, and what I say is not meant in any critical way. Many years ago when unfortunately I was much younger than I am now there was a minister in the legislature in which I sat who had the same faculty of getting his estimates through as has the Minister of National Defence. I asked him one day how he got his estimates through so easily when other ministers were having so much difficulty. He told me there was no trouble about it at all, that you simply smiled, and you just apologized because you could not give the information asked for. Then-and this certainly does not apply to the minister of defence-he said, "You look stupid and say you do not have it now but will give it to him later. Of course, you do not give him the information until after the legislature rises".
I think the minister is really a past master at that sort of thing, because I know of no one who has a greater faculty for impressing everyone with his obvious sincerity and desire to co-operate, yet withholding information when he thinks it desirable. Possibly that is what the minister is doing tonight. But I am glad he has given us the names of those regiments. I think he will agree now that, apart from the two in Ontario that he mentioned, he has admitted that the others certainly did apply to the maritime provinces.
I am concerned with only two questions. After these two questions I shall leave the minister alone. The first is why the recommendation of the officers of the three regiments concerned were ignored; and the second is, will the minister, as has been intimated by officers on the ground, consider this matter and see if something can be done to correct what in my opinion is obviously an injustice that prejudices his department in so far as the reserve army is concerned?


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Chairman, in this connection I should like to say from the New Brunswick standpoint that the whole point of my remarks the other evening was the fact that
TMr. Nowlan.]

we had got in on this matter earlier. I resent very much the statement the minister has made that he did not receive any complaints until August or September. I have a file before me going back to July, 1954, as far as I am concerned in the matter personally.
It is fair to say that even before I had approached the department, it should have received some telegrams in protest about the matter from the officers of the regiment. If we misunderstand the details of the situation, surely we can be clear on that. We protested about this matter in New Brunswick and I think in Nova Scotia very early, from the minute they first made the announcement. In fact I indicated the other night that we had already begun to make our inquiries and make known our fears and worries long before the Kennedy report was made public.
That is the one point I should like to make clear. I have copies of telegrams and letters signed by the minister acknowledging letters from the regiment, from the Carleton-York regimental association, etc., at least in July of 1954. I should like to reiterate the statement made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, that we do feel there has been a discrimination against the regiments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. We are not against the reorganization of the militia units. We are only protesting the unnecessary loss of identity of the units with respect to their names.
The minister referred again this evening to the fact that there has been only one loss of identity in the units in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. My reiteration is-and I think the hon. member who has just spoken agrees with me-that under this new plan of putting the old names in brackets we are losing the complete identity of the units under their old names. It is so unnecessary.
The only other point I wish to make is one to which I referred the other evening when we were finishing up this militia item. I said there were other units in Canada among those 10 which, after the reorganization plans had been made and the new arrangements and names announced, etc., protested to the department and received further consideration. I simply ask here this evening, why was it that when we made our protest known we were not considered in this respect? At least two others, by the minister's own admission, were given further consideration.
What is the test in this regard? Do you have to send a certain number of telegrams? Do you have to have the other powerful lobby groups that were mentioned? What is

the test for reconsideration? We felt we were in on it at the beginning. It has been pointed out, and I simply want to register the protest from New Brunswick with regard to the fact, that we felt first of all we were discriminated against unnecessarily; and afterward, when we made our protest, we felt we should have been given the same reconsideration as these two other units were given.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to say that I associate myself entirely with what the hon. member for Saint John-Albert has said, with this addition. Not only are we protesting against the change in name. It goes much further as far as the highland regiments in Nova Scotia are concerned. You are changing the plaid, the tartan, the badges and everything else in connection with two of those battalions. We are losing the tradition. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough will back me up in this. The regiments were given the option of adopting the Nova Scotia plaid, which is officially described as baby blue. They rather resent being compelled to wear something which is baby blue. If they do not wear that they are going to have a plaid forced upon them by the department. The department say, "You can wear the old plaid, and the new officers can wear something else if they desire".
I want to draw that distinction between the highlanders in the northeastern part of Nova Scotia and the ones my hon. friend has complained about. As he said, the name is in brackets and you lose the brackets very quickly. We are losing the Mackenzie tartan associated with the Pictou County Highlanders, a tradition going back to the original Seaforth Highlanders of Great Britain that has been maintained ever since that battalion was established.
Those traditions are being lost. That is what we are complaining of. We are asking why those ancient traditions should be lost. We are told it is for the purpose of making this experiment of a regimental team. You are going to have a regiment with battalions No. 1 and No. 2.
As the hon. member for Saint John-Albert said, as far as we can see we are the only ones in Canada on whom this experiment is being tried. I hope the minister will say he is prepared to reconsider this matter. Perhaps he did not know about it before although, as the hon. member for Saint John-Albert said, if he did not know about it he should have.


Mr. Harkness:: I have two or three different matters to take up. However, I would hope the minister might say something in connection with this change of name before I go 50433-378
Supply-National Defence on to those other matters. It reminds me of an old saying of my father's, who was fairly broad in his accent. It was to the effect that "Ye canna tak' the troosers frae a hielan' mon". In spite of being a lowlander of the strongest ilk, I know that taking the tartan from a highland man is a very dangerous proposition. I would recommend that the minister further consider this matter and come up with some sort of a compromise. We have had some examples of compromise here today. Probably he could come up with something which would be satisfactory.
In that connection I might say that we had a considerable amount of difficulty in southern Alberta over the disappearance of three regiments and the creation of one regiment in lieu of those three. There was a lot of heartburning over that in southern Alberta. Eventually the minister, or the department, came up with a compromise which was reasonably satisfactory. There were the South Alberta Horse and the South Alberta regiment, both of which were eliminated. There was also the 41st anti-tank regiment, which was eliminated. Those regiments were to be replaced by one regiment, and I have forgotten the name which was to be given to it. Eventually I believe it was the minister ordered that it should be called the South Alberta Light Horse, 29th armoured regiment. This was a reasonably satisfactory compromise which perpetuated the battle honours of the two regiments. The artillery regiment naturally had battle honours which are the greatest in the Canadian or British army and are perpetuated in the crest of the regiment which says "Ubique", which means "Everywhere". There were no hard feelings when the matter was settled reasonably.
I should think the same sort of reasonable compromise could and should take place in this case. The old Highland regiments should be left with their original tartans, in which they take great pride. Then the whole Canadian army would be very much better off.


Mr. Churchill:: This matter was discussed on June 30 and was pressed home with considerable vigour by those on this side. In the interval the minister has had 11 days without anything to do, while we in the opposition have been very busy. He should have had this all thought out and an answer ready. I think we impressed him with the importance of the issue on June 30. If he was not impressed then he will have to be impressed now.
A reorganization of the militia has to take place from time to time, but in that reorganization every effort should be made to see that traditions are not lost. In regard to
5970	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence the maritime regiments that have been mentioned here, I think a serious injustice has been done to regiments with a long and honourable tradition. It is most unfortunate that the protests of the people serving in those regiments failed to reach the ministerial ear, or failed to get attention. Our hope tonight is that the minister will give us some assurance with regard to this particular problem.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


George Clyde Nowlan: No.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I suppose any militia reorganization causes some heartburnings and some disappointments, and apparently this one has not avoided that unfortunate circumstance. As regards the two maritime provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, those who studied the militia organization at some length and used their best experience and intelligence in working out the new set-up, were of the view that in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, as in Saskatchewan where the changed situation was voluntarily accepted, there should be two battalions of one regiment. It was felt that in the event of war this would be in the best interests of everyone because the regiment would be identified with that area in each case and the two battalions would be reinforceable the one from the other. I am told that when at the end of the last war the battalions from the maritimes came back they had been reinforced with westerners and personnel from other parts of Canada in great numbers. It was felt that if we had two battalions of the one regiment we would have a very flexible organization and that the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan lent themselves to that type of organization.
I might point out, as I said a little while ago, that there were 11 instances of the amalgamation of infantry units. In only four of those was the name of one of the participating regiments retained in its original form. In the other 7 cases, including the cases mentioned by both hon. members, the new title that was evolved retained the old title in its secondary sense and of course in such cases the battle honours would go to the new battalion. I am told that in the 1936 reorganization there were 17 infantry battalions amalgamated; there were 15 disbanded and 11 battalions of machine gun corps were amalgamated or disbanded. There were some protests, of course. No one likes to see his own battalion name changed, and no one likes to see any change in the organization of that battalion.
In this case, the instances which have been brought to the attention of the committee
[Mr. Churchill.!

tonight, and the other evening as well, are very few indeed in relation to the total number of proposed changes. The reason these changes were made in these two provinces and in Saskatchewan is that the general feeling amongst the militia-


Douglas Scott Harkness: In Alberta you made a reasonable compromise.


Ralph Osborne Campney: That was a different situation. We do not want to go over each one of these in detail. Every effort was made to meet conditions without departing, if possible, from the general set-up of the reorganization. In these two particular instances, the two battalions were created and they each carry the name of one of the old battalions as a secondary name. The North Nova Scotia Highlanders became the 1st battalion, Nova Scotia Highlanders North. The other unit from Cape Breton became the 2nd battalion, Nova Scotia Highlanders Cape Breton. The idea of having one tartan in Nova Scotia was simply that in time of war it would lead to a minimum of confusion and difficulty and make the personnel interchangeable if that should become necessary. So far as I know, it was left to the local units to decide on a tartan. Unfortunately I do not think they have decided on that, at least it has not been reported to me.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, they did.


Ralph Osborne Campney: If so it has not been reported to me.
I want to reiterate to the hon. member for Saint John-Albert what I said to the hon. member who preceded him. Since the estimates were before the committee on June 30, I have looked into the matter and the first telegrams and letters were received in late August or early September. In each case, however, the matter was carried forward principally at the local level with the local officials, and only came to me later.


George Clyde Nowlan: All I can say is that what the minister has just said bears out the tribute I paid to him a little while ago about the adroit and easy way in which he deals with these matters we raise. The minister says it is true that this has only happened in three places, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The fact is he has had protests from two out of three, so I do not think his batting average is too good on that.
He also told us a moment ago that he thought no arrangement had been made with respect to the plaid. As I pointed out the other night-and this is the gravamen of my complaint-you have the North Nova Scotia Highlanders and the Pictou County Highlanders agreeing as between themselves. They

are faced with a demand from the minister's department that "you have to amalgamate into one battalion; what are you going to do about it?" They come up with the proposal that they will maintain the name of the North Nova Scotia Highlanders, thus perpetuating the name of a regiment which served overseas in the last war, and adopt the plaid of the Pictou County Highlanders, the Mackenzie plaid, which has an official affiliation with the Seaforth battalion. In that way they will maintain both the ancient traditions of the Seaforths and the name of the North Nova Scotia Highlanders, who served overseas.
First of all they are told that is a reasonable proposal and that something can be worked out to that end. Then they are told later that it cannot be accepted, that they have to become the 1st battalion of the Nova Scotia highland regiment. They are told that if they cannot agree to adopt the Pictou County plaid they will be told what to wear, and if they do not want to accept that they can wear the old uniforms and new officers coming in will wear something else.
I am concerned with only two questions. Why did the department not at least consider the recommendation of these reserve officers and men who said, "You want two battalions; here they are. We will merge the Pictous and the North Nova Scotians into one and leave Cape Breton as it is. That gives you two battalions with their names, traditions and all the rest of it." Since that was not done I ask the minister this question. I know he has had a great deal of experience as a trial lawyer. He is used to practising expediency, he is used to compromise, and he is used to common sense. I suggest to the minister in all seriousness that if he goes through the file on this matter he will agree -he will not agree publicly and I would not expect him to-that he should tell someone that they have not used too much common sense in connection with this matter, and that he thinks some reasonable compromise can be made. If he will promise the committee now that he will consider the matter again I am prepared to leave it in his hands on his assurance he will give it consideration, because frankly I do not think he has.


Mr. Lusby:: I should like to say a word on this matter. As many hon. members know, the constituency of Cumberland is one from which a large number of members of the North Nova Scotia Highlanders were recruited in the last war. We in that constituency have a very dear feeling for the name and the fame of that unit. I have been reading only recently a book by our eminent 50433-378J
Supply-National Defence Nova Scotia author, Dr. Will R. Bird, entitled "No Retreating Footsteps". That is an ang-licization of the motto, I think you would call it, of the North Nova Scotia Highlanders.
I think that is a very proud motto. I hope to present the minister with a copy of the book eventually. I know that as a student of military history he will be very glad to receive it. But I can say with assurance that any Nova Scotian or other Canadian who reads the book will feel a very strong surge of patriotic pride when he reads the record of the North Nova Scotia Highlanders in the last war.
For that reason we have a very dear feeling so far as the regiment is concerned. The other day the hon. member for Colchester-Hants expressed the feelings of his constituents. This matter is close to our hearts, and I join with others who have spoken in asking the minister to give it the most careful and sympathetic consideration. Surely some way can be found in which more of the former identities of these highland units can be preserved. I am not a military expert. I do not presume to say that no degree of reorganization is necessary, but in the present scheme it seems to me that the former identities of these units, their battle honours and their records, are going to be submerged and are going to become dimmer as the years go by. Even if it is considered imperative that there must be only one highland regiment in Nova Scotia, it certainly seems to me some scheme can be worked out whereby the proud records and names of these units can be preserved at least to a far greater extent than is the case under the present scheme. As I say, I join with all the others in urging the minister to give the matter the most careful consideration before a final, irrevocable plan is made.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, I rise once again to join those who have spoken on this matter in the last few minutes. I do so because I had the honour of serving in the same division as the North Nova Scotia Highlanders. As the last speaker has just said, in my opinion there was no regiment in the Canadian army that served with more distinction during the last conflict than this unit. I think a regiment of that kind deserves to retain its name, its traditions, its battle honours, its tartan and everything else.
I am not so familiar with the Pictou County Highlanders, but I feel sure they have just as honourable a record as the North Nova Scotia Highlanders. I join with those who have urged that this matter be given very serious consideration, because there is nothing that can destroy a unit quicker than to take away the things the minister and his
5972	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence department are seeking to take away at the present time. I join the others in urging that these traditions, these names, these tartans, all these things that go to make a militia regiment what it is, be left as nearly intact as possible.


Thomas Miller Bell: First of all I should like to say that I resent very much the implication the minister has left, that we cannot man our regiments in the maritimes. I do not know whether we have too many battalions and regiments for our area, but I think the minister and his officials will agree that in both the first and second world war the maritimes had the highest-I repeat, the highest- recruiting averages in Canada. I know that M.D. 7 in New Brunswick led the whole dominion in recruiting for at least three years of the second world war. It may be that is due to our economic conditions; nevertheless I want the record to be clear that we are as patriotic as any area in Canada. Therefore the implication left that the reason the department has to play around with these names is that we are short of men in our area does not hold water with me.
I remember that the Royal Rifles of Canada were short of men before they went to Hong Kong. They came down from Quebec and in the northern part of New Brunswick they found the recruits they wanted. A great many of those boys did not come back, but that is getting on a sentimental strain and I wish to be very practical and make my point. I only do so because the minister has emphasized the fact that priorities of time are a big consideration with his department.
I referred to the kilts that the New Brunswick Scottish regiment purchased last year. On the day the regiment was wiped out as a result of the Kennedy report the new kilts arrived by boat from England. I cannot vouch for the story, but it is said that when the regiment was at Camp Utopia last July and the news was received of its disbanding, one of the senior officers took off his kilt on the parade ground in front of everybody and said, "There, take it; it is no good to me any more." The whole point I am making is that these kilts had been ordered and the officers had to pay for them themselves. Yet when they actually arrived the regiment was completely wiped out. What is going to happen? Are these men going to receive any compensation because of the change that was made?
I have a very nice letter from the department, but it just stalls in the matter.
I am discussing the matter here this evening only because the minister has stressed the point of priority in time. He said we were too late. At least, after all the discussion there has been on the estimates of the


department, we have established the point that some compensation should be paid.
I received from the department a very nice letter concerning this $175 the officers had to pay for their kilts. In substance the letter said, "Wear out the kilts". Well, after all, there is not much practical use to which kilts can be put if they are not used by the enlisted men. They now have a regiment that is not kilted. I do suggest seriously that the kilts are of no value to these men now, and some compensation should be made to them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It just struck me, Mr. Chairman, that when that officer of the New Brunswick Highlanders took off his kilt on the parade square he resolved the very ancient question which has troubled a large part of the world for many years; what does the highlander wear under his kilt? However, we do not have the word of any witness who was present to tell us what he did wear under his kilt.
However, to return more seriously to the subject under discussion, it seems to me the minister is in no difficulty so far as this matter is concerned. So far as the two highland regiments are concerned it seems to me it comes down to a decision in the matter of the tartan they are to wear. Surely the minister would have no difficulty in saying, "Well, let the Cape Breton Highlanders wear the tartan they have always worn and let the North Nova Scotia Highlanders wear the tartan which they and the other regiment have decided they will wear".
The minister said if it were decided they were to wear the same tartan there would be no difficulty in changing over from one battalion to another in war. But the minister must know that in time of war they do not wear these tartans at all; they wear battle-dress. The only people who wear tartans in time of war are members of the pipe band. Members of the pipe band of whichever battalion was organized could wear the tartan of that battalion; or they could be mixed, and there would be no difficulty. So, as I say, I do not believe the minister is in any difficulty on this matter at all. All he has to do is say, "We will let these Highland battalions wear the tartans they wish to wear".


George Clyde Nowlan: Would the minister promise to consider this matter?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not wish to get too deeply involved in this battle of the tartans.


George Clyde Nowlan: And Irishmen.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do wish to say in my own defence, however, that I think someone might have mentioned that since I became minister I have put the highland militia units in kilts.

So far as the point at issue is concerned, most certainly I shall review it. I was impressed by the arguments concerning the situation as it exists, and I do not wish anyone to think that I am being stubborn about it. Because of the eloquent remarks addressed to me on behalf of highland regiments I shall certainly take another look at the situation. I am not making any promise as to the result, but I will look into it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There are one or two other points I wish to mention in connection with the militia. The first of these concerns another highland regiment, the Calgary Highlanders. The point I have in mind is in connection with military bands. The matter came up in Calgary last fall, when the commanding officer of the Calgary Highlanders gave his permission for the pipe band of that regiment to play at the Calgary Stam-peders' football game. I understand members of the band were delighted with the prospect of playing. Arrangements went forward, and they were to provide the entertainment by countermarching and piping during the intermission of the rugby game. However, not long before the day of the game the musicians' union from its headquarters in Toronto, I think, sent out an order forbidding the band to appear at the game.
This raises the entire question of just who is going to control military bands. Is it going to be the commanding officer of the regiment, who is supposed to have control of the personnel under his command, or is it to be the United States boss of a labour union-and essentially in this case it goes back to Petrillo in the United States-who is to say when and where military bands will be permitted to play?
Since this affair in Calgary there have been many arguments and heartburnings. I should add that the Department of National Defence has been quite wishy-washy in the matter. It seems to me that the department -and I am referring particularly to the minister-should come out forthwith and say that the commanding officer of a regiment having a military band shall have the final say as to when and where the band shall play. If, because they belong to the musicians' union or for some other reason, the members of the band do not wish to continue, that is another matter. They, as individuals, are at perfect liberty to decide. But for one of our military bands forming part of the Canadian militia, part of a unit in the Canadian army, to be placed in a position where after being ordered by the commanding officer to go on parade it finds that the order is countermanded by the head of a union in the United States, is not to be tolerated.
Supply-National Defence
The time has come to put an end to that situation, and to place the commanding officer of each militia regiment in a position where he can say to his band that, if circumstances warrant and the men are agreeable, the band may play here or may play there or many play some other place, without having to take dictation from across the border, from the head of any labour union over there.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I would like to add my support to what has been said by the hon. member for Calgary North. No union, or no head of any union, should have anything to say regarding the orders to be handed out to our army, our navy or our flying force. Anything like that is absolutely ridiculous. Regimental bands have refused to play in Canada simply because some foreign dictator in a union has dared to say they cannot play. Now is the time to stop all that nonsense. They have no right and no place at any time in any of the armed forces of the Dominion of Canada that serve Her Majesty. She comes above them all, and so do her commanding officers.
Now is the time for the minister to say that there shall be no more dictation by any local union, or by any foreign union, or any other kind of union in any part of Her Majesty's forces. That sort of thing should be done away with.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Without working up any undue heat in this matter-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is a matter of opinion.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, I was not really referring to the hon. member for Simcoe North. I wonder whether the minister could spell out definitely what is the position so far as military bands are concerned?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, I understand this is an issue of long standing, and various methods have been evolved in an endeavour to meet it. But the situation as it exists now is that a militia band can be ordered out by the commanding officer on any military parade or to attend any military function, and it should and does perform its function on those occasions. But if a militia band is required for some other purpose than military duties, such as the case the hon. member mentioned, a stampede or any civilian function, then the rule is that it must have the consent of the local union which would otherwise supply the band.
In that connection I might point out that most of the members of the militia bands are also members of unions, and unless they kept peace with their union we would not

Supply-National Defence have them long in the military band. Therefore the working arrangements in this picture are pretty well known now, and we try to use our bands to the best advantage of the public at various functions. But one of the prerequisites, other than a military function, is that they must have the consent of the local union. In the short time I have been minister I have had very little difficulty with the situation. It is a working arrangement which seems to work reasonably well.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the case I mentioned does not come within most of the conditions the minister has just mentioned. The members of the Calgary Highlanders pipe band were quite willing and anxious to come and play on this occasion. Their commanding officer had made arrangements for them to come and play, and was also anxious to have them play. In spite of that fact the musicians' union forbade them to play. As a result they were not allowed to play. I hope Senator Tom Reid is not in the gallery, but the whole question-


Edmund Davie Fulton: He is at home in British Columbia, like most of the senators.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The whole question of
whether the pipes were musical instruments was introduced into this argument, and it was put forth quite seriously in the Calgary papers that the pipes were not musical instruments and therefore the musicians' union should not have any right to dictate to this band as to where they played or did not play. It just happened that one or two members of the band, I understand, were members of the musicians' union. They were not playing pipes but were playing other instruments when they were playing in other bands. Because of the fact that two or three members of the pipe band of that regiment happened to be musicians who played string or brass instruments or something else in other bands, the whole band, in spite of the desire of the members, in spite of the desire of the commanding officer, and in spite of the desire of practically everybody in the city of Calgary, were prevented from playing. I would ask the minister whether it is not possible to prevent a situation of that sort recurring.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Did they refuse to play at a military function?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Nobody refused to play, Mr. Chairman. The band wanted to play at it. I understand the commanding officer wanted them to play at it. The musicians' union, because two or three members of that pipe band belonged to other bands where they played other instruments, refused the band
[Mr. Campney.l
permission to play. As a result it was not allowed to play. As a matter of fact it was not allowed to play on orders of the minister or the officials of his department. The matter was referred immediately to national defence headquarters, and the order came back from the minister, or from some responsible official of his department, that the band must not play.


Ralph Osborne Campney: It was not a military function. I thought I made that clear. As far as getting involved in an argument about pipes is concerned, I just had a discussion about highland regiments. I do not want to now get into an argument with the hon. member about pipes. I thought I had made the distinction clear between military functions and civilian functions.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, it was not a military function. That was never in question. But the members of the pipe band wanted to play at the function. The commanding officer of the regiment wanted them to play at the function, and I would say at least 95 per cent of the people of Calgary wanted them to play at the function. They were prevented from playing at the function by the musicians' union on dictation from some union headquarters in the United States, because two or three members of the band happened to be members of other bands where they played different instruments. It makes a completely ridiculous situation which the minister by militia orders-that is all that is required-should take steps to see does not recur.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: I have listened to this discussion on military bands. I should just like to say it would appear that international co-operation out in western Canada is not as good as it is in eastern Canada, or that part of the country from which I come. Just one week ago today I attended an international gathering in Eastport, Maine, which is in the United States. There were two boats of the Canadian navy and one boat of the United States navy lying side by side in that United States harbour. The lieutenant governor of our province, members of our provincial legislature and others were in attendance. That Sunday night, which would be a week ago last night, the citizens of the city of Eastport heard one of the finest concerts ever heard in that city, and it was played by a band from a Canadian ship. I saw the parade in which they took part, and I can assure you that they did a very fine job. If the lack of co-operation which has been exemplified here tonight does really exist in western Canada, I assure you it cannot be found on the Atlantic coast line.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I might say to the hon. member for Charlotte, who has been talking about lack of co-operation with respect to bands or anything else in western Canada that he just does not know what he is talking about. I would tell him, Mr. Chairman, that about 10 hours ago more United States bands than he has ever seen in Canada marched down the streets of Calgary in the Calgary Stampede parade. That happened about 10 hours ago, this very day. The co-operation between our people in western Canada and the people of the United States, as far as bands are concerned and otherwise, is a great deal better than anything the hon. member for Charlotte knows in his part of the country.
But that is a complete red herring. It has absolutely nothing to do with the point I raised as to who is going to control military bands, and particularly pipe bands.
I am sorry to say the minister is still taking the position which I am afraid he took last fall in connection with this matter when the thing came up, namely a wishy-washy attitude. I thought probably the minister by this time would have said a military band is under the command of the commanding officer of the regiment, and that where the commanding officer of the regiment orders it to play, so long as the members of that band are satisfied that they should play there, there shall be no question of what Mr. Caesar Petrillo, of the musicians' union, wants or anything of that sort. I would hope that would still be the minister's attitude.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I may have misunderstood the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North. I was sure I understood him to criticize the United States union for interfering with the Canadian band.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Certainly I did.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I can assure him there was no United States union that interfered with the Canadian band. I would go further and say there was no interference of any kind. They were there for three days. They played two or three band concerts and took part in two different parades. There was no interference so far as any United States union was concerned. There may be one that exists out in Alberta, but there is none down on the Atlantic coast.


Ernest George Hansell: I want to support the hon. member for Calgary North in what he has said.


Mr. Dickey:: The Social Crediters stick together.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Only musically.
Supply-National Defence


Ernest George Hansell: I was going on to say I would support the minister in the power he has, that once he gives permission for a military band to play anywhere then there should be no interference. The principle involved in this is whether or not the power of the musicians' union, which is affiliated with the United States union, is going to interfere with a military band playing anywhere under any circumstances.
We found the same thing in our radio committee, though I cannot discuss that at this time. The fact is that a military band cannot play for a radio station without a standby band being there. Although that standby band does not play, it is paid. Of course that is a sort of commercial venture. I submit that too much power is being placed in the hands of the unions.
A parallel case would be where the minister wanted to use army trucks to transport something from one place to another. I know the truckers' union would not step in if the army were transporting army goods, but supposing there was a flood or some emergency of that kind and the minister instructed the army trucks to transport non-army goods from one place to another. If the truckers' union came along and said, "No, you cannot do that, would the minister retreat and say, "Well, these are not army goods so we had better call off the boys"?
If we are running an army, air force and navy for the purpose of defence and all that goes with it, then they should be under the supervision and control of the minister. Although there is quite a labour element in my riding I submit that it is possible for the labour bosses to become more powerful than even the Minister of National Defence. It will be pretty serious when that happens. A band is not going to win or lose a battle, though it might help in winning, but I think this is a serious principle and I support the hon. member for Calgary North in his contention.


Ralph Osborne Campney: We could solve the whole problem quite simply if we used military bands only for military purposes. There is never any objection or trouble where that is done. But when we try to make these bands available for civilian organizations or functions when it is convenient for the men to play it is only then that we come into conflict with the civilian bands or civilian musicians' organizations. A great many of the members of militia bands are also members of a union and make their living or part of their living by playing in civilian bands. If we were to say, irrespective of whether it was a military function or not, that we were going out into the musical world to compete with
5976	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence civilian bands, we would come into conflict, not only with civilian organizations organized for that purpose but we would jeopardize the future in their union of the men in the militia band who belonged to the union. Very soon we would not have any militia bands, which perhaps would be another way of solving the problem.
I should like to make it clear that there is a definite distinction. I think the analogy of the hon. member for Macleod about truck drivers is not relevant, as there is no difficulty at all when the function is military in character. It is only when out of the goodness of our hearts we make military bands available for civilian functions that we must obtain the consent of the union in that locality.
This has been established for some time; it is not my idea. I understand that it works better now than when there was no such arrangement, when there was always trouble. I think our disposition of the matter is reasonable and fair and effective.


Douglas Scott Harkness: All I can say is that 95 per cent, if not more, of the people of Calgary do not think it is fair and reasonable. I know that the members of the Calgary Highlanders who are especially concerned think it is extraordinarily unreasonable that this situation should prevail. The minister says it is only when these bands go out in competition with other bands that there is any trouble, but I would ask the minister, in what way could a military highland pipe band compete with members of a musicians' union?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is a question I do not feel called upon to answer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the minister does not feel called upon to answer because there is no answer. They just do not compete, that is ail there is to it. To deny the use of this pipe band for civic functions is an example of dictation by the musicians' union headquarters in the United States which is completely unbearable as far as Canada and the Canadian army are concerned, and something which should be ended immediately.


Mr. Hodgson:: The Department of National Defence is spending thousands of dollars every day advertising for recruits in our newspapers. What better recruiting agency could you have than a good military band?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a few questions I should like to ask the minister on a totally different subject. During the course of his remarks when this debate was initiated or in the white paper, I am not sure which, he said that as far as the reserve forces are concerned the anti-tank role which was formerly performed by anti-tank artillery regiments had


been taken over by the armoured corps. I should like to know what armoured corps regiments have been specifically defined for this anti-tank job and also what those regiments are armed with, though they may not be armed at this stage because the transition took place only in the last few months.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that there are 22 armoured regiments, and they are training with Sherman tanks.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister says there are 22 armoured regiments which have been designated for anti-tank duties specifically. How many armoured regiments are there altogether in the reserve?


Ralph Osborne Campney: There are 22 armoured regiments.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the answer I anticipated, that there were only 22 armoured regiments in the reserve. What the minister has told us is that all the armoured regiments have now been designated for antitank defence. Therefore I would like to ask him where the armour for the Canadian army, if we have to mobilize, is going to come from. We have two regular force armoured regiments, and that is all. I think it is quite apparent that if we had to mobilize for a general war we would have to have a considerable number of armoured regiments. If all the reserve force regiments were designated anti-tank regiments, formerly artillery regiments, where is our armour going to come from?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand the same organization and the same equipment obtains, whether they are armoured regiments in an armoured brigade or whether they are for service with infantry divisions. The same equipment and the same organization obtains in each case.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I would understand from this answer that actually, instead of there being 22 armoured regiments designated for anti-tank defence, there are no regiments of any kind designated for antitank defence. When the artillery regiments were wiped out in the recent reorganization, the anti-tank role really disappeared.
Having spent some five years during the war chiefly as an anti-tank gunner, I can tell the minister with some authority that a regiment trained as a tank regiment is not an anti-tank regiment and will not and cannot be effective as an anti-tank regiment. As a result of that experience I would ask the minister what special training, if any, in the anti-tank role these armoured regiments are receiving.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that the training, the organization and the equipment are the same in each case. At least these regiments get the training that fits them for either activity.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I happen to have a certain amount of familiarity with two armoured regiments, and to my knowledge they have had no training whatever in an anti-tank role. They have been trained as tank regiments, and that is the only training they have received. As I indicated earlier, training in an anti-tank role is on a completely different basis from training as a tank regiment. I know this to my own extreme cost and, as a matter of fact, to the cost to this country of a considerable number of self-propelled anti-tank 17-pounders which I was forced to use as tanks during the advance to Breda, through Breda to Bergen op Zoom and through Bergen op Zoom. We lost a considerable amount of armour there owing to the fact that anti-tank trained troops were forced to use anti-tank weapons as tanks. Similarly when we tried to use tanks in the role of anti-tank weapons they failed, because they had not been trained in that role.
When the minister tells me that 22 armoured regiments in the Canadian militia are interchangeable as anti-tank regiments or as tank regiments, I would say that he has been misinformed by his advisers. Otherwise, if his advisers have not told him that, he does not know what the situation is, because he has no experience in the matter. If his advisers have told him that, I would say he has been very badly misinformed. I helped to bury many men who would prove that information was incorrect.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is there anything further under militia?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to have an answer from the minister as to whether there are any regiments which will be specifically trained in an anti-tank role, which was one of the most important roles in any army during the last war.


Ralph Osborne Campney: My officials tell me, as I said a moment ago, that all of them will be trained in each of the two roles. I cannot make it any clearer. The intention is that each of them will be trained in each role.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then, Mr. Chairman, I
should like to make this observation. I do not believe it is possible to train a regiment in both roles sufficiently and effectively, from the experience not only of myself but of a very large number of people in the last war. I think the minister should change his concept.
Supply-National Defence Certain regiments should be definitely designated for anti-tank defence and trained for that, and the remainder of the regiments should continue as they have been up to the present time, as tank regiments. A tank regiment is essentially an offensive formation, trained on the basis of attacking. An antitank regiment is the exact reverse. It is organized and trained on the basis of defending against tank attack. To expect one regiment to be completely and reasonably trained as far as both ends of this are concerned just will not work. As I say, on the basis of practical experience I am quite certain it will not work.
There is one other matter, Mr. Chairman, and that is in connection with ack-ack regiments. Possibly you might have divined by this time that I am a gunner. I should like to ask the minister how many ack-ack regiments are left in the militia; how many of those are light ack-ack, and how many heavy ack-ack?


Ralph Osborne Campney: There are eight light ack-ack regiments and nine heavy ack-ack regiments.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister what the armament of the nine heavy ack-ack regiments is, and if there is any plan to equip these regiments with rockets or any other form, whatever the name may be, of ground to air weapons of the rocket type?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The heavy anti-aircraft are equipped with 3-7.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The same weapon as we had in the last war?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes. There are 90 mm. guns in stock, but the militia regiments have not been re-equipped with them.
As to the question about guided missiles, all I can say about that is that very intensive studies are being made with respect to guided missiles but they have not made the progress as to practical use that we might have hoped. We are studying various types, and those studies will continue until we determine what seems to be a proper and useful solution for Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I believe it would be a good thing for the morale of the light ack-ack and heavy ack-ack regiments, particularly, if there were some reasonable degree of expectation they might be equipped with modern ack-ack defence weapons. I understand that some of the national guard units in the United States, which correspond to our militia units, have been equipped with some of these ground to air missiles. I believe you can understand, Mr. Chairman, that it is rather discouraging for the ack-ack gunners of this country to look

Supply-National Defence across the border and see their counterparts have these rocket weapons of various sorts while they are still using the weapon which was the standard weapon in the last war. I believe the minister himself, or the previous minister, has stated in this house on numerous occasions that that weapon is obsolescent.
So far as the general morale of these ack-ack regiments is concerned, I would hope the minister might be able to make an early announcement that some of them at least are going to be provided with a few of these rocket type weapons. This would enable them to carry on their activities with some idea that they are going to be reasonably up to date.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I feel that the discussion of the militia would proceed in a better manner if the minister would deal with the militia in general. Unfortunately, when he was introducing his estimates on June 16 he devoted just three short paragraphs to the militia. He said then he would deal briefly with it, and that is correct. That is all he did. He said the response to the reorganization had been good and had resulted in better coordination and training. There were a few sentences like that.
When we came to this particular section, it would have been wiser for the minister to have outlined the general situation in so far as the militia is concerned. I would suggest to him that another year that might very well be done. For example, well over a year ago I believe a report was submitted to the department concerning the reorganization of the militia. No information was given to this house, nor so far as I know was made public before the house rose at the end of June last year.
Even now we have not a general picture of the militia. Questions have been raised and were raised again on June 30 concerning certain items with regard to the militia. The general picture is not in the possession of the house. I think the minister should inform us with regard to the general strength of the militia on paper and the actual strength; the composition of the militia broken down according to the various corps, infantry, artillery and so on. I think he should be able to tell us now-we are well into July-the number of militia units training at camp and the total personnel present.
I feel the minister might very well put on the record the general reorganization of the militia that was to take place according to the Kennedy report. It may be that only certain of the recommendations in that report have been incorporated in the militia. There may be others that are coming forward during the
[Mr. Harkness.l

course of this year or later. With that information in the possession of the house I feel our discussion of the militia would proceed along more regular lines.
I would suggest to the minister, too, if he will comment on this, that when the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich was speaking he drew attention to the value there would be in the future to giving special training in civil defence to the militia. Perhaps that was considered by the committee reporting on the reorganization of the militia. As it stands at the moment, we have no picture in front of us as to the militia, and I feel it would be helpful if the minister would undertake to give us that picture.


Ralph Osborne Campney: With regard to the background of the organization of the militia, Mr. Chairman, the subject was exhaustively dealt with by my predecessor in the house on June 21, 1954, at which time he enumerated all the steps that were being taken. On pages 7 and 8 of the white paper there are five or six paragraphs setting out in general terms what has been done. Then there is a figure showing the strength of the militia as of December 31 last on page 23 of the white paper. I am told that the total effective strength of the militia as of April 20 of this year was 45,828.
While we cannot yet give an exact return of the number who will attend camp this year, estimates are that there will be 19,000, which is substantially more than last year. I did receive today a report from two of our senior officers who have been visiting the training camps. They expressed themselves as very gratified with what they saw, and said that the militia units are taking full advantage of the time available to them for training. Many of the commanding officers expressed the opinion that the numbers, which are greater this year, would be increased in future years. They believe the steps taken in bringing about a reorganization have produced substantial results.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask the minister if he can give us some idea of the arrangement at national headquarters with respect to the training and organization of the militia. What general provision is there for the allocation of duties to officers of the permanent forces who supervise the organization and training of the militia, and for the allocation of permanent instructors, and so on, to the militia?


Ralph Osborne Campney: General Letson is the special adviser to the chief of the general staff on militia matters and advises the chief of the general staff. With him is Colonel Buell, who is on the general staff as director of militia and cadets. These two positions

are new positions and are filled by the gentlemen I have mentioned. They in turn tie their activities into the existing organization of the department so far as the militia is concerned.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. If the hon. gentleman does not mind, I do not think we can finish tonight. I am advised that the messenger is on his way.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Administrator of the Government of Canada desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy of His Excellency the Administrator had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for the relief of Marian Douglas Jodrey Wallace.
An act for the relief of Elie Chabotar.
An act for the relief of Evelyn Robert Hurst Watson.
An act for the relief of Sidney Robert Allen.
An act for the relief of Cecil Brooks.
An act for the relief of Jeanne Jacqueline Content Brown.
An act for the relief of Eugene Theodore Mantha.
An act for the relief of Marilyn Irene Darner Brophey.
An act for the relief of Dorothea Josephine Forbes Chaffey.
An act for the relief of Violet Ruby Baxter Williamson.
An act for the relief of Nicole Emile Dardano.
An act for the relief of Ruth Steirman Levine.
An act for the relief of Pearl Raicek Rutwind.
An act for the relief of Lorraine Bennet Favreau Williams.
An act for the relief of Robert Irvin Morrow.
An act for the relief of Phyllis Lilian Buck Beatty.
An act for the relief of Barbara Louise Bartlett Broadbent.
An act for the relief of Ronald Elikum Bessey.
The Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Margaret Francis Kennedy Bailie.
An act for the relief of Anna Cibula Reynolds.
An act for the relief of Mary McKinnon Mc-Eachran Coolon.
An act for the relief of Joseph Armand Jacques Phaneuf.
An act for the relief of Julia Hut Lutterman.
An act for the relief of Evelina Dixon Taylor.
An act for the relief of Frances Marguerite Beaudin Karibian.
An act for the relief of Izrael Szer.
An act for the relief of Mary Madeleine Collings Bell.
An act for the relief of Joseph Flavien Denis Rheo Baillargeon.
An act for the relief of Susan Waldman Rutten-berg.
An act for the relief of Andre Labreche.
An act for the relief of Beatrice Macdonald Stewart Pasmore.
An act for the relief of Kathleen Dallas White Barnes.
An act for the relief of John Tilga.
An act for the relief of Edwin Albert Verge.
An act for the relief of Aline Sauve Page.
An act for the relief of Helen Margaret Robb Woods.
An act for the relief of Jean Louis Larose.
An act for the relief of Molly Wineberg Fishman.
An act for the relief of James McMartin.
An act for the relief of Charles John Urban.
An act for the relief of Joseph Adalbert Beaudoin, otherwise known as Georges Beaudoin.
An act respecting the construction, operation and maintenance of international river improvements.
An act to amend the Municipal Grants Act.
An act to amend the Judges Act, and the judicature provisions of the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act.
An act to amend the Canada Elections Act.
An act to incorporate Canadian Premier Life Insurance Company.
An act to incorporate the Provident Assurance Company.
An act respecting unemployment insurance.
An act to amend the Criminal Code, (race meetings.)
An act respecting loans to assist fishermen engaged in a primary fishing enterprise.

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall take the discussion on the rules; then the adjourned debate on the supply motion; then if we get into supply we shall continue with national defence and public works.


[Stage Direction]
It being six minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, July 12, 1955