1956-06-18

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the report of the civil service commission respecting the position of reference librarian 3, library of parliament, laid upon the table of the house June 13, 1956, be now approved.


Mr. Knowles:: May I ask the minister if this does anything other than correct a typographical error?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Walter Edward Harris: the first reading of Bill No. 433 (from the Senate), to amend the National Parks Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 85-Mr. Richardson:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Public Works and the premier of Quebec, the mayor or any other officials of the city of Montreal, regarding the proposed housing redevelopment project in Montreal, since January 1, 1956.
Mr. Winters:: Subject to the usual reservation, Mr. Speaker, about first communicating with the government of Quebec.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Trade and Commerce in a position today to give the
house any further information with respect to the question I asked him on Friday which had to do with whether Canada is to get all the atomic information that is being exchanged between the United States and Great Britain?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have the information requested. An announcement was made last Friday of amendments to the United States-United Kingdom bilateral agreement to provide for the following:
(a)	An exchange of information on the development, design, construction, operation and use of certain package power reactors and reactors for the propulsion of naval vessels, aircraft and land vehicles; and
(b)	The transfer as between the United States and the United Kingdom of certain fissionable materials. Specifically, the amendment will permit the United Kingdom atomic energy authority to purchase U-235 from the United States atomic energy commission. It will also permit the United Kingdom atomic energy authority to sell to the United States atomic energy commission certain quantities of depleted uranium.
The United States atomic energy commission has proposed that our bilateral be amended as per (a) above. It should be noted that in our existing bilateral there is a provision covering the exchange of information on package reactors. The amendment will provide for the inclusion of information on submarine, ship and aircraft reactors.
With respect to (b) above, our existing bilateral does provide for the transfer of fissionable materials as between the two countries. We are now selling natural uranium, plutonium and depleted uranium to the United States atomic energy commission and we have the right to purchase U-235 up to an enrichment of 20 per cent. In other words, the present United States-Canada bilateral does not require amendment in so far as it affects the transfer of fissionable materials as between the two countries.


Howard Charles Green: In effect, Canada will be put in the same position as the United Kingdom.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. It is almost in the same position today. The only addition will be an amendment which will provide that we will receive information on propulsion of naval vessels, aircraft and land vehicles.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: Has the government in mind any program in connection with the development of engines for aircraft or naval vessels?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is it government policy not to reduce the interest rate on mortgage money for home building unless the United States takes such action first, as reported by the Canadian Press today? Is the government not going to give attention to the serious need for increasing the amount of mortgage money available for home building?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the central part of what my hon. friend said with respect to today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The first part of my question was based on a Canadian Press dispatch. I asked whether it is government policy-


An hon. Member:: The Winnipeg Free Press'?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; I am reading from the Montreal Gazette. I asked whether it is government policy not to reduce the interest rate on mortgage money for home building unless the United States takes such action first.


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Speaker. We judge the requirements of the Canadian economy according to our best judgment. It is true that outside influences may affect our decisions from time to time, but any such statement would be incorrect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Does he not realize that the requirements of the Canadian situation call for mortgage money for homes at a lower interest rate now?



ALLEGED IMPORTS FROM IRON CURTAIN COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Boisvert (Nicolel-Yamaska):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On May 28 last, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that in 1951, 195,000 cases of eggs were exported from Canada and 95,000

cases were imported into Canada. Is it true, as it has been alleged in the publicity of the Union Nationale party in Quebec-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Maurice Boisvert: -that these 95,000 cases of eggs, or any part of them, were imported from behind the iron curtain?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the hon, member was good enough to give me notice of his question and I have been able to look up the statistics. I find that the statement referred to is completely false. There were no importations of eggs to Canada from countries behind the iron curtain in 1951. The 95,000 cases of eggs were imported from the following countries: United States of America, Holland and Eire. The reason for importation in 1951 was the short supply of eggs in Canada at that time.
The average price of eggs to producers in Canada in 1951 was the highest average price in Canada for the years 1950-1955 inclusive.
The recent shipment of 10,000 cases of eggs from Poland was the first shipment into Canada from Poland. Egg prices have gone up in Canada since that shipment was received.



ARTS. LETTERS AND SCIENCES INQUIRY AS TO SETTING UP OF CANADA COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the house what it is that is holding up the establishment of the Canada Council for so long?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: This matter has been under consideration and it has very many implications that have been carefully studied. There is, I understand, a large body of public opinion in favour of doing that, and there is another body of public opinion that fears that would be an intrusion into the domain of education that is properly of provincial jurisdiction. Those are some of the considerations that have been studied.
There is also the consideration that is being given to the possibility of creating a body composed of the kind of Canadian personalities that would make it a really influential body that would command the respect of the whole community. Of course, there are many such persons in Canada but they are all very busy and it has not yet been possible to devise the kind of scheme I should like to recommend to parliament.



QUEBEC PROVINCIAL ELECTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister any comment to make on Mr. Camillien Houde's statement last Thursday night in Montreal, to the effect that the main publicity agent for the Liberal party in the province of Quebec, Jean-Louis Gagnon, founded in Quebec city on October 10, 1936, a communist politburo?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I do not care to make any comment on what Mr. Houde may have said. I think Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon is well known to the Canadian people and he requires no defence from me.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I should like to direct a
supplementary question. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister, as the Canadian leader of the Liberal party, to repudiate the following statement written by the said Jean-Louis Gagnon, who calls himself a Liberal, after the foundation of the communist politburo when he declared:
(Translation):
The bourgeois are like pigs; I am beginning to understand Lenin, fa ira-(we'll manage it)


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: -all the priests-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: -we will kill them.
(Text) :


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member realizes when he asks his question at this moment that it should be a question relating to the administration of the affairs of this country. The question he is now proceeding to ask is directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as the leader of the Liberal party. The Prime Minister is here as the prime minister in charge of the affairs of the government.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
advise hon. members that the defence white paper, "Canada's Defence Program 1956-57", was tabled today and is being distributed in the usual way.
18, 1958
Navigable Waters Protection Act



INQUIRY AS TO REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES TO COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: With reference to the white paper to which the Minister of National Defence has just referred, may I ask the Minister of Finance if he has given the consideration he said on Friday he would give to my question as to whether or not the defence estimates could be referred to the committee on estimates.


Walter Edward Harris: I have given some consideration to it, but I have not completed the consideration.



NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT


Robert Henry Winters: the second reading of Bill No. 388, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
He said: This bill seeks to amend part I of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which is that part of the statute administered by the Department of Public Works.
This part of the act, as it presently stands, provides that no work shall be built in a navigable water unless the governor in council has first approved of the plan and site of the work. Persons proposing to construct works in navigable waters are required to submit a plan of the work and a description of the site to the Minister of Public Works. Public notice of the proposal is also required. To this end applicants must deposit a copy of the plan and description in the local land registry office and insert an advertisement in the Canada Gazette as well as in two local newspapers. One month must elapse after the advertising is thus inserted before the application can be submitted to the governor in council.
Our navigable waters have played a vital part in Canada's development and they continue to do so even though others forms of communication have rapidly developed over the years. One of nature's greatest gifts to Canada is a plentiful supply of rivers and lakes. The pioneer era of Canada was dominated by our rivers. The country was explored and opened up along their channels because they then were the only routes through a land of impenetrable forests. Exploration, settlement, trade and national development all have made use of them. At the time of confederation, by far the greatest part of what is now Canada was still dependent upon them.

Navigable Waters Protection Act
It is not too much to say, in fact, that in the first half of the 19th century Canada was dependent upon her waterways. In the second half, railways provided a new impetus and we have gone on from there to build up a transportation system which relies not on any one but on a number of methods of communication. I think hon. members will agree, however, that our navigable waters continue to be a crucial part of our entire transportation picture and nothing could more graphically illustrate this than that immense project which is now under way, namely, the St. Lawrence seaway.
This act we are seeking now to amend has been interwoven with a great deal of our economic history because it is the instrument the government has used for generations to protect the public interest in seeing that our navigable streams are protected for the use of navigation.
In the year 1886, the then minister of marine and fisheries, Hon. George Foster, moved for leave to introduce a bill respecting the protection of navigable waters, a piece of legislation which he said was mainly an adaptation of the law as it then existed, with some changes in the verbiage and two or three sections added. In other words, in one form or another, this law goes a long way back. The economic pulse of young Canada of 1886 can be sensed in reading the speeches made at that time because they largely revolve around the question of disposal in navigable streams of the immense quantities of sawdust arising from the great industry of the era, lumbering.
One can also catch in that debate of 1886 the voices of the rivalries between shipping interests and the lumbering firms whose enormous quantities of logs sometimes tended to choke our rivers from bank to bank.
A reading of that debate of 1886 leaves no doubt that our parliamentary predecessors felt it important that our navigable waters should be protected and that every reasonable precaution should be taken before authority was granted to permit structures to be built in them. I think it is agreed that this need is as important today as it was then.
However, it has been found that the procedures required by the present statute involve long delays in obtaining the approval of the governor in council. These delays are particularly onerous in these days of rapid development; and the statute is specific in requiring that the approval of the governor in council be obtained before construction of the work is commenced. Moreover, if a structure is started without the necessary approval there is no authority whatever under the statute for giving it subsequent approval.

Even having regard to the essential character of our navigable waters and the importance of protecting them, the present statute seems too rigid for present-day application. The number of applications received is quite high and it is on the increase. Last year, for example, approximately 300 applications were processed. It is desirable, therefore, that procedures be developed which will allow applications to be processed expeditiously. This bill seeks to simplify the procedures without sacrificing the element of protection. It provides that the Minister of Public Works may approve the plan and site, thereby reducing the delays involved in referring to the governor in council the multitude of applications, many of them minor in importance and involving only small amounts of money. Further provision is made to enable the Minister of Public Works to approve the plan and site after construction has been commenced if, before commencing construction, the applicant has obtained in writing the consent of the Minister of Public Works.
Under the statute as it now stands, there are certain exemptions, namely, small wharves, groynes, bank and beach protection works or boathouses that do not interfere with navigation and do not cost more than $1,000. These the minister is authorized to approve without the application having to pass through all the stages required by the statute for larger projects.
This bill enlarges this scope and makes exemptions applicable to all works other than certain specific types which, no matter how inexpensive, will interfere with navigation. The works which will not be exempted are bridges, dams, booms, aboiteaux or causeways. The limitation of $1,000 which was enacted many years ago is now considered unrealistic and the bill raises this to $5,000.
At present a lawful work may be rebuilt or repaired if in the opinion of the minister such rebuilding or repairing does not increase the interference with navigation. Many persons desire to change a work in such a way that it will not increase substantially the interference with navigation, but because the change cannot be called rebuilding or repairing they are required to conform to all the formal steps required by the statute. The bill simplifies this procedure in the case of any alteration which would not substantially increase the interference with navigation.
The statute now provides that if a work was built or was in the process of construction on the first day of June, 1938, without the approval of the governor in council subsequent approval may be sought.

Nothing built since that time can be approved unless the provisions of the statute have been fully complied with.
Since June 1, 1938 some works have been constructed without approval. As I have indicated, as the statute now stands, they are not capable of being approved. It is considered that if an unapproved work merits approval and has been in existence for a reasonable period of time without creating navigational difficulties there should be authority to approve it. The bill establishes this period as five years.
It is considered that the changes will simplify the act and facilitate its administration without reducing the protection which the government considers should be exercised over our navigable waters.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the minister in opening the debate on this bill dealt at some length with the importance of the Navigable Waters Protection Act and if I heard him correctly he used words to this effect, that navigable waters should continue to be a crucial part of our transportation system. That, of course, is very true but I am afraid at least some of the terms of this bill are removing the restrictions to a greater extent than is necessary to meet modern conditions. After all, once a work of this kind is placed in a navigable water it is there for many, many years and it is very difficult to do anything about it. If navigation happens to be impeded by that work then there is no way of meeting that situation, that is in ordinary practice, and the particular lake, river, bay or harbour is impeded to the extent that work has been erected.
The act, of course, was designed as a means of helping transport by water, of insuring that there would not be unreasonable interference with that type of transportation. As the minister has said, the act has always been considered one of the most important acts on the statute books of Canada. It deals with a subject that is primarily the responsibility of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) and not the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) at all. I suggest the Minister of Public Works is in this picture only as a supernumerary. If one refers to the report of the Department of Transport he will find that part 2 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act is administered by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler), whereas part 1, which is the general overriding provision, has up to this time been the responsibility of the cabinet as a whole; as the minister will admit, the governor in council has been responsible for the proper carrying out of the first part of the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
Navigable Waters Protection Act
My first objection to this bill is that, should it become law, the cabinet will go right out of the picture and one minister aione, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), will become the dictator, shall I say, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. He is not responsible at all for water transport, which is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport, and yet the Minister of Public Works is to be given complete jurisdiction over obstructions placed in navigable waters.
I am concerned primarily with the position of the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for our national harbours, and also for seven harbour commissions which I believe have been incorporated under dominion statutes. There is a provision written into this bill which provides that the Minister of Transport must be consulted in certain cases, but he is not given the same power as that to be given to the Minister of Public Works even with regard to works erected in one of our great national harbours.
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) has jurisdiction under the act passed last year over international rivers. If there were to be a work erected, say, on the Columbia or on the Saint John river, then the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources would have to issue a permit. Where is he to be in this picture? Under this bill the Minister of Public Works could authorize the erection of a dam, a pier or other obstruction on the Columbia, the Saint John or the Yukon river and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources would have no authority whatever to interfere.
The Department of Fisheries should be concerned with obstructions placed in navigable waters, and it might be vital to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) as to whether an obstruction should be permitted in waters where naval vessels are plying. There are many reasons why the decision as to what works should be erected in navigable waters should be placed before the cabinet as a whole rather than being left in the office of the Department of Public Works.
The Minister of Public Works, for whom I have great respect, is the minister from Nova Scotia, but under this bill he would be permitted to authorize works anywhere on the British Columbia coast and the ministers from British Columbia need not know anything about them. They would have no opportunity to deal with the application for a work of that kind. On the other hand, under the present act they would at least

Navigable Waters Protection Act have the opportunity to know because the application would have to be passed by the cabinet as a whole.
I suggest to the minister with great earnestness that it is much wiser to keep the decision in the hands of the cabinet with regard certainly to the major works that are going to be erected in navigable waters rather than to leave it to an individual minister. See what it places in the hands of one minister. The time may come when a minister of public works will be able to use this power for patronage purposes or for favouritism to this group or that group or this company or the other company. It is placing the minister's own department in an invidious position. Power of that type should not be given to one minister.
I am afraid this is just a case of the departmental officials thinking that they could get along a lot faster and with far less trouble if they did not have to present these applications to the cabinet, if they could just decide themselves that such and such a work would go in such and such a spot and then give the minister a memorandum and have approval of the scheme without all the fuss and bother of going to the cabinet. We have a cabinet in Canada which is for the very purpose of dealing with situations of this kind, of being there so that you get the judgment of the whole group, men who come from all parts of the country, rather than leaving decisions of this kind in the hands of one minister.
Under the act now in effect the key section is section 4. The first subsection of that section reads as follows:
No work shall be built or placed in, upon, over, under, through or across any navigable water unless the site thereof has been approved by the governor in council, nor unless such work is built, placed and maintained in accordance with plans and regulations approved or made by the governor in council.
That is the key section of the first part of the present act. In the next section, section 5, we find that any unauthorized works can only be removed by the authority of the governor in council. It is true that the cabinet can tell the Minister of Public Works to have that done but the authority rests with the governor in council. Furthermore, under the present law any regulations under the act have to be passed by the governor in council. Yet in the new bill the whole power to make regulations is taken away from the governor in council and placed in the hands of the Minister of Public Works alone. That, I suggest, is going too far and, frankly, I am hoping that the minister and the other members of the cabinet will be willing to have

a further look at the bill rather than try to force it through in the form in which it is presented to the house today.
Then, under the bill we are discussing there is this further power. The Minister of Public Works will be able simply to give a letter saying to a firm: You can go ahead and build that work. He can give that letter without even seeing a plan of the work in question. It is true that eventually the work will have to get approval and plans will have to be filed, but surely it is going too far to allow the minister simply to write a letter to the firm and that is all they require to construct the work. No work in Canada that is going to interfere with navigable waters is of that urgency.
For one thing, the people who are affected should be given time to file complaints. Suppose a logging company comes to the minister and gets a letter permitting it to put a boom at a certain spot which interferes with property abutting on the water. The owner of the land should have the right to make a complaint before consent is given to the placing of the boom. Yet under the bill as presented to the house the minister can authorize such a boom to be placed in those waters and there is no requirement whatever that anybody shall be given notice.
Perhaps with a boom it would be simpler. Possibly I have used a poor illustration because a boom can be moved. But suppose a pier or a dam or something of a permanent nature is installed. Then the owner of the abutting property is very seriously prejudiced. I suggest that the provisions in the original law calling for the filing of plans, advertising and giving people affected time to appear were very sound. They were put there for a very good reason and they should not be overridden at this time simply in order to get faster action in installing a pier or other work.
Furthermore, the minister spoke very favourably of the provision whereby if a work has been in place for five years it can then be authorized. Surely that undermines the whole working of the act. People should not be putting bridges, dams or obstructions of any kind in navigable waters without getting permission first. Yet here we are writing in a section which says to Mr. A or John Jones and Company Limited:	If you
put in a dam five years ago and have been able to get away with it, that is all right now and we will give you approval. I think that provision should be changed. I do not see any fairness in writing a provision of that type into the law.

The present act also includes a very wide definition of work as found in section 2 (b) which reads as follows:
"Work" includes any bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau, wharf, dock, pier or other structure, tunnel or pipe-
Of course, the word "pipe" is important now that pipe lines are being put under navigable waters.
[DOT]-or telegraph or power cable or wire and the approaches or other works necessary or appurtenant thereto, or any work, structure or device, whether similar in character to the foregoing or not. which may interfere with navigation.
That definition is very wide. It covers everything. But there is a provision written into the law at the present time for taking out certain specific works if they are of a value of $1,000 or less. That is contained in subsection 2 of section 4 which reads as follows:
The provisions of this section do not apply to small wharves or groynes or other bank or beach protection works, or boathouses, if in the opinion of the Minister of Public Works-
Here he was given discretion in the original act, and I think properly so.
-	(a) they do not interfere with navigation, and
-	(b) do not cost more than one thousand dollars.
That meant that the minister could exempt these small wharves or groynes or bank or beach protection works or boathouses from the act if they did not interfere with navigation and if they did not cost more than $1,000. But now in the new bill the minister goes at it the other way. He says that a bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau or causeway are in the first class and everything else, all these other things, wharves, docks, piers, tunnels, pipes, telegraph or power cables or wires and so on are in another class. They are all put in the category: "if, in his opinion, he thinks they do not substantially interfere with navigation"-the word "substantially" appears for the first time in this bill; it was not in the original act at all-and then in addition, "if the value of the work does not exceed $5,000" instead of $1,000. In other words, the minister will be able to exempt every work up to $5,000 in value if he thinks it does not substantially interfere wtih navigation, except in the case of a bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau or causeway. I think that is going rather far. I think it would be far better perhaps to extend the exemptions as contained in the present act rather than taking everything out except bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau and causeway.
I should like to comment on the effect of this bill on the harbours of Canada. I refer particularly to the national harbours and to those harbours which have harbour commissions. Of course, both types of harbours
18, 1956
Navigable Waters Protection Act come under the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler). The latter harbours are Belleville, Hamilton, New Westminster, north Fraser, Port Alberni, Toronto, Winnipeg and St. Boniface. Under this bill, as it stands, the Minister of Public Works can authorize any work in any one of those harbours that have their independent commissions such as New Westminster, Hamilton and the others to which I have referred. He has the absolute authority to authorize that work in each one of those harbours. With regard to the national harbours, the bill provides that consent must be obtained from the Minister of Transport, with two exceptions; and they are extremely important exceptions. Of course, this particular feature is very important to me as a member from Vancouver because our harbour is the lifeblood of our whole city. The exception is that the minister can give a letter authorizing a work in the Vancouver harbour without any reference whatever to the national harbours board or to the Minister of Transport. Furthermore, the minister can make regulations of all kinds-apparently even dealing with national harbours

without referring to the Minister of Transport.
I suggest to the minister that he should be unwilling to have himself placed in that position. We do not want him authorizing on his own works for the Vancouver harbour. Certainly they should have the approval of the national harbours board and of the Minister of Transport. But once the Minister of Public Works gives such-and-such a company a letter saying that they can build a pier, and once they go ahead on that letter and start building the pier, it is going to be fairly hard to get them stopped. It is just breaking down the whole chain of authority in that harbour. I hope the minister will agree to make some change in that provision.
I repeat that this appears to be a case where the minister's department is asking for more power than is necessary and, in so doing, is running the risk of breaking down an act which is one of the foundation stones for our water transport in Canada.
This nation will always be much concerned with water transport. The minister himself pointed out what a great difference the St. Lawrence seaway is going to make. Of course, that is true. We have new harbours opening up. I think it was he who just a few weeks ago told us about the possibility of a new harbour up on Ungava bay. We are trying to get harbours in the Alaskan panhandle; we are trying to persuade the Americans that they should let us have harbours in the panhandle on the west coast. I am afraid it is quite a tall order. However, there are going to be these great harbour developments and great developments in the other waters of

Navigable Waters Protection Act Canada, not only on the great lakes and the inland lakes, but also on the seacoast.
Rather than rush this bill through today in the form in which it now stands, I suggest that the minister agree to have another look at it and just see if he cannot propose amendments which will remove these objectionable features of the bill as it now stands.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister said, while on the surface this is not an extremely important bill, actually it is a very important bill because, as he said, our navigable waters are a crucial part of our transportation system.
I listened with close attention and considerable interest to what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) had to say. While I am not certain of all aspects that related to his argument, I think he was on sound ground in urging the minister to give further consideration to certain clauses in this bill.
As I understand it, we have made considerable progress in this matter. We are doing things-or the minister will be doing them if this bill is passed-that actually required a special act of parliament many years ago. I have read the bill over and I must say that I am not clear as to what some of the sections actually mean; and I am not any more informed after listening very carefully to the minister's statement. I am not reflecting on the minister. It is possibly because of my own stupidity. As I see it, however, in this bill there are certain changes made that will have a major effect on administration. According to this act, in order to meet an emergency situation for any corporation or person, the minister may not require them to submit plans, advertise in local papers, advertise in the Gazette and so on before making application. Then I understand that the minister may approve the plans, the site and the structure in the normal way and he may also approve the site and the building of something that has been commenced prior to any application. Personally, I think that procedure is most unsound. I have seen some of it in my personal experience in the past, Mr. Speaker. Then his limitation is raised from $1,000 to $5,000 in certain projects, provided they do not substantially affect navigation. That word "substantially" is a difficult one to define, from my understanding of the word. Then again, to me an interesting section of the bill is the one that provides that if the five years have elapsed since some structures were erected or since completion, the minister can make them legal structures according to this bill.


An hon. Member:: May.
(Mr. Green.]


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes; may. I wonder why?
A good many piles, dolphins and other things that are a hazard to navigation have been driven without any reference to the minister's officials at all in the past. Our country is full of structures that were erected without authorization and without any submitting of plans, sites and things of that sort. I am not talking about large structures. I am talking about dolphins for tying booms, isolated piling in different sections of the lakes and things of that sort. As I read this bill now the minister has power to make these structures legal structures.
I do not quite see the necessity for the argument with regard to urgency. These companies are mostly lumber companies, shipping companies and warehouse people, and why are they not required to exercise the normal foresight and go through the procedures through which other people have to go in connection with things of this sort? I cannot see why this one group of people should be exempted from exercising the normal foresight on occasions when that is necessary.
I, like the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), think the major objection to the bill is that it places in the hands of the minister powers that were formerly in the hands of the governor in council. I base my objections on the same reasons. I can see some conflict of interests, and I think nowadays there is more necessity than ever before for co-operation between departments. What happens if the minister gives authority to build a structure under the Navigable Waters Protection Act and then later it is found that it conflicts with something under the international rivers act? I know that one has to get a licence under that act if the water level is substantially raised at the international border. The minister may give a permit to erect a structure of a certain type without knowledge of the fact that another department is considering raising the level of the water for power purposes or damming a lake or a river. I think, therefore, it would be a protection to all the parties concerned, not only to the government but to the persons who are making applications.
Some mention was made of fisheries. I think the situation as it is today, especially following the introduction of the international rivers bill at the last session and the unusual interest and concern about fisheries, more than ever requires that these applications should be granted as a result of a cabinet decision and not as the result of the decision of one minister.
Now, Mr. Speaker, those are the few brief remarks and suggestions I have to offer. In

my opinion the minister would be wise to have this bill referred to the committee on railways, canals, and telegraph lines, where we could have the officials before the committee as well as other interested persons, and find out what is what. It is a very difficult procedure to understand. I think if the bill were sent to the committee I mentioned we could ask questions and ascertain to better advantage from the officials and the minister the purpose and effect of this legislation on navigable waters in Canada.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I too, listened with a great deal of interest to what the minister said when he moved second reading of the bill and to the observations of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and the C.C.F. member who has just taken his seat. I also wonder if we are not reaching a point today where we are trying to allocate too much power to a particular minister. I do not propose to take this opportunity to castigate this particular minister who is introducing the bill, but on an examination of the legislation I find that earlier this session we gave the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) certain authority with respect to increased allowances under P.F.R.A. Here, we have a second instance of more and more authority passing from the governor in council into the hands of a minister in charge of a particular department.
I understand that some years ago works of this type were covered by bills which were ratified by parliament before being undertaken. Today we find that more and more, under the guise of urgency, these powers are being transferred to ministers. I believe it is time we had a second look at a lot of these things. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) suggested the bill be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for particular study, after which we could come back with further recommendations.
I would be prepared to support the proposal. However, I think possibly, as was suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, this covers specifically some of the things that come directly under the Department of Transport. I wonder, therefore, if it would not be possible to have a committee composed, let us say, of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) and the member of the cabinet who comes from the province in which the work itself is to take place. If the minister is going to have to take authority in order to get business done in this house, then it might be desirable
Navigable Waters Protection Act to break it down to the point where at least the province in which the work is to be done has some representation on the committee. It may be that the minister from the province in which the work is to be done may not be particularly interested in that department, but it might give him an opportunity of expressing the point of view of the province on the matter. I believe there is another committee set up known as the east slope of the Rockies committee, and I believe that it is composed of certain cabinet ministers as well as delegates from the provinces. I understand they have worked quite amicably in solving their problems.
Now, the great danger as I see it is not only the bypassing of parliament-that was done some years ago when parliament gave authority to the governor in council to authorize this work-but now we are also bypassing the governor in council and giving the minister the right to authorize certain work. I can see a certain danger in this by reason of the fact that the minister may be unfamiliar with the project being undertaken. While on the surface it might seem like a sound piece of work, in the long run it may prove to be quite the opposite. I noticed that in the bill there is the word "substantial" which gave me some concern. On examining the dictionary I found that the definition is, of a considerable amount.
I would say that if the danger to navigation must be of a considerable amount we should know what that amount is. I have in mind, for instance, speaking of bridges, booms, dams, aboiteaux and so on, that there is a certain amount of diking going to waste on the Fraser river, which is a navigable stream. We have reason to believe that the booms in the Fraser river are affecting the dikes, and there is cause for alarm there. Whether or not it is sufficient in amount to have the minister suggest that booms should be done away with, I do not know. I am not satisfied that he has indicated to us what control we would have over the setting up of further booms or dams or any other of these works that are suggested in the bill itself.
In so far as the question of urgency is concerned, I feel very much as did the hon. member for Kootenay West. Certainly, as he suggested, any lumberman or anyone who is thinking of undertaking such a work should have given his plan sufficient thought to be able to give the minister an opportunity of discussing the matter with the governor in council. But I am certainly alarmed at a proposal-and I believe I indicated this earlier-under which we are even doing away with the co-operation through the governor in council that I called for, for instance, in

Navigable Waters Protection Act the building of certain works in my own area, where I suggested that one department was not aware of what the other department was doing, with the result that they were interfering with each other's work.
The fact that the Minister of Public Works should be given this authority is not important in itself, inasmuch as we have a great deal of confidence in him, and share it with others. The important question is whether any minister should continue to have more and more authority delegated to him under the guise of urgency or emergency.


Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, one cannot help the feeling that this bill would come much better from the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe). It really is his type of bill. It takes authority which has previously been in the hands of the cabinet as a whole, tears it away from them, and transfers it to the jurisdiction of a single individual. Now, admittedly the minister to whom I have referred quite often does not bother with a bill to accomplish that and to that extent at least it is decent of the Minister of Public Works to come before the house and tell us what he proposes to do.
I do not know what it is, Mr. Speaker, that makes those engineers feel that they are so omniscient. Other members of the cabinet a re-


Clarence Decatur Howe: What makes your type of man so important?


William McLean Hamilton: Well, perhaps because we have a certain amount of common sense; perhaps because we have not sat-


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a great claim.


William McLean Hamilton: -on
the treasury benches for 20 years and become so overconfident in ourselves and so completely convinced we know all the answers that we are prepared to listen to the general public once in a while and come here-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not prepared to listen to you, but I get paid to do it.


William McLean Hamilton: I beg
your pardon?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not prepared to listen to you but I get paid to do it and so I will.


William McLean Hamilton: Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, I feel the same way but perhaps it is harder-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You don't get paid as much.


William McLean Hamilton: Perhaps it is harder for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to listen to the opposition because he gets paid times as much as we do. But, Mr. Speaker, just picking up the interjection of the minister, I must say that, having listened to some of the things that we had to listen to in the last few weeks from the government benches, I do not feel that I have been paid a cent too much. If they paid us 10 times as much it still would not have been worth while. However, I do not know what it is that makes these engineers feel that they are so omniscient that any one of them can make decisions that may affect the whole future course of a major transportation system in this country, because that is essentially what it is proposed to do in this bill.
I have no intention of repeating the excellent arguments which have been made against the bill today. However, there are one or two points which have not been touched on to my knowledge. One, for example, is that when anything is done by the governor in council an order in council is required and it becomes a matter of public record-at least it usually becomes a matter of public record, for there have been certain of them which the government in its wisdom has seen fit to keep secret. However, the great majority of them do become a matter of public record.
I see the Minister of Trade and Commerce leaving. Has he decided he is not going to earn his money this afternoon?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have earned it already.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not in the pipe-line debate.


William McLean Hamilton: These orders in council become a matter of public record and we can turn to them at any time and find out what decisions have been made by the cabinet in a given set of circumstances. Those of us who are interested can check back and find out almost immediately what course of action is being followed in connection with some major undertaking affecting a navigable river; but, to the best of my knowledge, under the provisions of this bill and from reading it quite carefully, there is no provision for the minister to let anybody know publicly in this house, or as a matter of government record, what he is doing, what he has done and what he proposes to do. The result is, if this is transferred to the jurisdiction of the minister himself, he can engage in whatever type of shenanigans he wants to, he can make whatever arrangements he wishes with a local group or with a particular company, and while certain reference will be made to it in the local press in the immediate area, we as members of this house who



S121 JUNE

[Stage Direction]
must bear at least some of the responsibility and take an interest in the minister's activities, will know nothing whatsoever of his actions. I think that is one of the greatest weaknesses in transferring responsibility of this sort progressively from the house itself, where we automatically become apprised of it, to the governor in council where it presents some difficulty but where we still can become apprised of it, eventually to a minister where it then becomes his private prerogative and, if we are going to pry it out of him at all, we have to do it by means of special motions in this house which the minister sometimes in his wisdom allows to go through and at other times in his wisdom does not allow to go through.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Wisdom?


William McLean Hamilton: Well, "wisdom" is a debatable point but unfortunately I must keep very close to the bill.


Mr. Pickersgill:: These remarks are a reflection on the house.


Mr. Hodgson:: There is a pronouncement for you.


William McLean Hamilton: they should be construed by anyone except the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as a reflection on the house, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would have taken adequate action before now. However, as we know, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration regularly takes the attitude-


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Careful; he is second in command.


William McLean Hamilton: He
regularly takes that attitude about a number of things. He will always be second in command, Mr. Speaker, no matter where he sits.


Mr. Lennard:: Don't mumble over there; stand up and be counted.


William McLean Hamilton: We
saw an example of what can happen, Mr. Speaker, under legislation of this kind in England just a few weeks ago. In that particular case a small government body had been given jurisdiction in a particular field. The individual of whom I speak had bought a piece of property which she proposed to farm. She bought and paid for it. She farmed it for two years, and at the end of that time, without any reference to any courts in the land, without any reference to parliament, without any reference to anybody, she was completely dispossessed of her property and it was taken over by the state purely and simply because under legislation similar in
18, 1956
Navigable Waters Protection Act intent to this the control of how a person should farm had been given to a particular individual. Here we are transferring to a particular individual, the minister in this case, complete control of what type of structure shall be built on our navigable rivers, whether they shall be torn down, and all the ancillary matters connected with such steps.
In the city of Montreal in connection with the national harbours board operation, for example, we find it is quite conceivable to have in and around that area construction work going on which might prove to be a serious handicap and detriment to our harbour. This work could be undertaken without any knowledge whatsoever of the national harbours board or the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler). Frankly, I do not think we want to see one man having this immense amount of authority. I certainly subscribe heartily to the opinions expressed by the speakers who have preceded me and particularly the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I have just risen at this time to accept their general argument and to support it with a few additional facts which may be of some interest to the minister.
I would counsel the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, to think carefully over the past history of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and to turn over in his mind the course of action followed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce which has led to the present dislike for that course of action which exists right across this country amongst the people of Canada. I would not want to see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), who at times shows promise of being a pretty decent and a rather nice sort of minister and hon. member of this house-


An hon. Member:: Ten dollars please.


William McLean Hamilton: -following that most unfortunate path which leads eventually to a dictatorial attitude and an attempt to gain complete control over matters which he has no right to control.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago when remarks were being passed around concerning who was being paid for what, I must say I was wondering whether the Minister of Public Works should not have attempted to have a clause included in this bill which would increase his salary in view of the extra work and responsibility that will be placed on his shoulders if this bill goes through.
Let me say at the outset that as far as I am concerned I can appreciate the desire of the minister to streamline and perhaps

Navigable Waters Protection Act increase the efficiency of processing the applications that are made under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
I happen to have with me a copy of the June 16 issue of part I of the Canada Gazette and I notice in this particular issue there are notices of 12 applications under the Navigable Waters Protection Act and while that may be somewhat unusual there are nevertheless a good many applications appearing in the Canada Gazette from time to time, certainly since I have been a member of this house.
As I say, I can appreciate that there may be some need for an overhaul of the methods that are being used in processing these applications; however, it does strike me that the range of the types of proposed structures which come within the purview of the Navigable Waters Protection Act is of such vast magnitude, it is a rather difficult question on which to generalize particularly with reference to the matters which have been raised by other hon. members who have spoken on this side of the house concerning what discretion the minister himself should have. I must say that, as I read through the act, that was the question which immediately arose in my mind concerning just how advisable it is to make the transfer which is proposed from the governor in council to the minister.
I can see there are certain types of applications which will be made under this act which may be considerably over the $5,000 that is provided in one place and that could very well be decided directly by the minister without any great danger of anyone being hurt; but at the same time applications are being made under this act from time to time for proposed structures that can have an extremely significant effect upon the area in which they are proposed to be built. I think there is a real question as to whether or not it is advisable under those circumstances to have complete discretion rest with any one minister of the cabinet in a situation of that kind. One of the thoughts that occurred to me is that if this proposal of transfer to the minister is put through there should be coupled with it some provision in the act for an appeal to the governor in council under certain circumstances. As far as I can make out, this bill does not propose that; it leaves complete discretion with the Minister of Public Works, and the only form of redress which any group of citizens would have would be to exert sufficient pressure to force the resignation of the particular minister which would require his replacement by someone who might be disposed to reconsider the decision that has been made. I think

those questions do arise and I am therefore very much in agreement with the suggestion made by my friend the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) that this bill could very well be studied by the appropriate standing committee of the house.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that when this act is being brought up for amendment there might very well be other matters which could be considered in committee as possible further amendments to the act that are not covered in the present proposed amendments.
I know, for example, that not so long ago a temporary obstruction to navigation was being created near the mouth of a certain river, and while the technical forms with regard to it, concerning notice of the closing of this stream to navigation and so on, were applied, the practical effect was that this stream was closed to navigation without any real notice having been given to those most concerned, those people who were going to be using it. That particular situation comes under another part of the act which is under the direction of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler), but if that sort of situation is being repeated in other parts of the country there might very well be room for a discussion in committee of an appropriate amendment to the act to cover that type of situation. This is one of those cases where notice was given in a paper nominally circulated in the district and, because it happened to be handier to put it in a paper that had very little circulation, that was where the notice appeared and as a consequence of that the people knew nothing about it until the obstruction was actually in place.
Coming back to the bill, at the moment I am interested in the part which suggests that approval may be given to structures which have been in place for five years. I am wondering if that provision will not give approval to a practice which exists already. I can remember seeing a structure put across a navigable stream and after it had been up a couple of months a notice appeared that so-and-so was applying for permission to construct such and such a work. This is another matter which might profitably receive a careful review by a committee of the house.
I think a study might also be made as to whether or not some division could be made in the types and categories of works to be approved by the Minister of Public Works alone and those which would require to go before the governor in council for consideration by the cabinet as a whole.
These appear to me to be some of the considerations involved in the amending bill which would warrant its being sent to a committee for thorough study when we could

have before us the technical witnesses who could deal with the matters involved.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the session this matter was brought up by me in connection with a project which we had under way and I understood the minister to say at that time that an amending bill would be brought before the house at this session. I am going to discuss the bill only as it concerns my own area as beyond that I could only speak generally.
I think the bill may be criticized justifiably for giving power to one minister, but on the other hand where small amounts are involved I do not think enough discretion is given to the minister. I would refer again to the case I referred to earlier in this session. No matter what part of the house we sit in we are all interested in the economic development of Canada and if there is legislation that retards that development then it should be changed or more discretion given to the minister in order to take care of isolated cases. Perhaps "isolated" is not the correct word to use.
I am going to refer now to something which occurred in my own riding. Within 40 or 60 rods of my home there is a creek which is as wide as most rivers. It drains a great deal of farm land and where the creek empties into lake Huron it is probably 85 to 100 feet wide. After the spring rush of water is over the mouth of this creek fills up to a height of five or six feet with sand with the result that during the summer farm lands are flooded. We grow sugar beets in that particular area.
As I have mentioned on numerous occasions, the sugar beet growers are obligated to ship their sugar beets by train instead of truck in order to prevent the spread of nematode, which has been the curse of the sugar beet industry in some parts of the United States, particularly in Utah. This involves additional expense.
We had a project under way to keep open the mouth of the creek by building a jetty on each side with an "L" at one end which would permit boats to come in and at the same time prevent the sand from filling up the creek and stopping the natural flow into the lake. As a matter of fact the former Minister of Public Works had his engineer in London examine this project and he was favourably impressed, particularly with respect to the agricultural aspect.
In fact this project has been started but it is now at a standstill because they cannot get permission to continue, either under this act or under the previous act. I understand that other projects have been undertaken and completed on lake Erie and no doubt in other areas without the approval of the
Navigable Waters Protection Act minister. In a case like this where a project has been undertaken to build a jetty to keep open the mouth of a creek and where permission was not obtained the minister should be empowered under the act to grant a permit in order that such a project might be completed. In this particular case they cannot get a grant from the provincial government until the project is legalized by the federal authorities, and apparently the project cannot be completed without a provincial grant.
There is another aspect to this project, that concerning our tourist industry. For some time the minister was in charge of our tourist industry and he knows how important it is for us to obtain United States dollars by that means. Facilities would be provided in this particular creek for probably 100 fair-sized boats to lie at anchor in the area provided by the jetty or further up the river where docking facilities would be available. I say without hesitation that that project would mean probably $100,000 a year to that particular area, and when I say that it would mean that to that particular area I mean that it would mean that to Canada as a whole. We should not scoff at $100,000 or more a year.
There is nothing in the act which would enable this project to be completed. It was started a year ago by the township and by the people of the area but they did not obtain a permit. They went as far as they could building the walls going out into the lake but when it came to obtaining a permit it was found that they should have obtained it before the work was undertaken.
This is one of many reasons why this bill should go to a committee in order that the act may be revised to take care of injustices such as this. Correction would mean, as I say, probably hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to the economy of this country. The bill is important. In my area I cannot reconcile myself to this situation. The Ontario government has leased a great deal of water area in lake Huron from Sarnia up to Grand Bend and in lake St. Clair and lake Erie. That is all navigable water. If the bill is not referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, then perhaps we can have some explanation of that when we are in committee of the whole because there are hazards so far as navigation is concerned.
I repeat that when people want to undertake a project and it is possible to obtain a provincial grant to complete the project there should be authority under this act or some other act whereby the minister would be empowered to grant a permit in order that

Navigable Waters Protection Act the job can be completed and so that they can get the necessary funds. Private individuals cannot go to the township council or to the provincial government for additional grants because no permit can be granted under the act.
I say emphatically that the act should take care of such cases in order that projects of that sort can be undertaken and completed. We have there one of the greatest areas for the tourist industry in the Dominion of Canada. If we can increase our tourist revenue there and elsewhere in ridings all across the country it will mean that revenue will add up to a billion dollars instead of remaining static at a little over $300 million as it has now for several years, and it really means only about half that amount when we consider that the dollar is only worth 50 cents.
We must be realistic and undertake to develop the tourist industry. If through policies adopted by parliament the government can stimulate the tourist industry throughout Canada it will benefit the whole economy. We will then achieve our objective, but we are not going to do so if we sit back and ignore cases such as this which could be remedied by simply changing the wording of an act. Under the act a permit must be obtained in order to undertake work and yet at the same time I notice, as I emphasized a few moments ago, that even if a work has been constructed illegally approval can be obtained if it has been completed for five years. If you can grant a permit for a work constructed illegally which has been completed for five years, why not grant a permit for work begun last year? This is not a political matter. It is a matter of common sense, and I think we must apply common sense if we are going to get the best out of any legislation.
I hope that the bill can be referred to a committee. I dare say that it affects most of the ridings in the dominion. The standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines is one of the largest committees of the house, having 50 or 60 members, and I think we could get some very constructive ideas from those who would in the meantime give this bill further consideration. Even if we are unfortunate enough not to have the bill sent to the committee, I hope that in the meantime the minister together with his advisers will take upon himself the job of revising the particular section of the legislation which would empower him to grant a permit where work has been undertaken by a township or by responsible bodies and probably only requires two or three months to complete the job. In this one instance, as I say, it will probably mean $100,000 a year


or perhaps a great deal more to that particular area and the same change in the act may mean millions of dollars per year to the economy of the dominion.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, in saying a word on the bill may I say that it brings to my mind the Newfoundland waters. What effect will the bill have on the Newfoundland waters which were controlled by the province until a couple of years ago? I ask the minister to make a statement on that situation. Other hon. members have talked about large bodies of water and large streams. I think this bill or one like it should determine what are navigable waters in the minds of the government because up until now they do not know. The Department of Transport will not classify a stream of water as navigable water unless it will take a motorboat or a tourist or commercial boat. I have gone to them about different streams in an effort to get a little work done and they have told me that they were not navigable waters and they would not have anything to do with them.
But when you go to the Department of Public Works they will call them navigable waters if they have enough water to fill a 4-inch pipe. I have a case in my own riding where there is no water for six months of the year. There would be no water at any time except that some 50 years ago a dam was erected to back up the water. But now one of these fellows who wears an iron ring, an engineer, comes and looks at it and classifies it as navigable water. Nothing has ever gone up there except possibly a canoe 50 or 60 years ago. No boat of any kind has been able to go up it since and no boat can do so now except at high water when there is water behind the dam. A boat cannot go there unless they drag it on the ground.
These engineers are clannish, and I give the minister credit. He depends on his engineers and he backs them up when they make wrong statements and form wrong judgments. However, I am probably like the engineers too. I like a fellow who will stay behind me when I am wrong, and that is the way the minister is so far as some of his engineers are concerned. He stands behind them when they are wrong.
Nevertheless, I think you should have some legislation to say what is navigable water and what is not because up until now the minister's department does not know and the Department of Transport does not know. Get your heads together and put something in the bill that will tell us what is navigable water and what is not. The bill should go to a committee because there are several important things involved. I may say to the minister that I had some correspondence with

him about the stream to which I have referred. He wrote and told me that it was navigable water. A child two years old could walk up there in his bare feet in the summertime. There is not one drop of water but still it is classed as navigable water.
The municipality and the provincial engineers put some tiles there to take care of the rise in the water when they put the logs in the dam. The water backs up into a slough. It never was navigable. It was a swamp. The timber was cut off 50 years ago and not a log was ever floated down the stream. An Indian might have gone up there at high water. Nevertheless, your engineer classifies it as navigable water. I wish the minister had the time to go and look at these things himself. He would see how stupid some of his engineers are. That place never was navigable water and is not now. The municipality put tiles there. The minister knows about it. I wrote a letter to him and he still claims it is navigable water.
The municipality will not take the tiles out. You will have to take them out, and part of the act provides for you to take them out. You had probably better send the army up there when you send an engineer to take them out because there is plenty of deep water there even if there is none in the creek.
I like one thing in this bill. It might give the minister a chance to use the telephone. The explanatory note states that the purposes of the amendments are to provide for approval by the minister, and to extend the exemptions. Subsection 2 states that this section does not apply to any work other than a bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau or causeway-I suppose that takes in creek-if, in the opinion of the minister, the work does not interfere substantially with navigation and if the value of the work does not exceed $5,000. This work I am talking about does not exceed $300 and it never was a navigable water and it is not now a navigable water. I would invite the minister up there. I will take him fishing or do anything he wants to do, if he will come up and have a look at it himself.


Joseph Warner Murphy: You cannot fish in that stream, can you?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: No; not for crabs. There is not enough water there for crabs or crayfish. There may be a few bugs.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not understand all this, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member will have to speak louder if he wishes me to hear him.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I like that part of the bill where, among the exemptions, it provides if the work does not interfere substantially with navigation. That is another reason why this
18, 1356
Navigable Waters Protection Act bill should go to a committee. Then farther down, in section 4 we find these words:
(a)	if, prior to commencement of construction, the minister, having been satisfied that the work was urgently required, consented in writing to commencement of construction; or
(b)	if five years have elapsed since completion of construction of the work;
and such approval has the same effect as is given prior to commencement of construction of the work.
That should be changed to two years. Why do you want five years in it? I know these engineers are fairly slow, but I do not think it will take them five years to look at a thing like that. They could do it in two years or less than two years. Let us make it two years. A great many changes must be made in this bill. It needs a greater opportunity for examination than we are going to be able to give it here in the House of Commons. I would therefore ask the minister to send this bill to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Mr. G. S. White (Hasiings-Fronlenac):: I just want to ask the minister a question before he replies. I shall be brief. Following up what was said by the hon. member for Victoria, Ont. (Mr. Hodgson) with respect to the definition of a navigable stream, and after reading what is said in the act, may I ask the minister to say whether there are some waters or streams which are regarded as navigable streams controlled by the province, or are all navigable waters controlled by the federal government? If all navigable waters are controlled by the federal government, how do you go about getting from the minister a decision as to whether a certain body of water is or is not a navigable stream? As the minister is no doubt aware, at least in the province of Ontario the question of whether or not a certain body of water is a navigable stream entails certain rights with regard to traffic and fishing. I for one would be greatly interested if the minister, in his reply, would tell us as plainly and frankly as he can just what is a navigable stream.


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


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all hon. members who have taken part in this debate because I think they have shown the two sides of the question as they exist here. Some hon. members thought that the provisions of the bill now before us go too far whilst others feel that they do not go far enough. Those have been the reasons why the government felt it necessary to ask for amendments to this old statute at this time. The applications are being received at the rate of about 300 a year and that number is on the increase. Most of these applications

Navigable Waters Protection Act are in respect of works of a minor character. One hon. member suggested that it might be wise to form some sort of committee with provincial representation on it. In that regard I would remind hon. members that the majority of applications received are made either by or on behalf of some provincial government. It seems to me that the category that comes before us most frequently is that of applications having to do with transmission lines passing over some navigable water.
I gather that there is no serious criticism of the powers being sought in this amending bill. The question which occurred in the mind of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and in the minds of others is whether the powers being sought should be administered by the governor in council or by the minister. I can tell hon. members that it is a comfortable position for any minister to be in to be able to refer matters to the governor in council. But that is not always the best way or the most expeditious way in which to discharge the responsibility which is simply, in this case, the administration of the provisons of the act. The governor in council is a committee of the cabinet and not the full cabinet, as some hon. members seemed to think. Another question raised was the matter of urgency.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How many are members of that committee?


Robert Henry Winters: Four constitute a quorum.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To talk about a quorum is a different thing than to refer to a committee of the cabinet.


Robert Henry Winters: Is my hon. friend asking a question or making an assertion? I do not care which it is. It is all right with me. The question of urgency was raised and hon. members rightly queried whether any urgency was great enough to warrant the authority being given without the necessary approval under this statute. We have had some cases where the question of urgency arose. For instance, in the constituency of my good friend the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor),-


Mr. Mclvor:: That is right.


Robert Henry Winters: -last year a main broke under the Kaministikwia river. It was necessary to obtain authority under the Navigable Waters Protection Act to develop an alternative structure to carry the main under that river. With winter coming on it was absolutely essential that that work be put in at the earliest possible moment. There are other such cases. It is true that they are rare. It is also true, what the hon. member

for Vancouver-Quadra has said, namely that we should think very carefully before sacrificing any of the rights on navigable waters.
As to whether or not the federal government has jurisdiction over all navigable waters, I understand that under the British North America Act that is the case. As to what constitutes a navigable water, it is often difficult to decide. There are various means of navigation, and what is navigation in the eyes of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) and in mine might be quite different from what constitutes navigation on a stream remote from the sea and farther inland. All these rights must be protected. We have places where there are small streams and where people are in the habit of travelling on them from time to time by canoe. We have had instances where farmers have built a fence across a stream, thereby denying other local residents a chance to pass along the stream by canoe. To a seafaring man, that might not seem to be very important navigation but to those people who use it for their ordinary day-to-day activities, it is important. All these things must be considered.
As to consideration by a committee, I know hon. members are aware of the fact that this bill has already been before the other place, that it was considered carefully there in a committee and that it has been referred to us in this house with one minor amendment. We are now about to go into committee of the whole and I am quite prepared to have hon. members ask any questions they see fit to ask. I think they can be assured of the same diligent consideration here by all members as is customary in committee of the whole house.


Howard Charles Green: But witnesses cannot be called.


Robert Henry Winters: I would therefore simply conclude by thanking hon. members for the part they have taken in this debate and to tell them that, in my opinion, this bill is the best compromise with regard to a situation that obviously necessitated a change in the face of conditions as they exist in Canada at the present time.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question? Do I take it he is unwilling to have this bill go to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines?


Robert Henry Winters: I am of the opinion that the necessary consideration can be given to this bill in the committee of the whole house.


George Stanley White: Would the minister answer a question? How does his

department ascertain whether or not a small stream or inland lake, whatever it may be, is a navigable stream?


Robert Henry Winters: So far as we are concerned in this department, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of the use that is made of the particular stream and also, of course, the size of it and the potential use that may be made of it. There are a variety of factors, but I would rather err on the side of saying it is navigable than saying it is not navigable if there is any doubt.


George Stanley White: Take my	
own district, in which there are hundreds	
of lakes, some	of them perhaps a couple of
hundred miles	around, but which are only
used as tourist	resorts. There is no lumbering there. Would the minister say, offhand,	
if those would	be navigable waters which
would come under this act?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, I would think so, without examining	a particular case. If the lake
or river is capable of navigation, then it	
would come under this statute.


George Stanley White: Then, what	
is navigable?	
The house divided on the motion (Mr.	
Winters) which was agreed to on the follow-	
ing division:	
	YEAS
	Messrs:
Applewhaite	Huffman
Ashbourne	James
Batten	Jutras
Benidickson	Kickham
Bennett	Kirk (Shelburne-
Boisvert	Yarmouth-Clare)
Bonnier	Lavigne
Bourque	Leduc (Gatineau)
Bruneau	Leduc (Jacques Cartier-
Buchanan	Lasalle)
Byrne	Leduc (Verdun)
Campney	Lusby
Caron	MacEachen
Carrick	MacKenzie
Carter	MacNaught
Cauchon	Macnaughton
Cavers	McCann
Clark	McCubbin
Cloutier	McCulloch (Pictou)
Denis	Mclvor
Dickey	McMillan
Dumas	Marler
Eyre	Masse
Fairey	Menard
Fraser (St. John's East) Meunier	
Garland	Monette
Gauthier (Nickel Belt) Philpott	
Gour (Russell)	Pickersgill
Habel	Pommer
Hanna	Proudfoot
Hardie	Reinke
Harris	Richard (Ottawa East)
Henderson	Richardson
Hollingworth	Robertson
Houck	Robinson (Simcoe East)
Howe (Port Arthur) Ross	
Navigable Waters Protection Act
St. Laurent (Quebec East)
Schneider Shipley, Mrs. Simmons Stick Valois
Viau
Weaver
Weir
Weselak
White (Waterloo South) Winters-82.
NAYS Messrs:
Aitken, Miss
Barnett
Blackmore
Blair
Bryce
Cameron (Nanaimo)
Casselman
Charlton
Churchill
Dinsdale
Fairclough, Mrs.
Fleming
Green
Hahn
Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace)
Hamilton (York West)
Hansell
Harkness
Hees
Herridge
Hodgson
Howe (Wellington-Huron)
Jones
Knowles
Leboe
Lennard
Low
Maclnnis
Murphy (Lambton West)
Nesbitt
Nowlan
Pearkes
Quelch
Regier
Stanton
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Thatcher
Trainor
Tustin
White (Hastings-Frontenac)
White (Middlesex East) Yuill-12.
Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Apple-whaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Minister.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I was somewhat amazed when the minister in charge of this bill who is at the same time the minister who will be given these very drastic powers, refused to agree to have this bill referred to a standing committee of this house for consideration. One excuse he gave for taking that stand was that the bill had been considered in the other place. I have here the Senate Hansard containing the discussion on the bill, and it occupies about two pages. We have had-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a full discussion for them.


Howard Charles Green: As the hon, member for Winnipeg North Centre says, that is a full discussion in the other house.


Robert Henry Winters: A committee studied this bill.


Howard Charles Green: I presume it went to a committee in the other house, as all their bills do, but I do not believe we have any transcript of the evidence that was taken in that committee of the other house, if any was taken. I very much doubt whether there was a very full examination of the measure, and it is going pretty far when a minister in
5128	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Navigable Waters Protection Act this house says that one of the standing committees of the commons, and a good committee-I call the hon. member for Fort William as a witness to that statement-


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I agree with the hon. member on that.


Howard Charles Green: -a good committee should not be given the opportunity to consider this bill. If it had been sent to a committee, then we could have had the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Public Works and some of the other ministers who are concerned; we could have had the deputy ministers; we could have found out just what are the difficulties. But oh, no; this Minister of Public Works, acting in the same dictatorial manner that we are witnessing so often from this government this year, acting in just that same way, brushed aside the request made from every party in the opposition that the bill at least be sent to a committee. He brushed that aside and said "No, we will give it second reading now and then you will have a chance to ask me some questions when it goes into committee of the whole." It is just about time the Canadian people realized what is going on in this house. Here we have a bill which has been on the statute books of Canada for many years, one of the most important bills on our statute books, yet the government is prepared to have the heart torn out of the statute without even having it considered by a committee. I submit that the minister is absolutely unreasonable in his refusal to let a committee of this house consider this bill. Even yet it is not too late for him to change his mind and do that, give the committee a chance to deal with the bill as it should be dealt with. Just to have it rammed down our throats in the way that has been done this afternoon is not good enough.
There are other members who can deal with different aspects of the bill, but I point out to the minister again the situation with respect to the harbours of Canada. It is all right to try to justify this on the basis that some little stream requires a ruling under this act because a canoe is going to go up that stream. It is all right for the minister to put that forward as his excuse for having control of all the operations under the act, but the matters that are really vital under this statute are the multi-million dollar piers and works of that type that will be erected in different parts of Canada. That is where the real issue lies, and the decision on those important works should be left in the hands of the cabinet.
It may be that there should be amendments made so the minor works could be handled by the minister without having them

submitted to the cabinet, but there is no excuse whatever for giving the Minister of Public Works or any other single minister sole power to decide whether or not a million dollar pier is going to be placed in one of our harbours.
That condition may arise in Vancouver, and the Minister of Transport, who has charge of the national harbours board, should be in on that picture, and so should the ministers representing British Columbia in the cabinet. Those questions are too important to be decided by one minister and certainly by a minister from another part of the country who really has very little knowledge of what conditions are to be met, and who cannot be in a position to understand what is reasonable in a port in another part of Canada. This applies not only to the national harbours but also to the other harbours to which I referred.
I have here the annual report of the Department of Transport for the year ending March 31, 1955, and we find the following at page 71:
Harbours Administered by Harbour Commissioners.
There are seven harbour commissions as follows: Belleville, Hamilton and Toronto in Ontario; Winnipeg-St. Boniface, Manitoba; New Westminster, North Fraser and Port Alberni in British Columbia.
And then we find this report:
General supervision is exercised over the affairs of the commissioners and all by-laws are submitted for approval of the department before submission to the governor in council for confirmation. The commissioners make by-laws concerning navigation, rates, tolls, penalties, etc. They also administer water lot transactions affecting federal property within the harbours, the accruing rental forming part of the harbour revenue.
They do all that under the Minister of Transport, yet once this bill has been passed the sole jurisdiction will be with the Minister of Public Works. The Minister of Transport will not have the slightest authority to say anything about this. There is no responsibility to give him any information; there is nothing in the bill to require that, and because it does not go to the cabinet there is no way by which he can know, unless the Minister of Public Works places it before him. Even then the Minister of Transport has absolutely no responsibility, because under the bill all the responsibility is given to the Minister of Public Works.
For the life of me I cannot understand why the government wants to place the full authority in respect of these works-which are really big works, and which may affect the economy of large segments of Canada- in the hands of one minister. I submit that is contrary to our whole parliamentary belief. It is contrary to the way in which the

government of Canada has been run. In my judgment it is just another example of the fact that this government has been in power so long and has such an overwhelming majority, that the members of the cabinet simply have a contempt for parliament, a contempt for the opposition and in effect a contempt for the wishes of the Canadian people.
Once more I urge the minister to withdraw his dictatorial and unfair action in refusing even to have this bill sent to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. It is still not too late for him to do that. That is the proper way in which this bill should be considered, and it is the proper way to have it amended. The bill as it stands today is not right, and I believe there are ministers in the cabinet sitting opposite right now who realize this bill is not right in its present form. The only way it will be adequately amended is if it can be referred to the standing committee.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra I was quite disappointed at the action of the minister in refusing to allow this bill to go before a standing committee of the house because, as I attempted to point out in the few remarks I made on second reading, it struck me as being the type of bill which could very profitably receive the kind of consideration that is possible only in a standing committee, where it is the practice to have such people as deputy ministers appear to answer our questions and give us detailed information concerning the administrative problems the proposed bill is presumably designed to correct.
I think everyone realizes it is difficult for members like myself, who are interested because we live in areas where there are substantial quantities of navigable water, to consider in committee of the whole house amendments to a bill of this type if we are not satisfied that it is entirely as it should be, but in the standing committee we have an opportunity of obtaining more detailed information on the basis of which we can judge whether or not any objections we may have are well founded. For that reason I must say I share the views of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in this connection.
I do not think there is much more I can add concerning clause 1 of the bill because it simply designates that "minister" means the Minister of Public Works. As I understand it, that designation of the Minister of Public Works applies only to the part of the
18, 1956
Navigable Waters Protection Act Navigable Waters Protection Act which heretofore has come under his general jurisdiction.
I hope that as we proceed, inasmuch as apparently we are not going to have the bill sent to the committee, the minister will be prepared to give us some detailed explanation of the various changes that are proposed.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I just want to add my protest to those of hon. members who have already spoken concerning the fact that this bill is not going to be sent to the appropriate committee.
I think it is one of those little things which, if it were done, would help to remove the frictions that almost inevitably occur in a place like this.
As I read the bill, the main change is the transfer of the authority which previously was in the governor in council to the minister. I do not know whether that is a good or bad thing. Possibly with the present minister in charge of the department it might be all right and there would be no need to worry, but ministers come and ministers go. While we might all be quite happy to leave these regulations under the control of the present minister there might come a time when there was a minister in charge of the department about whom we would not be so pleased. Is the Minister of Finance raising an objection?


Walter Edward Harris: None whatever.


Donald MacInnis: Referring the bill to a committee would not unduly delay it. If anything it would facilitate the other business of the house, because while this bill was being considered in committee the house could be dealing with other business. When the bill came back to committee of the whole it would probably go through with little discussion. I am sorry the minister did not see his way clear to refer it to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Since he has not done that I imagine the best thing to do is for hon. members to attempt to bring out all the relevant facts while we are considering the bill clause by clause.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the question in my mind at the moment with regard to the bill and the clauses thereof is whether the Prime Minister has so far renounced his control over his cabinet and the affairs of this country that he leaves it to individual ministers to bring in measures of this kind which would redivide or reallocate authority within the cabinet which had previously been held by the cabinet as a whole. As the hon. member who has just resumed his seat pointed out,

Navigable Waters Protection Act one of the cardinal features of this bill is the transfer of authority from the governor in council to a specific minister. The sponsor of the bill is the minister to whom authority is being transferred.
It is a most peculiar and unusual situation to find that the man who has the primary responsibility for the present government and for the present cabinet is not even interested enough in the various responsibilities of his ministers to sponsor or comment upon a radical change of authority within the group which he controls. At the present time we are fortunate in that the right hon. Prime Minister is in the house. To say the least I think it would be appropriate and helpful if he would signify that he also approves of this transfer of authority within his cabinet. Are we going to have from time to time other bills of this nature sponsored by individual cabinet ministers which break down the authority of the Prime Minister, which parcel out among themselves responsibilities which ministers are to have, which grant to ministers authority previously vested either in parliament or in the cabinet? I should like to know whether the Prime Minister approves of this transfer of authority from the cabinet as a whole to this individual minister.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Mr. Chairman, perhaps this will be the only opportunity I will have to refer to a matter I referred to earlier. When I suggested that the minister should be given more latitude and power I did not mean that to apply to projects such as have been mentioned this afternoon. But as I said, with minor things there should be latitude, especially when the project has already been started. In the particular case I referred to they will not be able to get any assistance from the municipal or provincial governments until a permit is granted. Discretion should be with the minister in order that this project may be undertaken.
I am going to ask the minister if in cases like this he will undertake that a permit will be granted. I am not going to repeat the argument I made earlier, because time is valuable; but I mentioned that the completion of this project might bring $100,000 or perhaps several times that amount each year from the tourist industry.
A point which I did not make a while ago is that there will be no cost to the federal treasury. It will run about $10,000 or $12,000 to complete the project, but they did not apply for a permit and they cannot go ahead. They are stymied, the tourist industry is stymied, and the sugar beet growers still have to ship their sugar beets by train instead of by truck, which means additional cost. We do not want

to do anything to handicap the agricultural industry in Ontario. This could be taken care of by a simple rewording of a particular section of the act.
I do hope the minister will see his way clear, not only in the case of this particular project, which is important to this area, but in all such projects that there is some latitude in interpreting the act, or that an amendment is made to make the granting of a permit possible. If this additional revenue came into that particular area it would be of great assistance and would also assist our agricultural economy.
Let me repeat that it is not going to cost the federal government anything. We do want a permit to be granted so the township council can go ahead and complete this project. It may involve $10,000 or $12,000 but it will not cost the federal treasury anything and the return will be perhaps 10, or 15 or 20 times the amount spent. These people are most anxious to have the work undertaken and they are sorry, as I am, that there is no provision under which they may obtain this permit. I do hope before the bill is finalized the minister will consult with his officers and in some way see that authority is granted so projects like this can be finished.
There is one other aspect to this matter which I did not think of when I was on my feet before. As I said, the mouth of this creek fills up to a height of 5, 6 or 7 feet. The Department of Agriculture has some pictures which were taken some years ago when we endeavoured to prevail upon the Minister of Agriculture to do something to prevent the spread of this nematode disease, which is the curse of the sugar beet industry and which is brought about by the flooding of hundreds of acres of farm land.
This is the point I have in mind. Of course I was referring to lake Huron as navigable water, and there has been reference to other navigable streams which are apparently a great deal smaller than the one I have in mind. What is the responsibility of the federal government for damage to property because of the closing of the mouth of this creek? It closed up long before the present project was started, so the fault does not lie in what has been done. However, because there is no protection to prevent the sand from coming in and closing up the mouth of the stream, which is about 75 to 100 feet wide, the farmers are losing thousands and thousands of dollars on account of the flooding of their land. I am wondering who is responsible. Is it the federal government because they are not doing what can be done?

The difficulty can be overcome. All you need do is see that they get a permit to complete the job. This is only one of these instances. It is something that may happen in my riding today and in your riding tomorrow, but I say in all seriousness that I sincerely hope the act can be amended, because there may be many other such incidents. No expense whatever is involved so far as the federal government is concerned. All we want to get from the federal government is the authority to do the job.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, like other members who have spoken I regret that the minister has not agreed to send the bill to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines; and I am not taking that position just to be awkward. There are federal and provincial jurisdictions that are related to the bill. I know that in my own district lumber companies that want water lots for booming grounds have to approach the lands branch of the department of lands and forests of the government of British Columbia, advertise, and go through certain procedures. When they have the booming ground they have to drive dolphins and piles to hold their boom chains so they can contain the logs.
There is a lot of misunderstanding as to what is legally necessary in securing these properties, what is under the jurisdiction of the provincial government and what is under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Therefore I think if the bill had gone to the standing committee we would have had the opportunity to listen to the minister's officials and to the legal advisers. There would have been clarification of the relationship, shall I say, between the federal and provincial jurisdictions, and that would have been of advantage to many who are interested in building structures and other things that will come under the terms of this legislation.
Seeing that the bill is not going to the standing committee, I wish the minister would give an exposition to the committee of the procedure necessary under the circumstances I have outlined.


Robert Henry Winters: The procedure necessary to obtain approval under this statute for a work in a navigable water? Is that what my hon. friend has in mind?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A work in a navigable water or lake. Here is a company which wants to establish a mill and a booming ground. It gets its water lot from the provincial government. Then it has to drive piles and dolphins and erect other structures to contain the logs for the mill. In some cases the companies, after having obtained the required licence 67509-325
Navigable Waters Protection Act for the water lot from the provincial government, go ahead and drive piles and put in dolphins without any reference to the federal government. In other cases other companies follow the procedure necessary under the terms of the act. Would the minister tell the committee what procedure should be followed by a company-I have some knowledge of what I am talking about-which intends to establish a booming ground and has obtained a licence from the provincial government with respect to a water lot in the area concerned?


Robert Henry Winters: They must make application under this statute and submit plans and a description of the site to the Minister of Public Works. Then they must publish notice in the Canada Gazette and in two local papers; and the notice has to be given for a period of a month. Then the Minister of Public Works considers granting the application. That is a simple procedure. There are exceptions provided by this statute in cases of urgency, but generally speaking the procedure is the one I have outlined.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Before the clause carries, would the minister answer my question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister not have saved time by sending this to the committee?


Mr. Harkness:: I was particularly interested in the question raised by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac with regard to what constitutes navigable water, and I must say the explanation the minister gave still left me in some considerable doubt as to what is navigable water. I am particularly interested in this matter as far as streams are concerned, especially where a stream flows through a man's farm or ranch.
I should like to know from the minister whether there is any definition in the Navigable Waters Protection Act or elsewhere in the Transport Act as to what constitutes a navigable stream. Is there a minimum width or anything along that line? In other words, is a small stream 5, 10 or 15 feet wide, which happens to run through a man's fields, interpreted as being a navigable stream because you can push a canoe or a small rowboat up it or even a small boat with an outboard motor? As a result is the farmer in the position that before he can put a bridge across the stream or do anything else along that line in order to enable him to carry on his work, he has to apply to the minister in order to get permission to do it?
So far as I know, this sort of thing has been done on these small streams more or less from the beginning in Canada, but as I read the act it would seem to me that with respect

Navigable Waters Protection Act to such a stream the man would have to ask permission of the minister. He would have to get his consent, file plans and so forth before he even put a fence across the stream, let alone anything else. Would the minister comment on that?


Robert Henry Winters: Size is not much of a criterion in determining whether or not a stream is navigable, and I do not know of any specific definition which delineates the navigability of any water. It is generally held that water is navigable if it is capable of being navigated for the trade and commerce of the area. Beyond that, it is a matter of judgment as to whether that is the case. That is the situation.


Mr. Nesbitt:: In view of the minister's last remarks as to the interpretation of "navigable", may I say that I know of areas in western Ontario where numbers of rafts have been put in streams in order to move cement and other things to the other side, and I presume the minister would consider those streams navigable. Before the bill goes through this stage would the minister consider having some of his assistants or possibly someone from the Department of Transport draw up a definition of what a navigable water is, even if the definition is broad, to be included in the interpretation section; because I think more and more this matter will become a subject of public interest and attention. I cannot see any reason why some definition cannot be put in the interpretation clause.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think we could tell the hon. member for Calgary North that the old swimming hole is going to disappear under this legislation. I would think the minister probably will be making decisions with respect to whether boys can build the necessary dams or whether or not they can be given the authority.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: How about beaver dams?


John Borden Hamilton: It seems' to me that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, who said he was surprised at this action being taken by the minister, really was not stating his true feelings about it. I do not think any one should be particularly surprised that this type of legislation is being brought forward by this government. As I see it, this is just further evidence of adherence to the cult of "get things done".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Borden Hamilton: Don't applaud too soon over there. As I say, this is just further evidence of adherence to the cult of "get things done", regardless of what happens in the process. What happens to the ordinary
[Mr. Harkness.l
course of parliamentary government does not seem to make much difference to the members opposite.


Mrs. Shipley:: Nonsense.


John Borden Hamilton: At least the committee is perking up, anyway. I heard somebody over there make reference to the fact that we were in committee now, and that is the first sign that we are. Prior to that you were sitting mildly by and you would let any of these sections go by without a word.
In any case, this is just a further indication of the trend that we had last year in the defence production debate. As will be recalled, it was not a case of handing over powers to the governor in council in connection with that legislation, it was a case of handing them over to the minister himself. Here is a further step along the way.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the members to your right have not learned any particular lesson from what happened last year or given any indication that there is some sign left of cabinet responsibility in connection with legislation of this type. I think that is the important thing. If we continue this trend we are going to have a great many individual cabinet members who, it may be said, are responsible to the Prime Minister but who in fact are no longer going to be responsible to this house. If it is the type of government in existence in the United States that you want here, I say we are certainly going a long way down that line; but it is far removed from the principles of British parliamentary institutions that heretofore have been the guiding light for this institution.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it would not have been too tough for the minister to have differentiated, to a certain extent, between the various types of activities that he is going to carry on here. I note that in one case he has been able to set a limit of $5,000 on the construction to take place and has said that in that case it will be done in a certain way, and that over and above that amount it will be done in some other way. If he intends to acquire these powers himself, surely he could have gone one step further. If it is necessary to remove it from the intricate, day to day handling of things in this house, he could have put some other type of ceiling on the activity where he could have handled it himself, and we could have had some indication then that over and above that figure we would be back in the position of having cabinet responsibility.
After all, that is the way we expect things are going to be done. We cannot examine

every individual item which comes along. But I think we sitting over here in the opposition have the right to expect that the responsibility is being taken by all the gentlemen on the treasury benches, and that it is not being carried on by one man alone. Hence I say that here is a piece of legislation that could have been submitted to the committee.
I might say this. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, when he said he was surprised, may have been surprised because it was this particular minister who was doing this to us. But certainly here is a piece of legislation that could easily have been submitted to the committee. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I might say that it would have received there some careful examination from the members on the government side as well. I have found that in committee they have just as many questions to ask as anyone else. It would be a good thing for this legislation to go there to be considered and then receive the stamp of approval of the whole house. But let us not go down this road to which I have referred, step by step. Here again is a place where a check can be put on this type of government. Let us think very seriously about it.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I think one of the things this bill shows most clearly is that you get far better legislation when it is drawn up by a Conservative government than you get when it is drawn up by a Liberal government. The original act stood for 70 years and it evidently pleased everybody. This act that is just being introduced pleases nobody. I think it is obvious that this bill should have been brought before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines in order to allow it to be examined, in order to bring before that committee the deputy ministers and the ministers themselves, and to let the committee give the bill-one as important as the minister has said this is-a thorough examination.
What this bill does is concentrate power in the hands of one minister. We have become accustomed to this government ignoring parliament. Now the government even wants to ignore itself. It does not even want to examine measures. It wants to have one minister do the whole job. Obviously in matters pertaining to the protection of navigable waters there is one minister who certainly should be brought in on those discussions, and that is the Minister of Transport. He is the one who is primarily responsible for preserving the navigability of these navigable waters.
As a member from Toronto I object particularly to the fact that this legislation gives 67509-325J
18, 1956
Navigable Waters Protection Act the Minister of Public Works the right to say what works can and cannot be built in Toronto harbour. That is now an important harbour and it will be more important in the future. I think it is completely wrong that the Minister of Public Works has the complete say, without consultation even with the Minister of Transport, in an important harbour such as that and in other important harbours across the country, as to what works can and cannot be built.
I think it is obvious that this legislation should be brought before the committee. I am surprised that the minister, who is usually reasonable, has been so unreasonable in this case. It makes one wonder, Mr. Chairman, what is the matter with this committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. It is a perfectly good committee. It is supposed to examine legislation of this kind. But all this government seems to do with respect to this committee is ignore it.
We had an example of that in the last few weeks. The pipe-line bill should have been brought before this committee and examined. The committee was ignored in that case. Here we have a bill which the Minister of Public Works says is one of the most important pieces of legislation we-have. Once again an important piece of legislation is not brought before that committee for examination. What is the matter-with the chairman of the committee? Have' the government no faith or no confidence in him? Do they not think he could do a proper job?
I should like to hear from the Minister of Public Works what his objection is to having this measure properly considered, and why he thinks that an examination by the committee would not be beneficial in this case.


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps I could answer that question by asking the hon. member what he has against the committee of the whole? What makes one committee better than another committee? I know the answer he will give-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. In any event, the decision of the house has been that we deal with it in committee of the whole. I really think we are somewhat out of order in discussing the matter of referring the bill to a committee at this stage. After all, we are dealing with clause 1 of the bill.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The committee can always change its mind.


Robert Henry Winters: I simply wish to remind hon. members that this bill has already been before a committee of the other house, where witnesses where heard. This is the second

Navigable Waters Protection Act time that the bill is before a committee, and in my opinion a very good committee. Any questions that are raised can be answered here; so I think it is quite wrong to give the impression that this bill is not receiving adequate consideration by committees of parliament.


George Harris Hees: The minister has asked what objection I have to the committee of the whole house. It is simply that we cannot call witnesses before this committee. We cannot have the deputy minister or other witnesses whom we would like to call before the committee for examination.


Robert Henry Winters: The Senate committee had that privilege.
:Mr. Hees: Mr. Chairman, you do not really consider that committees of that rest home down the hall give any kind of consideration to any measure?


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member well knows the rule with reference to the other place, and I think he would wish to reconsider those words.


George Harris Hees: Perhaps I could adopt the suggestion of the hon. member near me and call it a quiet haven.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Apparently in this committee we are discussing a bill to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It seems to me that nobody, including the minister, knows what navigable waters are or can define them. I certainly do not think it unreasonable that the minister be asked to insert a definition or interpretation, whatever he likes to call it, of navigable waters in this bill, so we will know what we are talking about. Apparently that is the situation now; we are talking about something and none of us knows what it is.


Mr. Charlton:: As the hon. member for Oxford has just stated, it is certainly essential that we know what this bill means. In order to know what the bill means, we must know what a navigable stream is. It has been said that the C.C.F. party to our left are Liberals in a hurry. I believe the Prime Minister made that statement. I do not think they could be in any greater hurry than this government is now. The time the measure would take in committee would be very small tin comparison to the amount of time that would be saved after it had been considered in committee.
The disease of power seems to be very infectious. We thought the Minister of Trade and Commerce was the only one who was so desirous of having these powers, but apparently now other ministers are coming along-probably it is the result of jealousy-


and asking for these powers. The disease seems to be very infectious. Other ministers are desirous of getting this particular power. I might say to the minister that under the terms of this bill he will have complete power over the St. Lawrence seaway.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: No, no.


John Alpheus Charlton: The reference in the bill is to any rebuilding, repairing or altering. After the seaway is built I presume some day it will have to be repaired, rebuilt or altered. The terms of this bill would give the minister charge of that part of the seaway.
I have the honour of representing a riding which includes the most of the Grand river, or a far greater percentage of it than any other riding. I presume the Grand river is a navigable water, so it seems that the minister could rip out any dam or tear down any of the things that are there now and would not have to ask permission to do so.
The hon. member for Calgary North mentioned a small stream running through a person's farm. I have a small stream running through my farm. I would not consider it navigable, but there are parts of it in which a canoe could be floated. There are other streams that I am sure could be considered navigable which run through farms, and does that mean a man could not put a line fence across the stream without getting the minister's permission? It would also mean that the minister could come along and tear down that fence if it were put up without his permission. A neighbour could complain that the fence had been constructed without permission and have it torn down.
There are many farms on which it is necessary to put a bridge over a stream in order to get to the farm buildings. Does this mean such people would have to go to the minister to get permission to build a bridge? It seems ridiculous. If the minister would give us a logical reason why he wants all these powers it might be different, but he has not given us that logical reason.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I do not like to keep pressing this point, but I think we are entitled to an explanation from the minister as to why he will not put in the bill some definition of what the word "navigable" means. If all these extra powers are to be given to the minister, it certainly seems sensible to me that some definition or explanation should be inserted in the bill as to what the word "navigable" means.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I did not intend to get into this debate at all, but a question now arises in my mind as to the river Thames. I have always understood that it

was navigable as far as Chatham, but I am wondering whether you are going to include London, and if so if you are going beyond London to the Fanshawe dam. What effect is that going to have on the water resources committee of the province of Ontario? I think this is rather hasty legislation and we should know a little more about it before we are asked to pass it.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: I wonder if the minister could tell us if he knows of any court judgment that may have been rendered with regard to waters being navigable within the meaning of the act. I have in mind this. I was wondering what the proceeding would be, for instance, if some person on a stream erected some work and another resident of the district objected to it on the ground it was being erected in navigable waters. Presumably if that were the case, after having appealed to the department to give some ruling, if the minister gave the same answer that we did not know what navigable waters were, then presumably that person would have recourse to the courts to prevent these people from doing that. If that were the case, would the department play any part in that litigation? Would they have representatives there? Is there a case in which the department has had to get a court judgment with regard to whether or not a stretch of water comes under this act?


Robert Henry Winters: In my relatively short
experience with this statute I know of no case in which we have actually been in court. I understand there is one pending now in western Canada, in which the department ruled that a certain structure could not be built over a stream because it was navigable. This is being contested, and I would imagine the officials of the department would appear if the case is taken to court. It has not yet been taken to court, but I understand that is being given serious consideration.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I do not want to say very much, but I do know that if we had had to wait for a cabinet meeting in Fort William it would have cost Fort William many dollars. Money is just as valuable up there as it is in Ottawa. I was going to ask the minister how many cases he had dealt with in the past year. I think he said there were 300, all under $5,000.


Robert Henry Winters: No, I would not say that. There have been over 300 applications, and a number of these exceeded that amount. But most of them were for small projects.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I do not think it necessary, no matter what the opposition says, to call a cabinet meeting to spend $300 or $400 on a
18, 1956
Navigable Waters Protection Act small project. The government would not do very much else if they had to call a cabinet meeting for each of these applications.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I think the hon. member for Fort William is under a misapprehension as to what we are saying. We are asking that this bill be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I suggest to the minister that during the dinner hour he might look up an old case of which I have a faint recollection, because we must have a definition of navigable water before we can pass this bill. There is an old case. As I recall it-the river Thames was mentioned a few minutes ago-one of the litigants was Williams, and it concerned the river Thames and its navigability above Chatham. It concerned the taking of gravel two or three miles above Chatham at a place called Kent Bridge. That was supposed to be the end of the stream's navigability. Whether that case would help I do not know. It certainly sounds like common sense to me.
When the bill was discussed in the house the hon. member for Victoria (Ont.) expressly stated that in his riding there was a little stream the water of which is now being carried down by two tiles; yet the minister's department calls it a navigable stream. It may be navigable for muskrats to run races in. How can we accept that as a navigable stream? It is beyond my comprehension and I am sure it must be beyond the comprehension of all hon. members in this house.
We must know what is a navigable stream. Is it a stream going through a farm? As has been said here, it is going to be necessary for the farmer to get permission from the department to build a bridge or to build a line fence. The thing is ludicrous until we know what the definition is. Surely the Department of Justice, or the legal advisers in the minister's department, can tell him what a navigable water is so we shall have it on the record. We are dealing with a very important subject, and until we know what the definition is we should not be asked to pass this bill in its present form. Before this bill passes the minister should give me an answer to the problem that is being faced in my particular riding.


Robert Henry Winters: I have already said that to the best of my knowledge the definition of whether a water is navigable is if it is capable of supporting navigation in the interests of the trade and commerce of the area. There are many local factors that enter into that. Surely hon. members do not think there is a hard and fast definition that has to do with a cross-sectional area of the stream, the speed of the current or any of these other

Navigable Waters Protection Act matters. I am told by the legal people that that is the generally accepted definition in law, whether or not a stream or a water is capable of supporting navigation in the interests of the local commerce of the area.
As to the other question raised by the hon. member for Lambton West, the situation there is that the structure has been started. It was started without an application under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and there simply is no authority under the statute to grant a permit. It is a matter for judgment on the part of the local officials as to whether they wish to finish the structure they have already started without seeking approval, but there is no authority in the statute to grant approval until the period of five years now being sought elapses.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Mr. Chairman, just on that point, I am very glad the minister has gone that far and said that the authorities can proceed with the project. The unfortunate part of it is that they have gone into it without getting any help from the provincial government. It is definitely understood that they can go ahead and get private subscriptions and even grants from the municipal council to complete the project?


Robert Henry Winters: It is a matter for the exercise of local judgment in that respect, sir.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Judgment of the council, I assume?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, in view of what the minister has just said as to his interpretation of what a navigable water or navigable stream is, how is any farmer, or any other person, in that situation to know whether he is at liberty to put a fence, a bridge, or any other structure across a stream which flows through his place? It seems to me that still leaves the thing in a very unsatisfactory state. With these thousands of small streams which exist in this country and which flow through people's farms, and so forth, it seems to me those people should be in a position to know whether they can carry on their normal operations which require bridges, fences, and so forth, or whether before they do anything they have to go to the expense of preparing plans and sending them in to the minister and then perhaps waiting a long time to get a decision and never knowing really where they are. Can the minister say that the provisions of this act generally speaking do not apply to those thousands of small streams which run through farmers' fields, and so on?


Robert Henry Winters: I cannot give any blanket statement such as that. The hon. member for Broadview said this was good legislation

and that it stood the test of time for 70-odd years because it was prepared by a Conservative government. I imagine the tests of navigability over the 70 years have been very much the same as they are now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There never has been any attention paid to this before.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, there was, to the extent of 300 applications a year.


John Alpheus Charlton: Another matter has come to my attention. What position would a person be in who was about to use water from a stream for irrigation purposes? It could interfere with navigation because it could lower the stream, as it has lowered streams in many instances around my own district. There has been considerable controversy about the use of this tremendous amount of water for irrigation in instances where people put in small dams to make pools on a small stream. I believe there is a case in court now having to do with whether or not it is right for a person to put a dam on a small stream. What is the position of a farmer if he takes water out of a stream, and some of these large irrigation trunks take a lot of water from streams? They lower the stream quite considerably with a 4-inch or a 6-inch line. What position is he going to be in? Is he going to have to go to the courts to find out first and prove to his own satisfaction whether a stream is navigable before he can stick an irrigation pump in it?


Robert Henry Winters: Under this part of the act the Minister of Public Works is concerned with structures. The bleeding off of water which changes the level of the stream, perhaps, is not related to the structures at all, and the Minister of Public Works would normally have no jurisdiction in that connection.


John Alpheus Charlton: Well, the work does not interfere substantially with navigation.


Robert Henry Winters: Is it a work, though; is it a structure?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, I am glad the minister has left the definition of water in small streams in a way which satisfies me. He said he was willing to leave it to the judgment of the municipality in which the stream is located to say whether or not the stream is navigable. I think that is fair. I think that is a good idea.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not think anything I said can be construed in such a way as to give it that interpretation. If the municipality decides that a stream is not navigable and wishes to put a structure on it without first obtaining approval, then it is up to it to take

the gaff if at any subsequent time the local citizens decide that their rights of navigation are impaired. It is a matter for local interpretation.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: In the case of the structure, if it did not affect anyone from the common sense point of view, was not an obstruction but was helping 10 or 15 people, would you not take the municipality's judgment in that case?


Robert Henry Winters: It is a question of whose ox is gored. There are courts to decide that problem.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Nobody's ox is being gored. The obstruction is on what you call navigable water, but the municipality says it is not navigable water and the province says it is not navigable water. Your department says it is. It may be a stream only 2 feet wide, and no boat ever went up there larger than an Indian canoe which may have gone up there 50 years ago. Nothing has gone up since. There has never been a log floated down the stream. In a case of that kind would you say that your engineer was right and that it is navigable water even though the municipality and the province say it is not? There is no obstruction to anybody, but it is giving benefit to a whole group of tourists who want a road in there, and who put a 16-inch tile in the creek. What is your decision on that?


Robert Henry Winters: What is my decision? I do not think it is before me for decision, Mr. Chairman.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: If you cannot make a decision now it will have to be made by a judge in Toronto, because the municipality will never lift that tile.


Mr. Churchill:: It is obvious the minister has approached this problem in a rather lighthearted manner, and he is now finding out that this is a serious proposal which he is putting before us. He should have accepted advice and had this matter discussed in a standing committee of the House of Commons where officials could have been called in and questioned. He proposed to do it in this manner, however, and he is not gaining any time by so doing.
The minister obviously has launched on a course of empire building. He wants his own little empire now. It has become the standard practice of the members of the cabinet, particularly those who are looking ahead. The minister must establish a position so he may rank on a level with other members of the cabinet who are inspired by similar thoughts.


John Borden Hamilton: He has not the
highway to link it up yet.
18, 1956
Navigable Waters Protection Act


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps the difficulty with the trans-Canada highway has caused him to divert his attention to something else which he thought he might slip through the House of Commons on Monday afternoon without any attention, but we are going to examine this empire and see just how solidly based it is.
It seems to me incorrect for someone to come along here, as is done from time to time, and say, "Now, for ease of administration it is better to make just a slight change, and here you have section 1 which is merely a modification of the interpretation section of the act; let it go through". When you look at it closely you discover that the modification of the interpretation section of the present act makes a major change in the existing act.
Now, why is that change necessary? Has the minister informed us? Has there been something wrong with the administration of the act over the last 70 years, or is there some other reason? No change should be made in the statutes of this country unless there is some good reason for that change. Has the minister put forward any good reason on this occasion? Not that I have heard yet, except the somewhat plausible excuse that for ease of administration it is better to have these matters under the Minister of Public Works.
If you examine the act closely you will discover that is not a good reason to advance. This act affects more than one minister. As has already been pointed out, the Minister of Transport is affected by part II of this act. When two ministers are concerned it is reasonable that the cabinet as a whole should take matters into consideration. Someone else has already pointed out that works done under this act affect provincial jurisdictions. There again I think it would be very important that the cabinet as a whole, which gives representation by area, should be apprised of any major works that are going to be undertaken under this particular act.
It is for these reasons, in my opinion, that the act was originally drawn up in its present form, so the cabinet as a whole could examine the proposals brought forward. All the ministers of the crown were given an opportunity to give their advice with regard to the proposals rather than having it rest with just one minister. I see no reason to make a change at this time. In matters of the magnitude of those covered under the present act I think the governor in council is the proper body to deal with it.
The Minister of Public Works, if given the authority he desires here, might engage in

Navigable Waters Protection Act construction over navigable waters that would interfere with plans of the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for keeping channels of communication open. You would have a conflict of interest there that would be difficult to resolve. That would not necessarily arise if in the future, as in the past, all projects were examined by the cabinet as a whole.
When you look at section 4 of the present act you find the minister has a certain limited responsibility. The framers of the act in the past had enough common sense to see there were minor construction projects, minor alterations and so on, that should not come before the cabinet as a whole, and the Minister of Public Works has that power already. While I think that is a fairly satisfactory arrangement, it could be modified at the present time to make allowance for the change in the value of money.
Those who framed this act had a fairly good idea of what was required in dealing with navigable waters. I am sure they must have examined the whole situation not only as it relates to the small stream, but the large river and the great lake as well. They must have said, "These are matters which should be the concern of the cabinet as a whole," and they must surely have considered that when great and expensive bridges were being built or large canals were being constructed or altered, the cabinet as a whole should give consideration to the matter. Millions of dollars might be involved in these projects. Why should the responsibility be given to just one minister?
When other ministers and jurisdictions are concerned the obvious place for the authority to rest is	with	the	cabinet	as	a whole.
Consequently the minister is making a mistake in coming before us with a bill of this nature, slipping in a little phrase to the effect that in section 1 "minister" means the Minister of Public Works, and asking us to put that into the interpretation section and then proceed. It is not going to be done quite so easily.
The minister is under obligation to inform this house	why	this	change	is	necessary.Why is he	doing	this? Why	does he want
this power? In the future what will be the difference that will result from this proposed change? If the proposed change is incorporated I think trouble may arise in the future as the result of giving so much power to the Minister of Public Works.
The minister	has	given	no	adequate
explanation of his reasons for wanting this change. He has not looked far enough ahead, and the house obviously is not convinced. Has the minister considered the implications

of placing in his hands the construction of million dollar enterprises, giving him the job of deciding whether or not they are adequate for the purpose for which they were constructed? Is he the one to determine alterations in connection with the St. Lawrence seaway in the future or in connection with any of the great projects across Canada? Is he the one to decide where and what bridges shall be built in the future? Is he the one to decide what shall be done concerning the navigable waters of the northern reaches of Canada as civilization progresses further north? Why just this one minister?
Of course, if the minister lives forever and continues in office forever-


Mr. Nowlan:: Heaven forbid the latter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -there may be some people who would say this is the man who could make a sensible decision; but people on this side of the house living so closely in companionship with the Minister of Public Works are not so sure he is either going to live forever or stay in office forever, or that he is necessarily equipped with the capacity to make decisions of this magnitude.
I suggest also to the minister that he change clause 1 and strike out the small alteration he is trying to slip into this act, and leave the direction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act to the governor in council. The cabinet as a whole should decide on these vast projects. The Minister of Public Works should be given authority over the smaller ones which come within the ambit of this act so the cabinet would not be overburdened with decisions. With the cabinet dealing with these matters the Minister of Transport would be protected with regard to his responsibilities and other jurisdictions would receive adequate protection. As it stands the bill is unsatisfactory.


George Harris Hees: I should like to ask the minister if he does not honestly think that the member of the cabinet who would be in the best position to know what would or would not impede navigation is the Minister of Transport. Does he not honestly think the Minister of Transport should have charge of this act?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, on that point I would again refer to the long-entrenched position which the hon. member cited earlier.


George Harris Hees: Even Conservatives can make mistakes.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I hope you heard that. That has been the situation since the dawn of time so far as this act is concerned. These applications have always been processed through the Minister of Public

Works because the Department of Public Works was one of the first departments established, in fact it was in existence before confederation. Whether that practice should be altered, I do not think I am the one to say. 1 am simply saying that has been the practice for years, and to the best of my knowledge it has worked satisfactorily. We are seeking no change in that procedure now.


George Harris Hees: As I say, even after 70 years perhaps this Conservative act could have some changes made in it. If the government is going to make changes in this act, I am asking the minister if in his opinion it does not seem logical, because it does seem logical to me, that if you are going to have to make decisions 300 times or more a year as to whether certain buildings, docks and things of that kind will impede transportation, is not the Minister of Transport in the best position to do it because he understands what are the navigational requirements of certain streams and rivers. What we are trying to do is make a good, sensible job of this act, and I am asking the minister, in all seriousness if in his own mind he does not think that is so.


Robert Henry Winters: As hon. members know, the Minister of Public Works is responsible for the construction of all wharves, breakwaters, skidways, groynes and thousands of other protection works, with certain exceptions. A great many of these applications have only local importance, being of interest to fishermen who navigate in the area and so on, and in that field I think the Department of Public Works has acquired more experience than perhaps any other department of government. I am not trying to convince hon. members that the Department of Public Works is the only department which can properly do things, because I do not believe that is true, but in this instance I consider it is appropriate that the Minister of Public Works should decide whether these structures will or will not impede navigation.


George Harris Hees: The original act has stood the test of time for 70 years, and under the original act the Minister of Public Works had to bring these measures before the whole cabinet. In the cabinet there would be discussion in which the Minister of Transport and all other ministers whose areas might be concerned would participate. That provided a definite safeguard.
Does the minister not think that rather than these decisions being made by him and his department, certainly in connection with the larger projects the decisions should be made in co-operation with the Minister of Transport, who would have a greater knowledge of what should or should not be 67509-326
Navigable Waters Protection Act allowed in the way of obstructions? There should be a requirement that the Minister of Public Works should obtain approval from the Minister of Transport in connection with projects costing over a certain amount.
I quite agree that the smaller projects could be handled by the minister and his department, but I think the Minister of Transport should be brought in on these discussions. For instance Toronto, in which I am particularly interested, will be a most important harbour once the St. Lawrence seaway is developed, and I certainly would like to feel that the Minister of Transport was looking over all projects having to do with wharves, buildings and things of that kind before they were given the O.K.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
George Harris Hees: At six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I was asking the minister, since the act is being changed by the bill so there is no requirement to bring these measures before the whole cabinet and they can be decided by the one minister alone, whether he did not consider that it would be better to have these decisions at least made by the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Transport, because the Minister of Transport should know more about the requirements of navigability than the Minister of Public Works. I would appreciate it if the minister would give me his opinion and tell the committee if he does not think the two ministers together should be in consultation on at least the major projects, rather than the minister alone.


Robert Henry Winters: I am sure the hon. member is aware that there is cabinet solidarity here-


Howard Charles Green: Since when?


Robert Henry Winters: -and that every minister who acts on his own responsibility is not apt to do anything that is inconsistent with the responsibilities of any other minister. I think he can take it that the minister, in the exercise of his judgment, is certain to canvass all other ministers who have an interest in the particular subject or who are in a position to help. I can assure him that would follow automatically.


Howard Charles Green: There are one or two other matters concerning which I should like to ask the minister for an answer. First of all, how is this control going to be exercised in

Navigable Waters Protection Act so far as rivers are concerned which come under the International River Improvements Act passed last year? Those rivers are primarily the Columbia river, the rivers running through the panhandle of Alaska, and the Saint John river.
As I understand it, that act is under the administration of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I have a copy of that act here, and I believe there is no mention of the minister of that department in the act itself. Powers are given to the governor in council in the same way they were given to the governor in council under the existing Navigable Waters Protection Act. Regulations under the International River Improvements Act are to be made by the governor in council, just as they are at present under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
The bill before us now will make a difference between the two types of work. The International River Improvements Act will be under the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources for administration but the regulations will be made by the governor in council, which I think is the way it should be. However, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act the Minister of Public Works will have all the power and in addition he will have the power to make regulations. Incidentally, I notice that the act reads that he will have power to make regulations for navigation purposes, which just shows how ridiculous it is to have the Minister of Public Works in charge of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the main purpose of which is to protect navigation. I think the act should be administered by the Minister of Transport.
Will the minister explain what will happen on these international rivers? Suppose a company wants to build a dam or a pier on the Arrow lakes to cost say a million dollars. I think the Kaiser dam was to cost $2 million. Under the proposed amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act the Minister of Public Works can say whether or not the dam is to be built. I presume they would then have to go to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources under the other act. Will the minister explain just how this is going to be worked out?
I give this illustration to show that it would seem to me to be much wiser to have the authority given to the governor in council. Then the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Minister of Transport could be sitting in with the Minister of Public Works and all the ministers affected could make the decision.


My second point has to do with harbours, first of all national harbours and, second, harbours where there are independent commissions. Will the minister explain how works to be erected in these harbours will be permitted and just where the Minister of Transport fits into that picture?


Robert Henry Winters: These are all matters of cooperation among the various ministers concerned, and just because a statute does not specifically say that an application has to be referred to a committee of the cabinet does not mean that the members of the government concerned do not consider it and consider it very fully. Generally, as this statute points out, the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works is limited to the navigational aspects of structures in navigable waters, and when the Minister of Public Works has authority by this bill to make regulations for navigation there is the limitation that he can only make regulations for navigation purposes respecting any work to which this part applies.
With respect to international rivers, this statute will apply as it has applied heretofore in the case of structures that are being built and are likely to have any bearing on navigation, just as on any river that flows entirely within our national boundaries. There is no problem there. We have been discussing with the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources the general application of our various jurisdictions, and those talks are still going forward because we want to have it clearly understood in both departments just what our responsibilities are.
With respect to harbours administered by the national harbours board, if there is a structure to be built an application is made under the terms of part I of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and it is processed through the Minister of Public Works just as the act presently provides.


Howard Charles Green: But then submitted to the governor in council.


Robert Henry Winters: Heretofore it has been submitted to the governor in council. The change here is that the minister will have the authority now, but the procedure is still the same apart from that.


Howard Charles Green: The procedure is the same apart from the power to make the real decision, which at the present time is held by the governor in council. By this bill that power of deciding is being taken away and placed with the Minister of Public Works. Is that not a fact?


Robert Henry Winters: To this extent, that heretofore the decision was submitted to the governor in

council on the recommendation of the minister and now the decision is to be made at the ministerial level. The reason for that is the multitudinous number of these applications deal largely with very small projects. They are usually matters of transmission lines over streams and the like. It seemed to the government that a more reasonable and expeditious way to handle them was for the minister to assume the responsibility and have the authority that goes with it.


Howard Charles Green: Why not divide these applications? The minister has said several times today that there are quite a large number of applications. It would be very helpful if he could break down the number and tell the committee how many there are in each category. In the last annual report of his department for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1955, there is the following at page 13:
The number of applications made for approval of the plans and sites of works in navigable waters pursuant to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Railway Act, the Pipe Lines Act and special statutes continued to increase with 225 applications being processed during the fiscal year. Two licences for the operation of international ferries were issued.
That refers to four different types of operations, one under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, a second under the Railway Act, a third under the Pipe Lines Act and a fourth under special statutes. The bill we are considering today only deals with the first group. Can the minister give us a breakdown of what those numbers are and then a further breakdown giving the types that have been made under the Navigable Waters Protection Act?
I think nobody objects to the minister himself dealing with minor applications. There is no controversy about them. What we are worried about are the big applications which really matter, where there is a large amount of money involved or where a structure is of great importance from a navigational point of view. For that latter group we think it is wiser to retain the control in the governor in council. Can the minister give us a breakdown showing how many are in each category?


Robert Henry Winters: Speaking from memory, I
would think that much less than 10 per cent of the total number of applications made are of any significant size. The rest of them are rather matters of routine processing of applications which have to do with small structures; largely they are in connection with the spanning of streams by transmission wires. That is what constitutes the general run of applications.
67509-326J
18, 1956
Navigable Waters Protection Act


Howard Charles Green: Why not leave the power in the governor in council to deal with this 10 per cent which are really important and vital, and let the minister take the power to deal with the smaller ones? Would not that be the reasonable way to do it, rather than to give him complete jurisdiction over all these applications, no matter how large the scheme may be?


Robert Henry Winters: It is very difficult to try to break them down on a dollar basis. Sometimes a smaller structure such as a bridge which might cost only $200 or $300 might have a most important effect on navigation whereas, conversely, a very expensive structure might have a relatively small effect on navigation. I might say that we have considered some such delineation, but it just did not seem to be practical because there is no way of breaking down on dollar value and saying that just because something costs a great deal of money, its effect on navigation is important.


Howard Charles Green: But in the bill the minister himself has made a division. In the new section 4 he has differentiated between a bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau or causeway and the other works. Why could there not be a breaking down on that same basis of the powers exercised by the governor in council and by the minister?


Robert Henry Winters: On that point, may I say that is a matter of policy, Mr. Chairman; and the government felt that the responsibility for making the determination should be vested in the minister.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Just in order to get clear in my own mind how this act will be worked, I have a question to ask. For instance, the minister knows that we hope there will be some extensive developments on the Columbia river within a few years. In the meantime, suppose some company or some person comes along and wants approval for a certain work. Then later suppose the raising of waters or something of that sort covers this work or floods it. Does the minister give consideration to a situation like that as a result of consultation with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, so this person or corporation would not get approval to build a certain work now and then have a claim say in four or five years against the crown or the authority building a dam or raising the waters, or against even a private company doing the same thing? Are these matters investigated?


Robert Henry Winters: Very much so; yes.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think some of the answers we have just received from the minister in reply to some

Navigable Waters Protection Act of the questions he has been asked further substantiate the argument we have been making, namely that this legislation should have been sent to the committee. I want to continue on that line for just a moment. It seems to me that almost every clause in this bill contains some type of technical wording. I would think the only place where we can possibly get the answer from the [DOT]experts-that is, the experts over and above the minister-would be in a committee.
I know I am not supposed to refer specifically to the items that are contained in the legislation, but I might say that, in connection with the clauses, I see wording like this: We have added the word "altering," making the phrase "rebuilding, repairing or altering". It would be interesting to know why this type of wording is required as an addition in a section of this kind. Perhaps we shall get the answer from the minister, but I say that in all likelihood it is something that should be explained by those experts in the department who have had something to do with drafting the legislation itself.
Further, I notice that we use the term "substantially" in the phrase "the work does not interfere substantially." Here again we are placing in the hands of the minister some very great power. He alone is going to be *the person who will make the decision.
Farther down in clause 4 we find the words '"that the work was urgently required". Here is another term that I defy almost anyone to define, certainly from the legal standpoint. These words, Mr. Chairman, are all in addition to the words "navigable waters" which I notice have been referred to in legal cases but have been shoved aside very quickly when it came to giving judgment, so that little attention has been paid to the actual definition of the words themselves.
Then later on we have the words "if in the opinion of the minister, the interference with navigation..." That is another very technical term in connection with this legislation; I refer to the term "interference," and the fact that the minister is going to take upon himself the whole power to determine whether something constitutes "interference".
And last, there is a technical point I think in the last clause of the bill dealing with the question of the minister making orders or regulations for navigation purposes in connection with this act; and then the fact that the governor in council may make orders and regulations for purposes affecting navigation if it emanates from any other act of the parliament of Canada. The question there is as to which would be the superseding authority.
All these words remind me of a case during the period of the wartime prices and trade
]M!'. Hamilton (York West).]
board regulations in which the term used in the legislation was "prices reasonable and just". I know the supreme court of Ontario in that case said that they just were not subject to definition. Yet here in this type of legislation we find at least five or six examples of terms which have wide ramifications, and in which we are allowing one man to make the decision as to what they actually mean. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully request that even now it is not too late for this legislation to be referred to a committee where we can really get down to it and find out what it means.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Before the dinner recess we were trying to get from the minister a definition of what is a navigable stream or a navigable water, and I had referred to a case that I thought was in 1910 or 1911. As a matter of fact it was in 1908, and it happened to be in the area in which I was living at that time and it concerned the river Thames. I think it is important for us to have a proper interpretation of what is navigable and what is not navigable on the record so there will not be any doubt in our minds, and we are the ones who are passing the bill. I certainly do not know what is navigable, and I doubt whether any member of this house knows what is navigable.
This was a case on the point. I just want to read two or three sentences from the evidence in this particular case, which concerned a dispute between two farmers about taking gravel from the bed of the river, and apparently there was also the question of a crown grant in the centre of the river or to the bank. What I am concerned about here are two or three references. This is in the case of Williams v. Pickard, found in 17 Ontario Law Reports, 1908-09. This was a judgment reversing the decision of the divisional court.
Held, reversing the decision of the divisional court . . . that the northerly boundary went to the centre of the stream.
I mention that, and continue:
The main question is whether this description gives the grantee to the middle of the stream, or only to the bank.
Then this struck me in a casual glance at this case:
Then, coming to the question, why should the crown reserve the bed of this river-all the land beyond the post?
That is one of the descriptive points.
History, as well as the evidence in this case, gives a very sufficient reason. The navigability of the river Thames up to the forks-now the city of London-has always been in contemplation, and it has always been known that to make navigation, at all seasons of the year, reasonably practicable, the construction of weirs and locks, dredging and embanking, would be necessary;

Then I come to the next to the last paragraph:
On the question of the navigability of the river Thames, I desire to guard against being considered in agreement with the trial judge in his finding. That that river is navigable for some distance, and to some extent, is too well known to require any sort of proof. It is not needful, in this case, to consider whether it is navigable at the place in question:
That is the point at which the lawsuit involving the gravel arose.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this house should know and have on record a definition of a navigable stream. We have heard about streams going through farms and all that sort of thing, and none of it has been refuted. I would contend, as an ordinary human being with some understanding of the problems we face, that such streams could not be considered navigable. This is important legislation and I think it is very important that the members of this house, as well as the people of this country, know what is navigable.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Joseph Warner Murphy: No, I should like an answer to that question. I think the house is entitled to it. You have had during the recess to consider it.


Robert Henry Winters: I have already put on the record three times the best definition I am able to give of that.


Mr. Trainor:: I do not profess to have any qualifications on the technical aspects of this legislation. However, there are one or two observations I should like to make. It seems to me that one of the outstanding observations one could make of this debate is that members of all three opposition parties have raised questions they considered of interest and importance to their constituents. The conspiracy of silence on the government side has been equally apparent. Surely all the interests of the constituents of this country do not rest on this side of the house. One would expect that some evidence of this would exist on the government side. Still we have not heard one word from any member on the government side except the hon. member for Fort William, who was mainly concerned with justifying- I am sorry; did the hon. member for Kootenay East speak? At any rate there have been very few who have contributed anything on this important piece of legislation.
It may be, of course, that the government subscribes to the dictum of the poet in this respect that-


Mr. Dickey:: Order.


Frank Exton Lennard: That is right; call your members to order.
18, 1956
Navigable Waters Protection Act


John Horace Dickey: I am calling your member to order.


Frank Exton Lennard: The hon. member for
Kootenay East is the one you should call to order. He starts everything and finishes nothing. You know that.


John Horace Dickey: You know the member who is speaking is out of order.


Owen C. Trainor: It may be that the government subscribes to the words of the poet in this respect, that we do not like anything except what the government elects on this particular point. I do not believe the government necessarily has all the wisdom in the world in this respect, and they should call to a certain extent upon the judgment of individual members. It may be that individual members are not always correct in their assumptions, but at the same time I do not think the government are always correct, either, in their particular assumptions. One notices, for example, that there is a tendency to submit to the government's view on all these questions.
Now, I believe there should be some room for individuals who express their own ideas,, because those ideas are likely to more closely' approximate the ideas of their constituents. We have seen a total absence of this particular element in this debate. Apparently the-government has set out the idea of what shall be true. As somebody has said, it is the idea of the engineer. Engineers, and I noted this was received with applause from the opposite side of the house, are supposed to represent efficiency. Do they always represent efficiency?
Let us take a look at that. They do nof. Individual corporations employ engineers at times, and if they do not like what the engineers tell them they fire the engineers. Perhaps we should fire some of the engineers who tell us what we should do in this house. As a matter of fact I believe that the common sense of the Canadian people will come into play in this respect. It may be, of course, that the government is thinking along the lines of that idea in Gray's Elegy "Full many a Liberal is born to blush unseen and waste his sweetness in the desert air"-that is if a Liberal can blush, which one would be in some doubt about after the performance in the last few sessions in this house.
However, be that as it may, I think the minister would be justified, indeed wise if I may say so, in paying some attention to the representations that have been made from this side of the house on behalf of Canadian citizens. It will not profit the minister very much to force things through on the basis of the majority he possesses. He knows he can do it, and of course that is admitted. The

Navigable Waters Protection Act ultimate effect upon the Canadian public is not going to be good if he chooses to do so. I would advise the minister very sincerely to take cognizance of the representations that have been made to him from the opposition groups, which indicate that the people of Canada actually have some interest in this particular legislation, and he had better listen to them.


Mr. Richardson:: Mr. Chairman, coming as I do from one of the constituencies that is *within the boundaries of the great port and *city of Montreal, I have some interest in this bill. The second half of my lifetime I have lived in that great inland city. The first half of my life, though, I lived on the Atlantic ocean, and I myself, if you will allow a personal reference, have been a member of the bar for some 33 years, in the civil law and in the common law. I have read this bill twice over, myself. I understand it. With whatever due modesty I can command, as a member of the legal profession, I understand the bill.
My hon. friend who just spoke referred twice to some poetry, and had a little difficulty quoting it. After having what I believe to be a complete comprehension of this bill I say to all:
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring;


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the clause carry?


Howard Charles Green: The minister has said, and I think quite correctly, that there is no definition of navigable water. Surely his department must have some method of deciding what waters are navigable and what are not. Are there not some rules by which his department acts? How do they decide whether a water is navigable? Do they send out an engineer in each case to decide whether a particular river or lake is navigable, or is there any rule as to what type of vessels must be used on the water? Are there any rules at all?


Robert Henry Winters: It depends on the local situation, Mr. Chairman, and each particular case is examined on its own individual merits.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Application.
John Borden Hamilton: Would the minister explain the need for the addition of words "or altering".


Robert Henry Winters: This is the result of what was an obvious defect in the act as it stood. Under the old statute we had authority to deal with repairs and rebuilding, but we had

no authority whatever to deal with alterations. With respect to many of those structures already existing in navigable waters there was need for alteration. It became a matter of legal definition as to what was a repair, what was a renewal and what was an alteration. We were caught in the middle, and what we are doing here is correcting what was, or what seemed to us, an obvious defect.


John Borden Hamilton: I understand from the minister, then, that this contemplates an addition to an existing structure?


Robert Henry Winters: My own concept of it is that it would almost always be in the nature of an addition to an existing structure.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Construction of works in navigable waters subject to approval of minister.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, why is this distinction made in clause 3 between a bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau and causeway and the other works which are defined in the definition clause of the original act? They include wharf, dock, pier or other structure, tunnel or pipe, or telegraph or power cable or wire and the approaches or other works necessary or appurtenant thereto, or any work, structure or device, whether similar in character to the foregoing or not, which may interfere with navigation. On what basis did the department pick out these works-bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau or causeway-and leave out at least some of the others which would seem to be just as important and just as likely to impede navigation?


Robert Henry Winters: It was considered from our experience, Mr. Chairman, that these were the sort of structures that have been most apt to interfere with navigation. We endeavour here to broaden the exceptions. Under the old statute certain exceptions were specifically stated. Now we are saying that unless the work in question is a bridge, a boom, a dam, aboiteau or causeway, then the minister may deal with it without going through the formal procedure that is prescribed in the statute.


Howard Charles Green: Does that not have the effect of making it unnecessary, for example, for a pipe-line company to comply with the terms of the act in putting a pipe-line across a river?


Robert Henry Winters: No. I am quite sure it does not make it unnecessary, Mr. Chairman.


Howard Charles Green: That is not included in the definition of bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau or

causeway. It would seem to make it very easy for them to get by without following the act.


Walter Edward Harris: The minister consents in the previous subsection.


Robert Henry Winters: The pipe line would have to get the authority of this statute. For one thing, it is almost certain to cost more than the $5,000. That was looked into, and I am quite certain that the position of the pipe line is protected and that it must receive authority under this statute.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would be interested in a question that is of vital importance to the mari-times particularly. Has he heard the last report from New Brunswick and is he able to give an answer. Conservatives elected, 14; leading, 25; Liberals leading, 13; elected, none.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have a couple of questions that I should like to ask in connection with this clause. First of all, to satisfy my curiosity I should like to know what an "aboiteau" is; I do not know.


Robert Henry Winters: An aboiteau is one of those structures that are frequently found in Nova Scotia. It is a development from the old Acadian days when the marshes were drained. It is a structure provided in a dike to allow the tidal waters to run off the marshes; then the gate closes automatically to keep the sea water out.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: We have similar structures in British Columbia but not under that name. My next question relates to the question that was asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in connection with pipe lines. What is the situation with respect to an aqueduct? I can see some point in the minister's argument that a power cable or a submarine pipe line might not ordinarily be considered as likely to interfere with navigation as a bridge or boom would. But suppose somebody wants to suspend a pipe line across a stream or an inlet; would it be covered under the terms of a bridge?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes; a bridge.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Personally I do not quarrel at all with the proposal in this section to increase the value of the exempted work from $1,000 to $5,000, because I think that probably is simply bringing the act in line with present valuations of the works that were contemplated when the original act was drawn; but it does seem to me that clause 3 of this bill is really the essence of the proposal to change the act, because this is the clause which in effect changes the power
18. 1956
Navigable Waters Protection Act which has been in the governor in council to the minister in regard to the approval of sites and plans. I think that is probably the most important question that we are discussing in connection with this bill, although there are some others, of course.
Although, as I indicated on second reading, I feel there may very well be many instances when routine approval by the minister would be quite satisfactory, nevertheless I can foresee situations arising where it might be desirable that the minister not be the court of last resort in connection with this matter. I think we should give some serious consideration to this clause before we pass it in its present form.
For this reason, Mr. Chairman, and in order to indicate what I feel would be one alternative way of dealing with this, I would like to propose that this clause be amended in such a way as to perhaps compromise with some of the views expressed by hon. members and the views the minister put forward in the bill itself.
My amendment would provide a situation wherein the ordinary routine applications to which the minister has been referring and which have been increasing in number could be proceeded with in the usual manner with advertising, and at the end of the required period receive the approval of the minister; but I feel there should be some method by which these applications in the last resort could at least come before the governor in council. Therefore I would like to propose that clause 3 of Bill No. 388 be amended. I move:
That clause 3 of Bill No. 388 be amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection :
(3) Decisions of the minister under this section shall be subject to an appeal to the governor in council under such terms and conditions as the governor in council may by regulations provide.


Robert Henry Winters: I think perhaps I can dispose of this in just a moment. The decisions under this section are not normally the kind that are considered for appeal in any event. Notice of the application is given in the Canada Gazette and two local newspapers. That is for the purpose of giving the public themselves the chance to protest if they care to do so; if they feel their individual rights are being infringed in any way. By the time this comes before the minister there has either been an appeal lodged by somebody who feels that his rights are being injured, or there is no objection at all and then the request is granted.
It seems to me that provision for an appeal in this instance is unnecessary and, Mr. Chairman, I therefore must say I would feel obliged to vote against the amendment.



S146 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Navigable Waters Protection Act
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the minister
forgets that in quite a few of these applications under this new bill there will not be any advertisements at all. The minister is taking the power here to make the decisions himself without any advertising being required whatever in all cases where he believes the work will not interfere substantially with navigation. The word "substantially", by the way, is an entirely new provision in the bill. Formerly the act read "interfere with navigation" and now the word "substantially" is put in. That was obviously put in as a protection for the people who are going to erect these obstructions.
The bill also refers to instances where, in the minister's opinion, the value of the work does not exceed $5,000. In those cases there is no need for advertising at all. If the minister decides in favour of allowing the obstruction the man who is affected by that obstruction has absolutely no rights whatever. He may not know a thing about it until permission has been granted.
I do suggest that this amendment improves the bill, giving the opportunity to appeal to the governor in council. I do not believe the power of decision should ever have been taken away from the governor in council as is being done in this bill, but if it is to be taken away from the governor in council and put in the hands of the minister alone surely there should be an appeal to the governor in council. After all, there are still a few rights left in this country, and surely there is no reason why the person affected by these decisions should not have the right to appeal.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, in reply to that I simply say we are making no change from the provisions of the present statute which says, in section 4, subsection 2:
The provisions of this section do not apply to small wharves or groynes or other bank or beach protection works, or boathouses, if in the opinion of the Minister of Public Works
(a)	they do not interfere with navigation, and
(b)	do not cost more than one thousand dollars.
That $1,000 is being raised to $5,000 but the principle is the same. There was no appeal there and I submit no appeal is necessary here.


Howard Charles Green: But the minister is again overlooking the fact that on all the other applications where the minister does not exempt them from advertising the governor in council has nothing to do with it and there is no right of appeal whatever. This amendment will give the right of appeal in both cases; in the first place, in cases where there has been advertising and the minister has decided against the person who wishes to appeal, and in the second place in this other group of

applications which is now much larger than it could have been under the original act.
The exemptions under the original act were very limited. They applied only to small wharves, groynes or other bank or beach protection works, or boathouses, if in the opinion of the Minister of Public Works they did not interfere with navigation. The minister has now slipped in the word "substantially", which of course gives him that much wider power to rule in favour of an applicant. The other provision concerned the $1,000. There is a very big difference, because under the new bill all sorts of obstacles come under subclause 2 with the exception of bridges, booms, dams, aboiteaux or causeways.
I do suggest again the amendment improves the act. In all fairness to the people who are going to be affected by the decisions made by the minister alone there should be the right of appeal to the governor in council.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the amendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and like the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra I feel it does improve the section I, too, feel the change that is being made by the section-without this amendment, at any rate-should not be made.
I am a little amazed at the Minister of Public Works standing up and saying that no real change is being made by what clause 3 of this bill does to section 4 of the act. He admits, of course, that the change from $1,000 to $5,000 is being made but he tries to create the impression that that is the only change. Surely this is clear, Mr. Chairman. Under the act as it now stands any work that exceeds $1,000 in value has to be approved by the governor in council; under the new act anything above $5,000 in value would have to be approved only by the Minister of Public Works; anything below $5,000 in value has only to be declared by the Minister of Public Works as something which he does not even have to approve.
That may be putting it a bit strangely, but is that not what the section as amended will provide, namely that everything will be in the hands of the Minister of Public Works? If it is worth $5,000 or more, he has to approve it; if it is worth less than $5,000, he so indicates, and then having given that indication he does not even have to approve it. Surely that is quite a change from the situation under which the governor in council came into the picture where any work was of a value in excess of $1,000.
I think there has been a bit of carelessness in the drafting of this clause. It looks

to me as though those who drafted it tried to recast what is already in section 4 of the act. Apparently they felt that some of the wording had to be carried over. Section 4 of the act as it now is reads:
4. (1) No work shall be built or placed in, upon, over, under, through or across any navigable water unless the site thereof has been approved by the governor in council, nor unless such work is built, placed and maintained in accordance with plans and regulations approved or made by the governor in council.
The point I am making is that in the old section there is a definition of regulations; regulations are spelled out as being regulations approved or made by the governor in council. But the amended clause will read:
4. (1) No work shall be built or placed in, upon over, under, through or across any navigable water unless
(a)	the site and plans thereof have been approved by the minister; and
(b)	tne work is built, placed and maintained in accordance with the plans and the regulations.
I ask the minister to tell us what is the meaning of the last two words in subclause 1 of the new clause 4; I refer to the words "the regulations".


Robert Henry Winters: I would refer the hon. member to clause 6 which reads:
Tne minister may make such orders or regulations as he deems expedient-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister suggest
that the general power of regulation under the act covers the reference in what would be section 4 to "the regulations"? It seems to me that those words are just left hanging in thin air. Actually the stipulation set out in the amended clause 4 does not hang together; it does not have any meaning or any reference. I feel that what happened is that at the request of the minister somebody has redrafted the old section 4 and tried to take out the requirement of reference to the governor in council, and in so doing has emasculated the clause until it does not mean anything at all.
All it now says is that the minister is the boss; if it is above $5,000 he has to approve; if it is below $5,000 he just has to say, "It is below $5,000 and it does not interfere substantially with navigation," and therefore he does not even have to approve.


George Clyde Nowlan: Unless it is a bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau or causeway.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings says, "Unless it is a bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau or causeway." The only conclusion one can draw from that exception in subclause 2 is that if it is a bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau or causeway it does come under the exception and is therefore one of the works the minister has to approve.
Navigable Waters Protection Act We are given just two choices. Either the minister approves it or the minister tells us that he does not have to approve it.


Robert Henry Winters: That is not right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says that that is not right, but I would be glad to have him explain it. Perhaps I had better put the rest of section 4 on the record so it will be there:
(2) This section does not apply to any work, other than a bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau or causeway, if in the opinion of the minister
(a)	the work does not interfere substantially with navigation, and
(b)	the value of the work does not exceed five thousand dollars.
My contention is that this clause means that if the value is in excess of $5,000 or if it is a bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau or causeway, the minister has to give his approval. If it is anything else the minister simply indicates that he does not have to give his approval. In either case it is in the hands of the minister. It seems to me that it is a bad clause in the first place, but it would be improved to some extent by the amendment which has been proposed by my colleague.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with the question of how the amendment applies. The minister has given an explanation in connection with this clause, but it strikes me that under some circumstances there might be quite an advantage to the minister if there were some form of appeal from his decision. What the minister says about notice having to be given and there being an opportunity for anyone concerned to raise objection is perfectly true; nevertheless if the minister has made his decision, even though there might be some objection, as far as I can see it that is it.
As I suggested earlier, the only redress open to anyone would be to get rid of the Minister of Public Works who was holding office at that particular time, but that might not necessarily be the most desirable thing to have happen for the person who was involved. He might think that otherwise the minister was a fairly good Minister of Public Works, but if he refused to hear the objection raised in a particular situation or, on the other hand, if he listened to the objection that was raised and turned it down, then where are we left? I presume the matter could be raised on the floor of the house by a member of parliament, but parliament might not be sitting for a period of months and then there would be no court of appeal.
One reason in the back of my mind for proposing this amendment is the experience we had in British Columbia in connection with appeals from decisions of ministers, or there
5148	HOUSE OF
Navigable Waters Protection Act not being any such appeal. I am thinking of the situation which arose in connection with the issuance of forest management licences. I do not recall all the details of that situation, and if I did I would not take the time of the committee to relate them. I do know there was a great deal of heat generated in British Columbia over this question with respect to whether or not the minister should have the right to turn thumbs down on a particular application for a forest management licence, and if proper machinery had been set up in the first instance for an appeal from the minister to the governor in council the matter probably could have been settled with a good deal less heat and to the better satisfaction of all concerned.
I still feel that some such provision in this legislation would mean a greater degree of flexibility in its application to some situations. A situation requiring an appeal might arise only once in five or ten years, but the very fact that there was provision for some appeal from the decision of the minister might in itself work toward a satisfactory solution without the necessity of anyone having to resort to an appeal. I really wish the minister could see his way clear to accept a proposal along the lines I have suggested.
Amendment (Mr. Barnett) negatived: Yeas, 27; nays, 59.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the clause carry?


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kootenay East was good enough to send me over a dictionary to help me out, but it really does not help too much in defining the word "substantially". The minister is going to have some dandies to deal with when this goes through. I wonder how he is going to define the word "substantially".


Robert Henry Winters: I have not the benefit of a dictionary before me, but I would think there would have to be real interference with navigation before the word "substantially" would apply. It could not be just some imagined interference. It would have to be demonstrated that there was real interference, and that is why the word "substantially" was inserted.


John Borden Hamilton: Is there any particular definition of real interference?


Robert Henry Winters: I have no definition of that, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: There is one other matter I should like to bring to the minister's attention in connection with clause 3. Subclause 2 exempts certain works from having to have
(Mr. Barnett.]

formal approval. Am I correct in understanding that not only under this bill but also under the old act those works which are exempt from being required to have formal approval do not have to be advertised before they are built? If that is so, I raise the question whether it might not be desirable to have some provision whereby some form of public notice would be given of the intention to construct such works.
The works which have to be advertised are published in the Canada Gazette. Everyone interested enough to peruse the columns of the Canada Gazette is aware of the fact that applications are being made, and those who read their newspapers also know. Inasmuch as the act has been opened, I wonder whether it might not be desirable to have some provision, perhaps not as formal as that required for larger projects, for giving public notice of the intention to construct such works so that if anyone had any objection to their erection or was of the opinion that they would interfere substantially with navigation they would have the opportunity of expressing their views to the minister before the works actually came into being. Would the minister give consideration to that suggestion?


Robert Henry Winters: I think that is quite a good suggestion. I have been discussing that very point with our officials and the law officers, and while we have not worked out the means of doing it we do intend to inform the public of the granting of approvals in all these instances.


Owen C. Trainor: I should like to make an appeal on behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There appears to be a conflict of dictatorship here. This bill mentions-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Owen C. Trainor: -pipe lines, and I suggest that is a matter that is reserved for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Minister of Public Works has no business butting into pipe lines.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. doctor, who has become a gem of purest ray serene tonight, has uttered words of wisdom which I shall be glad to keep in mind.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Removal of unauthorized works.
Howard Charles Green: Clause 4 writes a new section 5 into the act, and subsection 2 of that section 5 seems to be an entirely new principle in the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It reads:
The minister may, subject to deposit and advertisement as in the case of a proposed work,

approve of the plans and site of a work after construction thereof has commenced
(a)	if, prior to commencement of construction, the minister, having been satisfied that the work was urgently required, consented in writing to commencement of construction; or
(b)	if five years have elapsed since completion of construction of the work;
and such approval has the same effect as if given prior to commencement of construction of the work.
A great many of these works will not even require the formal approval of the minister because they will be exempt under subsection 2 of section 4 of the act once this bill has been passed. What number of cases are there which require this urgent action? As I read this provision, it is not even necessary for the applicant to file a plan. It certainly is not necessary for him to do any advertising before the minister gives a letter authorizing that the work be commenced.
What are the types of works for which this great speed is required? Where quick action of that type is taken, where a short cut of that nature is used, surely the Minister of Transport should be brought into the picture, because the effect of the work is to interfere with navigation. Why is provision not made there that these things should be done with the consent and approval of the Minister of Transport? It is bad enough to provide for the minister to write these letters and thereby permit the construction of the work without the time taken to advertise and without the people who are going to be affected knowing anything about it. As I say, that is bad enough. But surely it is just as bad to keep the Minister of Transport out of the picture. If there are to be these emergency cases, then the Minister of Transport should be brought into the picture.
Actually, under the new section 9 he must be appealed to; he must give his consent in the case of a work in a national harbour, except under this very subsection 2 of section 5. I cannot understand why he should not be brought into the picture not only on a work in a national harbour but also in connection with any other works where this short cut is being taken.


Robert Henry Winters: I can assure the hon. member that where the interests of the Minister of Transport are concerned he will certainly be brought into the picture.


Howard Charles Green: Why not say so in the act?


Robert Henry Winters: There are not many cases where this will apply, but where it does it is generally a matter of urgency. I think this is one section that badly needs to be inserted in the act in order to give it a measure of workability which it now sadly lacks. There are structures pending now
Navigable Waters Protection Act that cannot be approved because they did not get prior approval, yet they were matters of great urgency. I can think of one that came to us through the channels of the Railway Act which, of course, is administered by my colleague the Minister of Transport. There is another one pending in Vancouver itself.


Howard Charles Green: What is it?


Robert Henry Winters: I am not sure of the details now, but there was a structure started there without prior approval. No matter how meritorious that structure might be, we have no authority whatever to give it approval. I know my hon. friend recognizes what that can mean to financing and other development in the area. The fact of the matter is that it cannot now be an approved structure. Under the old section there was no provision whatever for approving an unauthorized structure unless it was built or in course of construction on the 1st day of June, 1938.
The government does not believe any structure should be started without prior approval; but there are extenuating circumstances sometimes, where it becomes necessary because of the urgency of the situation. This legislation does provide for approval subject to the applicant conforming to all the provisions of the statute. By publishing notice in the Canada Gazette and two other papers and going through all the procedure he can then qualify. But in the meantime approval can be given him to proceed with the work.


Howard Charles Green: That is only after the work has begun.


Robert Henry Winters: If he cannot qualify, however, the work will have to be undone.


Mr. Casselman:: Has there ever been a work taken down after it has started?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Arza Clair Casselman: Where?


Robert Henry Winters: I can think of one in the province of Quebec in my time, and I have no doubt there were others before my time. The hon. member for Broadview pointed out how far this statute goes back. I think he should be checked on that point too. But if a structure now goes forward for some reason or other without authority, then five years later the owners of that structure can come to us and say, "Will you consider this for approval?" This section in the statute gives us the authority to do that. In five years its merit or otherwise should be demonstrated. I think this is one section that badly needs to be inserted in the act.


Howard Charles Green: There are two types of works. I should like to deal first with the latter

Navigable Waters Protection Act group, the group the minister has just dealt with. Does he mean to say that a company can put in an unauthorized work, then use that work for five years with nothing to be done about stopping them or removing it, and that at the end of five years they get approval? That is the line of the argument he is making.


Robert Henry Winters: Not exactly.


Howard Charles Green: What is the sense of that? The applicant can put in this pier and use it for five years.


Robert Henry Winters: Not if it is a structure that interferes with navigation.


Howard Charles Green: He can use it for five years anyway, apparently. Then as long as he gets approval after five years, he is all right.


Robert Henry Winters: In the meantime, if it interferes with navigation it falls under another section of the act and he can be required to remove it.


Howard Charles Green: Then the other branch is the case where he has not commenced the construction but where he comes and gets a letter from the minister before starting construction. For the life of me I cannot see why there should be such great urgency in that case. They cannot build a pier or they cannot build a bridge without getting their plans made. Under the act the only delay is that they must give one month's notice of the deposit of the plan and they must advertise in two papers.


Robert Henry Winters: But I am sure my hon. friend will recognize that there may be a case where a water main breaks. That has happened.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: That is right.


Robert Henry Winters: And in replacing the water main it was necessary to have regard to the navigational aspects of the river under which this water main was carried. It was simply impractical to wait one month to replace the water main. Some prior approval had to be given. It happened in the area of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I can give my hon. friend a case in point. He is familiar with Vancouver harbour. The Alberta pool wanted to put an extension on their grain elevator there.


Howard Charles Green: On what?


Clarence Decatur Howe: On their grain elevator on Burrard inlet. My hon. friend knows the locality. The extension could not possibly interfere with navigation. It is back parallel to the shore line. The dock lies out there 200 feet in front of it. Nevertheless,

that structure was built on a navigable water and they had to get a permit under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Under the old machinery it takes something like two months to get a permit. The fact that the work had to be delayed until the permit was obtained has prevented us from using the elevator probably for the last month. Obviously a case such as that could be dealt with by the minister under this act, whereas it could not be dealt with in that way under the old one.


Howard Charles Green: That may have been a case in which this provision would have come in handy, but that is just the way in which you make bad laws, namely by passing them in order to fit particular cases. The delay under this act is only a matter of 30 days; one month's notice in the Canada Gazette and two publications in the local paper.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; but you must send the plans down from Vancouver.


Howard Charles Green: Surely anybody who might be affected is entitled to at least that much notice.


Robert Henry Winters: What about the case of a water main?


Howard Charles Green: As far as the water main is concerned, under the new subsection 2 of section 4 they are not obliged to get approval at all because they can be exempted under the powers the minister is given there to exempt them.


Robert Henry Winters: No. The cost will exceed
$5,000 in every case.


Howard Charles Green: The trouble is that in order to meet one or two cases the minister is putting through a bill which takes away the rights of other people to protest and to have a hearing in respect of these applications.


Robert Henry Winters: Not at all.


Howard Charles Green: That is bad draftsmanship and it is bad practice.


Robert Henry Winters: That is not the case.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that this business
of the minister simply writing a letter to the effect that they can go ahead and start to build their elevator or build their water main without first having complied with the law again is showing a disrespect for parliament and for the statutes of this country. It is belittling parliament, and is just in line with the course this government has been following right throughout the present session.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not see how you can
come to that conclusion.


Howard Charles Green: There is no use trying to convince the government. I have seen what has been happening here all during this session. Some day the Canadian people are going to catch up with the government and stop this kind of thing.


Robert Henry Winters: If the Canadian people have catching up to do on a section such as this, I certainly will welcome it.


Howard Charles Green: The Canadian people who are affected by these works, and whose rights may be affected, are entitled to be given notice and to have an opportunity to be heard.


Robert Henry Winters: They have.


Howard Charles Green: Here the minister is writing into the law a statute under which a work can actually be commenced without anybody being given notice, and actually without the minister himself having seen the plans. I submit that is entirely wrong. It is a case of just helping out some friends or somebody who wants to get on in a hurry, and let the other people who may be affected take their chance or lose out entirely. It is the wrong type of legislation, but I am not surprised that the government, in its present state of thinking, is bringing in amendments of this type.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just want to refer to clause 4, subclause 2, paragraph (b) which reads as follows:
If five years have elapsed since completion of construction of the work-
I know in my own district there are quite a number of small structures, dolphins, piles and so on, that have been driven throughout the years without any authority whatever. I suppose that has happened on other rivers in Canada. It is understandable in view of the circumstances that existed years ago. Now, what does the minister do, shall we say, to legalize all these works when this bill is passed? Are the minister's officials instructed to investigate in the district and ask these people to make application to regularize them, or is it just left as it is? Do they have to bring this matter to the attention of the minister or the department? What is the procedure to regularize these illegal structures?


Robert Henry Winters: The onus is on them if they wish to have their structures made legal structures. It is up to them to take action, otherwise they run the risk of having to remove them.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There are penalties under the act for illegal structures?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.
18. 1956
Navigable Waters Protection Act


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am a little puzzled about this subclause 2 (b). What is the purpose in having this five-year period after the completion of construction? Why should an application not be made immediately, or as soon as the department is aware that certain construction is under way? Why should they not be required to apply immediately and publish notice in the usual way?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not believe the other sections of the statute would have any effect if people were allowed to go ahead and build structures without getting approval, and then subsequently upon application, receive approval. If anybody does build a structure without proper authority, then he must be prepared to wait five years. That is part of the penalty he must pay for building an unauthorized structure on a navigable water. Under the old act, if he built it subsequent to June, 1938, he could not get approval in any event.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Deposit of plans with minister and registrar of deeds.
Howard Charles Green: Clause 5 covers the new sections 7, 8 and 9. The new section 9 reads as follows:
In the case of a work in any navigable water under the jurisdiction of the national harbours board, a reference in this part, except in paragraph (a) of subsection 2 of section 5 and in section 10, to the minister shall be construed as including also a reference to the minister having the administration of the National Harbours Board Act.
Why should the Minister of Transport not be consulted and his consent required before one of these urgently needed jobs is undertaken? For example, I am thinking of the extension of the Alberta pool elevator in Vancouver harbour. The Minister of Transport is responsible for the administration of the national harbours board. All these great harbours of Canada are directly under his jurisdiction. This section is admitting, in effect, that in so far as national harbours are concerned the Minister of Transport should be consulted and his consent should be obtained. Why should it not be obtained in the case where the rules are to be thrown aside and the consent given by letter? Why should the Minister of Public Works be authorized to give a letter in respect of a work in one of the national harbours without getting the consent of the Minister of Transport?


Robert Henry Winters: I think it is idle to assume that the assent of the Minister of Transport would not be obtained. The hon. member seems to think this is a balkanized government, whereas there is great cohesion in it

Navigable Waters Protection Act as he, I am sure, knows. Before this section was drafted in this form there were long discussions among the officials of the Department of Transport, the officials of public works and the officials of the Department of Justice. I myself had discussions on this very point with my colleague the Minister of Transport. I can assure my hon. friend on something about which he seems to have doubt, that there is the very closest liaison between members of this government. I can assure him of this, too; that in any matter in which the Minister of Transport is interested his prior approval will be obtained before approval of any structure is granted under this statute.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Public Works is writing into this section that the approval of the Minister of Transport must be obtained for any work in a national harbour, which is quite correct. But then, he puts in the exception that such consent is not necessary where it is one of these urgently required works.
1	suggest it would be more necessary in a case like that than in the construction of ordinary works under the other provisions of the act.
Here an exception is being made and permission is going to be given to start construction of a work without advertisement or without notice to anybody, and the Minister of Transport is not asked about it. He is not required to give his consent. I suggest to the minister that those words should be taken out, "except in paragraph (a) of subsection
2	of section 5 and in section 10." Why is it that the Minister of Transport has to be consulted in every other case where there is a work going into a national harbour except where it is being done under the urgent provisions?


Robert Henry Winters: I am not clear on the import of the last part of the hon. gentleman's question. I think we have protected the situation here. We do not go beyond what the provisions are now. These matters are considered very carefully. We have the greatest regard for the interests of navigation. As I said this afternoon we intend to see that they are protected. There is no giving away. It is not easy to get a permit under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. All the steps must be taken and all the interested parties must be consulted. I can assure my hon. friend that will continue to be the case.


Howard Charles Green: The minister, for some reason or other, has written into this new section now that the Minister of Transport must be consulted with respect to all works to be put into a national harbour, with the exception of a work which is put in under the urgent

provision. Let us go back to the case of the extension of the Alberta pool elevator in Vancouver harbour. Why should the Minister of Transport not give his consent to that short cut being taken? He has to give his consent if it is done in the regular way; that is, the plans are filed and advertisements are published. Because of the way the section reads now he does not have to give his consent if the minister simply writes a letter and says, "You may start construction". Why should his consent not be required?


Robert Henry Winters: It is simply to give initial approval, Mr. Chairman, to start construction, subject to his being able to qualify through the regular channels once that initial approval has been given.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, just before the clause carries, I call the minister's attention to subsection 2 of section 7 at the bottom of the preceding page. I am wondering about the draftsmanship of this subsection. I am not now discussing the merits of the bill. The subsection reads:
Where there Is no registrar of deeds for the area . . .
I think the registrar of deeds is an individual rather than an office. This refers to a person, but when you look at the explanatory note you see that it refers to an office, to the office of the registrar of deeds. This subsection says:
Where there is no registrar of deeds . . .
Frankly I think this is draftsmanship the minister should scrutinize pretty carefully. The explanation is obvious. It says that this applies to the Northwest Territories, and that the plans shall be filed at Ottawa. But when you read the section you find that it is general and I suggest ambiguous. It says:
Where there is no registrar of deeds for the area in which the work is proposed to be constructed-
I think it would have been better to say "Northwest Territories" and be done with it. I continue:
-the duplicate of the plan thereof and the description of the proposed site shall be deposited in the nearest land titles office established under the Land Titles Act.
The explanation says that means it is going to be filed in Ottawa. I would suggest to the minister that there are numerous land titles acts in effect in various parts of Canada, and that there is considerable ambiguity in the drafting of this subsection. Perhaps the minister should give it pretty careful consideration before it finally goes through, because when you read the explanation it is very plain and very obvious. If the explanation had been made in the subsection there would be no trouble about it at all. As it reads at the moment I do suggest that some

day there could be a great deal of trouble with the land titles act of Alberta, or of Saskatchewan, for instance. I presume it refers to a federal act. I think it should be scrutinized and possibly amended before it finally passes.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be glad to do that. I am not an expert on legal draftsmanship. I will have it scrutinized and if a change is required it will be made when the bill receives third reading.


George Stanley White: I should like to point out to the minister that in subsection 1 he uses the words "may deposit", and in subsection 2 he uses the words "shall be deposited". I understand it is compulsory that the plans be deposited, but apparently the wording-


Robert Henry Winters: It is the same wording as the old statute. It has been taken out of the original act.


George Stanley White: I know it is the same wording of the old statute. Certainly the words "may deposit" leave in my mind some doubt as to the interpretation being compulsory.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall look into that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Regulations.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, clause 6 requires some explanation. Under the act as it stands at present all regulations must be passed by the governor in council. This new section 10 provides that the minister alone can pass regulations under part 1 of the act, but it leaves power to the governor in council to pass regulations with respect to all plans and sites which are approved under any other act of the parliament of Canada. Will the minister explain the basis for that division?


Robert Henry Winters: Well, Mr. Chairman, there are regulations required under some other statutes such as the Railway Act, and there are one or two others where the establishment of regulations by the governor in council is required. We are simply stating in this section that those provisions stand as they are, but that for the purpose of part I of the Navigable Waters Protection Act the regulation may be established by the Minister of Public Works.


Howard Charles Green: That seems to be going very far. The minister is given the power to make the decisions under this act. Surely it would be only reasonable to require him to submit the regulations to the governor in council for approval. Instead of that, because of the way this amendment is worded the minister himself not only makes the decisions but he also makes the rules.
18, 1956	5153
Veterans Business and Professional Loans
I submit to the Prime Minister that that is not right. If there are to be regulations under this act and the minister is to be given all these very wide powers, surely the regulations should not be made by the minister; they should at least be made by the governor in council. I do suggest this section should be amended accordingly.


Robert Henry Winters: I am quite prepared to accept that suggestion, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask one of my colleagues to move that this particular section be dropped and that the section stand as it is in the old statute.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: If I understood the minister correctly, one of his colleagues will now move that section 6 of the bill be deleted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Clause 6 is deleted.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: When shall the bill be read a third time? Next sitting of the house.



VETERANS BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL LOANS ACT


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 253, to amend the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act.


George Stanley White: Is the
minister going to make a statement?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any point in my making a statement. At the resolution stage I explained fully the purpose of the amendment and certain observations were made by hon. members opposite. I gathered from those that they were in complete agreement with the purpose of the bill.


George Stanley White: Mr. Speaker, despite what the minister has said, if he looks back in Hansard he will find that at the resolution stage he said that of the many questions asked some would be dealt with on second reading. I had hoped that when the minister spoke on second reading he would answer many of the questions that were asked by various members at the resolution stage.
As the minister will recall, when we were at the resolution stage members from all
5154	HOUSE OF
Veterans Business and Professional Loans parties in the house generally expressed their approval of this amendment and spoke strongly in favour of the benefits that had been conferred on veterans under this act. Various requests were made to the minister that instead of bringing in the amendment that he is now making the whole act should be extended for a period of 5, 8 or 10 years. On that occasion the minister stated, as reported at page 3295 of Hansard:
It would not be our intention to extend the time unless there are very good reasons for it.
The minister recalls the debate at the resolution stage. Many reasons were advanced why the act should be extended. The minister was questioned as to whether or not it would be necessary to have any further staff and whether there would be any further expense if the act were extended, and he said no. He also agreed that the act would be in force-or at least the administrative sections would be in force-for a long time to come in order to collect the loans that had been made and to take care of the applications that had been made by veterans of the Korean war and by other veterans who are now serving in the armed forces.
It would perhaps be interesting if the minister would tell the house how many veterans would be affected by this amendment. By that I mean the number of veterans apart from Korean veterans who are not really affected by the amendment because their 10-year period has not run out.
According to the report in Hansard the minister gave the impression there had been only one application not dealt with because the 10-year period had expired between the date the application was made and the date the loan was granted. I think the minister will find there have been many other applications, because in the report of the Department of Veterans Affairs he will see there have been well over 7,000 applications. I believe in the last year reported there were somewhere between two and three hundred applications.
As one hon. member pointed out at the resolution stage, applications for assistance are still being received under the Veterans' Land Act. In view of that it seems only reasonable that this act should be extended for a further period of time.
There were other points raised. One was the question, which I thought surely the minister would answer, concerning a veteran of the Korean war who stayed in the army. Let us suppose the Korean veteran was to be discharged in 1958. Does that mean he will have 10 years from the date of his discharge in which to apply for assistance under this act? I ask this question because the


parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs said he may be entitled to it. I do not know whether he used the word '"may" intentionally, but at page 3297 of Hansard the parliamentary assistant is reported as saying:
. . . he may become entitled to the benefits of this act because this act says "ten years after the date of discharge".
He then goes on to state the matter is now under discussion.
There is the other case, Mr. Speaker, of a Korean veteran who is discharged, later re-enlists and serves for a further period and is then again discharged. From what date would his 10-year period operate? Would it be from the date of his first discharge or from the date of his second discharge?
I have several questions here which I wish to ask the minister and I hope he will be able to give us the information. The first question concerns the total number of applications made to date under this act.
Second, the total number of applications that have been refused by the bank, and the number of applications that have been refused by the minister or his officials.
Third, the total amount loaned to date, the total amount that has been repaid, and the total amount that is in arrears at the present time.
Fourth, what is the amount paid by the department to the banks to date to cover losses, and what is the total amount written off as bad debts as of this date?
Fifth, would the minister tell us if there have been any prosecutions under section 10 of the act? If there have been any prosecutions, what is the total amount of the fines paid by veterans? I would also be rather interested in knowing the amount of the largest fine paid by any veteran.
Sixth, under section 11 of the act, whereby the minister may take over the loan from the bank, how many such loans has the minister taken over? What recovery, if any, has the minister been able to make?
Seventh, would the minister be able to tell us approximately how long it takes to process a loan of this nature? Could he also tell us if all the chartered banks share fairly equally in the distribution of these loans, or are there only two or three of the chartered banks which handle the majority of these loans?
In conclusion, I would again appeal to the minister to very seriously consider the extension of the administrative section of this act.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: the Minister of Finance speaks now he will close the debate.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, there is just one point I should like to place before the government, arising out of the fact that this Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act is in effect the joint responsibility of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The Minister of Finance, of course, deals with the guarantees to the banks, but the Minister of Veterans Affairs is responsible for deciding whether or not a veteran is qualified. For example, section 4 subsection l(i) provides that:
The application for the loan was concurred in before the loan was made, by the Minister of Veterans Affairs or his authorized representative as defined by the regulations.
And then section 8 provides:
The governor in council may on the recommendation of the minister-
That is the Minister of Finance.
-and the Minister of Veterans Affairs make regulations for any purpose for which regulations are contemplated by this act-
And so on. Section 12 of the act provides:
The minister may pay any amount payable to a bank under this act out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund and the minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs may pay any amount necessary to meet the expenses incurred in the administration of this act out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the purpose.
Just how they decide who is to pay which I do not know; but in effect this is a joint act.
I believe I must protest again tonight, as I did in speaking in the throne speech debate on January 23, 1956, that Canada still has a Minister of Veterans Affairs who is holding two portfolios. I think that means adequate justice is not being done to the veterans of Canada. The Minister of Veterans Affairs was asked about this at the Canadian Legion convention in Vancouver a week ago today; at least the report from which I am reading was published a week ago today. I am reading from the Vancouver Province of June 11, 1956:
Asked from convention floor if the government was going to restore Mr. Lapointe to a single portfolio in the cabinet, the minister-who recently became Postmaster General-assured the convention that the additional duties have in no way interfered with his responsibility to the veteran.
Now, I am not criticizing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I hesitated to interrupt the hon. member but I think perhaps I should. The hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac who preceded him placed a lot of very general questions on the record in connection with this
18, 1956	5155
Veterans Business and Professional Loans one-section bill which we have before us.
I have in my hand from the Journals of 1949 the ruling of Mr. Speaker in which he is discussing what is and what is not relevant when an amending bill is before the house.
I shall read just a part of it from page 237, as follows:
On the second reading of an amending bill-
Hon. members will notice that this is an amending bill.

it is the principle of the amending bill, and not the principle of the act to be amended, which is the "business under consideration". The discussion must therefore relate exclusively to the principle of the amending bill.
If I may paraphrase, that principle is that certain loans shall be made if application has been made within the time limit, even though the loan was not made at the expiration of the time limit. I think I must ask hon. members not to broaden this discussion to the administration of the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act, and certainly not to the administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs, which criticism and discussion I think would be much more appropriate under the departmental estimates.


Howard Charles Green: I submit that this amending bill has to do with applications for loans, and part of the process of getting through an application for a loan is to get the approval of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I submit that I am in order in dealing with the fact that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is only a half-time minister so far as this department is concerned. That is one reason there has been so little veterans' legislation come before us this session. I think this bill and perhaps one other-I am not sure whether there was one other-represent the only veterans' legislation brought before this 1956 session of the house.
I place the blame for the failure to appoint a full-time Minister of Veterans Affairs directly at the door of the Prime Minister. It is his responsibility to see that these portfolios are properly manned. If he were giving leadership to this country as he should be doing he would have had a full-time Minister of Veterans Affairs appointed a long time ago, or he could perhaps have relieved the present Minister of Veterans Affairs of the necessity of looking after the portfolio of Postmaster General. I repeat that this situation is unfair to the veterans of Canada, and it shows a lack of leadership on the part of the Prime Minister.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I am not going to be any more in order than was the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. I cannot
5156	HOUSE OF
Veterans Business and Professional Loans imagine any statement that would receive less support in the house than the one he has just made.


Howard Charles Green: On the Liberal side.


Walter Edward Harris: And on the opposition side, because there is not a single member of the opposition who has dealt with veterans' affairs in the past who does not know that the heart and soul of the minister are in his work concerning veterans, and that work has resulted in great benefit to the veterans. If my hon. friends opposite are not aware of that, those on this side of the house are. The minister is quite competent and capable to handle both jobs without either one suffering.


An hon. Member:: Superman.


Walter Edward Harris: We do not claim to be supermen on this side, though that is something which occasionally breaks out on the opposition side. I have been waiting for someone to object to the remarks I have just made, and it is quite evident that no member of the opposition is going to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We believe in obeying the rules.


Walter Edward Harris: When a government member is speaking, but when you choose to be out of order you think we ought to be indulgent, and that the Speaker ought to be indulgent as well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. minister please address the Chair?


Walter Edward Harris: A good many questions were asked in connection with this particular bill, and naturally I cannot answer them on second reading, though I am prepared to do so in committee of the whole. I must repeat that I have listened twice now to what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has said about my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and I am quite prepared to say again that 1 doubt if there is a veteran in this country who feels that his rights are being neglected.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1.
Walter Edward Harris: The hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac read out so many questions that it was impossible for me to make notes in


order to answer them, but I think I should answer generally the points he raised and then perhaps he can ask other questions or he may accept some advice from me about them. The purpose of this bill is to provide a beneficial amendment which will permit persons who have applied for the benefits of this act but whose applications were not dealt with by the time the 10-year period elapsed to obtain the benefits of this act.
When I spoke at the resolution stage I said that I knew of one case only to which this amendment would apply, but I assumed that there would be others in future because of the fact that the 10-year period had not elapsed in every case. Since April 26, when we discussed this last, there have been three more cases come to my attention, so that at the moment the amendment will apply to four veterans. Presumably there will be others.
A general discussion about the act itself, how many applications have been made under it, how much has been advanced, how much has been received and so on, seems to me to be somewhat out of order. Even if it were in order I would point out to my hon. friend that just recently I tabled in the house a report on the operations of this act for the year ending March 31, 1956. That report which is made annually contains full information about the loans made in each year. That report is before the house and would be available to the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac.
I doubt if I could give any more information than would be contained in the report, but if there is a particular case or particular matter not covered by the annual report I shall be glad to look for that information.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall continue with this and then take up the farm improvement loans amendment, then the resolution in the name of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, then the resolution in my name with respect to the Public Service Superannuation Act.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:


Mr. Forgie: What is the nature of the services made available by the hospital design division of the Department of National Health and Welfare?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
The hospital design division of the Department of National Health and Welfare provides a consulting service to all agencies interested in the design and operation of hospitals, and co-operates with the provinces
Question
in promoting sound planning of health institutions of all types.
A constant research program in the field of hospital construction is maintained by this division. The information is compiled and made available to those interested in that field when requested.
All plans submitted by hospitals on behalf of which the provinces request assistance under the national health program are reviewed by the hospital design division to ensure that such plans conform to the general standards of hospital construction as prepared by this division, and to determine the amount of federal assistance. These minimum standards have done much to ensure reasonably good accommodation for patients throughout Canada.

Tuesday, June 19, 195G