1956-03-26

Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the house that the management of the Canadian National Railways have received from Heath Steele Mines Limited, a subsidiary of American Metal Company, a request for the construction of a branch line from Barti-bog, New Brunswick, to the company's mine located some 30 miles northwest of Newcastle. Bartibog is on the main line of the Canadian National between Newcastle and Bathurst. The proposed branch line would be approximately 22 miles in length.
The management have made an appraisal of the economics of the proposed branch line and have concluded that it can be operated on a profitable basis. Accordingly, the management have asked the government to seek legislative authority for the construction of the line. It is the intention of the government at the first convenient opportunity to recommend the necessary legislation to parliament.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 48-Mr. Jones:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents, exchanged between the federal government and provincial government of British Columbia, or any officials or agents thereof, and the Indian bands in the Okanagan valley, relating to the expropriation of land about 1920 for the construction of the main irrigation canal conveying water from Okanagan lake to Oliver and Osoyoos, British Columbia.
Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I have no
objection whatever to producing any part of the correspondence with the government of British Columbia that may still exist. This seems to be a matter mainly of ancient history. I believe there are some current negotiations going on, and I would hope the hon. gentleman would not expect me to produce correspondence about current negotiations until they are completed.
In so far as correspondence with the Indians, the Indian bands and the band councils is concerned, I have always felt the 67509-164J
superintendent general of Indian affairs acted as trustee for the Indians in these matters and this correspondence should never be produced unless the Indians themselves wanted to have it produced. I am sure the hon. member will agree with me.


Mr. Speaker:: 


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, subject to the remarks made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 49-Mr. Knowles (for Mr. Maclnnis):
For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other communications, from August 1, 1955 to February 24, 1956, between any person in the post office department and any person or persons in Vancouver, British Columbia, relative to the change of location of the sub-post office Vancouver-Joyce (No. 9795), and the change of postmaster at the said sub-post office.
Mr. Lapointe:: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would allow this motion to stand until a later sitting?


Mr. Knowles:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



LAMBTON AND KENT COUNTIES


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 50-Mr. Murphy (Lambton West):
For a copy of all agreements and leases, from 1947 to date, between any department of the federal government and all lessees of Indian lands and waters in the Walpole island and Mitchell bay area, counties of Lambton and Kent respectively, concerning fishing and hunting privileges and rights.
Mr. Speaker:: 


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 52-Mr. Nicholson:
For a return showing the names of lawyers engaged by government departments and the amounts paid them by way of salary and expenses during the fiscal years 1953-54, and 1954-55.
Mr. Garson:: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as we do not retain outside lawyers on a salary basis, may I suggest that the word "salary" in the third line of this notice be deleted and the words "legal fees" be substituted therefor.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion as amended agreed to.



INDIAN RESERVES, SASK.  WELFARE PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 53-Mr. Bryson:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, and other correspondence, since April 1, 1955, exchanged
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers
between the band councils, or agency superintendents on Saskatchewan Indian reserves, and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration regarding welfare payments.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. member would consider the possibility of withdrawing this motion. It calls for correspondence with Indian bands and band councils, and I do feel, as I said a moment ago in relation to the other motion, that the superintendent general of Indian affairs is a trustee and that the correspondence with bands and councils should not be producible in this house unless the band or band councils want it produced.
I would be very glad to give the hon. gentleman any information that he would like to have on the subject that has to do with the spending of public funds but I think the motion in its form is objectionable.


Mr. Bryson:: Mr. Speaker, I based my question on the fact that the Minister of Finance had suggested that in his opinion this information would be readily available; however, on the explanation of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration I would suggest that it be stood for today.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



NATIONAL DEFENCE STATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 54-Mr. Knowles:
For a copy of any surveys received by the Minister of National Defence, or by any departmental official on his behalf, from the superintendents of national defence stations at Stevenson field, Winnipeg; Claresholm, Alberta; and Renous, New Brunswick, with reference to rates of pay and working conditions of prevailing rates employees on these stations, dated at any time since January 1, 1955.
Mr. Campney:: Mr. Speaker, this motion asks for reports received with respect to rates of pay and working conditions in respect of three defence installations. With regard to Stevenson field, Winnipeg, and Claresholm, Alberta, no such surveys have been received. So far as the third station, namely Renous, New Brunswick, is concerned, I would refer the hon. member to the motion he made on March 5 and the explanation given at that time by the Minister of Labour as recorded at pages 1787 and 1788 of Hansard. Since it was agreed to drop the motion on that occasion in view of the explanation given by the Minister of Labour, and for the added reason that in any case the report is privileged, I would ask the hon. member to drop his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if I could ask the minister a question. Is there not a difference between the previous motion and this one in that the previous motion dealt with surveys

made by the Department of Labour whereas this deals with surveys made by the superintendents on the stations?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am informed that all our surveys with respect to wages and working conditions are made for us by the Department of Labour and sent forward to us. I am informed that we do not make these surveys ourselves.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member agree to withdraw his motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Under the circumstances I guess I have no alternative.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion withdrawn.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, notice of which I sent him earlier this day. In view of the urgent necessity of calling tenders immediately to replace the Queensborough bridge, is the minister in a position to indicate whether the department approves the plans which have been submitted by the city of New Westminster for replacing the present bridge with a new one?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of the Navigable Waters Protection Act it is the prerogative of the governor in council to approve such plans. The Navigable Waters Protection Act requires also that an advertisement must be inserted in the Canada Gazette and two local papers and remain there for one month to permit appeals to be made. Until such time as we have evidence that the terms of the statute have been complied with we will not be in position to recommend to the governor in council.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister investigated the reports as to the methods used by the R.C.M.P. and other government officials in obtaining income tax information from the fishermen of Campobello island, New Brunswick, and, if so, with what result?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wish to thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of his question. In reply I may say

that officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were assigned to assist officers of the Department of National Revenue in the carrying out of the search at Campobello island as provided by section 126 (3) of the Income Tax Act. The authorization to enter and search was issued by the deputy minister of national revenue, taxation, on February 14, 1956, with the approval of Hon. Mr. Justice Charles A. Cameron of the Exchequer Court of Canada, given on February 10, 1956.



INQUIRY AS TO EXEMPTION FOR MEDICAL EXPENSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister give the house any further details with respect to press reports that his department is still considering the matter of medical expenses in relation to income tax even though he did not have occasion to mention this matter in his budget speech?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: No, I have nothing to add to what I said in the budget speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But you said nothing in that speech.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct two questions to the Minister of Finance, notice of which I have not given him. First, will the minister tell the house the name of the artist who drew the picture of Her Majesty's head as it appears on current Bank of Canada $1, $2, $5 and $10 bills? Second, will the minister give the house the names of the officials who employed that artist?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I will of course provide the information requested. However, I might say that the work of the artist or whoever might have been responsible for what I think my hon. friend has in mind is being corrected.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. A. Enfield (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to address a question to the Postmaster General. Can the minister say if there is any possibility at all
Inquiries of the Ministry of the Toronto postal area being extended to take in all of metropolitan Toronto and, if so, will this mean that the whole of the metropolitan Toronto area will have the advantage of local delivery rates?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, this matter- was reviewed carefully a short time ago by the department and it has been decided, in order to eliminate existing difficulties, to extend the Toronto postal area to include the present Toronto metropolitan area as it is legally constituted. This would bring about the result about which my hon. friend inquires with regard to local rates.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, may I refer to two questions asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) on March 13, as reported on page 2071 of Hansard, and referred to again last Friday. The questions were as follows:
Has the Canadian government been invited by Washington to send observers to the forthcoming United States hydrogen bomb tests in the Pacific?
If not, has the Canadian government considered making such a request?
In reply to both questions may I say that I am advised that up to the present no invitation has been received by the government nor is one being sought.



INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS FOR NEW INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister report on the progress or otherwise of current negotiations for a new international wheat agreement, and can he inform the house whether the present agreement as it stands is likely to be extended for one more year?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I regret that I am not able to answer either question. Negotiations are still continuing in camera. I believe that we can expect a conclusion within the next few days, but I have no idea what conclusion will be reached.

Private Bills TELEVISION



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF FACILITIES TO MANITOBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue? I did not send him notice, and perhaps he will prefer to take this as notice. Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation intend to extend its television facilities to the province of Manitoba in the near future and, if so, at what points?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the hon. gentleman's question as notice.



WELCOME TO HON. MEMBER FOR VANCOUVER EAST ON HIS RETURN FOLLOWING ILLNESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: I rise on a question of privilege. I would like to welcome back the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). He has been through deep waters, and he comes back to the house better fitted to serve. We welcome him back.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say that the hon. member has a very keen eye. I had not seen the hon. member in his seat. But I am sure we all agree with him that we are very pleased to see the hon. member for Vancouver East back, and we do welcome him to the house.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: It is suggested to me that there are several bills that are to be dealt with in the committee of the whole. Would hon. members agree to having all these bills sent to the committee in one motion, or do they prefer to have them taken one by one?


Hazen Robert Argue: Take them one by one, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that I do leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on Bill No. 168?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not think there is any question but that it is in order to have one motion covering all these bills. My colleague is interested in a later one.


Mr. Speaker:: The house may accommodate itself. I understood that the hon. member for Assiniboia wanted them taken one by one. If that is not so, all the bills from order No. 1 to order No. 26 inclusive are to go to the committee of the whole. Is the motion agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 168, to incorporate the Canadian Council of Churches.-Mr. Fleming.
Bill No. 190, to incorporate the Western Gospel Mission.-Mr. Jutras.
The Deputy Chairman:: There are a certain number of divorce bills before the committee. Is it agreed that they shall be considered as one?


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, I should like Bills Nos. 158 and 188 dealt with separately.



LORINC ORVOS NAGY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 158, for the relief of Lorinc Orvos Nagy-Mr. Henderson-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the committee which dealt with this bill and I believe that special consideration should be given to this particular bill which involves a petition for divorce by Mr. Nagy. In view of the representations made by some of us in the committee and in view of the evidence presented before the committee of the other place, I believe there is good reason for a close examination of the evidence dealing with this divorce bill.
The petitioner works as a pipefitter and the respondent is a dishwasher. I presume she is a rather poor person, particularly so after she left the home. In the past certain investigators have come before us and given evidence in divorce cases. One of the investigators in this case had been in the employ of Harry Maxim, and in the past some of the evidence given by Mr. Maxim and his employees before the committee has proved to be very doubtful indeed.
There is also doubt with respect to the establishment of adultery in this case, and I think it behooves us as members of the house to pay particular attention to the proceedings in this case. The respondent is of Hungarian descent and speaks little or no English. Apparently she was not given an interpreter before the Senate committee and much of the evidence is very confusing, if not entirely unintelligible. I think that is an additional reason why members of the committee and of the house have a real point of argument in urging that a better method be provided to deal with divorce cases. This case lends weight to the argument that it is not appropriate for a committee of the house or even of the other place to deal with such an important matter as breaking up homes

and to pass laws which have the effect of bringing about the separation of men and women.
I want to deal particularly with the evidence in this case but before I go into that may I say that there seems to be doubt as to the jurisdictional powers of the committee of this house and the committee of the other place. On page 14 of the evidence taken in the other place I find that the chairman of the committee, Senator Ross, is asking certain questions and he has this to say:
I probably went too far. If the petitioner has been guilty of misconduct, it is a discretionary matter for us to refuse the divorce. Perhaps I went too far in my statement. You may go ahead.
Here is one instance where the chairman of the committee of the other place indicates that it is a discretionary matter whether or not the divorce will be granted if it is proved that the petitioner has been guilty of misconduct. I am particularly interested in this case because after reading the evidence carefully I am convinced that if there is any establishment at all on circumstantial evidence, then I would say there has been established the likelihood that adultery was committed on the part of the petitioner. Then too there is the fact that according to the authority of the other place there is some talk that they may also refuse to admit divorce on the ground of cruelty. In this case I might say that cruelty has been established. I understand that the respondent has not entered application for a rehearing of the case but it is important that she put in an appearance and contested the case. The facts of the matter are these.
First there is established the fact that the petitioner granted a mortgage to the respondent of $7,000 and agreed to pay a monthly allowance of $100. Here again I think there is the element of collusion between the parties that could be expected. It does not seem reasonable to me that the husband would give a mortgage of $7,000 and agree to pay $100 a month to his wife if she was to remain in the home. But that is the argument put up by the counsel for the petitioner. Then it is established that this payment was made for a period of some 10 months. That is agreed by counsel also. In the evidence it is indicated that the parties were quarreling and could not get along. It seems to me that the evidence points to the fact that the months of fighting which took place prior to her leaving home was, of course, the reason for her leaving home. It appears to me that the fact that he agreed to pay her $100 a month would indicate that he was paying in order that she would agree to leave the home and
Private Bills
leave the child with the husband. When the petitioner was asked if he was aware of adultery having been committed, we find on page 10 of the evidence this question and answer:
Q. You know nothing about the adultery? II she did commit adultery with another man?
A. I don't know. I just heard.
Then another important thing is that when the respondent was asked whether or not she had committed adultery she categorically said she had not. Throughout the whole examination and cross-examination there is no place where the woman has admitted to committing adultery. Again, I should like to point out that it seems to me that in the other place, in order to establish adultery in some cases and to elicit information which would lead to that establishment, certain leading questions are asked. As an example, I would point out that at page 11 Senator Ross asked of the petitioner this question:
Q. Have you forgiven her for the adultery at all?
A. No. I sorry.
Q. Did I understand you to say earlier that you are now living with your wife?
A. No, she not living with me.
It seems that after a few minutes of cross-examination we have Senator Ross asking if he condones the adultery before it is established whatsoever in the evidence. I think it is indicative that here is a whole procedure which should properly be under court jurisdiction either by the exchequer court or some other court designated to take care of cases of this sort. When these witnesses and investigators come before us we have not the authority to swear them, and if there is any perjury we cannot charge them with perjury. These people, both witnesses and investigators, can come before us and give any kind of evidence in order to try to establish their case, but there is no legal responsibility upon them. We are, therefore, in a very difficult position in trying to determine whether or not we can accept the testimony and statements made.
Now, of course, in this case the husband admits that he beat his wife. She left the home, and I feel that he tried to get her to accept money to leave the home and leave the child with him. Then, finally, the husband got his lawyer to interview the investigators and they have tried to build up a charge of adultery against her. I am not too sure of the legal position of the parties after we have passed an act on the basis of adultery which will dissolve the marriage. I am not sure how this may affect the respondent and the husband in the future. It might prejudice the woman in respect to the child, and she indicates she would like to have the child.

Private Bills
I point out that the child, a girl of 14, was with the wife for some seven of the ten months during which the wife was absent from the home. The wife returned to the home and again the husband beat her and drove her from the home. I think the least we can say about the wife's conduct is that she has tried to some extent to resolve their difficulties and has indicated her desire to have the child. I feel that the evidence in this case is so conflicting that the least we could do would be to have a rehearing so that the committee might have the petitioner and the respondent, as well as all the witnesses, before it to determine whether or not the committee would believe their testimony.
At the moment I might say that I have gone through the evidence very carefully, as I believe the other members of this group have. When we were dealing with this particular bill in the committee we asked that it be reheard. I am today, Mr. Chairman, asking that this bill be held over and not passed at this time. As I said earlier, I believe the purpose of the payment was merely to enable the husband to get rid of his wife and have her leave the child with him. There is a great deal of conflicting evidence given by the two investigators. I do not want to deal with all of it, but there is one statement I should like to mention.
Here, Mr. Greenblatt is examining one of the investigators, who said:
The room, I think, is about six by twelve and there is one bed, and a bureau and cot and a table in the room.
On the next page, under cross-examination by Mr. Gazdik, the defence counsel, the investigator said:
Q. Well, you said there was a bed and a cot?
A. No, a couch, which is not a cot.
Apparently, it is quite important in giving this evidence to establish what kind of room it was and what furniture was in the room in order to try to establish whether or not there has been misconduct. The witnesses seem to be confused in testifying before the committee.
I think, Mr. Chairman, this is one case in which we should at least have a rehearing so that the members of the committee could decide for themselves whether or not a divorce should be granted. I do not think we can take the responsibility for what has been done in the other place. I think the members of the other place are doing as good a job as they know how to do. They are in much the same position as we are in the committee of which I am a member. Their jurisdiction is relatively narrow. They can swear these witnesses but they cannot charge

them with perjury. I believe they are limited to making the one decision as to whether or not a divorce should be granted. I feel, sir, that the time has come when these divorce cases should no longer be brought before this house. In this case I am certainly making the strongest protest I can. I think it has been established that the respondent has been cruelly treated and that the husband concocted the idea of getting rid of his wife by agreeing to pay her a certain amount of money if she left home. He then got an investigator, but even the investigator's testimony before the committee of the other place does not establish in fact, except by circumstantial evidence, that adultery had been committed. Later the respondent herself denied the adultery. Then, we have the committee of the other place passing this bill on the basis of circumstantial evidence. I feel that the circumstantial evidence in this case is not strong enough to warrant the passage of the bill.
I feel that the woman had to live somewhere. She probably had few friends. The mere fact she was living in another place, apart from her husband, and a place in which there was a man living does not, of itself, indicate misconduct. Then, the woman had to go into the tobacco fields after leaving home. She did wait for a while to get her daughter to come with her, and she had to wait until the husband gave her $100. All this indicates to me she was under coercion, and I think if we are going to continue to have a process under which these petitions can come before this parliament, then a proper procedure should be followed. The parties should have proper counsel and interpreters should be provided so the evidence given will be intelligible. If a rehearing of the case is necessary, money should be available so that the parties will get justice. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I hope the members of this committee will agree to allowing this measure to stand to enable the committee to have a rehearing of the whole case.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Does the committee wish me to put the yeas and nays?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Henderson:: Before we discuss this further, I want to say that this is one of the cases that when it came before the committee in the other place they were fortunate enough to have counsel for the respondent to put the respondent's case before that committee and to properly handle the evidence. I might say further that the counsel was a very reputable counsel.


Mr. Nicholson:: I wonder if the hon. member would speak a little louder? We cannot hear him down in this corner?


William James Henderson: With respect to the comments made about the investigator, I realize the hon. member who has just spoken certainly believes in the principles of British justice. Under this system a person is innocent until proven guilty. Nothing has been brought forward in this case to prove that the petitioner has not given truthful evidence.
The hon. member spoke about the variation which existed between the evidence given by the two investigators. It is frequently better to have evidence which does not stand too pat, when each witness gives his evidence and tells the story as he sees it, and thereby puts the true facts as he understands them. Nothing in the evidence suggests that these investigators did anything but the best job possible.
In this case the respondent was represented by counsel and that party could be presumed to have the proper legal advice to present the best evidence for her at the hearing. If they were not satisfied with the conduct of the hearing in the other place, counsel for the respondent could have so advised the clerk of the other place and they could have appealed it. Such was not the case. I cannot recall that any correspondence was produced or passed on to the chairman of the committee to the effect that the respondent in this case was not satisfied with the conduct of her defence. If she sincerely felt she would have a good defence I would think she would have pursued the matter further. She or her counsel could have appeared before the committee. Simply because there was some objection in another case we cannot say that it would appear there is an objection in this matter. No objection was made to the evidence given by the investigator and all the other facts were taken into consideration by the committee.
With respect to property rights I might say that the committee of the other place has no jurisdiction to deal with them. My hon. friend mentioned the sum of $7,000, which was by the way of a mortgage. At that time the petitioner was questioned by counsel for the respondent as recorded at page 14 of the proceedings:
Q. When is before?
A. In 1954, no, 1953, when we are fighting. We are fighting and I don't want to lose my daughter, my Esther. I don't want to lose her and she tell me if I offer her $7,000 she is not going to break the family life up.
There followed some discussion about making monthly payments of $100. As I recall
Private Bills
the evidence, the wife left voluntarily after a payment or two had been made. As the result of her leaving, the petitioner a short time after brought his petition to the committee of the other place and so carried it through.
I simply wished to make these remarks and to recall what happened according to the evidence. I thought it important to point out the courses of action which were opened to the respondent, who was represented by counsel, which courses were not taken either by the respondent or by counsel acting on her behalf. The facts as proved in the case must speak for themselves. Those who pass these bills must take the responsibility for them.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The question is, shall clause 1 carry? Those in favour of clause 1 carrying will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 46; nays, 27.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 2 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Clause carried on division. Shall the preamble carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the title carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the bill be reported?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Bill reported.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it the pleasure of the committee to have the remainder of the divorce bills, excluding Bill No. 188, considered as one?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Regis Edouard Gosselin.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of William Boychuck.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Edna Betty Berendt Payment.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Leona Jennie Impey Mella.-Mr. Henderson.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Joseph Elie Felix Leduc, otherwise known as Jean Leduc.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Florence Mintz Etinson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Jeanne Yvonne Gaouyat Leroy.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 173, for the relief of Adrienne Rozenbaum Melzak.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 174, for the relief of Joan Louise Squires Connolly.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of Carol May Burch Squires.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Irene Raab kgoston.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of Joan Marshall Bougie.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Heather Thornton Williamson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Helen Louise Hancox Fray.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill 180, for the relief of John Wallace Herbert.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill 181, for the relief of Angeline Sper-dakos Trakas.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Sheelagh Duffin Bennett.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Ruth Alister Creighton Jones.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Doris Lillian Doughty Dick.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Joan Etta Young Campbell.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Doris Evelyn Hirsch Stephen.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Luvina Mallet Lambert.-Mr. Henderson.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 188, for the relief of Lois Margaret Clouston Wil-lar-Mr. Henderson-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated on second reading, this bill comes before us from the province of Newfoundland. I realize that is a long way from Ottawa; however, I have yet to hear it said that the degree of justice that is handed out to Canadian citizens is dependent upon their nearness to the capital city, Ottawa. I believe that the citizen living on a far-flung island in the Pacific, or in the Artie ocean or on the island of Newfoundland, is subject to equal treatment, provided he is living in Canadian territory, when he appears before this House of Commons.
[The Deputy Chairman.]
This case is rather unique. It has come before what some people like to think of as the highest court in the land. Neither the petitioner nor the respondent is asked to appear and I cannot undertake to support this procedure in any way, shape or form. At home when you are accused of violating a minor traffic offence such as over-parking, if there is a parking meter or a time limit on parking you may mail in your fine and by so doing you are pleading guilty. However, if the charge is a little more serious a different condition may exist. In my home city if you are accused of having gone through an intersection wrongly you cannot even be represented by counsel without making a personal appearance, and you must plead guilty or not guilty. If you plead or are found guilty you must pay the fine. For a mere matter of crossing an intersection wrongly you must appear in person, yet when we are considering legislation that will break up what should be one of the holiest and most sanctified things in human society this parliament is willing to stand idly by and let the thing slide through in a manner which is as slipshod as could be found in any court case that I have ever heard of, and yet we have the temerity to call this the highest court of the land.
Getting down to the details of this particular case, we have affidavits to show that the petitioner has complied with all the rules of the other place and that notice has been served on the respondent. I assume that there is an affidavit to the effect that she has received this notice. However, in Canadian life we often hear of people signing affidavits which set out something that is not the fact. If this is allowed to continue you or I may find ourselves being divorced by the parliament of Canada without our being aware of what is taking place. That is possible if this procedure is allowed to get firmly rooted. The other day while we were in committee we passed some 111 of these bills in a matter of 18 seconds and I can well imagine the name of one of us being on that list without our being aware that we were being divorced. Some hon. member who did not belong to the same political movement might be willing to sign an affidavit to the effect that he had personally served us with the necessary legal documents some months ago.
I submit that it is hardly good enough. In most cases we are not satisfied with having just one witness, as we feel there should be corroborating evidence by two, three or sometimes four witnesses who could swear as to the adultery or whatever incident the divorce was being based on. In this case we have one single individual, a garage mechanic who

was in Newfoundland at the time. He appeared before the committee of the other place and testified that he had known the petitioner, having met him on a number of occasions. The petitioner was a salesman and this witness having heard that he was in town staying at one of the hotels decided to call on him around seven o'clock in the evening. He found that his friend was registered in a certain room, he went up to the room, opened the door and saw the man in bed with a woman. He immediately excused himself, went out and closed the door behind him. That is the only evidence on which this divorce is based and I do not think it is good enough.
In the committee it was said that we could not call in all these people, and the question was asked: Who is going to pay the expenses? Has this parliament reached such a low level that when a committee wants to hear witnesses we are to be floored by the question: Where is the money to come from? We have all kinds of money for other purposes, as this parliament votes some $5,000 million, but when a committee wants to hear witnesses it should have the right to hear, we are met with the question: Where is the money to come from? That argument was used in the committee stage and I believe it had some weight with members of the committee. After all, if we are not able to guarantee these people their expenses perhaps we ought not to call them here. I realize that calling people from Newfoundland would cost a considerable amount of money, but that money ought to be provided.
I submit that the evidence in this case is very slight. There is no corroboration whatsoever. The petitioner does not have any personal knowledge of the adultery. But this divorce is before parliament and we must take that for granted, but the fact is that I have seen enough affidavits which did not mean anything. I am unwilling to let this bill go by without making the most serious objection and I intend to call for the yeas and nays.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 1 carry? Those in favour of clause 1 carrying will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: In my opinion the yeas have it.
67509-165i
Private Bills
And more than five members having risen:
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 46; nays, 17.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 2
carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Clause 2 agreed to.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the preamble carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Bill agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall I report the bill?
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: There are a number of divorce and other bills to be read a third time. Shall I call the divorce bills together?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would you call Bills Nos. 158 and 188 separately?



LORINC ORVOS NAGY

William James Henderson: the third reading of Bill No. 158, for the relief of Lorinc Orvos Nagy.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that it would be unnecessary to make any remarks at this stage, but in view of the fact that there were only some 60 hon. members in the chamber when we were in committee I am sure that many hon. members would like to register their vote in connection with this particular bill. The hon. member for Moose Mountain has reviewed the case, I think, and so I do not plan on going over it in detail. I simply say that here is a petition which comes to us recommended by the other place, in which the petitioner appears to have been willing to give a mortgage of some $7,000, to be paid on an instalment basis at $100 a month commencing in about three months' time, on condition that his wife left the domicile. She appears to have left. Apparently, after having made ten payments, on advice of counsel, the petitioner found out that this was not necessary. As recorded on page 14 of the evidence, the counsel says:

Private Bills
And, he stopped making the payments in the first place according to my advice because the wife cannot be given anything in the form of a mortgage under the laws of Quebec.
But it seemed to be established that the husband was willing to pay $7,000 to get his wife out of sight so that another woman might take her place in the home. As recorded on page 11 of the evidence, the question was asked regarding this other woman who took over the wife's place:
Q. You refer to a housekeeper. Is it a male or female housekeeper?
A. Well, it is female housekeeper.
Q. You describe her as a housekeeper?
A. She work for me with money. I pay her $50 a month.
I should explain that these people are Hungarian. They are able to understand English, but they have some difficulty with the language, and this is how it appears in the evidence:
Q. Have you any receipts for that?
A. Me not need any receipt for that.
Q. Then you cannot prove or establish that you did pay any money at all?
A. Well, sure. Well, she was prove it. I not call anybody when I pay her.
Q. No. You had no witnesses and no evidence that you pay her?
A. I told the truth.
Further on, he was asked some questions about the living quarters. He said:
I have three rooms and a kitchen-or four rooms and kitchen.
After a little more thought he was sure there were four rooms and a kitchen. The owner of this domicile, who was apparently prepared to bear a mortgage for $7,000 to get rid of his wife, appears according to his evidence to sleep on a couch in the dining room through which his housekeeper must pass in going to the room where she sleeps and where he keeps his clothing. There is no doubt about the fact that he is living in these private quarters with someone who claims to be his housekeeper, although he has no evidence that he had paid an amount. Then counsel for the wife says:
I don't want to elaborate on this point but the fact remains there is a woman living in the same flat for some reason and I have no proof that the two have committed adultery . . .
Further on he says:
. . . that becomes very important because since the woman is in the place Mr. Nagy has not re-offered his wife to return to the place, and I have before that proof that an offer was made by Mr. Nagy for her to return and Mrs. Nagy wanted to return to the place, and still wants to return to the place-

Then Senator Ross, chairman of the committee, said:
I do not think the inquiries you have been following are very material because the petitioner is not on trial here. The question is not whether or not he committed adultery. The question is whether or not the respondent committed adultery.
Later on the chairman, Senator Ross, said:
I probably went too far. If the petitioner has been guilty of misconduct, it is a discretionary matter for us to refuse the divorce.
Counsellor for the petitioner had previously said:
But you should have somebody to testify here. She is living with him just the same as the roomers are living in the house.
He was asked:
You have no evidence at all on that?
The lawyer said:
No. I have no evidence.
This woman has considered the costs involved in bringing witnesses to Ottawa to appear on her behalf. It would seem to me, since there is a 14 year old1 child who apparently prefers to be with the mother, and since the mother is anxious to make a go of it and is forced to wash dishes at something around $20 a week to support herself and the child, we have a responsibility to decide whether or not an injustice will be done to one or the other. I do not think there is much likelihood of the two parties being reconciled, but I think this parliament has a responsibility to do something on behalf of this 14 year old girl, who does deserve some consideration.
So I would like to appeal to my friends from Quebec who are familiar with this case. It is significant that a member of parliament from the area has not risen to put in a good word for the petitioner. I want to thank the members of the Progressive Conservative party who have reviewed the evidence and who feel that they cannot put their vote of approval on the granting of this particular divorce when the evidence is as it was set out in the document that has come to us from the other place. Therefore, I wish to have the bells rung so that all members will have a chance to decide whether or not this woman should be given the protection of this chamber.


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: There are several comments I should like to make on this particular bill. In reading the evidence submitted to us from the committee of the other place, we are struck by the similarity between the various cases before the committee. This case is a little different in that there is perhaps no other instance where circumstantial evidence played such a great part.

As my colleagues have pointed out, there is no absolute proof of wrong-doing in this particular case. The petitioner is being granted a divorce purely on circumstantial evidence. The woman has attested to the case and has put forward her side of the story and has flatly denied any wrong-doing. Yet, on the basis of purely circumstantial evidence, the committee of the other place has seen fit to grant this divorce. It seems to me that a great deal of the argument, as revealed in the evidence, had to do with the question of the petitioner paying his wife $100 a month, and there were two points of view put forward. The counsel for the petitioner tried to make a case that the husband was paying the wife money to stay at home. Of course, the wife's counsel pointed out, quite rightly, that the money had been paid to the wife on the understanding that she leave the home. It seems to me it is rather unusual that the man in this case would agree to pay money under these circumstances. One will note in the evidence presented before the committee that the wife left the domicile on January 5, 1954. As recorded on page 16 of the evidence, Senator Barbour asked this question:
Q. I would like to know how many monthly payments he made, how many months he paid this $100 after his wife left?
A. Ten months.
Q. After she left you?
A. Yes. After she send me two months' notice, and, in March, 1954, I started to pay.
Here is pretty clear evidence of an understanding concerning the payment of money on condition that the wife left the home. In other words, once she had satisfied the husband that she had indeed left the domicile and had moved to Toronto he was prepared to pay the sum of $100 a month. It is evidence of this type which should cause members of the house to give very serious consideration to voting approval of this particular bill. I think my colleagues have brought out the point that when a petitioner comes before parliament for a divorce we should expect him to come with clean hands. I agree that, according to the rules governing the granting of divorces by parliament, that is not necessary. As a matter of fact, my understanding is that parliament can grant a divorce for any reason whatsoever. The matter is left purely to the discretion of the committee and, of course, eventually the members of parliament of both houses. While it may not be absolutely necessary as a matter of law for a petitioner to come before parliament with clean hands, I suggest that as a matter of practice we should require that in such cases.
Private Bills
Here is a case where a man is asking that the marriage be dissolved and the circumstances surrounding the whole case are such as to leave very serious doubts in our minds whether he deserves a divorce. Moreover, he admits having beaten his wife. When the question of the petitioner's conduct is brought up it is of course shied away from by suggesting that after all it is not the petitioner who is on trial, it is not his conduct that is under discussion but his wife's conduct.
My colleague, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson), brought out the very important point about the preference of the 14 year old girl. Here is a case where the sympathy of the child was with the mother, and I think that is something to which we should attach a great deal of weight. Therefore I am going to vote against the bill for the reasons advanced by my colleagues and particularly because I feel first of all that the petitioner has not come before parliament with clean hands and is not deserving of consideration by the members of this house. Second, I feel that the sympathy towards the mother evidenced by the 14 year old child must be given a great deal of weight. Third, I suggest that the whole circumstances surrounding this man's desire to get rid of his wife must be considered, particularly the fact that he went to the extent of entering into an agreement with her whereby if she left the home and moved away from Montreal he would pay her $100 a month. That does not seem to me to be a logical thing for a man to do who has been wronged in the manner in which he claims to have been wronged. Therefore I urge all members of the house to vote against this bill when the vote is taken.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make one final objection at this stage. I realize this is the last opportunity I have to protect a 54 year old woman. I find it completely impossible to condemn a 54 year old woman to fend for herself for the rest of her days as best she can. As I indicated on second reading, I feel very strongly that the evidence is overwhelming that her husband agreed to pay her $100 a month if she would leave the home.
I welcome the fact that we have an aggressive new chairman of the miscellaneous private bills committee who is taking an active interest in these matters and participating in the debates. I think it will lead to greater efficiency and the methods followed will not be as slipshod as they may have been in other years. I should like to compliment him and express my high regard for the interest he has taken.

Private Bills
The point was raised that we have to let the bill go through because the respondent's lawyer apparently was satisfied. I have had many cases called to my attention where the respondent has not been made aware of her rights and does not know there is such a thing as the miscellaneous private bills committee of the house where her case can be reheard. Furthermore, as I stated in the other case, there is absolutely no arrangement with respect to the financial aspect of a rehearing before our committee.
The respondent's lawyer may have been satisfied but we are still not convinced that the respondent herself was satisfied. We are not convinced that she was even aware of what her rights are. The argument has been used in this case that we have no jurisdiction as to property rights. I agree that they fall within the authority of the provinces. However, I have yet to hear of the members of a jury or a judge rendering a verdict and condemning a person without considering the consequences of their verdict. I believe that as members of the House of Commons we must not only deal with each case on its merits but in rendering a decision we must be fully aware of what the consequences of such a decision are in all likelihood going to be.
We are going to ask this 54 year old woman to continue to live as best she can. While her health last's I suppose she may be able to continue her job as a dishwasher at $21 a week but what is she to do if her health does not remain good or if she loses that position? I think we have to bear that in mind. Above all, I do not think we should at this time exonerate the husband of all responsibility. There have been many arguments put forward on the question of the $100 a month. According to the lawyer this woman left the home on January 5, 1954 and when the husband testified he said, as found on page 14 of the evidence: "In March I start to pay the $100."
She left on January 5 and I say there is a clear indication that the woman's side of the story should at least be given the benefit of the doubt, if not believed altogether. I am very happy to associate myself with those who are unwilling to use parliament for the purpose of throwing a 54 year old woman out on the streets of Montreal.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word or two. In my opinion, if the house sees fit to pass the bill at this time it will surely do so with more than a twinge of conscience. I agree with the members who have spoken on the bill. Here we have a case where it has not been established that adultery has been committed. On the other hand, it has been
[Mr. Regier.l
established that the petitioner has been guilty of very great cruelty to the wife and practically drove her from the home by reason of his attitude and conduct. Through the questioning of counsel for the respondent it has been established that there is certainly a great deal of circumstantial evidence proving misconduct on the part of the petitioner. I think that we who have gone into the merits or demerits of this case have indicated to the house that there is doubt as to the authenticity of the evidence given by the petitioner and the investigators. Along with the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) I feel that here is a case in which, if we pass this bill, it is going to leave a comparatively young woman, one 54 years of age, to fend for herself. She has already indicated that she has been obliged to work as a dishwasher and to work in the tobacco fields. It may well be that the sorrow and the grief she has had through having been forced by a cruel husband to leave her home will be increased by the fact that she may not get the custody of her child. I think it is significant that this woman, under the circumstances that I have indicated, has kept this young girl with her for seven months out of ten. That fact would indicate that to some degree at least she should be entitled to more of an act of justice, might I say, than it seems to me we shall be providing her with if we pass this bill at this time and do not make provision that she at least can come before our committee of this house so that we may understand more fully the facts of the case.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the third reading of this bill. Those who are in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all the other divorce bills be taken up in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Except Bill No. 188.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all those bills reported from committee of the whole, except Bill No. 188, be now read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



THIRD READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Regis Edouard Gosselin.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of William Boychuck.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Edna Betty Berendt Payment.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Leona Jennie Impey Mella.-Mr. Henderson.
Private Bills
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Joseph Elie Felix Leduc, otherwise known as Jean Leduc.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Florence Mintz Etinson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Jeanne Yvonne Gaouyat Leroy.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 173, for the relief of Adrienne Rozenbaum Melzak.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 174, for the relief of Joan Louise Squires Connolly.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of Carol May Burch Squires.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Irene Raab Agoston.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of Joan Marshall Bougie.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Heather Thornton Williamson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Helen Louise Hancox Fray.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of John Wallace Herbert.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Angeline Sperdakos Trakas.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Sheelagh Duffin Bennett.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Ruth Alister Creighton Jones.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Doris Lillian Doughty Dick.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Joan Etta Young Campbell.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Doris Evelyn Hirsch Stephen.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Luvina Mallet Lambert.-Mr. Henderson.

William James Henderson: the third reading of Bill No. 188, for the relief of Lois Margaret Clouston Willar.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I notice a new principle is being established and I regret it very much. Until this year I believe these bills were considered on their merits, but I now see they are being looked upon as votes of confidence in the government. I regret that departure very much. Apparently, the Liberal party is now committed or during these past several votes has committed itself to the principle of agreeing to any and every divorce that may be put before the house for consideration. I notice that goes even far beyond what the hon. members of the other place are doing in that this year already they have refused a fair number of divorces. However, it seems

Private Bills
to be taken for granted that once the sanction of the other place has been given, this place is not to have any more authority in connection with these matters.
The Liberal party has now adopted a new principle, a principle of insisting on using their steam-roller vote to see to it that every one of these divorces passes this House of Commons. Those who may have conscientious objections are kind enough to the Liberal party, but unkind enough to their own convictions, to refrain from voting. They stay behind the curtain. I feel these matters should be put on the record. In addition to the many cases we get from Quebec, this one, as I said before, is from Newfoundland. Another principle seems to be finding root and receiving the sanction of the Liberal party and that is, if you live in Quebec and you want a divorce you must appear and present your case. Not only must you appear, but you must have with you other witnesses, and if you put forward a good case it will receive consideration and likely approval in both houses.
However, if you live in Newfoundland you have a special privilege. You do not have to show up at all and neither does the respondent have to show up. You do not have to send other corroborating witnesses. You have to send only one witness, and in some cases I notice it does not even have to be a witness now living in Newfoundland. Someone can be found living in Ontario who, at one time or another, may have been in Newfoundland and seen a man or a lady smile at someone of the opposite sex. This apparently is good enough for the parliament of Canada.
The other day some of us in committee wanted to have this case heard in a proper manner. Even though some of us do not agree that we are a court we believe we should conduct this business as it ought to be conducted, and would be conducted in any properly constituted court. We asked that the case be heard. We did not even admit that it had been heard, since there was only one witness called. The question was fired back at us, who is going to pay? Whose responsibility is it? When a committee of this House of Commons incurs an expenditure it is up to us to pay if the people are unable to pay. Surely, money is not going to be the thing that decides what the decision of a committee of this house is going to be.
We have never yet accepted that theory. On one committee last year we brought all kinds of witnesses from the city of Vancouver. We brought the chief of police and the warden of a jail and several others to testify before the committee. When it comes to calling witnesses from Newfoundland the question of who is going to pay arises. Aside from

the money question I also feel an important principle is involved here. If we are responsible members of this committee, or the highest court in the land if you call it that, we cannot afford to be accused of dissolving marriages without having at least one of the parties in the case appear before a committee of this house or the other place. I think that is another principle which is worthy of note. If this case and others like it are permitted to go through, my fellow citizens in British Columbia who are unsatisfied with local divorce laws should have the same right as loyal subjects of Her Majesty to petition this parliament if they are unsatisfied with conditions as they exist back home.
I would like to pose this question to the Liberal party: What will you do if you are swamped by 10,000 unsatisfied divorce applicants from one end of Canada to the other if neither party of any of the marriages has to appear? It is simply a matter of sending a penny postcard in order to apply for divorce.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a few brief words. Since I came into this house I have never voted for a divorce bill but I have had sense enough not to decide how other people should vote and I have not presumed to tell them what their duty is. I am convinced that if we spent more time in attempting to remove the cause of divorce, which is cursed selfishness, we would be spending the taxpayers' money in a more constructive way.
I do not believe in divorce. That is my personal conviction because I do not want to be divorced from my better half. Should anyone try to cause trouble between my wife and me, he will get it in the neck as quickly as possible, by golly. The home is the bulwark of the nation and it is our duty to stand for the upbuilding of the home. If we do that we will cut divorce to pieces.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to object to the adjective "smutty" in reference to legislation before this house, as used by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) in his speech.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, since a new principle has been brought to the attention of parliament for the first time this afternoon I think we should look carefully at what we are about to do. If it is possible for citizens of Newfoundland to secure divorces without the petitioner or the respondent appearing, there is no valid reason why citizens of the province of Quebec should not have the same privileges. It is obvious that the bill will result in a drastic increase in the number of divorces if we extend to

the citizens of Quebec what we are apparently prepared to extend to the citizens of Newfoundland.
While apparently it is not a new practice, it is the first time it has been brought to my attention. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) has performed a valuable service in discovering this principle.
I notice that Mr. Burke-Robertson, a barrister residing in Ottawa, who handled this case, said:
I would like to ask leave to present the petitioner's case by affidavit. This is a Newfoundland case and it has been the practice on most of the other Newfoundland cases which I have had over the past few years to accept the petitioner's evidence by affidavit if the petitioner has no knowledge of the adultery which is alleged. In this case the petitioner can only prove the marriage and the domicile of the parties and is not able to give any evidence on the issue of adultery.
My attention has been drawn to the fact that another divorce was granted this year under similar circumstances wherein it was not necessary for the petitioner to put in an appearance. I think that is a new principle in dealing with justice where the welfare of men, women and children is involved. I certainly do not propose to give my consent to the granting of divorces on this sort of procedure.
Their Honours the senators were also a little uneasy. Senator Fergusson said:
Mr. Chairman, don't you think we should discuss that point in the main committee before deciding. We are acting as a subcommittee and we usually discuss such a matter in the main committee before taking affidavit evidence of any kind.
The chairman said:
Yes. We will adjourn for a few minutes in order to consult with the chairman.
Senator Roebuck, chairman of the main committee, joined the subcommittee and the barrister explained the procedure. Senator Roebuck added his comments.
I think that hon. members in this chamber should not remain silent; I think they should vote for or against a principle as far-reaching as the principle we are asked to establish in supporting the bill which is now before us. For my part, I would like to register my opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


William James Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the question should be put until we realize the meaning of the new principle which has been mentioned by the hon. members who have spoken. They have mentioned the Liberals in this house voting solidly. I do not think a new principle is involved here because as I understand
Private Bills
it we are always willing to assist those minorities which require assistance and privileges. Furthermore, since Canada stretches from one ocean to the other certain privileges should be granted to certain groups which would otherwise have a great deal of difficulty or would be deprived of the advantages other Canadian groups might have. If the people of Newfoundland by some chance happened to live in another province they could have divorces granted by supreme or county courts and the situation might be different. However, the people of Newfoundland, as Canadians, should have every privilege and opportunity in relation to the dissolution of marriage as other Canadians enjoy and this happens to be the procedure upon which their divorce rights are based.
Some question has been raised here about the procedure. If we examine the courts of Canada we realize that it is a pretty general principle. I think the courts of Canada are recognized the world over for their justice and integrity.
As a general principle, in some courts evidence can be presented by deposition which is not too much different from evidence in the form of an affidavit or a sworn statement. In divorce cases the petitioner can file certain affidavits with the Senate committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I forgot to inform the house that, since the hon. member is the mover, by speaking now he closes the debate. I would not like to see those hon. members who would like to speak deprived of their right to do so. This is the third reading of this bill. It just occurred to me that the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Henderson), being the mover of this bill, will close the debate if he speaks now. I should have inquired as to whether any other hon. member wished to speak. If any hon. member wishes to speak now I shall have to ask the hon. member for Kingston to resume his seat in order to provide other hon. members with an opportunity of speaking. If not, the hon. member will close the debate by speaking at this time.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


William James Henderson: Mr. Speaker, this particular petitioner filed an affidavit in support of his petition and which is part of the evidence. This evidence was never questioned. He was domiciled in the province of Newfoundland and was married to the respondent on such and such a date. To bring him the distance it would be necessary to bring him when there is no dispute or presumption of dispute would probably cause more difficulty. If the case had been opposed I presume a request would have been made

Private Bills
to have brought persons before the committee to give evidence, but this petitioner could not add a* great deal to what was given before.
I believe in this case evidence was given by a 35 year old garage mechanic, not by a professional investigator of the type some of our hon. friends are worried about.
It was said that to adopt this type of procedure might result in a divorce bill passing by which a respondent might be divorced and not know he had been involved in a petition for divorce. I do not think there is much possibility of that happening because in Canada officers of the court serve all these documents. I understand that in this case service was made by a court officer who filed with the clerk of petitions an affidavit of service properly sworn before a notary public or someone authorized to take such affidavits.
There was corroboration which was completely independent and no objection was raised. It seems to me that the evidence in this case should be considered as being sufficient. It has been said that the Liberal party has voted solidly on this, but I have not noticed that in the past except when the facts and principles involved required it.
In conclusion I might suggest that if any party wishes to vote solidly against the principle as set out, that it is necessary to bring people from Newfoundland, the petitioner or even both parties although sometimes the respondent never turns up, that would be voting to bar the people of Newfoundland from the rights and privileges which they now have.



LA PAIX GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA

Mr. Romuald Bourque (Outremont-St. Jean) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 189, to incorporate La Paix General Insurance Company of Canada.


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

Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 191, respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company and certain wholly owned subsidiaries.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the sponsor going to make a statement in connection with this bill?
++YEAS
Messrs:
Aitken, Miss	Henderson
Anderson	Hosking
Applewhaite	Houck
Ashbourne	Howe (Port Arthur)
Balcom	Huffman
Batten	Hunter
Bell	Kirk (Shelburne-
Bennett	Yarmouth-Clare)
Buchanan	Leboe
Campney	Lusby
Carrick	MacDougall
Cavers	MacKenzie
Churchill	MacNaught
Enfield	McCann
Eyre	McCubbin
Fairclough, Mrs.	McCulloch (Pictou)
Fairey	Mcllraith
Fraser (Peterborough)	McMillan
Gardiner	Mang
Garson	Marler
Hanna	Murphy (Lambton West)
Harris	Philpott
Hees	Pickersgill
(Mr. Henderson.)


George James McIlraith: The purpose of the bill is to simplify the corporate organization of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The 13 railway companies named in clause 2 of the bill are wholly owned subsidiaries of and are operated under long-term lease by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Some of the leases are for 99-year terms and some for 999-year terms. Of the 13 companies, ten were incorporated by acts of this parliament, one by act of the Ontario legislature and two by acts of the British Columbia legislature.
By the bill, the railways and all their undertakings and assets are being vested in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is assuming the liabilities of these railway companies. Complementary legislation is being sought from the provincial legislatures in the provinces in which the railways are

situated. Complementary legislation in Ontario and British Columbia is now being dealt with by those legislatures, and application will be made to the Quebec legislature when it reconvenes, which is usually in the latter part of the year.
The bill will not have any effect on the actual operation of the lines, and nothing affecting the operation itself is involved in this legislation but there is, of course, a change in the administration and accounting procedure consequent on the vesting of the assets in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Could I ask for confirmation from the sponsor that there is no complementary action in mind here which involves the closing of any lines or any of these subsidiary services?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member speaks now, he will close the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might make a short speech that will consist of one or two questions. Then the hon. member for Ottawa West, when he closes the debate, can also answer the question that has been asked and any others that might follow.
I would be interested to know whether the change in the corporate structure contemplated by this bill will have any effect on the position of the workers employed by these various companies. Will it have any effect on the collective agreement that exists, although that collective agreement is being renegotiated at the present time, between the various railways and their employees? I would also like to know whether it will have any effect on any pension plans. Perhaps the hon. member could deal with those questions when he is permitted to close the debate.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: I should like to ask one question. When the bill is passed will it mean the elimination of the names of these other companies, or will the names remain as they are?


Frederick George Hahn: have one question to put to the sponsor of the bill. I am not sure that I caught correctly what he said with respect to the respective provincial governments being notified and asked to pass complementary legislation. I understood him to say that the legislatures involved were all sitting at the present time. I know that the legislature of the province of British Columbia is not sitting now. I am not sure that he mentioned that province, but would he please explain?
Private Bills


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have one question for the sponsor of the bill. He may have dealt with the matter, but if he did so I did not hear him. Will he state whether it is the intention to move that the bill be sent to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines or some other committee after second reading?


Mr. Speaker:: Under our standing orders it has to go to the standing committee. We have no choice in the matter.


Mr. Jones:: Can the sponsor give the present names of the subsidiaries in British Columbia that are involved?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker-


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


George James McIlraith: -I shall try to answer the questions raised. As to the first question about closing a line, that matter is not affected in any way by the bill before the house. The closing of a railway line is something that, under existing legislation, has to be done by application to and with the approval of the board of transport commissioners for Canada.
I understand that no such application is contemplated. As a matter of fact, some of the railway lines dealt with in the bill are very important railway lines in the existing C.P.R. system. The main line from Montreal to Toronto is made up in great part of one of these lines we are talking about today.
The next question had to do with the workers. I should like to have that question dealt with again in the committee, but I understand that the workers are all Canadian Pacific Railway workers. These railways are and have been operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and therefore the workers would not be affected in any way. I feel quite sure of that. That was my understanding of the matter, but I will raise it again with counsel for the railway company to see if any elaboration of my answer is required when the bill is considered in the committee.
The next question from the hon. member for Peterborough was as to the names of the companies?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will the nameS of the companies be changed to "Canadian Pacific Railway Company"? Will these companies all lose their identities?


George James McIlraith: These companies will disappear completely. They are dissolved by the bill before the house.

Private Bills


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They will all
be C.P.R.?


George James McIlraith: They will be dissolved and the names will disappear.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And all be
Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


George James McIlraith: All will be Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I was asked as to the names of the companies in British Columbia. The two companies in British Columbia are the Columbia and Kootenay Railway and Navigation Company and the Vancouver and Lulu Island Railway Company.
There seemed to be some misunderstanding about complementary legislation. When I was discussing this matter some few days ago before the bill first appeared on the order paper, complementary legislation was before the British Columbia legislature which was at that time in session, and I assume it was passed. The complementary legislation would seek to do two things. In so far as it is required because of the legislative jurisdiction of that legislative body, it would seek to vest any assets in the C.P.R. exactly as is done here with respect to those assets over which this parliament has jurisdiction. In the case of the two companies incorporated by the British Columbia legislature it would also dissolve those companies, and similarly with the Ontario company. Does that answer all the questions that were asked? I think it does.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose I can take it
for granted that what the hon. member said with regard to workers would apply to workers pension rights as well as to other matters affecting workers.


George James McIlraith: Pension rights would be
a liability if it were one that was in existence, so I think the point is fully covered by the legislation.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 192 (letter S-6 of the Senate) intituled: "An act for the relief of Mary Valerie Dorothy Johnston	Bromwich".-Mr. Henderson.
Mr. Speaker:: There are several divorce
bills coming up for second reading. Is it agreed that they all be taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 192, for the relief of Mary Valerie Dorothy Johnston Bromwich.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 193, for the relief of Dorothy Joanne Campbell Mockeridge.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill 194, for the relief of Edna Gertrude Neil Fry.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 195, for the relief of Madeleine Tremblay St. Jean.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Stephen Harvan.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Charles Lanny Catto.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of Simonne Trottier Breard.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Mary Murray Snook.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Ruth Katie Brigden Battersby.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Marie Dicerni Arcieri.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Laurence Turgeon, otherwise known as Laurent Tur-geon.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Barbara Allen Deslauriers.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Henri Xavier Eugene Bernard.-Mr. Henderson.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 148, respecting Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company-Mr. Brisson-Mr. Apple-whaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Extension of time for completion of line.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: The question is on clause 1 and on the amendment thereto moved by the hon. member for Vancouver -Quadra. Perhaps it might refresh the memory of the members of the committee if I read the amendment. It is as follows:
That clause 1 be amended by deleting the word ten" in line 9 of the bill and substituting the word five" therefor.


John Borden Hamilton: Is the mover of the bill in the house to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman?


Mr. Weir:: Certainly he is.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In the unavoidable absence of the mover-


Mr. Brisson:: I am here.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman,
I should like to spend a few minutes on this legislation and the amendment moved by the

hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. I think a great deal of weight was given in the committee that considered the bill to evidence which possibly indicated that there was very little difference in the situation with respect to the further development of this railway than was the case ten years ago, when the company first approached the house for a franchise covering a period of ten years for the development of the road. In subsequent speeches that have been made on the subject I believe one salient feature has been overlooked, namely that at the present time the applicant for this franchise has lost the pioneering spirit which motivated it in carrying out the program that has been carried out thus far.
When the company approached the house for permission previously it had been making surveys in the area around Schefferville and had come up with indications of some valuable iron ore properties. It was obvious at that time that if it were to be in a position to carry out development work, a railway was definitely necessary.
Now the situation is that the railway has what it wants. It has a railway to its door, to its own properties. As I have indicated previously, there is not the same incentive to this particular company to carry out the further development work which will be required in order to push the railway forward to Ungava bay.
I think also that it is an extremely naive view that has been held in some quarters that this of course is not an exclusive franchise, that it is only some enabling legislation, and that if this particular company does not go forward with its plans then of course there will be plenty of opportunity for other companies to come forward, make an application and have their application dealt with on its merits.
That sounds very nice, Mr. Chairman, but from the practical standpoint I do not think there is any doubt about it that what we are handing over here today is an exclusive right for an additional 10 years. I would say this. If someone else came along in the interval and suggested that they would like to move in here and start extending this particular line of railway, I believe they would be quickly told no, that there was a company which had opened up the original area here and that they still had several years to go before they could be put out of the market in this connection.
There is this matter of the removal of incentive as far as going forward is concerned. On the other hand, there is every indication that the area now holds the same promise to the north that was there in the
Private Bills
original construction period of the rail line. I might refer to the examination of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra when he questioned the manager of the railway company. At page 20 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, we find the following:
By Mr. Green:
Q. When you showed the committee the small map you showed us a stretch of base metal territory running to Ungava bay and to the west of it a similar stretch of iron ore territory.-A. Yes, there is a possibility of finding enrichment in it. There has been a great deal of exploring done on the iron ore field apart from the low grade ore in the vicinity of Ungava bay.
Q. There are iron ore possibilities on the way north from Schefferville to Ungava bay?-A. I do not say somebody would not find an iron ore mine in between. The most central deposit of high grade ore which we have is about 50 miles northwest of Schefferville at a place called Eclipse.
The indication here is that somebody might find it, but there is not the same lure in front of this particular company to carry on this work. If the same pioneering spirit were developed by this company today, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me there would be no question about its ability to carry forward the necessary surveys, get the work under way and do it long before the expiration of the 10-year period that has been provided for in the application. I say that the amendment which has been made limiting this period to 5 years appears to be reasonable.
I may have been a little surprised in committee to find that some members of the C.C.F. party thought the 10-year period was quite all right. However, when I looked back at Hansard of the session of 1947, volume III, page 2437, I found there an indication that all their members did not feel that way. The hon. member for Cape Breton South has redeemed himself here by carrying on the same argument that he used at that time. I should like to quote what he said back in 1947:
Nevertheless, as I was saying when the minister interrupted me, this bill not only gives the company control over bus lines, transportation and all the rest of it which is included in the bill-if it is a provincial matter it should not be in the bill-but it definitely delegates these rights to the company. The worst feature of it, as I see it. is that the company is not obligated to begin operation of the road for five years, which can serve the purpose of keeping someone out if they want to go in and develop that territory in that time. If at the end of ten years the job is not completed, then, under the bill, the government has the right to rescind it. So far as the development of the resources and the railway line in there are concerned, it is definitely gone, because the company can do what they like with it for the next ten years. They are not obliged to do anything about it. The bill precludes anyone else from going in there and developing the area.

Private Bills
Those conditions still exist, I submit, Mr. Chairman. I believe that if the applicant in this case wants to show good faith and wants to continue the same pioneering spirit which it used previously, it should not object in any way to the reduction of this period from 10 years to 5 years.
There is one other feature about this matter, and it has been discussed in this house previously. Here again the control of a vast amount of the natural resources of this country is being handed over to people outside of this country. Someone may say it has been handed over by another legislative authority, but by this legislation dealing with the franchise for a railway which will probably be the only major means of opening up this territory I say that in this case again, this House of Commons is going to ensure that the control of thousands and thousands of acres of the best ground in this country from the natural resources standpoint is going to be handed over to interests which are entirely outside this country. There is again the feature that we are not paying attention to the essential fact that if we are not careful we are not going to control within our own country all the wonderful assets which have been left here for us.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to say that I find myself in complete agreement with the opening remarks of the hon. member for York West wherein he stated something to the effect that there is little difference between the situation now and the situation 10 years ago in respect of this railway company; but probably my reasons for feeling that this is the case are somewhat different from his. I have been attempting to follow his remarks rather closely. I must say that I am rather clear in my mind as to what he is against in this connection, but I have little idea as to what he is for. I gather that for some reason or other he is opposed to this particular concern having a franchise to extend this railway, but he does not suggest what the alternative would be if this franchise is not granted.
I think my position today, Mr. Chairman, is the same as that which was taken by the hon. member for Cape Breton South 10 years ago, namely that this is the kind of development which should have been handled in a manner which would have kept its benefits in the hands of the people of Canada. I must say that I found it rather amusing, both in the house and during the committee hearings on this bill, to find the great Conservative party and its members raising all the fuss and furor that they have been raising about this particular bill at this particular time. There are occasions when they seem to pride

themselves as being the great champions of what they like to call free enterprise. Yet in this case they seem to have some particular gripe against this particular firm. I must confess that I have not yet discovered the reason for it.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for York West indicated in the committee that he was in favour of private monopolies.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He never said that.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In my remarks in the committee I made it clear that if you were going to have a monopoly I would favour a public monopoly.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member at this stage, but may I volunteer to him the information that the remarks he is now making are entirely in order on clause 1 and would be in order on clause 1 whether the amendment before us is carried or defeated. But I suggest to him that the line of thought he is pursuing, as to whether or not this particular company is to build the line, is not the question before the committee at the moment. The question before the committee at the moment is whether we shall continue the 10-year period or make it a 5-year period. Then we shall decide whether or not the clause shall be carried. I would ask hon. members at this stage to restrict their remarks to the subject matter of the amendment, because when the amendment' has been disposed of the clause will be open for discussion.


John Borden Hamilton: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. Although I understand you are ruling some of the remarks out of order, I think in connection with the remark made about my statement on monopolies I might be allowed to read from page 28 of the committee evidence the actual words used.
If there is anything I don't like it is public monopolies. I like private monopolies little more-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: At the risk of incurring your displeasure, sir, I might remark that I thought I was giving a reasonable paraphrase of that particular statement. However, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I have not made my point in connection with the amendment as clear as I might have. The precise point of the remarks I was making was that I am quite frankly puzzled as to why this amendment is before us, in view of the ideas put forward by the hon. member and his colleagues.
The position I took on this question in the committee when we were discussing an identical amendment moved there, was that this amendment was tantamount to telling this firm that they must commence construction

Private Bills
of this line immediately. However, there was no evidence in the committee that there was any immediate need for this particular railway line. There was no evidence that mining properties would be proved up and would require a railway line. There was no indication that there would be any other traffic except that originating from the mine to justify the construction of the railway beyond the point to which it has already been built. For that reason, I felt in the committee, and still feel, that regardless of whether this is going to be built by a private monopoly or a public monopoly-I agree with the hon. member for York West that in effect this is tantamount to an all-inclusive franchise so far as a railway in that area is concerned-the cost of this railway construction if it should prove to be an uneconomic venture is going to come back on the shoulders of the people of Canada. For that reason I indicated in the committee that I would have been much happier if the hon. member had proposed an amendment which would, in effect, have indicated to the company that they must commence construction within five years. I made it clear in the committee that I would have been prepared to support that kind of amendment.
Personally I cannot see that it is wise to compel this company, as this amendment in effect suggests, to commence immediately the construction of some hundreds of miles of railway line. Indeed, it has yet to be proven whether there is or ever will be any traffic for a railway to carry. However, the main question is whether or not this franchise should ever have been granted, or whether it is wise to extend a franchise for an indefinite period to large private monopolies. I think, Mr. Chairman, I have attempted to clarify my own position on this amendment. Perhaps I might not find it necessary to pursue the broader question when we come to consider clause 1, in view of the fact you believe I have covered a broad area in my discussion of the amendment itself.


Frederick George Hahn: In introducing this amendment to the house, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has once again indicated a desire to rush into things for the sole purpose, in so far as the Conservative party is concerned, of hurrying up a program in order to bring these important matters to the attention of the public, indicating that they are a do-something party. I agree with the spirit of the amendment, the spirit being that there should be a railway extension into the northern part of Quebec and particularly from Knob Lake to Ungava bay. We cannot, however, go along with the suggestion that it must be built within a 5-year period.
I believe we have had sufficient evidence brought before the committee to indicate that it is quite impractical to expect this company to finish this job within a 5-year period. I do not see the justification for forcing the issue and having a railway line constructed over territory which will be non-productive. The line should not be built until such time as a request has been made by some responsible mining industry or some other responsible body and evidence is given to indicate that a rail line is necessary. As I understood the committee report, it was indicated that all that need be done was that certain representations be made to the railway company indicating that an extension of the line was desirable and necessary to get their products to market, and the line would be started.
Now, the fact that a rail line is necessary is certainly true but it is definitely not necessary to have that line constructed within a 5-year period, unless there is someone in that region who has a business enterprise, a mining industry, that would make it essential. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni because I felt that he approached the problem in an extremely realistic way, which is something I really appreciate about the hon. member. In relation to this question, as in several other cases, I think the hon. member revealed a reasonable approach. We must face reality. We have a great north land which needs to be opened up. But to bind to a five-year period a company which has proven it is doing a good job in this particular area, or to take away its franchise, would be the height of folly.
In so far as statements concerning monopoly are concerned, I think the hon. member for York West made himself quite clear when he indicated that he did not like a private monopoly any better than he liked a public monopoly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He said a little better.


Frederick George Hahn: He did not say a little better; he said "little better", as I recall it, which to my mind means that he did not think there was much to choose between either of them. We have a board of transport commissioners for the protection of the public, which should regulate these things in respect to monopoly, either public or private. There is nothing defensible in either, I might add, if they are exploiting the public. However, Mr. Chairman, that is not the purpose of our present discussion.


Mr. Gillis:: There are no public monopolies. There has never been any prosecution. There have been prosecutions on the other side.

Private Bills


An hon. Member:: The government cannot prosecute itself.


Frederick George Hahn: The hon. member for Cape Breton indicates that there are no public monopolies. I probably should not have called them by that name. I should have said there are government enterprises; but try to get into business, such as the T.C.A., and you will soon discover for certain whether or not there are public monopolies.
I think I have made myself quite clear concerning the stand I take. I do want to see the development of the north land of Quebec, as part of the north land of Canada, but I do not expect it to happen in the next five years.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Mr. Chairman, when this bill was discussed for the first time in this committee the other day, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra claimed that by granting the extension of 10 years asked for by the company, we would be placing a stranglehold on the district. This line of argument was to some extent taken up this afternoon by the hon. member for York West, when he contended that by this bill we were giving an exclusive franchise to the railway company for a further period of ten years.
I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat what has been said before in this connection both in this committee and in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines; that is to say, that by this bill we are only amending the incorporating act of this company by providing that it shall have a further ten years starting in May, 1957, in which to carry out the whole undertaking envisaged by its incorporation. If some hon. members still persist in contending that we are placing a stranglehold on this district, one has only to remind them that if a stranglehold was ever placed on this district, it was when the mineral rights were granted to the mining companies in that district by the Conservative government of the province of Quebec.
Speaking on this question of mineral rights, I wish to remind hon. members that the Quebec Iron Ore Company is not the only company holding mineral rights in the district proposed to be served by this extension. At this point I wish to quote from the report of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, when Mr. Durrell was asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra to answer some questions. Mr. Durrell had this to say, as reported at page 15 of the report:
Between Leaf bay and the coastal area we have considerable holdings, and we are doing a lot of drilling; but we would hardly call it ore today. It would be if it were just outside Montreal; but we need large tonnage to justify an extension to the railway.
CMr. Gillis.)
In reply to a further question asked by the hon. member, as to whether these were iron ore deposits, Mr. Durrell had this to say:
No, base metal deposits, copper and nickel.
I asked a question, as reported at page 22 of the report:
Mr. Durrell, have you been requested by any of the companies holding mining rights north of SchefTerville for this extension?
In reply to my question Mr. Durrell answered:
No sir. We have not.
My contention is that the company is right in coming before this parliament and asking not to be called upon to proceed with this extension until such time as the ore deposits in the district have been proven and can be exploited. Even if it were proven today that these ore bodies were ready for exploitation, my contention is that the five-year extension of time proposed by the amendment would not be sufficient. This was also borne out by the evidence placed before the committee. Mr. Durrell stated quite clearly that it would take at least two or three years to complete the survey and to prepare the necessary plans.
Mr. Durrell also stated that it had taken over four years to build the first part of the project from Seven Islands to Schefferville. He added that this part of the line was built by expediting the work, by using airlift to quite an extent and by spending about twice the amount of money that would have been required to build this line under ordinary circumstances without rushing the construction. He also added that the terrain in the district north of Schefferville to Ungava bay was worse, as far as railway construction is concerned, than the stretch between Seven Islands and Schefferville. Therefore it can be safely said that it will take more than four years. Mr. Durrell gave evidence before the committee that it would take some six years more for the completion of this line. If we say to this company that they can have only five years in which to carry out the project, we will not be giving them sufficient time to even make a start on the construction. It is quite clear that the minimum of time required to complete the survey, to prepare plans and specifications and to build the line would be of the order of eight or ten years.
The other day the point was made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South that this extension should have been undertaken by Canadian National Railways. I do not think it will be necessary to spend very much time to prove to the committee that this is not the type of project which should be undertaken by Canadian National Railways.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I interrupted another hon. member and asked him to remember that what we have before us is an amendment to reduce the period of the extension from ten to five years, and I do not think we should be discussing whether some other railway should be authorized to build this line.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I accept your decision. I was just answering the point made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I should like now to deal with the other point which was brought up by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra when moving his amendment. The hon. member said that this company should not be allowed to undertake this project because it is being financed chiefly in the United States. In reply I would say that I do not see anything wrong with a company of this kind being financed outside of Canada. I should like to quote what Mr. Durrell had to say before the committee about the financing of the company. In reply to a question by the hon. member for Edmonton East Mr. Durrell said:
Q. How do you intend to finance your line? Can you tell us?
A. We financed this line ourselves. We did not go to anybody for assistance. Out of the $255 million we have spent for capital expenditure, we borrowed $145 million from insurance companies. I regret to say that Canadian insurance companies were offered the first "crack" at it but unfortunately we only had four who would participate. They felt that the development of the north country was not properly justified so the bulk of our money came from American insurance companies. Canadian companies were offered the first chance. That was a blow to me. I am a Canadian.
To a further question by myself Mr. Durrell added that out of the total of $145 million which the company needed to borrow in order to complete the first section of the line, roughly $2 million had been advanced by Canadian insurance companies. If companies of this type cannot find the necessary finances in Canada to develop particular sections of our country, are we going to postpone the exploitation of our natural resources?
I submit that the amendment should be opposed because it does not give sufficient time to the company to carry out survey and other preliminary works, to draw up the plans and ,to complete the construction. I would remind hon. members that we are not giving the company ten more years to make up its mind, and in this connection I should like to quote the latter part of clause 1, which reads:
-and if within the said period the said line of railway is not completed and put in operation, the powers of construction conferred upon the company by the parliament of Canada shall cease
Private Bills
and be null and void as respects so much of the said line of railway as then remains uncompleted.
It is quite clear that we are not giving the company ten more years in which to make up its mind. It is being given ten more years in which to make the survey, build the line and put it into operation. If the company fails to do that within the period, it loses the powers conferred upon it by its charter. I submit that the ten years which will be given by the bill is not too long a time. It is barely time enough for the company to carry out the construction of this line, which I hope will soon be undertaken in order to develop this part of the province.


Mr. Hodgson:: Mr. Chairman, following the last speaker may I say that this bill gives the company not ten years but eleven years, because the first ten years will not be up until more than a year from now. Not only does it give them another eleven years, it gives them control over a great land mass containing a tremendous mining potential and extending for 300 square miles in the northern part of that country. This company got a franchise in 1947 but they did not start to build the present line until 1949. They completed the line two and a half years ago to their own mine. The first section was built in a little over four years, and it is now proposed to complete the line to Ungava bay, an extension of about the same distance.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will give this company an extension of six years, which is nearly twice as long as it will take them to build this railway if they want to go at it right away. The vice-president of the company stated before the committee that they could build the line in less than four years, and he said also that they could do the survey work in two years. Therefore an extension of five years will give them a total of six years in which to complete this line of railway.
I object to any ten-year period being granted because it will tie up a large area of the country and leave it under the control of large American interests. Nobody will have a chance to go in there, find a mine and build a railroad. If somebody else wanted to build another line they would have to come back here and we would have to change this whole set-up. I have no objection to Americans coming here and spending their money and developing any part of our country, but I have objection to tying up a large mining area to United States interests for that period of time. There are other people participating there at the present time, but what if those companies set about getting franchises for a period of another ten years?

Private Bills
I think the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, giving them another five years, which is really six years from the present time limit, is giving them plenty of time. No matter what interests they have, we should not have a great area of our country tied up to large United States interests. We may have groups in this country who wish to open mines and develop some of their country. Surely we are not going to tie this country up so that somebody who is not a Canadian can go in there and develop a mine and build a railway, or even build an extension of a railway.
Five years is long enough. The evidence has proved that that is sufficient time to build this railroad. It gives them two years to make a survey, and it takes four years to build it. The evidence given in the railways, canals and telegraphs committee was that that was plenty of time. They said they could do it in less time than that if they were to fly stuff in, which would make more expense. Nobody is asking them to do that, to make extra expense; but when they have given evidence that they can do the job in six years, and we offer that after giving them one period of ten years, I think we have gone far enough and been fair enough with this company. Far be it from me to suggest that we stop this company from bringing in money to develop this country, but this is tying it up for too long a period.


Mr. Small:: The hon. member for Gaspe was working on the premise that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was attempting to end all work, that he did not want to see the railway go further, and that by putting a limitation on the time he was trying to frustrate the work of the company in proceeding further. That was not the impression I got at that time. My impression was that he thought five years was sufficient, following next year, 1957, to prove they were really in earnest about extending this railway to Ungava. So far as the evidence went, all the figures they gave showed that they could do it in that time.
Be that as it may, he said that if the extension were given for an extra five years, it would be up to the company to show something for that five years and then come back to the house and ask for a further extension, proving good faith and that they had made sufficient progress during that five years to warrant giving them the balance of the ten years. So it was beyond the comprehension of some members of the committee why they should be given that full extension. The amendment was to give them a five-year extension, which really meant six years, so

that if they came back after that time and showed that they had made sufficient progress on the work, then they would be given the balance.
What has the company been doing up to now? They have only started to make surveys and do the research work. As to progressing farther north, they have been standing still all that time. Now they advance the argument that they want another ten years. What have they done in that time? They have now built some 355 miles of railway. Surely the company has not been standing still all this time. They should have made sufficient plans and have made the necessary surveys so they could accomplish the best part of the work in the next four years.


Mr. Hosking:: I wish to make a few remarks in case the wrong impression has been given regarding the building of this railway. I think it would be well for the house to consider for a few moments just why the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company built a railway in the first place. They built a railway in order to transport ore from Knob Lake to an ocean port. As the Conservative speakers have pointed out, it has taken nearly nine years to build this railway and get it into a position where they could ship ore.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It took them less than four years.


Henry Alfred Hosking: It is about nine years now, and the railway has just come into operation and has not made any money as yet. Mr. Durrell told us in the committee that he hoped that, if the production this year was as they expected it to be, next year they would make a profit. These men collected $255 million to build a railway, and port, to open up an ore field. Therefore it was good, sound logic that they should build this line. There is no similar logic ito justify them in proceeding further at this time.
They asked for an opportunity to build a railway through to Ungava bay in case ore should be found farther north and it would be advantageous to have a seaport on the northern coast of Canada. If they found these ore fields, then they would be prepared to build this line. We were told in the committee that exploration work was being done in that area, and that at the present time there was no ore field that made it logical for them to proceed. They have shown good faith. They discovered an ore field and they built a railway.
This motion of the Conservative party is one to curb free enterprise. All through the committee proceedings the Conservative

members were saying that this should not be a free enterprise movement, that we must curb them, that the government must step in at the last minute and put curbs on it, after a group of men-four of this company's directors are Canadian and one American- had developed this section of the country for us. Let me say this. Of the $255 million that was raised to build this project, $143 million was raised in the United States. I should like to read Mr. Durrell's comment on how that money was spent. He said they had some difficulty at the start, and they had to buy cars from the United States. Then he went on to say this, as recorded on page 24 of the evidence:
Since then we have been buying almost 100 per cent Canadian, and in the $255 million I do not think probably more than 5 per cent went out of the country.
It is all very well for the Conservatives to suggest that it is a bad thing to borrow money from the United States, but when these people themselves borrow and raise $255 million and all of it but 5 per cent is spent to give labour in this country of ours,
I think it is a very good thing to go outside and borrow some money in order to give employment here. It is a sorry thing for this country when the great Conservative party takes an attitude adverse to such development-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Nobody said they did not want them to borrow.


Henry Alfred Hosking: You accused them of being a United States company.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I did not.


Henry Alfred Hosking: There is only one director from the United States in the whole company. I want to say this-and I would like anyone else who disagrees with me to comment on it-that if and when there is an ore body of commercial value, this company will build an extension, the same as they have built a railway from Seven Islands to Knob Lake. They will handle the new ore, and no government should give people who invest money the feeling that the minute they get into this position then someone would take it away from them. This should not be done.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are engaged now in a discussion of the first clause of this bill, which reads, in the first few lines of paragraph 1, as follows:
Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company, hereinafter called "the company", may within a period of ten years from the 14th day of May, 1957, complete that portion of its line of railway authorized by chapter 80 of the statutes of 1947 which is not now completed . . .
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is to the effect that
Private Bills
the word "ten" be struck out and "five" substituted therefor. The purpose of the amendment is not to raise an obstruction to the building of a line of railway for opening up a section of the northern part of Canada where mineral development may be carried on. That is not the purpose of the amendment. It is not intended to be obstructionist, because we are just as interested as anyone else in the development of Canada's great north.
However, I think anyone looking at this matter very closely would see that to grant an extension for a period of ten years as requested by the company, when they still have one year to go on the old charter, would give them more than ample time for any purpose they might have in mind. A five-year extension would be more in line with the progress that is being made in Canada at the present time. It seems to me that in 1947, nine years ago, when the charter was granted, and a ten-year period was put in the legislation, the situation in the development of Canada's mineral wealth was very different from what it is today. In 1947 we were not aware that we were going to have the great development that has occurred since that time. In 1947 we were not aware that the resources of the North American continent were being depleted at the rate shown by the subsequent Paley report.
Consequently the whole picture of mineral development in the Canadian north land is materially different from what it was in 1947 when the ten-year charter was granted. This company was entering into unknown territory. It had to make extensive surveys and it was difficult to get started although, by reason of the airlift, the job of building the present railway was completed rather quickly. The airlift and the rapid construction of the railway coincided with the pressing demand for iron ore and were timed to coincide with the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway.
I think the ten-year period allowed in 1947 was reasonable under the circumstances prevailing at that time, and a five-year extension now would appear to be reasonable in view of the circumstances now prevailing. We are now in a sphere of development that is much more pronounced than it was ten years ago, and there is a much greater demand for our mineral wealth than ten years ago. Many more companies are interested in surveys and in searching for ore bodies. It seems to me that under these circumstances the company, if it is given a five-year extension of its present charter which in effect would give it six years to make up its mind, should have ample time for any extension of the railway line.

Private Bills
In reading some of the evidence given in the committee and subsequently quoted in the house I have noticed that when questions were asked of Mr. Durrell as to whether he felt justified in commencing construction of the extension at the present time he gave this answer, as quoted at page 2241 of Hansard of March 16:
There is nothing at the moment to justify the construction of a railway. Surveys show areas which may be suitable for mining development, but so far, as I said, we know of nothing which would justify beginning construction.
Reading further along in the evidence I see that there does not appear to be any great haste to start work in the minds of the proponents of the scheme. Is that why a ten-year period is required? If the railway is so desirable it would appear to me that immediate action would be necessary, and that survey work would be under way at the present time. After all, these people have a base of operations now which they did not have ten years ago. They have a railway line running up from the coast. They have experienced people and the experience they gained in laying that railway line. I would think their surveying of the next strip would be more rapidly done and more easily accomplished than in the case of their initial venture at the time they decided a railway line should be built.
All things being considered, the proposed extension of five years would grant them ample time to reach a conclusion. It is a strange thing. I noticed that the hon. member for Gaspe drew our attention to the latter part of the clause, which is to the effect that if the company does not complete the said line of railway and put it into operation, its powers will cease and be null and void in respect of so much of the said line of railway as remains uncompleted at the end of the ten-year period.
On the face of it that appears to be a restriction on the railway, but when you look at it a second time it may be a disadvantage to Canada. They might construct two or three miles of railway, let it rest for ten years and then quit on the job. There is nothing that compels them to complete the entire length of the railway within the ten-year period. It is far better to have a five-year settlement of the whole issue.
If development in mineral production proceeds during the next five or six years at the same rate as it has during the last five years, surely the pressure for a railway extending along the route herein proposed will become great within the next year or two and the company might then very well proceed; but as matters appear at the moment the company is asking for an extension of

its franchise for a ten-year period with great uncertainty whether anything is going to be done within that period.
I submit that within five years we might find it was urgent that something be done, might then be placed in the position that the company had not made the surveys, and delay would ensue. If it is as important as we are led to believe by those who have already spoken in favour of the measure, I fail to understand the statement of Mr. Durrell that "there is nothing at the moment to justify the construction of a railway." Why then attempt to gain control over this area without any decision that the extension of the railway is going to be proceeded with?
The hon. member who just preceded me- I refer to the hon. member for Wellington South-was suggesting that the Conservative party was opposed to the use of United States capital to develop the resources of this country. I think that is a wrong assumption or a wrong statement for anyone to make. We are not suggesting that foreign capital has not been useful in the past or that it will not be useful in the present and in the future. All we have suggested up to the moment is that full opportunity be given the Canadian people to exploit their own resources.
I was considering this question of delay brought forward in the evidence before the committee in the speeches of supporters of this bill, having regard to the fact that three years are required for survey and then another five years to build the railway. I think that is rather slow work under modern conditions.


George Carlyle Marler: Does the hon. gentleman know the country at all?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have not seen that exact piece of country, but it is part of the Canadian north land and I have seen a great deal of that. I presume it is rocky and extremely difficult country in which to build railways. It may have muskeg for all I know. I do not doubt for one minute that it is extraordinarily difficult to construct a railway in that country. But I have travelled over various parts of Canada in which railways have been constructed with great difficulty, and I am not altogether unaware of the terrain of the Canadian shield in various parts of Canada.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Does the hon. member know that on the construction of this line between Seven Islands and Schefferville worse difficulties were encountered than in the construction of the railways across the Rockies?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Did they have to build those spiral tunnels to construct that portion?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: If you read the evidence given before the committee, you will learn what those difficulties were.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would think that spiral tunnels presented a greater obstacle than anything from Seven Islands up. I admit that it is not an easy task to build a railway in such territory, but modern methods of construction are much advanced over what they were many years ago, and modern methods of survey are perhaps much advanced over what they were years ago. We have air transport to assist in moving in materials and supplies, a procedure which would cut the time greatly.
When the C.P.R. was being built around the shore of lake Superior, supplies were ferried in by water and the time for construction of the railway was cut by five years by virtue of that fact. The line could have gone through less difficult country north of lake Superior, but it would not have been so easily accessible for the transportation of supplies.
Let us take for granted all these difficulties. Let us take it for granted that there may be difficulties in surveying and in building the railway line. It still does not follow that a full period of ten years is needed for that purpose. In any case, what is to prevent the company from coming back here and asking for another extension of time? If it shows that it has done the work, that the mineral bodies are there and that the development should proceed, there is nothing to prevent that company from coming back, receiving a fair hearing here and getting an extension such as it might require at that time.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Would the hon. member permit another question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: How can he expect this company to finance such a project under the circumstances he just mentioned?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think that would be possible, just as has been done with the line it has already built. It is starting with an assured line to an assured ore body at the present time. Now it wants to extend that line up further into country where it is hoped that there are equally valuable mineral deposits.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: It is only a hope.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Until that hope is realized by exploration and so on, why the great haste to get an extension of ten years? Why not an extension of five years? If in that interval exploration indicates the existence of ore bodies of great extent and that a line can
Private Bills
be built without too great difficulty; and further, if the company shows that a five-year period is not adequate for that purpose, something might be done. On the other hand, if a very important body of ore is discovered there and it is urgent to get it out quickly, why not use another airlift as was done in the first instance and as was indicated here? Mr. Durrell said that is what they had used on this first section and that it was expensive.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: It cost them double.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It might well be expensive for the proposed extension that is now in their mind, but it does not preclude the possibility of using an airlift to accomplish that purpose. Within a few years it may well be that the development of air transportation will have proceeded to an extent where it may be cheaper to conduct an airlift than it was in the period of construction of the present railway line.
These, Mr. Chairman, are the reasons we are suggesting that our amendment should receive careful attention and should be carried. A five-year extension, under present circumstances and with present development in our north country, should be ample for a decision to be reached as to when the line should be built and how it should be constructed.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. The committee was considering Bill No. 148, clause 1, and the amendment thereto. Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment? Those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Those opposed to it will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lefrancois for the second reading of Bill No. 160, respecting Personal Finance Company of Canada, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Coldwell.
Hazen Robert Argue: We in this group are completely opposed to the passage of this bill, Mr. Speaker. We think there is no need for the change in the name; in fact the suggested change of name from Personal Finance Company to Beneficial Finance Company is a change that would inevitably mislead potential borrowers and is something that this house should oppose and reject.
A number of hon. members have objected from time to time to the type of advertising that is used by these companies in an attempt to drum up business. References have been made to the type of advertising used by this particular company, and in this respect I think the company is a very bad offender, because in my opinion it has put out a number of very misleading pamphlets. A number of these have been referred to me. One is entitled, "You Are My Pal"; another one, "Take This Good Friend On Vacation With You". The third one is a card on credit for extra fast service. There are other instances of this type that one might mention. I had another advertisement referred to me as an example of misleading advertising, which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of Wednesday, March 21. I do not know if the company specified where the advertisement was to appear, but it was taken from the comic page. The advertisement is entitled, "The Happy Answer to Your Money Needs". It reads:
Question:	How can I pay up my bills and
reduce my monthly payments at the same time?
Happy Answer: Tell your money needs to Pacific Finance. The manager can give you good financial advice, can often reduce your monthly payments by as much as one-half-
Misleading, I would say at that point, -while paying off your bills, and can often give you extra cash besides.
The happy answer, get $25 to $2,500, Pacific Finance Credit Limited.
Then there is a list of the offices the company has in this city. One should keep in mind-


Mr. Philpott:: What has that to do with this company?


Hazen Robert Argue: It is the same type of advertising. I am bringing this forward as an example of the type of advertising engaged in by these small loans companies which misleads the public. It is bad enough that this type of advertising is used, but it is allowed,
[The Deputy Chairman.]
we expect as an expense of the company in filing income tax returns. Not only do the borrowers have to pay large sums by way of interest because of this tremendous advertising campaign engaged in by the various companies, but because such large sums are allowed by the income tax people for advertising the general public obtains a smaller amount from these companies in the way of taxes. So, in fact, the public of Canada, by our income tax laws, are bonusing and paying half the cost of the advertising engaged in by these companies.
When we take part in the debates in this house, as we are doing now and as we did a year ago, some of us accuse these companies of misleading advertising. What did the companies do or what have they done? Niagara Finance, in answer to some of this criticism, has printed a book. Amongst other things the foreword says:
On the other hand, our industry has been the target for unjustified criticism-
I suggest that is a definite reference to statements made by members of parliament last year.
-by uninformed people-
Another slur.
-who have never felt the need for, nor used, the service provided by companies such as ours. Let us therefore, together, try to form an honest appraisal of the function of this industry in our Canadian economy, its usefulness and its business problems.
After having said it wants to form an honest appraisal, it makes statement after statement that is misleading, ill-founded and in some cases completely false. I think a quick reference to some of the statements in this book can prove that very statement. Not only has the company sought by this means to criticize, I suggest, statements made by members of parliament, but it is using this means to make unfounded and unwarranted attacks on the credit unions of this country. It does so in the following terms. It says of credit unions:
Such organizations are often formed in large plants, factories, or among social or community groups. They have the advantage of being run by the members, and their administration and other costs are therefore low.
Listen to this.
They contribute virtually nothing to the public treasury. They have comparatively no taxes to pay . . .
They can offer low rates of charge only because they are tax-free-
I suggest the statement made by this finance company that credit unions are tax-free is completely and wholly false. The laws of this country provide the same type of taxes, the same rates of tax, to all companies,

be they credit unions or be they finance companies. If a finance company wants to take advantage of the laws of this country as they are applied to all companies, all they have to do is pay out some of their inflated profits to the borrowers on the basis of a patronage refund as is done by the credit unions, and they will have levied on them precisely the same rates of tax as are levied on the credit unions. The law is applied equally to all companies. The reason the credit unions, of course, in practice pay a lower rate is the fact they return by way of patronage dividends to shareholders and to borrowers a substantial part of the profits that are made.
Then a little bit further along they make this statement:
The charge presently stipulated by our federal laws is 2 per cent per month on the outstanding balance of a loan to $500.
This statement is false because the federal law does not stipulate and does not set the interest rate at 2 per cent per month. It does not force these companies to charge 2 per cent per month, which is the direct inference from this statement. The law merely says the companies cannot charge more than 2 per cent. Then this pamphlet says:
If you conclude that this is an interest charge of 24 per cent you are in good company, for thousands of people believe the same thing.
Then they try to prove that it is less than 24 per cent, but I make the statement that 2 per cent per month is not 24 per cent, it is over 26 per cent per year. The rate that is allowed these companies as the law exists today is the tremendous rate of over 26 per cent per year.
My great objection is that these companies can make this kind of advertising in answer to statements made in this house, and I suggest will claim the cost of such pamphlets as part of their deductions for income tax purposes. The company was not content with issuing this pamphlet, but gave wide distribution to a number of advertisements in the Financial Post. These advertisements are just as misleading as the pamphlets from which I have quoted. There are four in the series, and one says:
It takes time for staff to fill out necessary forms, check credit, do the accounting, follow delinquent payments, discuss and sometimes rearrange loans. And time costs money. To cover these costs the mark-up really should be (but is not) as high as 27 per cent on the smaller loans, ranging down to 19 per cent on the larger amounts.
The statement they say is not correct is, in fact, quite correct, because the rate is over 26 per cent per year.
The millions of Canadian dollars loaned to the tens of thousands of Canadians who enjoy our service is evidence, we think, that they, too, consider our charges fair and just.
Private Bills
In other words, if people are forced to go to these companies and pay this exorbitant rate of interest, then according to the company and the advertisement that is an indication that thousands of Canadians support their business and approve of the extremely high charge. I could go on to cite many other instances of this same type of misleading advertising and straight propaganda that the government allows as a deduction from income.
I think we should stop the passage of this bill. I think we should stop the passage of any further bills to encourage more finance companies to begin operating at this time. These people are engaged in what is in effect legalized robbery. They have become parasites in our communities. They are thriving on the low income earners, and are obtaining exorbitant profits. Until a thorough inquiry is made by this house and the banking and commerce committee, I suggest that if we are to do our duty we should ask the sponsor to stand this bill at least until the banking and commerce committee has had an opportunity to look into the field of small loans companies to see if in fact there is a good argument for the passage of this particular bill, which I suggest there is not.
The operation of the small loans companies is not affecting just the ordinary Canadian who might come to one's mind, but is affecting the personnel of our armed services, the army, navy and air force personnel. According to their own records, in many cases these people are getting into trouble with the small loans companies and are in fact paying these huge rates of interest, and are thus becoming a problem for the benevolent funds in the various services.
I have in my hand a statement put out by the army benevolent fund. This is in the form of a memorandum circulated among various servicemen concerning this problem. What does it say? It says:
The extensive use of consumer credit and the mismanagement of family income are closely related. Accordingly, it is understandable that the financial welfare problems in Canada have increased proportionately with the increase of more than 100 per cent in personal loans, instalment contracts and other household borrowing in the past five years.
It then goes on to say that these people made a survey of the number of low income families who are in debt, and they report the following:
Average debts of $850 per family.
The amount being allocated from income for interest and service charges every month is between $10 and $16 (or 5 per cent to 8 per cent of the total pay).
According to this survey 5 to 8 per cent of the total pay of service personnel is being

Private Bills
used for the payment of interest to small loans companies. The report goes on to say:
This would seem to indicate the need for an educational program designed to assist the householder regarding the planned expenditure of family income and the proper use of credit.
Let us look at the position we are getting into. By way of estimates and legislation the government asks parliament to pass appropriations for the pay of our service personnel. After we have provided them with a certain level of income, this government proposes measures to set up small loans companies and to facilitate the small loans racket in order that loan sharks can get our service personnel in their clutches and force a great deal of embarrassment upon the service personnel themselves, upon their families and upon the army benevolent fund.
I suggest it is the duty of the government not only to make provision for the payment of our service personnel, but also by way of legislation to prevent these sharks from taking advantage of persons who have to borrow money.
The government pays our service personnel. The Liberal party comprises the government of this country. And then Duncan MacTavish, the president of the national Liberal federation, becomes a director of one or two small loans companies and he and his companies and the policies they are following are embarrassing our army personnel according to the survey and the statement of the benevolent fund.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: I can understand the jeers of the Liberal members. I can understand that the Liberal members are very uncomfortable. Nevertheless I am suggesting to them that it is a fact that the policy they have allowed, the policy that is being followed by the small loans companies, the largest of which has on its board of directors the president of the national Liberal federation, is embarrassing our service personnel. This policy is making it difficult for the army benevolent fund to function, to the point that the benevolent fund has had to start an educational program in order to protect the service personnel of the country from the loan sharks, whose practices are condoned by this government and the legislation for which is provided by this government.
I suggested that if hon. members of this house are to do their duty not only to the public generally but particularly to our service personnel, we should block the passage of this particular bill.


Mr. Donald D. Carrick (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words

about the bill which is now before the house. When the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Lefrancois) introduced the bill it seemed relatively simple and clear. He explained that this is a bill to change the name of the Personal Finance Company of Canada to the Beneficial Finance Company of Canada.
The Personal Finance Company of Canada is a subsidiary of the Beneficial Finance Company of the United States. He explained that the Canadian company wished to change its name to Beneficial in order that it would have a name similar to its parent company. It is difficult to think of any more adequate reason that could be advanced for a company coming to this house and asking for a change of name.
In connection with the authorized capital of the company he explained that the company was incorporated in 1933 with an authorized capital of $1 million. That was 23 years ago. The company now comes to this house and asks to increase its authorized capital to $10 million. The authorized capital of $1 million is all issued and outstanding. The company has had $9,350,000 paid to it as paid-up surplus. It now asks to have the capital increased to $10 million. Does that not seem a reasonable request?
What has happened in this debate? Three hon. members of the C.C.F. party have opposed the bill. I tried to look at their reasons for doing so calmly and dispassionately, in an effort to ascertain exactly what was the real reason the C.C.F. members opposed this bill. I came to the conclusion that the real objection lies in the fact that they dislike the small loans business as it is carried ' on under the law of Canada today. This company happens to be a company engaged in the small loans business and that is the basis of their opposition to this bill.
I suggest to the hon. members that that is a completely invalid reason for opposing this legislation. If hon. members do not like the legislation dealing with small loans the proper place to attack that legislation is when Bill No. 51 is before this house. Bill No. 51 is designed to reduce the rate of interest which can be charged by small loans companies, and when that bill is before the house hon. members will have an opportunity to express their views on the small loans business. But I suggest that in their endeavour to attack the Personal Finance Company of Canada they are unfair and discriminatory. If they want to attack the small loans business, let them do it at another time and place but not on this bill.
Hon. members of the C.C.F. party have been critical of the advertising carried on by small

loans companies. I suggest that there is a proper time and place to attack that advertising if hon. members do not like it, but when we are discussing this bill it is not the time and place. The hon. member for Assiniboia has referred tonight to some of the advertising used by some of those companies, but none of it was by Personal Finance Company.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, yes; three out of the four documents I referred to were used by Personal Finance Company.


Donald D. Carrick: I think the hon. member referred to Pacific Finance Corporation and Niagara Finance Corporation, but I did not hear him refer to-I withdraw that. Whatever the hon. member may have said about advertising, even that carried on by Personal Finance Company, this is not the time to deal with it. That advertising is done in accordance with the laws of Canada. There is nothing illegal about it. If the hon. member thinks the law ought to be changed, the proper time and place to do that is when Bill No. 51 is before this house.
If I may I should like to deal for a moment with the reasons why the hon. members are opposed to this bill and to the name "Beneficial" being granted to this company. I think it is nothing more or less than the belief of the hon. members that the business carried on by Personal Finance Company is not beneficial in any sense to its customers, and therefore they contend that the name would be misleading and should not be granted. May I say that whenever an incorporated company applies to this house for permission to change its name, the name is always cleared. In the case of this company the name had to be cleared with the superintendent of insurance, who is in charge of the administration of small loans companies. There is a well known procedure with the companies branch of the Department of the Secretary of State to clear names.
The general principle is that an applicant can have any name he desires, with certain exceptions, such as the use of the word "Royal" and certain others, and provided that the name is not used by any other company or so similar to the name of any other company as to be calculated to deceive. In this case the superintendent of insurance has said that he has no objection to the name "Beneficial" being granted to this company, and the companies branch of the Department of the Secretary of State has raised no objection to the name being granted. I put this question squarely to hon. members of this house. Is the choice of a name going to depend upon the likes, the dislikes or the whims of members of this house? If a person wants to know whether he can use a certain name must 67509-1C6
Private Bills
he first poll the members of parliament to see what are their likes or dislikes?


An hon. Member:: What about the Queen Elizabeth hotel?


Donald D. Carrick: I do not want to get drawn away from my argument, but let me say that the name "Queen Elizabeth" was chosen by the Canadian National Railways. I do not know what procedure they went through before they adopted that name, but that case is different from this. The type of case I am talking about is one where an application is made to this house for the incorporation of a company, or a change of name, and I suggest that the only basis upon which it can be determined what name is available to the company is the basis which has prevailed in the past, that is to clear with the Department of the Secretary of State and the superintendent of insurance. If there is no objection, then the name should be granted.
In the speech which he delivered a few days ago the hon. member for Assiniboia referred to some advertising put out by small loans companies which began with "You are my pal", and he said he had it on good authority that this was advertising of small loans companies, but whether inadvertently or intentionally I notice that he did not say specifically that this advertising was used by the Personal Finance Company of Canada.
If the hon. member had inquired from the sponsor of the bill he would have been notified that this was not one of those advertisements that had been used by Personal Finance Company. The hon. gentleman waves his hand in that incredulous fashion that he uses so often, but the hon. member is not the only one in this house who tells the truth. I suggest to hon. members that the sponsor of this bill has been so informed by Personal Finance Company of Canada, and I submit that their statement should be accepted. I suggest that it would have been only a courtesy if the hon. gentleman had asked the sponsor about this before he put the advertising before the house. He should have asked whether that was one of the advertisements used by this company.
The hon. gentleman also made a great deal of the credit card issued by Personal Finance Company of Canada. The hon. member read from that card and made reference to the use of the words "Beneficial loan system". The hon. member went on to say that this indicated that the Personal Finance Company of Canada had adopted the name "Beneficial" which was an affront to this house.
I should like to point out that the Beneficial Finance Company in the United States is the parent company of a number of subsidiaries in the United States, and also of Personal

Private Bills
Finance Company of Canada. Was it not perfectly proper to use the word "system" in referring to a group of companies in the United States and a subsidiary company in Canada? I cannot comprehend how it would be an insult to this house to refer to what is a fact.
In addition, I am advised that this card was used long before there was any thought of making an application to this house for permission to change the name of the company to Beneficial Finance Company. The hon. member made considerable of the use of those words on the card, but I would like to point out that those words are in ordinary print. Then across the bottom of the card in large letters are the words "Personal Finance Company of Canada". No one could think that Personal Finance Company of Canada was using any other name but its own, and the hon. gentleman certainly stretched things a bit when he tried to convey to this house that this company had used the name "Beneficial" before the matter had been dealt with in this house.
May I just deal for a moment with the application to increase the capital of the company from $1 million to $10 million. I have already mentioned that the whole of the $1 million authorized capital has been issued and is outstanding. The company, in addition, has been using in Canada $9,350,000 of paid in surplus that was paid to them by the parent company in the United States.
For all practical purposes, that $9,350,000 is just as much capital as the $1 million. That is, the company has been using over $10 million of capital in the conduct of its business. The hon. member for Assiniboia professes a desire to see the real relationship between the earnings of the company and the capitalization of the company. The best way to grant his desire is to enable this company to increase its authorized capital to $10 million, so they can declare $9,350,000 of paid in surplus as a part of their capital. Then you will see that the capital used in this company is actually $10 million and not $1 million, and then you can balance up the earnings of the company against the $10 million capital used. I suggest that is the only way you can get a proper relationship.
Objection has been taken to increasing the capital on the grounds that Personal Finance Company in Canada is a wholly owned subsidiary of Beneficial Finance Company in the United States. What that means, as I understand it, is this. The hon. members object to a situation where a United States company has brought $10 million into Canada, borrows money from the bank to conduct its

operations, and may pay out dividends to the United States corporation. If that is a valid objection for Personal Finance Company of Canada, it is a valid objection for every other business carried on in Canada in similar circumstances. If it is an invalid objection for every other company, it is also an invalid objection for Personal Finance Company of Canada.
Now let me turn for a moment and apply that principle to other businesses in Canada. Let us take the Aluminum Company of Canada. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Aluminum Company of the United States. The development at Shawinigan and the development at Kitimat have been carried on largely by the moneys brought into Canada from the parent corporation in the United States. In turn that money will be used in Canada, and if need be the dividends will be paid to the United States corporation. Is there anybody in this house who is going to suggest that what has happened is anything less than a boon to the Canadian economy?
Some of the members of the C.C.F. party shake their heads at this argument. With due respect, it seems to me a perfectly sound argument. If I might reiterate, they object to this bill because this company is controlled by a United States corporation and is going to use this money and is possibly going to pay dividends to the United States corporation. The Aluminum Company of Canada is in precisely the same position in so far as capital is concerned and in so far as dividends are being paid out to the United States corporation. There is not a scrap of difference.
Now let me take another case. Let us take the field of oil development in Alberta. We know that one of the companies that has been foremost in development in Alberta and Saskatchewan has been the Imperial Oil Company of Canada. It is said that it had spent between $20 million and $30 million in exploration before it found a producing field. The Imperial Oil Company is a subsidiary of Standard Oil of New Jersey in the United States. The direct investment of United States capital in Canada in non-metallic minerals in 1945 was $133 million. In 1954 it was $586 million. That money has come into Canada from parent companies in the United States.
I want to be honest with the house. I do not say that the whole of the $586 million has come in connection with oil. However, is there anybody in this house who will say that what has happened in Alberta and Saskatchewan has not been good for Canada? If what has been done in these other fields has been good for Canada, can it be bad for Canada when applied to the Personal Finance Company of Canada? [DOT]


Hazen Robert Argue: That is your gas pipe-line speech.


Donald D. Carrick: My submission is that you cannot brush aside with laughter arguments that are sound. The hon. gentleman had an opportunity to make a speech himself. If hon. members opposite do not think the argument I am putting forward is perfectly sound, I am sure that hon. members on this side of the house will be glad to hear what they have to say.
May I just say in conclusion that this is an application by a private company for relief applicable to itself. We are not concerned at this time wih the merits or demerits of the small loans business. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has stated that there is a legitimate place for the small loans business in the Canadian economy. He praised the work done by the Canadian Bank of Commerce and the credit unions, but he said that the rate of interest being charged by the small loan companies is too high. It will all be considered when Bill No. 51 comes before the house. My respectful statement to the house is that this is not the time or place for us to embark on a discussion of the merits or demerits of the small loans business. I suggest, with great respect, that this bill is clear. The relief sought is reasonable, and this house should approve this bill.


Owen Lewis Jones: Private Bills
prosperous can go to the banks and borrow at a nominal cost. These people need it more than those who borrow at 4 or 5 per cent.
I mention this because all the evidence before the house is that these companies are growing in number, growing in strength, influence and power and growing financially. If we are going to allow this rot to get into our financial system we will have the condition that the people of Europe have tried to avoid for generations and still have with them. I suggest in all sincerity that we should be alarmed at the growth of these small loans companies and their immense profits. It indicates to me that something is rotten in our economy, and we as members will be remiss in our duties if we do not oppose the bill and all similar ones.
I am not against this particular company;
I am opposed to the whole principle of small loans at 24 per cent. I think they are inhuman and unchristian. I sincerely hope the government will take steps to investigate this avenue of borrowing which is keeping people down in the lowest depths of slum life. It is something in which we should be interested, something we should fight, and this is the time to start fighting. To charge a rate of 24 per cent to a man who is in debt already and has a small salary and a large family is inhuman. We have done nothing about it, and if we pass this bill we are simply aiding and abetting those who prey on the poor people of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. Just before I recognize the next hon. member, after listening to the last two speeches I think it is perhaps my duty to point out to the house that we are not debating Bill No. 51, I believe it is, which deals with the principle of small loans companies^ I would ask hon. members not to extend this debate to the whole field of the duties and responsibilities of the government respecting small loans companies as such, but to remember that the bill we have before us deals with whether or not certain amendments shall be made to the incorporating act of one company.
I am not suggesting for a moment that any argument for or against the passage of the bill with its two proposed amendments is objectionable because I am willing to listen to such arguments, but a discussion of the abstract question of the duty and responsibility of the government with respect to controlling our dealings with small loans companies is another debate now going forward in the house, and I would ask the house to try to keep this debate in order.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker,
I want to say a few words before the vote is taken. It probably will not be taken tonight,

but I should like to have my words on the record before the vote is taken. We in this group are prepared to support the amendment, chiefly on two grounds. First of all, we do not think it either necessary or desirable that the name of this company should be changed from "Personal" to "Beneficial". The word "beneficial" is hardly the correct name to use for a company doing the type of business this company is doing. Surely no one will suggest for one minute that there can be anything beneficial in so far as the patron is concerned in having to pay 2 per cent a month for the money he borrows. It may be beneficial, of course, so far as the company itself is concerned, but so far as the person who borrows is concerned there is nothing beneficial in the transaction at all.
I do not think there is any doubt that one of the reasons the name is being changed is that the new name would be more attractive. I realize that the parent company may have the name "Beneficial", but just because the parent company has the name "Beneficial" is no reason why its offspring in this country should have to have the same name. We think it would be far better for them to continue to use the name under which they have been operating in the past.
As to the second point, that the capital should be increased from $1 million to $10 million, there again we are opposed for a number of reasons. In the first place, the intention must be for the company to expand its business. It will probably mean they will expand the number of branches throughout the country. There is one other large company, Household Finance, I believe, that has 160 branches altogether. No doubt this company will also increase the number of branches. Some members may argue that will be beneficial to the people because if you increase the number of offices it will increase competition, and if you increase competition the cost to the borrower will be reduced, but that is not the record.
Apparently the record is that where you increase competition in the course of carrying on a business of this kind and you go beyond a certain point, you actually increase the cost to the borrower. Some members will recall that was explained in the banking and commerce committee by the superintendent of insurance, Mr. MacGregor, in so far as insurance was concerned. He pointed out that when you increase competition beyond a certain point you increase greatly the cost of doing business because the advertising cost is increased. These companies are already doing a lot of advertising and the more companies you put into operation the greater the competition will become and the greater will

be the amount of advertising those companies will have to do. That will increase costs; therefore from the point of view of borrowers there will be nothing beneficial to them if, as a result of steadily expanding competition, they have to pay more interest on their loans.
Mind you, even with the coming into force of the new small loans bill borrowers will be paying 2 per cent a month on the majority of loans, because the majority of such loans are under $300. The Household Finance Company points out that 68 per cent of all the loans they make are under $300, and the rate of interest will continue to be 2 per cent on all such loans. Of course, it is the people who borrow small amounts who are generally the ones who are so hard pressed.
I think we should keep in mind that the reason the small loans companies are doing such a tremendous business today, and I do not think anybody will dispute that, is partly -I was going to say. largely but I will say partly-as the result of government policy. I believe this session will go down in history as the debtor and creditor session, because we are having more bills to lend money to people than we have ever had before. There have already been six bills introduced to increase loans to people in one form or another. Now we are having bills to increase the capital of small loans companies so they can make more loans.
Therefore I think we are certainly creating a record from the point of view of making it possible for people to go further and further into debt. It looks as though the only way this government can hope to bolster a high economy is to help people go steadily further and further into debt, even if the rate has to be 2 per cent a month.
Some people say that these people must be able to borrow money, and ask if we are going to deprive them of that right. I would say no. But I would suggest that the government has some responsibility in that regard. We have chartered banks in this country. We have 11 of them, with branches in every town. Here in Ottawa it is hard to find a street without running into two or three branches of chartered banks. Surely these banks could handle this business. The Canadian Bank of Commerce has already led the way in showing how it can be done. We amended the Bank Act, at the time of the last revision, in order to allow the chartered banks to take chattel mortgages. Therefore the chartered banks are now in a position in which they can very well make personal loans to the people and thereby relieve the small loans companies of a great deal of work.
I think it would be a good idea if we could cut down the arpount of work or the
Private Bills
amount of business the small loans companies do. In fact I think it would be a good thing if we could put them right out of business and let the people depend upon the chartered banks to do their lending. In order to help the people who are down and out, I think the government could very well bring in certain legislation along the lines, we will say, of the farm improvement loan plan under which they guarantee the banks against the losses. I think we need some kind of policy whereby loans can be guaranteed to small industrial workers so they can get money when they need it without having to pay the exorbitant rate of interest of 2 per cent per month.
For these two reasons, as I say, we intend to support the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
the house ready for the question?


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker-


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to this motion, I should like to say this. There seems to have been a misunderstanding about this evening's proceedings. It may be and probably is to some extent my fault. At any rate, there was among the opposition an impression that, if certain arrangements were made, we might allow this bill as well as the following bills to stand in order that we might proceed with notices of motion. Under these circumstances, I think perhaps it would be desirable to do that owing, as I say, to a misunderstanding which I think is no one's fault. Occasionally these things occur. If my colleagues are interested in either this bill or the succeeding bills, I would ask them to fall in line with my suggestion that we adjourn both debates so we may proceed to notices of motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: would point out to the house that we are now on order No. 43. Orders No. 44 and No. 45 are private bills. Is it the unanimous desire of the house that we proceed to the consideration of notices of motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: The
hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) moves the adjournment of this debate. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
On motion of Mr. Hamilton (York West) the debate was adjourned.

Search and Rescue


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: By
unanimous consent the house will proceed to the consideration of notices of motions.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SEARCH AND RESCUE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to provide for the establishment of a coastguard service on the great lakes of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to thank hon. members of this house for agreeing unanimously to the postponement of the other business before the house in order that this resolution may be proceeded with for the time there is left this evening.
In presenting this resolution, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer briefly to Hansard of Thursday, July 21, 1955, in which it is recorded that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) and I had a little interchange in the house. As reported at page 6528 of Hansard I asked the Minister of Transport the following question:
Has the Department of Transport any plans at present under way for any form of coastguard service on the great lakes or anything resembling it?
The minister replied as follows:
I think I should say that the answer to that question- is no. I have a memorandum on the subject which starts off by saying that the subject was reviewed a number of years ago. At that time I am told that the conclusion that was reached was that it would cost approximately $9 million at that time for the capital expenditures necessary to start a coastguard service and that thereafter the annual cost would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3 million.
It is with those remarks that I should like to start off. I should like to point out to the minister that this need for a coastguard service on the great lakes has arisen largely since the end of world war II, and that any survey carried out prior to that time would have no application at the present time. Second, the amount of money that was suggested by the minister is, I feel, quite out of line. I believe the cost would be much less. Consequently the first remarks I should like to make are as follows.
I should like to deal first of all with the limitation of the scope of this resolution. In this regard I should say that the resolution contemplates coastguard service on only the lower lakes, namely lake Ontario, lake Erie, lake St. Clair and lake Huron. In addition to that, any such proposed service as that which
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite).]
I have in mind would be limited to the summer months, possibly from the middle of May until the end of September. The third limitation that I have in mind is this. The resolution does not contemplate one aspect of coastguard service, namely the law-enforcement provisions dealing with customs and excise. The resolution is primarily aimed at first of all, search and rescue activities on the great lakes; second, the prevention of accidents on the great lakes; and third, increased navigation aids.
First of all I think we should look at the present facilities available. First I shall deal with search and rescue. As the minister pointed out on a previous occasion as recorded in Hansard of Thursday, July 21, 1955, at page 6528, there are certain other branches of government dealing with coastguard service such as the Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and so on. The Royal Canadian Air Force base at Trenton, Ontario, does carry out a search and rescue operation on the great lakes. The Ontario provincial police, under certain conditions, if requested by the municipalities, carry out certain limited beach patrols. The municipalities themselves have lifeguard service on beaches to prevent drowning accidents, or to try to do so, anyway. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have five patrol boats on the great lakes, at Windsor, Sarnia, Toronto and Kingston. I believe they also have one at Sault Ste. Marie, but that is outside the scope that is contemplated in this resolution.
In addition, the United States coastguard will come in and assist if a request is made by the Canadian government. The Royal Canadian Navy have on the great lakes certain craft which assist in rescue work if necessary. There are also some fine volunteer services. For instance, I understand that under the auspices of the Port Credit yacht club last summer an organization called the lake Ontario search and rescue organization was set up which deals with the area, I believe, from Oshawa to the United States border. It is purely a volunteer service, but I understand it is intended to carry out the necessary service there.


George Carlyle Marler: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes.


George Carlyle Marler: Why does he say that Sault Ste. Marie is outside the scope of the resolution?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister possibly was not in his seat when I commenced my remarks and said that I was limiting this resolution to the lower great lakes, namely lake Ontario, lake Huron, lake Erie and lake St. Clair.

As I have pointed out, there are these various services on the lakes at the present time. I understand that they are competent, and so far their activities have been very good. Co-operation by the United States coast guard has been good and has been a help on certain occasions. Then, Mr. Speaker, I suppose the obvious question arises, what is the criticism of these facilities if they are there? Why propose this motion?
Well, first of all, the main objection is that under present conditions on the lakes the present search and rescue facilities are absolutely inadequate. Second, the facilities there completely lack any co-ordination. In this respect I should like to refer to one or two newspaper clippings. I might say that coordination is very important in rescue work, particularly when a life is involved, such as a drowning accident or people being left out on the lake all night. The question of co-ordination and timing is an essential element, and that is what seems to be lacking. I refer to a clipping from the London Free Press, dated July 25, 1955, entitled, "Patrol Service Need Cited Following Search at 'Port' ". The editorial says:
Garnet Speers, local marine man, stated there was much need for co-ordinated safety measures.
This appeared following an accident, and it continues:
Mr. Speers stated this morning that successful lake searches depend on the prompt receipt of reports and as accurate as possible bearings taken from shore. "There is a lot of lake out there'', he explained. Because of the lack of a Canadian coastguard service, the more experienced yachtsmen are alert to the need for fast patrol and search service.
Then I should like to refer very briefly to an editorial in a very large weekly, the Tillsonburg News, dated July 28, 1955. I believe the Tillsonburg News is one of the largest weeklies in the province of Ontario. It reads as follows:
From the large number of small boat accidents on the great lakes and the number of lives lost, and in many cases the delay in organization of adequate search or rescue efforts, it would appear that the present government agencies are far from adequate in providing the necessary help, and that steps are necessary to provide a more closely knit and readily available service.
With due regard for the effectiveness of the R.C.A.F. communication and rescue fleet at Trenton, which Mr. Marler pointed out had the responsibility of co-ordinating the search and rescue activities of not only government ships but also other ships on the great lakes, we suggest that it is not in much of a position to save a boatload of persons swamped off Port Burwell or in Long Point bay.
The third aspect of criticism of the present facilities is that municipalities and provincial
Search and Rescue
authorities can extend their activity only so far into the water because of the international aspect of the great lakes.
The fourth criticism of the present facilities is that there is no co-ordinating service. There is no one to prevent small craft going out in bad weather, and there is no one to regulate the use of these craft. There are some young people who like to run up and down amongst the bathers in speed boats and engage in other smart-aleck activities. Then, too, the present services lack organization. I am thinking of an event that occurred near Sarnia, when some people were reported missing. After a day or so they were located quite safe in a harbour. I understand that the estimated cost of this particular rescue work, if it could be called such, was between $40,000 and $50,000. If there had been some form of co-ordinating coastguard service, these people would have been located a lot sooner. My contention is that there is an absolute necessity at the present time for an increased coastguard service on the great lakes which contemplates the things I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks.
I have here a great many newspaper clippings, but I do not intend to take up the time of the house by reading them. I believe all hon. members who live in southern Ontario are quite aware of the number of drowning and boating accidents that take place on the great lakes during the summertime. I do not think a day goes by when there is not an accident or a drowning, and often there are many in one day. However, I should like to read one or two clippings just to illustrate to hon. members from other parts of the country that this is not something I am pulling out of a hat, so to speak.
I refer to a clipping from the Sentinel-Review of Woodstock, Ontario, dated August 10, 1955. The heading is, "Undertow Draws Seven to Death", and that happened at Wasaga Beach. Then there is another clipping from the Sentinel-Review of Wednesday, September 21, and the heading is, "Three Oxford Centre Men Missing on Lake Erie Fishing Expedition". There is a heading in the Toronto Telegram of August 30, 1955, "Lashed By Storm Fourteen Hours, Two Anglers Saved On Lake". Then there is some editorial comment on this matter, and I refer to the Globe and Mail of Toronto, July 25, 1955. The heading of the editorial is, "Lake Coastguards Needed". This editorial comments on the many unseasoned operators of power boats. It says:
Too many unseasoned operators of power boats do not know that hand-propelled and sailing craft have protective right of way which all powered boats must respect. And many owners of speed

Search and Rescue
boats who do know the rules still make a sport ol giving canoes, skiffs and small sailboats a mighty wash from their wakes.
The lower lakes, including Georgian bay, require patrols, partly to enforce the law, but also to engage in rescue work when accidents beset any water craft. Safety on our waterways is just as important as on our highways.
I could read many more newspaper clippings, but I believe many hon. members will recall the more shocking accidents. I think the summer before last there was an accident in lake Ontario off Oakville in which nine sea scouts were drowned. They went out in a boat, and there was no one to warn them that bad weather was likely to set in within a short time.
It is very difficult to get any figures, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the number of accidents and the number of drownings on the great lakes. I have made efforts to do this, but I have not been successful because apparently no record is kept. I repeat that all hon. members who live in the southern part of Ontario know quite well that all you have to do is pick up the newspaper any day during the summer months or early fall, and you will see the results of the lack of a coastguard service.
Now, why has this need arisen, as it has, largely since the end of world war II? I believe all hon. members know there has been a great increase in the population of southern Ontario, just as there has been an increase in the population in the other parts of the country. The second reason, and I think the main reason, is the great increase in real wages and the increase in leisure time. This increase in leisure time is not confined entirely to city people. Those people who live in rural areas, as a result of the increased use of farm machinery also have a little more time on their hands than they had 50 years ago. As a result, there has been a great increase in boats of all types on the great lakes.
Fortunately I have been able to obtain some figures to illustrate this. As hon. members may know, all motors of 10 horsepower and over have to be registered. There is no fee for this registration. Apparently it is merely a case of registering for record purposes. It is very difficult to draw too many conclusions from the figures, and I am giving them only to show the increase in the number of small boats in the southern part of Ontario.
In 1950 the number of 10 horsepower on our motors in Ontario was 21,220. Five years later, in 1955, the number was 54,145. In 1955 alone the number increased by 15,483. This does not include a great number of boats which are powered by motors of less than 10 horsepower. It does not include rowboats, or anything of that nature. The only

thing these figures can show is the tremendous increase in boating activity on the lower great lakes.	.
I discussed the matter with a number of people who have boats at Long Point bay on lake Erie. Estimates have been made that there are well over 1,000 boats of more than 10 horsepower there alone, and the figure is nearer 1,500. There are a great many, of course, with motors under 10 horsepower. It is very difficult to locate where all the boats are. A 10 horsepower motor can be registered at any customs office, and you also find all sorts of inland places which technically have boats registered there. It is extremely difficult to know at what port and on what lakes they are used.
I think it is apparent, however, that there has been a vast increase in the number of small boats in use today. Not only that, but there has been an increase in activities on the lakes. We have many picnic groups from factories, service clubs and other organizations which go to the great lakes, rent or charter boats and go fishing. Often these boats are very old, and when the motors break down these parties are left out on the lakes. It happens time after time.
While the owners and operators of commercial launches and fishing boats are no doubt quite experienced people, the ordinary small boat owner is very inexperienced at navigation. They frequently go out on the lakes and a storm comes up. They get lost or swamped and they really do not know what to do. This is the cause of many accidents. In this regard I would point out that many small boat owners who wish to take their boats out from ports on lakes Erie and Huron find there is no place where they can get proper information regarding the impending weather. Believe me, this is extremely necessary on the lower great lakes, because the local weather picture can change in an hour or so; it can change just as quickly as that. I would also point out that there is no one at any of these ports or places where boats are located to prevent boats going out, or to regulate traffic.
At the present time there is a rescue service, as I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks. This is composed of a combination of the R.C.M.P., the R.C.A.F. and others; but it seems to me that the search and rescue service, as it is called, does only one thing. It searches for dead bodies after people have been drowned, and I think we require a much more useful service, Mr. Speaker.
I have a few suggestions to make concerning the type of coastguard service I hope the

minister will consider. I might also point out that I do not think it will cost too much money because like other hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) who is always talking about economy, I do not believe in wasting money or throwing it around where it is not necessary.
I am not suggesting that we have an elaborate coastguard service such as they have in the United States. I do not believe it is warranted under the circumstances, and I think it would be difficult to maintain. I agree with the minister in that respect.
The first thing I would like to suggest is how we might go about financing a service such as I envisage without having it cost too much money. All the boats with motors of 10 horsepower or more which operate on the great lakes at the present time are required to get a licence. It is a strange thing to observe that the owners can be fined $100 for not having a licence, but the licence does not actually cost anything. That seems rather peculiar to me. It is like something out of Alice in Wonderland.
I suggest that the people who have boats on the great lakes would not object to paying a small licence fee of $5 or $10, depending on the horsepower of the motor, if they were to have a coastguard service of some kind, a rescue service and navigation aids, and so on. I have spoken to many people who have boats, and all of them have said they would be delighted to pay a small fee if they could obtain some kind of service. This would not defray the entire cost of operating such a service, but it would go a long way toward defraying the cost of a coastguard service. It is only fair that the people who own boats should not bear the whole cost of a coastguard service, because many people who would benefit do not own boats but go to the lakes to fish, swim, or go on excursions on holidays or week ends, and the general public should pay something toward the cost.
The third suggestion I would make is that coastguard officers be placed at appropriate spots along the shores of lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron and St. Clair. As I pointed out this job would be seasonal, from the middle of May to end of September. These officers could be university students. This would provide helpful employment for students who are looking for summer work. Many university students have to take work at very small wages during the summer at summer hotels and elsewhere, and usually they must work indoors. This service would provide healthful outdoor work for university students and would fit right into their program from the point of view of time.
Search and Rescue
If appointed, these officers could perform the following duties. They could be provided with meteorological reports which they could post every day. They could give the necessary information regarding weather forecasts for the succeeding 12 or 24 hours. They could post these notices on piers and beaches and in places where there are boats. Storm warnings could be given by these officers in order to warn people not to go out on the water. They could use the black cones which are usually used along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
I would also suggest that the coastguard officers should be trained in life saving and artificial respiration. The new Swedish method developed by Colonel Nealson, a Swedish gentleman, which has recently come into vogue, could be taught to them. They should be provided with life-saving devices, oxygen, artificial respiration aids, and a first, aid course.
They should have the power to prohibit boats going out if a storm is pending, and they should also be empowered to regulate traffic. The United States coastguard has this authority. If an officer is aware that a storm might blow up in an hour or so he could prohibit boats going out, and suitable penalties could be levied if his warning were disregarded. The officer could also control smart alecks in boats who try to swamp other boats just to give them a thrill. I am sure that any hon. member who has been on the lakes in the summertime has seen people doing this dangerous thing. The main work of these coastguard officers, if I might suggest a name for them, would be to coordinate rescue services and activities. The main trouble at the present time is that there is not sufficient co-ordination among the various forms of rescue work presently on the lakes.
I would like at this point to refer to some remarks made by the Minister of Transport. In reply to a question I asked on June 21, 1955, the minister said, as reported at page 6528 of Hansard, and I shall quote directly from Hansard:
But how does the information get to the R.C.A.F. and under whose authority do they go to these cases?


George Carlyle Marler: I think it is because somebody
communicates with them in some way or other, by radio, by telephone, by telegram or something.
To my mind that is the greatest argument for having some co-ordinated service. If coastguard officers were located at appropriate places along the shore to do nothing else for a few months in the summer but be there and have it known to the local authorities that they were there, if they issued certain instructions as to whom to get in

Search and Rescue
touch with they would be performing a valuable service. The time element is most important when people are upset in the water or lost out on the lake, and this business of calling the R.C.A.F. in Trenton the next day to go out and help find the bodies is not of much help to the relatives of those who have been drowned.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: The hon. member has mentioned that these students should be posted along the coast as a coastguard service during the summer months, but I should like to know his estimate of the number of officers that would be required to cover this stretch of coast.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have travelled along a considerable portion of the shores of the great lakes, but I am not familiar with every single mile. All the resolution asks the government to do is take into consideration the advisability of bringing down legislation. I am sure there are plenty of people in the Department of Transport who could take two or three days off and figure this out. I have not had the opportunity of travelling up and down and around the lakes.
The next thing I should like to deal with is the type of service that might be provided. If we are going to have coastguard officers along the coast to act as co-ordinators it might be advisable to have boats available to do rescue work if necessary. These officers would co-ordinate the work of the R.C.A.F., the R.C.M.P. and the provincial police, but I think where necessary-this decision would have to be made by the Department of Transport- there should be duty boats which could go out if necessary.
These duty boats could be located where there were the greatest concentrations of small craft during the summer. I am not suggesting for one minute that the department should buy a number of yachts or patrol boats, but I am suggesting that the department might hire boats to be used as duty boats in places such as Toronto, Oakville and Hamilton on lake Ontario, and Port Colborne, Port Dover, Port Stanley, Port Burwell on lake Erie, and so on.
It might be possible to hire fishing boats during the summer months when the catches are not so large. Many fishermen would be glad to have jobs operating duty boats. Fishing boats would be the best because their crews would be highly experienced, many of them are equipped with ship to shore radio, and are quite speedy. Then there are many persons owning large launches and I am sure these could be obtained on a contract basis to be operated as duty boats. It should not cost too much money.
iMr. Nesbitt.]
In certain congested areas such as the Toronto area and possibly the Long Point area it might be necessary to have a constant patrol during the summer months. Again this is something the department would have to decide. I merely throw it out as a suggestion that it might be advisable to cover the congested areas where people are running around upsetting small boats and that kind of thing.
There is another important thing to be considered. I think the department should lay down rules requiring all small boats to be equipped with flares or smoke bombs, and also with life jackets. It would be up to the local officers to see that these rules were enforced. In other words, no boat would be permitted to go out on the lakes without a certain number of life preservers and flares or smoke bombs. If they happened to get into trouble they could send up signals.
I would like to make my remarks a bit longer, but because of the shortness of time and because other hon. members would like to speak, I shall not elaborate further. Both the minister and his parliamentary assistant come from a province which is not associated in any way with the great lakes, and they may not have the same sympathy as those who come from southern Ontario and who are more immediately concerned with this matter. I feel that all hon. members, who come from southern Ontario, regardless of party, should support this resolution. I know perfectly well that it will not get to a vote tonight, but whether or not they support it in the house they should support it privately. It is merely a question of having the Department of Transport look into the advisability of bringing down legislation in this regard. This evening I have simply passed out a few suggestions as to what I consider would be necessary, and even these would probably require some modification.


Mr. F. G. Robertson (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, Northumberland county which I have the honour to represent lies on the north shore of lake Ontario and for that reason I have a particular interest in the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Oxford, which is as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to provide for the establishment of a coastguard service on the great lakes of Canada.
At first glance this appeared to me to be a worthy objective, but tonight when I heard the hon. member put his reservations on the record I realized that he had cut his own resolution to pieces and it had therefore lost much of its effectiveness. The hon. member's first reservation was that he would confine

this to the lower great lakes and to the summer months. Then there is to be nothing in the way of law enforcement or customs collections. When I read this resolution on the order paper I thought the hon. member had in mind patterning the Canadian coastguard service on that of the United States.
We all know that the United States coastguard service has an enviable reputation and is noted for its efficiency and on many occasions for its heroism. We do not have a unified service in Canada, but the various agencies of government are organized to perform much the same duties as those performed by the United States coastguard. It is my submission that what is being done in Canada does not suffer from comparison with what is being done by the United States coastguard service.
The agencies of government which are concerned in Canada are mainly the Department of National Defence, the Department of Transport and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The hon. member has referred to the lack of co-ordination in the Canadian system, but I submit that there is considerable evidence of co-ordination in our system. I should like to refer to what the Royal Canadian Air Force is doing in this regard, and I quote from an air force release No. 8620 dealing with search and rescue in Canada, as follows:
From British Columbia to Newfoundland, from the 49th parallel to Canada's Arctic archipelago, men and women of the R.C.A.F.'s search and rescue organization stand ready to answer the call of distress.
And again:
The R.C.A.F. is charged with the co-ordination and supervision of all search and rescue activity in Canada, and with the provision of all primary search and rescue facilities. This includes responsibility for search and rescue operations involving aircraft in distress, marine distress cases on the east and west coasts of Canada and portions of the great lakes, and, as a secondary role, provision of aid in any necessary circumstances. . . .
Control is carried out from six major co-ordination centres at Torbay, Newfoundland, Halifax, Trenton (Ont.), Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver. Aircraft earmarked for mercy flights or search operations are stationed at Torbay, Newfoundland; Greenwood, N.S.; Goose Bay, Labrador; Trenton; Winnipeg; Churchill, Man.; Edmonton; Whitehorse, Y.T., and Vancouver, and although planes at these points held for specific search and rescue work are allowed to carry out other duties, they are never allowed to undertake jobs which would prevent them from being instantly ready for their primary responsibility.
The list of primary facilities of the air force for search and rescue work also includes helicopters, and a group of specially trained airmen who have been given an intensive course in para-rescue work near Jasper, Alberta.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: May I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member is giving some excellent figures, and I am sure we are very glad to have them, but I do not see that they have any application to the great lakes.
67509-167*
Search and Rescue


Frederick Greystock Robertson: My hon. friend will probably agree that I am keeping more to the subject matter of this resolution than he did himself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: I continue to quote, Mr. Speaker:
Nerve centres of the work are the major rescue co-ordination centres, for from them are directed all operations by search and rescue. Ready for instant use are lists of all service facilities ready to be called upon, including navy carrier planes in addition to R.C.A.F. aircraft, bodies of men for search parties, and vessels, as well as outstanding civilian facilities, such as charter companies, tugboats and the like.
At Trenton, Ontario, which is very close to my own county of Northumberland, there is the No. 102 communications and rescue flight. This unit is responsible for the co-ordination of all search and rescue work on the great lakes and for moving not only government ships but privately owned ships in case of accidents. I know that the services of helicopters are being used more and more in the search and rescue work, and I believe that the Department of Transport has under consideration the further use of helicopters in this connection.
The Royal Canadian Navy is also playing an important part in search and rescue work. It has numerous escort and patrol ships which can perform the same type of service. The Department of Transport itself carries out very important functions, such as putting down aids to navigation, marking channels, carrying supplies, icebreaking, and also furnishing very valuable weather forecasts from seven departmental stations. These weather forecasts are given three or four times each day.
The R.C.M.P. also operates patrol boats on the great lakes. I know that on lake Ontario there are two patrol boats operating. The first of these is stationed at Kingston, the Cutknife II. In Toronto another patrol boat is also operating. These R.C.M.P. patrol boats perform a number of coastguard services such as assisting ships in distress, investigating drownings, patrolling the waters when regattas are being held, assisting other police forces, including the United States coastguard service, and performing a check of pleasure boats on behalf of the customs' department. It is therefore evident that we have an effective service already in existence in this country.
The hon. member talked a great deal about providing some protection for small pleasure boats on the great lakes. He evidently has in mind a method of policing small boats operated by tourists in the many resorts on the great lakes, but I think he will agree

Search and Rescue
that the number of resorts where there is a concentration of tourist boats is so large that the government could not hope to provide boats at each of these places. I think it is also obvious that if we had a coastguard service on the great lakes, it would only be by the merest chance that one of these boats would be in a position to render assistance in the case of sudden upset or other dangers in which owners of small pleasure craft might find themselves.
I do not believe that by the methods he has suggested we could deal effectively with the small boat problem, which is the most frequent source of marine accidents. The United States still has many such accidents, although it has a very efficient coastguard service. The hon. member presented no statistics to prove that we have more such accidents than the United States. I think this house should have such evidence before making any decision on this matter.
In my opinion we can better deal with this situation by the following methods. The first is the education of the small boat owners. We should teach them safety measures. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a publication produced by the Department of Transport entitled, "Safety Afloat for Owners of Small Boats". This is a very fine publication dealing with the prevention of accidents in the small boat field in this country. On the first page of this publication I find the following:
The great majority of these accidents can be prevented.
This booklet has been prepared with that purpose in mind, to help spread the information that can drastically cut the needless toll in property damage and human suffering, and make for safety afloat for yourself, your family and others.
As I go through this publication I find that there is information regarding life-saving equipment, methods of fire prevention, and also information as to the dangers of overloading these small craft. There is also a very interesting section dealing with the rules of the road, and this gives very important information as to what the owners of these boats should do and what they should not do. I believe if the owners of small boats in Canada would read and follow the advice given in this publication, a great many of these accidents could be avoided.
A second method would be the regulation of the small boat operators themselves, and we do this through a licensing system. I find that, by law, boats fitted temporarily or permanently with motors of 10 horsepower or more are required to be licensed. Such licenses are obtainable free of charge from all customs officers in Canada, and the R.C.M.P. enforces the small vessel licensing regulations. Through a system of licensing

and inspection we are able to make sure that the boats themselves are in a good state of repair.
A third method, I think, to prevent the loss of life would be by seeking the co-operation of local organizations, who would play their part in seeing that proper safety precautions were taken. I think the various tourist associations and the yacht clubs at various points on the great lakes could make a splendid contribution in this regard.
I would also draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the work done by the committee set up by the government in 1949 under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Clyne, who at that time was chairman of the Canadian maritime commission. The committee was set up by the government to, first, review the existing arrangements for search and rescue work in Canada and, second, make recommendations for improved and more efficient service. The committee reported that while on occasion valuable assistance had been rendered by the United States coastguard service to Canadian ships in Canadian waters, there was no evidence that a large number of casualties in Canadian waters had been prevented by the United States coastguard. Further, it was pointed out that United States ships had been assisted on many occasions by our own Canadian ships.
The committee reported that valuable work had been carried out by the R.C.A.F. search and rescue co-ordinating centres, and praised the work of those centres in detail. The committee recommended that co-ordinating centres be kept informed of the position and movement of all ships, and should be informed of any casualties. It also recommended that we should take the necessary action to ensure safety of life and, if possible, the prevention of damage or loss of any ship and its cargo. There was no recommendation by the committee for the establishment of a coastguard.
The report on marine casualties in the period between April 1946, and 1949 found that in the great majority of these accidents satisfactory assistance had been rendered by government-owned ships, by subsidized companies and by privately-owned ships in the vicinity. In those cases where loss of life had occurred it appeared that the majority of such losses could hardly have been avoided no matter how elaborate a system of search and rescue might have been available on the great lakes at that time.
At the outset of his speech the hon. member for Oxford referred to the cost of such an operation. He quoted the words of the minister in the debate last session to the effect that the establishment of a proper coastguard

2S31
system would cost some $9 million to $12 million, and the maintenance of such a system would cost $3 million per year. This is a large sum of money; and while the hon. member did say that we should confine our efforts to the great lakes I submit that if we are going to set up a proper coastguard system it should extend to all the great lakes and to both the east and west coasts.
While the spending of this amount of money might seem to be justified to some, nevertheless I can think of other dangerous situations in this country where people are regularly losing their lives. If we have any such amount of money to spend I believe we could very well spend it on increasing the railway grade crossing fund, and thus eliminate many of the very dangerous crossings in this country.
I suggest it is not practical to organize a coastguard system on a national basis as outlined by the hon. member for Oxford tonight. The administrative costs would be far too high and out of all proportion to the service obtained. I believe such a system could be organized on a local basis, and I think the responsibility for so organizing rests on the local people in each community. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge there has been no request from the commercial shipping interests that such a coastguard service should be established. I think that is very strong evidence that the need for such an organization has not been fully proven by the hon. member for Oxford.
I indicated at the beginning of my remarks that I come from a riding located on lake Ontario. I can honestly say that I have had no suggestions from individuals, organizations or public bodies that a need for a coastguard service exists at the present time. If the need is not apparent in the area in which I live I cannot believe that it is as great as outlined by the hon. member for Oxford in other areas on the great lakes.
There is also the fact that a very large percentage of these accidents take place on the smaller inland lakes of Ontario. Surely the hon. member would not suggest that the federal government should set up an organization on these inland lakes. Finally, I would say that the functions which would be carried out by such a coastguard organization are now carried out efficiently and satisfactorily, and that the expense of setting up such an organization as that envisaged by the hon. member for Oxford would not be warranted or justified at the present time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, in rising to join briefly in the discussion of the resolution introduced by
Search and Rescue
the hon. member for Oxford proposing the establishment of a coastguard service on the great lakes, I want to say at the outset that I find myself very much in sympathy with the objective he has in mind. Some hon. members may recall that during the debate on the speech from the throne earlier this session I had occasion to refer to this subject matter as it affects the coastal areas of British Columbia. My remarks were made on Friday, January 13, and can be found at page 108 of Hansard. Inasmuch as I used my 40 minutes on that occasion in discussing the subject, I do not intend to repeat now the arguments I used then.
In view of the fact that I come from a constituency in the coastal area of British Columbia I am sure the hon. member for Oxford will appreciate that my interest in this subject extends somewhat beyond the immediate scope of his resolution, and perhaps he may not be surprised if I propose before I take my seat that the resolution should be broadened somewhat. Of course I am not in a position to analyse in any detail the pros and cons of the discussion that took place between the hon. member for Oxford and the hon. member for Northumberland, but I must say that as I listened to the communique, shall I say, that the hon. member for Northumberland read-


Henry Alfred Hosking: He did not read it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -I found that it had a very familiar ring.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Look at his notes and you will see he did not read it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It was very close to some of the descriptions I have heard of the functioning of the search and rescue emit and its coordinated service as applied to the Pacific coast of British Columbia. If my own analysis and comparison of the effectiveness of what we have in British Columbia is paralleled by the situation on the great lakes, then I can say that I think the hon. member for Oxford has real grounds for bringing forward this resolution respecting the area which is his particular concern. While, as I stated when I spoke earlier, I recognize some of the value of the search and rescue set-up under the R.C.A.F., I also recognize there is a great deal to be desired before we can have what I consider to be a proper marine rescue service in this country.
I was interested to note the reference made by the hon. member for Northumberland to that publication of the Department of Transport entitled "Safety Afloat". Even assuming that the government is not convinced at once of the advisability of taking certain action, I think perhaps one of the immediate values

Search and Rescue
of this discussion is that it may serve to draw to the attention of a larger number of Canadians the unnecessary hazards to which they subject themselves when they go afloat. I have looked over that particular publication and I must say that I agree with the hon. member for Northumberland about it. I can only wish that it were receiving much more widespread attention than it has hitherto received and that the government, apart from any other consideration, were taking greater pains to ensure that all of those who are concerned were aware of it and were aware of the dangers to which attention is drawn. I certainly agree that much can be accomplished in reducing the hazards of sailing, either on the great lakes or on the sea coasts, by the proper type of educational program in this connection.
I must say that I was pleased to note last autumn that some modest step is being taken to draw to the attention of people the dangers of travelling by boat and that, among other things, steps are being taken to bring up to date the enforcement of the safety regulations with regard to the larger boats which come under licence classifications.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, if this matter is going to receive from the government consideration along the lines I argued earlier this session and along the lines that were argued by the hon. member for Oxford, I feel that anything that is done should be on a national basis. I hardly think we can expect our federal government to take under consideration a plan which is not drawn up along those lines. I should therefore like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron):
That the resolution be amended by inserting therein immediately after the words "great lakes" the words "and coastal waters".
I feel that this amendment does not in any way detract from the argument which has been presented to the house by the hon. member for Oxford, and in which he outlined the needs of his particular area. However, I feel that it may serve to bring into focus this problem of improved marine rescue service as a national problem which affects the people on the great lakes, the people on the coast of British Columbia and undoubtedly the people on the coasts of the Atlantic provinces of Canada.
This is a matter on which I have been frank to say that some things have been done, but to my mind not enough has yet been done. While the vote that is brought down by the Minister of National Defence in this connection for the work done under the R.C.A.F. is all well and good, it still does not bring the problem of marine rescue down to

the level of the waves. I feel that the hon. member for Oxford had a legitimate argument when he said it did not create the kind of closely co-ordinated service which the people generally were aware of, and of which they knew how to take immediate advantage under the emergency situations that from time to time arise as far as our sea coasts or our great inland water areas are concerned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: It
has been moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron):
That the resolution be amended by inserting therein immediately after the words "great lakes" the words "and coastal waters".
It is my opinion that this amendment is definitely out of order without 48 hours' notice. The appropriate citation reads as follows:
315. A modification of a notice of motion standing upon the notice paper is permitted, if the amended notice does not exceed the scope of the original notice.
But-and the word "but" is mine-:
A new notice must be given in the Votes and Proceedings, under standing order 45 when a material change is to be made to a notice of motion before it is taken up by the house.
It is my opinion that this amendment extending a resolution which applies to certain inland waters in order to make it apply to the waters of both the Pacific ocean and the Atlantic ocean is of a nature which would require 48 hours' notice, and therefore is not in order, under standing order 41.


Mr. A. E. Robinson (Bruce):: At this late hour, Mr. Speaker, I shall cut down my remarks considerably. In taking part in this debate on the resolution moved by the hon. member for Oxford I should like to say that I believe he deserves a great deal of credit for bringing this matter to the attention of the government. After the experience he had in the navy during the last war I am sure he is quite competent to advance, as he has done, a great number of reasons why this coastguard service is a worthy project.
I should like to say that I am interested in this matter because the district from which I come has approximately 300 miles of shoreline. That shoreline is all on blue water. It is extremely attractive to summer tourists. It is gradually being filled up with summer visitors from outside. As you know, many of these visitors have their yachts with them, as well as their power boats. Many of the people who live in Bruce have their boats. In addition we have great numbers of fishing vessels which are out a great part of the year. As well, a number of United States

yachts come over to visit us. I am sure these summer visitors are all welcome, and I think they enjoy themselves.
I should like to say that there is a crying need for some kind of co-ordination that has been spoken about by the hon. member for Oxford. I should also like to say that the number of these boats on lake Huron and Georgian bay is increasing each year. As the deep waterway is opened up there will be a greater need for such a coastguard service.
I would make one suggestion, and it is this. If the government see fit to inaugurate something along the lines spoken of by the hon. member for Oxford, during the peak of the summer season when the schools are closed I should hope they might see fit to train some of our sea cadets on some of those
Search and Rescue
boats they will be using. It would be good training for all those boys who have the navy in view for their future life.
I should like to say that the remarks made by the hon. member for Northumberland indicated a defeatist attitude. He did not review any of the arguments made by the hon. member for Oxford, and I am sure he had a great deal of help in preparing that speech which he read off. If the government sees fit in future to take advice from the hon. member for Oxford, I hope that we in Bruce county will get some of the service that is coming to us. We have paid a great deal for service in other parts of the country, and have received none.


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