1956-07-30

Hon. W. E. Harris (for Mr. Pickersgill) moved:: That the report of the civil service commission respecting a reclassification of the staff of the library of parliament, laid upon the table of the house, July 28, 1956, be now approved.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of fhe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the developments over the week end, has the government given consideration to the advisability of presenting a formal protest to Egypt which would indicate the position of this government in relation to the events which have taken place there in a manner that is not merely a question of reporting, but would constitute a direct representation from this government?


Right Hon. L. S. Sf. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The matter has, of course, been under consideration, but we have not decided yet to submit any formal protest, and I do not know that there have been any formal protests submitted by any of the other commonwealth countries but the United Kingdom itself. We are, of course, through our high commissioner, in very close touch with what is going on at the conference between the great powers primarily and to the greatest extent interested in this, and we shall certainly be kept fully informed from London, Washington and Paris about what is going on.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: May I ask a supplementary question. The Globe and Mail of this morning reports as follows:
British government sources said that early responses from the commonwealth had been encouraging. South Africa, Australia and New Zealand were said to have pledged their active support for firm British reaction to Nasser.
Will Canada take the same position as those other nations of the commonwealth?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We are not
informed that that position has been taken by Australia and New Zealand. We have been in touch with the Prime Minister of Australia and we understand that concern has been expressed there, as was expressed here, over the possible interference with the effective administration without discrimination of the canal but that so far it has not gone beyond that and their communications, as ours, have been confidential communications with the United Kingdom authorities.



MILAN BABIC


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the government make a strong protest to the United States government regarding the arrogant behaviour of the United States immigration department toward Mr. Milan Babic, a Canadian citizen carrying a Canadian passport, who was a survivor of the Andrea Doria? Mr. Babic was retained in the custody of the United States immigration department for 24 hours and, in his own words, was treated as a criminal. Because of that retention he was not listed as a survivor. No one knew of his whereabouts, and it was not known that he was a survivor until he turned up in Toronto last Saturday.
It is my information that this kind of treatment by the United States immigration department is becoming more and more common. The government should take steps to see that this kind of treatment is not meted out to Canadian citizens in the future.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have not had any complaints of any kind from Mr. Babic concerning this matter and I think we would be well advised not to make formal representations to the United States government without such a complaint from the man concerned and merely on the basis of press dispatches. However, in view of the nature of the information contained in the press dispatch we have already asked our office in New York to find out, if they can, what
6656	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry are the facts of the case and to get in touch with Mr. Babic and see what he has to say about it to us.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the government finds out that the facts are as I have stated, will it make a very strong protest to the United States government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if the facts are as stated in the newspaper we will take the required action. I think it would be quite proper to bring the matter to the attention of the United States government.



MIDDLE EAST


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Alberi):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in connection with a news report today to the effect that Jordan has objected to the continuance of General Burns. Has the minister anything to say in regard thereto, and could he say whether, in view of General Burns' outstanding services in the Middle East in the Jordan-Israel dispute, a request has been made for the continuance of his occupancy of that position beyond the expiry date, which I believe is early in August?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have seen the news report in question, and all I think I can usefully say-because General Burns is an official of the United Nations-in this matter is that his record speaks for itself and is, I think, sufficient denial of any charge of partiality or lack of objectivity. General Burns' term of service with the United Nations comes to an end, I think, at the end of August or September; in any event, within the near future. Although I should like to check on it I believe that the suggestion has been made by the Secretary General of the United Nations that General Burns might be requested to stay on. However, that is a matter entirely for General Burns to decide.



REQUEST POR ONE WEEK'S EXTRA PAY FOR TEMPORARY STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Elmore Philpotf (Vancouver Souih):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I am sorry I have not been able to give him notice but it is because I want to do this before the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
In view of the unduly long duration of the present session and in view of the fact


that the permanent stenographers in the House of Commons pool all receive one month's holiday, will the government consider giving one week's extra pay in lieu of the one week's holiday which the temporary stenographers would be entitled to if they were working for civilian organizations?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall that we ever had a request of this kind on former occasions when the session was unduly extended, as my hon. friend says, but of course we shall consider what he has said in his question.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of certain things that happened on Saturday. I would like to ask him whether in his opinion and that of the government the reports of parliamentary reporters of the Canadian Press and British United Press and also the news summaries that the C.B.C. carried in connection with the pipe-line debate were not fair, objective and accurate?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a question that should be asked on the orders of the day. That is a matter of personal opinion, and this is a free country where every Canadian is entitled to his own opinion.


John George Diefenbaker: That is no answer.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. If this is a free parliament, have not members the right to ask the Prime Minister for his opinion in regard to such a matter?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: And the
Prime Minister has the right to refuse to reply, as I am doing at this moment.


Mr. Sinclair:: It is a free country.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Watson MacNaughl (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister had time to consider a news dispatch from

the Charlottetown Guardian of July 19 which I left with him last week to the effect that hard sandstone fill suitable for the proposed causeway had been found at Cape Tormen-tine?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, geologists of the Department of Public Works, after checking on the rock formation in the Cape Tormentine area, have laid out a preliminary program of test drilling.
To date the public works crew has completed two test holes and is working on a third. A total of about 340 feet of rock has been drilled. The cores are now in our testing laboratories in Ottawa where they are being studied. Six more test holes are planned. Depending upon the results of this test drilling, it would then be necessary to undertake an extensive drilling program to determine if suitable material is available in sufficient quantities and locations to be quarried on an economic basis.
We are in the early, preliminary stages and much remains to be done before a decision can be reached as to the feasibility or otherwise of building a causeway from the mainland to Prince Edward Island.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resiigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Will he be so kind as to tell the house what is his present attitude in regard to his announced intention to take action against Forest Protection Limited in regard to the destruction of certain small fish? Has that attitude changed in the meantime?


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, the matter has been before the legal authorities of my department and I believe is now before the Department of Justice to ascertain whether we have a good case, either criminal or civil, against the aviation firm which sprayed our hatchery and killed one-third of our fish.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a question of which I have not given
Inquiries of the Ministry notice but which I am sure he will be able to answer. Can the minister tell the house if it is proposed to set up a parliamentary committee which will be assigned the task of investigating Canada's 17 national parks?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I have not heard of any such suggestion.


Charles Edward Johnston: A supplementary question. I would point out to the minister that the Crag and Canyon of Banff, the issue of July 25, carried the following:
Senator Donald Cameron, director of Banff school of fine arts, has been instrumental in the proposed formulation of a parliamentary committee assigned the task of investigating Canada's 17 national parks.


Jean Lesage: That is the first news I have had.



ONTARIO PRODUCERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege arising from a question asked the right hon. Minister of Agriculture last week by the hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Huffman) during my absence. It had reference to two news stories which had appeared the previous week, one in the Woodstock Sentinel-Review and the other in the Globe and Mail, containing certain statements attributed to me. The statement which appeared in the Sentinel-Review of July 20 contained a reference to an alleged statement by myself concerning the Minister of Agriculture. This statement was as follows:
Mr. Nesbitt said a deputation from the Ontario Milk Producers Association had appeared before Mr. Gardiner and was attempting to read their brief when the minister said "he wasn't interested in hearing about the milk industry".
The interview I had with the reporter of the Woodstock Sentinel-Review was an informal one over a cup of coffee. The matter of whether or not a deputation from the milk producers was received-before the standing committee on agriculture-was discussed. The news story which appeared in the Woodstock paper was in my opinion correct with the exception of the paragraph I have just quoted. I immediately got in touch with the editor of the paper and said that the statement was not correct, that I had not said the minister had made any such statement. That complaint was made to the editor immediately upon publication. Unfortunately I was absent from the house for part of last week when the matter was raised.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Since then the reporter who wrote the story kindly sent me a telegram acknowledging that I had been misquoted and that the statement was incorrect. I shall be glad to let the right hon. minister see the telegram. Frankly I do not blame the minister tor raising the point because it was a serious charge which simply was not true. As far as the story in the Toronto Globe and Mail is concerned, which I might say is quite incorrect, I do not know where they got their information. They certainly did not get it from me.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I should just like to say that it was not I who raised the point in regard to that. I just brought a letter into the house and read it in reply to the question which was raised by the hon. member, and I went on to say that it did provide an opportunity for these people to indicate that I did not meet delegations in that manner. All I wish to say about this is that on future occasions when I make corrections myself of what reporters say I hope there will not be so much booing from the other side of the house.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I rather thought the minister might be somewhat sympathetic, because I dare say in his long and colourful career he has been occasionally misquoted himself.


James Garfield Gardiner: Quite right.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY INQUIRY REGARDING BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN ONTARIO AND QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Albert Lavigne (Stormont):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Owing to the added importance brought to the area by the development of the St. Lawrence seaway, will steps be taken to define more clearly the boundary line between the provinces of Quebec and Ontario in the lake St. Francis area?


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: The hon. member spoke to me some time ago about his intention to make an inquiry about the uncompleted boundary line between Ontario and Quebec in the St. Lawrence area. I had the opportunity to see the records of the department and I find that the correspondence goes as far back as February 1938, when a series of questions was placed on the order paper and answered by Hon. T. A. Crerar, then minister in charge of this department. I would refer hon. members to Hansard of May 18, 1938, page 3241.
	'	I
Since I became associated with this department there has been further correspondence. On December 8, 1953, I received a letter from Hon. Lionel Chevrier, then minister of transport, pointing out the urgency of having this boundary survey completed. Following receipt of his letter, I wrote to the ministers responsible for boundary survey work in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The last paragraph of my letter reads as follows:
You may wish to renegotiate the matter with the province of Quebec (or the province of Ontario), towards the completion of the survey for the demarcation of the line. I am fully aware that this demarcation is the entire jurisdiction of the provinces, but I simply submit that the final survey would prove beneficial to all concerned.
These letters were acknowledged, but no action was taken.
The matter of interprovincial boundary surveys is the responsibility of the provinces concerned. Our department does co-operate when a request is received from both provinces, usually by appointing the surveyor general as chairman of a three-man commission with a representative from each province; who are charged with the responsibility of completing the survey. The costs of such surveys are shared equally by the two provinces concerned and this government.
I can assure my hon. friend that, as soon as requests are received from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec for the completion of this boundary survey, our department will act immediately.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. Reinke (Hamilton South):: On a
question of privilege, I was listening to radio station CFRA on Saturday evening at 6.30 p.m.-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Russell Earl Reinke: On a question of privilege- and again at seven o'clock to radio station CKOY. It was attributed to me that I had said in the House of Commons that afternoon that news coming out of the press gallery was slanted and lies. I think that is a very serious allegation for anyone to make.
I certainly would not make it without substantial foundation, and I never said that. What I actually said was in answer to a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and as found at page 6632 of Hansard I said that news coming out of the press gallery was slanted and biased.


John George Diefenbaker: Repetition makes perfect.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide equal pay for female employees as compared with male employees of the same employer, for identical or substantially identical work in federal works, undertakings or businesses; and to provide further under the enforcement procedure for the appointment of referees who may be paid such allowances and expenses as may be approved by the treasury board.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, this resolution, item No. 11 on today's order paper, has now been on the order paper for quite a long time, and I can assure the committee at once that, with the exception of nine days at the end of June, I have been ready and anxious to bring it forward for consideration. However, it has been unavoidably delayed and as the time of unavoidable delay has stretched out in length the statement I planned to make at the resolution stage has conversely become shorter and shorter. I am sure that the committee will agree with that point of view this morning.
The idea contained in the resolution goes back for some years in Canadian history. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar suggested in his speech in the debate on the speech from the throne, the idea was voiced in this chamber about 20 years ago by the then hon. member for Grey-Bruce, Miss Agnes Macphail. But to come down to more recent years, I am sure that all members of the house and many others outside the house have been impressed by the aggressive campaign that has been waged for this idea by the hon. member for Hamilton West. I pay tribute this morning in unstinted fashion to the value of the hon. lady's work in assisting in the crystallization of public opinion in this regard. Perhaps not so obvious but nevertheless effective has been the persistent influence for action in this field brought to bear by the hon. member for Timiskaming.
I could very well go on and speak of encouragement for a step such as this from women's organizations, from the Canadian Labour Congress or those congresses that are now part of the Canadian Labour Congress and from women and, yes, men too in this and the other chamber of parliament, and from outside.
In recent years, especially during and since the last war, an increasing number of women
30, 1956	6659
Female Employees Equal Pay have joined our Canadian labour force. Their record shows clearly that women's work is not inferior to the work of men. It would be presumptuous this morning for me to attempt to argue that point. That fact goes without saying. This unquestioned fact has tended to focus attention on the relationship of the earnings of men as compared with those of women doing the same work. In other years when my friend the hon. member for Hamilton West has brought her bill forward I have pointed out that the Canadian government, for quite a long time, has favoured this principle of equal pay. It had made the principle effective. The salaries paid to the classified civil service of Canada have been determined by the content of the job completely irrespective of sex. Also, with respect to our prevailing rate employees across the country, there has been inaugurated the practice of setting the rate for the particular job or of setting the wage classification whether the work has been done by a man or a woman. However, when that was done, it was quite another matter as to whether or not legislation was desirable dealing with the rate of pay of women in private business or private industry that comes under federal labour laws or under federal jurisdiction. For instance, to go beyond our own boundaries, it was observed that in so highly organized a country as the United Kingdom there is as yet no legislation dealing fully with the question of equal pay even in their public service. As was pointed out last year by my hon. friend, in 1955 the United Kingdom adopted a scheme applicable to the civil service. By it the scale for women in the nonindustrial civil service is being steadily increased by seven bites or by seven annual instalments so that by the year 1960 or 1961 women will be on an equal basis with men with respect to rates of pay. The United Kingdom so far at least has maintained that equal pay legislation is not appropriate to their system of private industry. At least they have not yet carried into effect legislation to bear upon that matter.
In the United States, although seventeen states have put into force legislation along this line and although sundry resolutions and private bills have been presented before one or the other of the houses of congress, congress as a whole has not passed legislation covering women in the federal field.
Nevertheless this morning I propose that we initiate federal action in Canada. Last year and previously I promised the house that we would give consideration to the matter and that we would consult with those organizations especially interested in the application of that principle. We have done that.

Female Employees Equal Pay We have done that quite fully. As a result, we have come to the conclusion that legislative proposals especially adapted to the nature of employment under federal jurisdiction should now be recommended to parliament.
I feel sure that it can be administered. In view of the past record or the past experience that I have had of the co-operation of employers in connection with other federal legislation administered by my department, I am confident that those employers will voluntarily bring their practices into compliance with the spirit of this proposed legislation.
This resolution forecasts a measure designed primarily to promote equal pay for women. In the measure that will come before us after the resolution I do not think we should try to be in any sense legalistic perfectionists, but rather that we should try to provide legislation that is simple, that we are quite sure will work and that will promote the object in view. Then, after it is under way, experience only will show us where we should cross the t's and dot the i's.
I want to emphasize the importance of a national standard of equal pay for women on two counts. The first is as evidence of recognition of the important part that women have to play and are playing in our Canadian economy. The second.-and this is a very important one-is the encouragement of them to take an even larger share in the responsibility for Canada's rapid growth. At present there are about a million and a quarter women in our labour force in Canada this mid-summer; that is the total in our entire labour force, in all the activities, whether they come under federal or provincial jurisdiction. Of that number, approximately 73,000 are employed in activities that are under the federal jurisdiction. And I am quite sure that our economy, in the buoyant state in which it is at the present time, needs more of these women who feel that they can come into the labour force. We need them to help out in Canada's development, and for those who are in the labour force and who may come into it I am very glad to propose this resolution as a recognition of the value of their contribution to the growth of Canada. I have pleasure in moving this resolution, Mr. Chairman.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to thank the minister for his kind remarks, and in doing so I would like to thank all the members of this house who in past years have supported this type of legislation, both in their remarks in this house and on two occasions by their votes. It was significant that the votes on this type of legislation in past years crossed party lines. The legislation received the support, both in speeches and by votes of all parties in this

house. I believe that that support, as witnessed in this chamber, was in some measure responsible for the government's serious consideration of the principle and its introduction of the legislation which we shall have before us shortly.
I should like to say also that the minister is quite correct when he refers to those persons outside of this chamber who have given consistent support to the principle of equal pay legislation over a period of many years, and I am sure it must be extremely gratifying to them. I mention in particular the federation of business and professional women which has been most outspoken and which has worked hard to have this type of legislation introduced in all legislatures in Canada. I mention also the women who belong to political organizations of all parties who have consistently supported this type of legislation and by reason of their support have succeeded in having this principle accepted by their political parties and incorporated into political platforms. When I make that remark, I think of course of my own party. But I also pay tribute to the women of all other political parties who have used their influence in this regard. Of course, I cannot help but pay tribute to the pioneer in representation of women in this parliament, Miss Agnes Mac-phail, who was always a champion of the things which she considered to be fair and equal for all people.
I think I would have to take a little exception to the minister's remarks with reference to the United Kingdom because, although, as he says, there has been no legislation there, the schemes to introduce the principle of equal pay have extended into many fields. Apart from the nonindustrial employees to whom he referred, those generally in the civil service, both at the local government level and at the higher level, have been covered in schemes which have been brought down, the first of which, of course, for civil servants in general took effect in February, 1955, and the second one on the local government level in July of last year. But in addition to that the scheme also is currently in operation covering school teachers in England and Wales, which came into effect in May of last year and a further one covering teachers in Scotland, which carrte into effect in September. The principle is now being extended to the nurses and to rail transport workers. Therefore it is gradually growing in the United Kingdom, as it is elsewhere.
In Canada, of course, with regard to the provinces, two more provinces passed legislation this year covering equal pay, namely, Manitoba and Nova Scotia. They are the most recent converts to the principle. This

now brings to five the number of provinces in Canada which have adopted equal pay legislation.
The minister also remarked on the United States and the fact that 16 states and Alaska now have equal pay legislation. Three of these adopted the legislation in 1955, of course; and, despite the fact that the minister points out the United States has not yet adopted legislation, it is significant that this year, in his state of the union message, President Eisenhower stressed the point that equal pay for equal work, regardless of the sex, is, in his words, "a matter of simple justice".
The numbers of women who have been engaged in paid employment have increased steadily in Canada, as they have in all other countries, and there have been improvements from time to time in the matter of remuneration, in working hours and in general conditions; but, as was pointed out in an article which appeared on this subject in the Christian Science Monitor, those improvements have hardly kept pace with the importance of the woman worker in the labour force.
The minister has said that in Canada we have now one and a quarter million women engaged in paid employment. The latest figures which I was able to procure are for May of this year. They show a force of 1,312,000 or, as the minister has said, slightly over the million and a quarter mark. They represent well over 23 per cent of the entire labour force of 5,664,000.
As time has gone on and as the numbers of women engaged in employment have increased, there has been a change in the wage structure in all countries, and this is reflected in the report which appears in the International Labour Review of March, 1956. After an exhaustive study and the citing of some very interesting figures the whole article concludes with these words:
Since the narrowing of differentials has taken place during a period of rising real wages during which conditions have improved in the lower-paid occupations and industries more than in others, the basic trend can be considered as one "levelling-up". Thus the net result has been not only improved conditions for wage earners as a whole but also greater equality between occupational and industry groups and between the sexes.
When one speaks of equality in the field of remuneration one necessarily becomes curious as to the number of persons who are in the various pay groups and therefore I referred to the tax statistics for 1955 published under the authority of the Minister of National Revenue. I find that for the taxation year 1953, which is fairly recent, according to the statistics which are available, in
Female Employees Equal Pay the wage group under $2,300 the number of female taxpayers greatly exceeds the number of male taxpayers. This points up the fact that a great many women must be receiving less remuneration for their services than men for the reason that there are, as we have said before, only 23-2 and in 1953 it was less than that. In 1953 about 22 per cent of the entire labour force were women, yet in the earning group of taxpayers earning under $2,300 female taxpayers greatly outnumber male taxpayers.
Of all taxpayers we have a total of 814,340 males and 708,150 females, a difference of about 124 per cent in the number of taxpayers and a difference of 78 per cent in the number of persons. This serves to point up the fact that whereas women represent only about one-quarter of the labour force, when it comes to paying taxes they greatly increase in importance. I hope the Minister of National Revenue is conscious of this fact.
I should point out, Mr. Chairman, if I did not mention it previously that the figures I have just quoted are for single persons. When we move into the field of persons who are taxed as single but who are supporting one or more dependents we find that in the male classification there are 122,490 and in the female classification there are 30,360, something around 25 per cent as compared with 22 per cent of women engaged in paid employment.
It appears that the alibi, if you like that expression, which has frequently been given for refusal to consider equal pay, that women after all are not the supporters of dependents and consequently need not be considered as requiring the same amount of remuneration as men, rather falls short of the mark. It is interesting to observe as these tables come out year by year that the number of women who are supporting dependents increases as the years go by. I will not weary the house by quoting further statistics because they are readily available in this volume for anyone who wishes to examine them.
This is a principle which has long been given lip service by all political parties and in most countries. It is gratifying that we now have at least a recognition in concrete form of this principle in this house.
The minister has said that in approaching a study of the legislation which will be before us shortly we should not be too legalistic, and I think that is probably true. On the other hand, those of us who are keenly interested in this type of legislation could perhaps be forgiven if we have a desire to look for the loopholes which might exist in this legislation. I do not suppose any one of us who

Female Employees Equal Pay studied the legislation we passed last year revising the Unemployment Insurance Act ever thought the interpretation which was later given to it would result in so many disqualifications. It should be a lesson to all of us not only to watch the actual phraseology of the legislation itself but also to be wary of the regulations which may be put into effect and the interpretation which may be given both to the regulations and to the actual legislation.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make the comment here that regardless of the perfection or lack of it of the bill which may be brought down, if the minister's department is not prepared to give to that legislation a sympathetic interpretation and to provide regulations which will make the working of that legislation flexible and effective, then the legislation itself will be worth nothing. I am sure the minister agrees with me in this regard and I hope that, after the experience we have had in the other fields, he himself will be particularly cautious and will be on the lookout for anything which may be introduced at the regulation and interpretation stage which would nullify the effect of the legislation.
It is not my intention to continue beyond the few remarks I have made today because I am anxiously awaiting the terms of the bill itself. However, I would like to say that in the minister's remarks he rather implied that this legislation was probably a reward for participation in the labour force for the work which women had done and are continuing to do and that it will perhaps be an inducement to increasing numbers of them to enter gainful employment. I do not think any of them wants rewards. What they want is their just due. I would just like to conclude my remarks by again referring to the comment of President Eisenhower which I quoted at the outset of these few words, that this legislation is simply a matter of justice.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that the expression I used, I think, was that this is evidence of recognition rather than a reward, which is quite different.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Right.


Mr. Barnetl:: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to enter into any discussion as to whether, this legislation is a matter of recognition or of reward. Our feelings at this time are somewhat akin to those of the minister in that we have a certain disposition to say, "Me too," to the hon. member for Hamilton West who has quite properly, because she is a woman member of this house, carried the ball for

some time in connection with this particular piece of legislation. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Hamilton West and the Minister of Labour, this legislation is simply carrying forward what was proposed first of all by the first woman member of this house, the late Miss Agnes Macphail. I think it might be worth while if I put on the record the precise terms of the resolution we have before us because, as far as I can recall, neither of the two speakers who preceded me has done this. The resolution reads: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide equal pay for female employees as compared with male employees of the same employer, for identical or substantially identical work in federal works, undertakings of businesses; and to provide further under the enforcement procedure for the appointment of referees who may be paid such allowances and expenses as may be approved by the treasury board.
As the minister pointed out, this resolution has been on the order paper since the beginning of this session. One cannot help but recall something that occurred in this chamber not very long ago, of course not while the house was in session. I do not know whether the Minister of Labour was among the hon. members who stayed behind the curtains on the occasion when this chamber was filled with representatives of the business and professional women's associations, but I think there were many of us who thought that perhaps the terms of this resolution should be somewhat revised to make sure that discriminations which have existed in the past may not be in effect in reverse in the future. It might well be that some time in the future a minister of labour for Canada might have to make some amendments to the act along those lines. Perhaps I should say that if that crisis should arise we could hope that it would be a woman minister of labour who would be introducing those amendments.
When this legislation is boiled down it is actually a further recognition of the fact that there are certain rights and dignities which should belong to all people regardless of their sex, colour or creed, as part of the recognition that they are human beings equal before God. For that reason I along with the other members of the C.C.F. group in this house hail the introduction of such legislation as something of a milestone in that direction; and certainly we will be prepared to give full and careful consideration to the details of the bill when we have it before us. If we feel there are ways in which it can be improved to further the purposes for which it is designed we may have some suggestions to make at that time.
It is hardly necessary for me to say that we are most wholeheartedly in support of

this proposal. However, in saying that, we recognize, as has the minister, that legislation is not a complete answer to any form of discrimination or intolerance, that there are limitations to what can be done by legislation in this particular field. Those of us in this house and Canadians generally should not feel that once this bill becomes law the battle against this particular form of discrimination is at an end.
In saying that, I might draw to the attention of the minister an example which I consider indicates the real value of this type of legislation. The union, in an industrial plant with which I happened to be familiar and which had been certified as the bargaining agent, had been endeavouring to have a certain policy of racial discrimination abolished in the plant. The question had been discussed and negotiations opened in various ways over a period of some years, but they were unsuccessful as far as the union was concerned. Gradually the union had narrowed down the area of bargaining until it was felt that this matter might soon be resolved to their satisfaction. At that time the government passed the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act and while that act had no jurisdiction over this particular plant it proved to be the straw that broke the camel's back. The mere fact that the parliament of Canada had given recognition to that particular principle, and by that legislation had said in effect that this form of discrimination should be abolished, was sufficient to bring home to that employer the fact that this was something which should no longer be tolerated in Canadian life.
I feel that that probably will be the most important result of this legislation. After all in many parts of this far-flung country, and the parts I know best are a long way from here, what this parliament does in matters of this kind is regarded with a great deal of respect. The impact upon the thinking of the people of the passage of a bill of this kind is perhaps greater than we may be prone to think. That perhaps is one reason why we regret that other pieces of legislation which we feel would reduce inequities and intolerances have not received the recognition by the government we would like to have them receive.
I think we have to recognize that, if we pass legislation, that becomes the law which should be enforced. That is why I am glad to see that there is reference in the resolution to an enforcement procedure, and it is to be hoped that that procedure will have some teeth in it. While the legislation will have some impact, nevertheless we all recognize that there is always a minority who
30, 1956
Female Employees Equal Pay seem to have no appreciation of proper human values. That is perhaps the strongest argument for putting into legislative form such principles as are involved in this resolution. To those people who have no regard for the dignity and the rights of people, the threat of a possible prosecution very often is enough to bring them into line. Few people like to have to appear in the courts and to receive the publicity that is attached to a conviction for a discriminatory practice. Therefore the fact that there is going to be this law with teeth in it, even though one may recognize that by clever arguing certain loopholes may be found, the mere fact that it is there and that prosecution is possible will in itself have a salutary effect in the particular field that this legislation is designed to cover.
One of the further effects of this type of legislation is that it is going to be a step forward in the matter of the proper and careful evaluation of what is involved in a certain job category. It is going to mean, I think, a further step in the direction of the setting of wage levels on a proper and- though I hesitate to use the word-scientific basis, because I think we all realize that until fairly recent times the wages paid to either male or female employees have been set on rather haphazard lines. In some cases it was a matter of as much or as little as the traffic would bear, and a great many inequities have resulted because of that.
I think we all are aware that in recent years there has been some movement towards the setting of standards which are just and equitable having in mind all the various factors that are involved in the content of a certain job. I think that this legislation will serve to put the movement forward another step so that jobs will be paid for on the basis of what they are really worth and not in each particular instance because of the fact that perhaps an employer is able to exert more pressure upon a woman than upon a man and all those factors that have come into play in the past.
Without further prolonging my remarks at this time I simply want to say again that I am quite happy that the minister is bringing forward this legislation at this time. I have been a little worried once or twice during the session that we might have seen this session coming to a close without this bill being brought forward, and I am glad to see that we have it on the way.


Mr. Hahn:: We in this group also welcome the resultion at this time. I must admit that I felt somewhat as did the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, that possibly we would be drawing near to the close of the session and

Female Employees Equal Pay the resolution would die on the order paper. We are pleased to see it here now.
The hon. member tor Hamilton West suggested that there were only five provinces which had similar legislation on their statute books. I wonder whether she has given any consideration to the fact that some provinces do not find it necessary to pass legislation for equal pay for equal work, since they have no discrimination in their present legislation that would make it necessary. I am thinking specifically of the province of Alberta, where I am told they have no necessity for this type of legislation, there being no discrimination. The teachers' salaries are on an equal basis and I understand that the other civil servants and other employees of the provincial government are likewise and therefore the legislation is not needed.
In my own province of British Columbia the government saw fit to pass such legislation a year or two ago. I must say at this time that again I would agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and I am pleased to see some teeth put into this legislation, which will make its implementation possible. It is useless having legislation unless one can guarantee that it is going to be implemented, and that might be one of the problems with which we shall have to deal more specifically at a later date.
The principle of equal pay for equal work is, I think, one that should be recognized throughout this nation as possible in every industry. It gives me some concern and wonder as to why we did not include the word "sex" in our revision of the employment act when we were redrafting it last year. I think the suggestion' was made that in the fair employment section of the act, if we introduced the word "sex", there should be no discrimination and that that would take care of this situation and give a guarantee against the need for this type of legislation in this country.
The fact that our government has taken the lead in this, as well as the many provincial governments that have done so earlier, is desirable. It may be somewhat of a guide to employers in the future to arrive at a decision as to whether further legislation should not be brought in or that they themselves could organize to see that labour across this country as a whole is treated the same. For instance, I find on examination that there is a great deal of discrepancy in the wages paid in different parts of this country, not as between male and female necessarily but as between males themselves.
I have an example in mind in Saint John, New Brunswick, with which I am sure the minister is familiar. The mill workers begin


in the lumber business at a beginning wage of 70 or 75 cents per hour, I am told. In my own province, in New Westminster, the beginning wage is $1.60 per hour, and the cost of living is very similar in those cities.
Whilst we have legislation here respecting equal pay for equal work by men and women, I wonder whether some day we shall not find it necessary to introduce legislation of a similar nature covering a greater field than we have now. I could cite another example in the case of check-out girls in supermarkets in the city of Ottawa. I find that in this city the maximum wage paid a girl employed on that work is something like $40 per week. The maximum wage in the city of New Westminster for girls in similar employment is $55 per week. That is their take-home pay, I understand, and since I received that figure there has been an upward trend from that through negotiation in British Columbia. The fact is that in New Westminster the beginning wage paid to ladies employed as check-out girls in supermarkets is $39 per week, which compares with the maximum wage in Ottawa of $40 per week for the same type of work. There may be instances where girls may get more than that but generally speaking that is the wage paid. The universal adoption of this type of legislation could well result in the greatest sociological change of the past half century so far as the Canadian people are concerned if the principle of equal pay for equal work is recognized universally. It would then remain for an employer to decide whether he should employ a man or a woman and he would have to take into consideration not just the fact of having to pay an equal wage but what the results will be on his industry by paying women the same wage.
In many provinces women have special privileges so far as their work is concerned. For instance, there is the fact that these girls who work in stores are not permitted to carry boxes weighing more than a certain amount. The same regulations do not apply to the male. Therefore when an employer decides whether he will employ a male or a female he will, of course, have to give that point some consideration. I am fully aware that that factor does not apply specifically to this legislation because it relates to work over which the federal government has no jurisdiction, but at the same time I cannot help but feel that the adoption of such legislation is bound to have its impact upon the demands of labour throughout the country, and that fact should be recognized.
I can see that the result can' well mean that wherever possible women may be forced

to go back to doing housework and that if the employment they seek is going to call for exactly the same wage the employer is going to decide that he cannot get the same or identical service from women because of the special privileges granted under provincial rights and that they should not receive the same pay. Therefore he will employ men instead. That might be to the advantage of the nation as a whole. I am satisfied that women can hold their end up pretty well if need be. As one who has employed them for some time in business, my experience is that they are quite capable of doing certain jobs. There are fields where that does not hold true and where women have been employed in the past. I am reminded of a quotation from Milton-I forget from which sonnet it comes-


An hon. Member:: Milton Gregg.


Frederick George Hahn: No, Milton. "They also serve
who only stand and wait." I believe that the payment to such a person should compare with the payment to the person who is fully employed because just standing around doing nothing is sometimes harder than to be doing something. It is important that we should recognize that the adoption of this type of legislation may materially affect the adoption of similar types of working conditions in industry generally. Some have them today. In recent years I find there has been a great change in employment in my own province in the case of the union that makes agreements with management in the lumbering business. A few .years ago a great number of women were employed in the plywood factories in my riding. Today we find there are very few because they are incapable of doing the same type of work. Yet they receive the same pay as men because there is no discrimination in the take-home pay.
I think the legislation is possibly to the advantage of both the male and the female. What its final result will be is difficult to decide. I wonder whether the adoption of the legislation will cause concern to labour and industry and may not result finally in a complete return to the apprenticeship system under which industry feels that just because a person is employed at the same job does not necessarily mean that they will be given exactly the same return for their work. There may be a move to adopt the apprenticeship system whereby industry can get certain employees for less money and still attain the main objective of getting the work done.
Possibly the legislation may result in a policy of piece work payment similar to what was so common in the 1920's. It may mean
Female Employees Equal Pay that we will have a guaranteed wage plus the adoption of the principle of people being paid for the exact number of pieces of work they do or it may even bring about-and this might be most desirable-a sharing of profits between industry and employees. Whether this type of legislation will solve the labour problems of today is debatable. Whether it will result in lowering the cost of living is debatable. It well might do so because I can see that when you pay equal wages for the work done and get the same amount of work out of each individual the result may be that a greater amount of work will be accomplished. The result will naturally be greater production at the same cost or a very slight increase in cost because the difference in wages is not too great today. The result might be advantageous in its effect upon the cost of living. On the other hand, if industry generally is made subject to similar legislation the result might be the opposite effect.
There is one thought that does give me some concern. Are women prepared to accept the disadvantages as well as the advantages of this type of legislation? Today they very definitely receive special privileges either written into contracts or observed by management as such. Just because the employee is a lady she may be given certain definite advantages that are not available to the man. However, there is another factor, the fact that competition may mean, as I suggested earlier, the possibility of non-acceptance of the lady in employment and the giving of the particular job to a man. That would mean that the ladies of the country would of necessity be forced into doing more housework. I am not suggesting for a moment that that is of necessity the result. I am just wondering whether that is not a possibility. I think they are prepared to accept their responsibility and to give up any few small advantages they have today for this type of legislation. I am satisfied that it is a step in the right direction. I am prepared to accept it and I am satisfied that each member of our group is.
On the other hand, I wonder whether men are prepared to accept the challenge of women who see here a material advantage, and I would caution all men to look to their laurels. Women are marching forward. They may become the breadwinners for their families and dishpan hands may be our lot.


Mrs. Shipley:: Mr. Chairman, I of course am very pleased, as all women in Canada must be, that this principle is to become a matter of legislation. I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for New Westminster. He has indeed pointed up a problem which may arise, that under certain
6666	HOUSE OF
Female Employees Equal Pay circumstances women may be priced out of the labour market when this law becomes effective. However, that is the strongest argument for having the legislation drafted in such a way that it is up to the women themselves to lay the complaint before action is taken. Under such circumstances I have reason to believe that would be the type of legislation we would have because the minister has expressed himself as being against having someone go around, make an inspection and raise the issue when no complaint is laid by the individuals concerned. The women are not too foolish and I am quite sure they would not lay complaints if they felt that the economy of the small industry, or whatever the case might be in the small community, would be jeopardized.
Along that same line I have some figures with regard to complaints laid under the Ontario legislation. That legislation became effective on January 1, 1952. I have the figures here up to March, 1954. There were 122 persons involved in the complaints but only 10 employees. That is in a period of something over two years. However, that does not mean that is all the passing of the legislation accomplished because, of course, once the legislation became law it was possible for groups of women-and I am thinking of school teachers and other large groups such as that-to get equal pay without being obliged to lay the matter before the investigating board. Furthermore, there may be many other instances-and I believe this to be true-where perhaps an obvious injustice exists and where women for some reason are loath to take the matter before the authorities. However, there is nothing that we can do here to take care of that situation. It is up to women to talk to women and to encourage them to get justice.
Now that we have every reason to believe that the legislation will be passed shortly, women's groups and individuals throughout Canada are concerning themselves with what the wording of the act might be. We were criticized mildly either for delaying the passing of the bill presented by the hon. member for Hamilton West or the government not bringing in one earlier. The minister has told you that he wanted the legislation to be effective and that he did not think the wording suggested or the wording in some other act was perhaps the best that could be obtained. The women's organizations and others are concerned over just what that legislation might be.
I should like to read you some comments made by the late Senator Taft when this matter was before a special committee of which he was the head. You all know of the great study he made of labour conditions. 

Bills of this nature were introduced over there in the United States at approximately the same time as the late Miss Agnes Macphail introduced one here and they have been before the United States senate and congress ever since then. In discussing the matter in a committee the senator had this to say:
No basis is provided for determining what jobs are comparable in character, what jobs require comparable skills, what is a comparable quality of work, or what operation is similar to another. A zealous administrator, given this blank cheque, could find quite different types of work to be comparable in character .	.	. Many factors go
into the determination of the wage rate. The terms "work of a comparable character" and jobs which require "comparable skills" are so general and vague that the administrator of the law under such an ambiguous grant of power could destroy the sound wage structure which an employer had worked for years to perfect. Can any employer determine with certainty that he is in compliance? There are degrees of similarity between various jobs and the task of measuring accurately the "skill", "care", "energy", "working conditions", etc. that goes into a given job and at the same time predict that a Department of Labour investigator would make the same valuation is an impossible one.
Then Senator Donnell is quoted at the same hearing as having said:
I think there are few representative of labour or management who would claim that it is possible to develop a job-evaluation system which could be depended upon in all cases to produce fair and mutually acceptable determinations of "work of comparable character on jobs the performance of which requires comparable skills".
Then he goes on to speak further on the same subject. These are the very words, or are almost the identical work words which were in the private bill presented by the hon. member for Hamilton West.
Of course I do not know, nor do you, what will be the words in the bill that will be presented by the minister tomorrow, I believe. But I think the hon. member for Hamilton West said in effect that no matter what those words may be, it will be the sympathetic administration of this act which will create the greatest good. I am not too much concerned about the words. I hope they will please most of the women's groups. However, I am reasonably confident that we shall have sympathetic administration.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the house is now dealing with this matter in committee. As has been indicated in the remarks that have already been made, it will be necessary to wait until the legislation is before us until we see the exact wording of the measure that we are all anxious to support. I want to point out, however, that the introduction of this resolution represents a very gratifying and, I should think, very heart-warming reward to the hon. member for Hamilton West for the efforts she has made now for

many years to bring this matter to the attention of the house and of the people of Canada.
The hon. member for Hamilton West brought similar legislation forward in 1953, again in 1954 and again in 1955. It was not debated or voted upon in 1953 but there were debates and votes in 1954 and 1955. On each occasion the government saw fit to oppose this legislation. I am not going to elaborate on that point now. We welcome the fact that the government has adopted this principle. Already it is in effect in five of the provinces of Canada and it has been giving satisfaction where it is in operation. One of the things that I should like to mention is the fact that, far from placing the men at a disadvantage in any way, this legislation should actually be welcomed by men. The very fact that women workers are placed upon a basis of equal pay for corresponding work is in itself an advantage to men and an assurance that the wage level will be maintained. This is therefore a matter of just as great interest to the men who are in the ranks of our workers throughout Canada as it is in the case of the women. Nevertheless, there is a special reason why we all welcome this legislation. It is one of those steady and progressive changes in our society to indicate the extent to which we realize that there should be no differentiation between men and women in the return they receive for the work they do.
I believe that this is a very desirable piece of legislation. I shall await the legislation itself. Certainly, we agree it is expedient that legislation of this kind be brought in and once again, in supporting this resolution, let me express my congratulations to the hon. member for Hamilton West on seeing this positive result from the steady and constant efforts she has made to arouse interest in this subject.


Mr. Dupuis:: Mr. Chairman, you may
probably remember that I supported and voted for the resolution brought forward by the hon. member for Hamilton West in this connection. I must congratulate the Minister of Labour and the government on having brought forward the necessary legislation to comply with the suggestions made in this chamber. It will be a good example to all provinces that have not adopted the same point of view and, of course, to employers in general.
I wish to limit my remarks to a question which I desire to put to the minister. Will this legislation apply to crown corporations, to the Canadian National Railways, the national harbours board, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and similar bodies over which the government has an indirect
30, 1958	6687
Female Employees Equal Pay control? If we need new legislation to change the respective charters of these different bodies, I think this is a good time to suggest it, because, after all, these people are considered as indirect employees of the federal government, and I think this legislation should apply in the same way to the different bodies I have mentioned.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, our expert on this particular question has already registered the opinion of this group. I should like to say, Mr. Chairman, that this question of equal pay for equal work is something that has been at the masthead of the labour movement of North America, and perhaps of sections of the world where there is a labour movement, for a good many years. The slogan "equal pay for equal work" is all-inclusive. What we are doing now, of course, is establishing that principle in so far as federal employees are concerned.
When a bill such as this is passed in the country everybody outside immediately thinks that it is legislation that applies nationally. You get a lot of letters such as you receive on antidiscrimination, but it merely applies to federal employees.
The minister made it clear that he believed this bill affected some 73,000 female employees employed by the federal government. Of course, all legislation is as good as its administration and there are going to be administrative difficulties in this. There are one or two thoughts I should like to leave with the minister. First, I think the need for this legislation was proven by the job evaluation surveys made by most of the labour unions throughout North America during the past 15 years. Practically every industry of any size is now organized and has its research personnel. Part of that research personnel consists of job evaluation officers. During the surveys that have been taken over the past 15 years a need has been shown for this type of legislation. The statistics upon which that need is based have been gathered by most of the labour unions across the country.
I think the war proved that there were many sections of industry where women could be employed, but at the beginning of the war, as those of us who were in the house at that time can remember, in shipyards and in other industries where women were trained to take jobs it was the practice of the employer to try to hire them for 15 per cent, 20 per cent or 50 per cent lower wages. During the process of the war the unions did a pretty good job in levelling out in the aircraft industry, in shipyards and in other industries, this question of equal pay for equal work. There are many sectors

Female Employees Equal Pay in industry where women can replace men and, in some places, such as the aircraft industry, they can do a better job and a faster job.
The point I should like to make to the minister is this: the enforcement of the legislation is very important. Where there are unions or civil service organizations already set up they have determined the schedules, the rates of wages, and how they shall apply.
With respect to the principle of this legislation, I would assume that the court of referees or the referees would come into the picture only after the union or the civil service organization has a chance of examining any protest that may be made by way of a grievance after it has gone through the mechanics of the bargaining contracts or the civil service schedule of rates. Then the board of referees will come in. I would want to be careful about it and to know that we are not setting up a superbody that is going to displace the mechanics of collective bargaining in industry, and there is some under the federal government, or the rates and schedules that have been built up over the years and the practices that have been laid down by the civil service. I suggest that any appeal to the court of referees should be processed through either the collective bargaining organization or the civil service organization rather than through an individual. I do not think we want to start writing collective bargaining agreements on the floor of the house. This is one point the minister will have to keep in mind.
Instead of setting up a court of referees that is going to handle individual grievances arising from individuals we should see to it that that court of referees come into existence only through the due process of the collective bargaining organizations, or the civil service organizations. This is the point I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman, and I trust that when the bill comes in the position and the authority of the court of referees will be clarified, and especially when they come into action.


Mr. Schneider:: I should like to say a few words on this resolution having to do with equal pay for women before the bill is introduced. I have not heard anyone speak during this short debate on the very serious question of neglected children of employed mothers. The recent serious increase in juvenile deliquency is no doubt caused by the absence of mothers from the home, leaving children to their own devices after school and during noon hours. The more attractive the pay offered by industry and offices, the greater number of mothers there will be
[Mr. Gillis.l
who will desert their children during working hours. I have no objection to single women drawing equal pay with men.
Can the Minister of Labour include in his bill a provision for consideration of the plight of neglected children of mothers employed? Can we not stipulate that the mother of children up to a certain age should give proof that her children are properly cared for? Often the purpose of earning extra money is good, such as helping to pay for the home or necessary equipment such as washing machines, refrigerators and so forth. But quite often the purpose of this extra earning is to pay for cars, television sets and other luxuries. I would ask the minister to provide in the act, if at all possible, for regulations tQ prevent this too common neglect of children today.
There are few members in this house who realize the difficulties of defining the difference in work which can be done by both men and women, and I feel that such decisions should definitely be left to the judgment of management and of the plant union. Problems differ in various plants. I have great faith in the Minister of Labour and I would ask him to consider this problem of neglected children in Canadian homes.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, like all other hon. members of this house, and I am sure the people of Canada, I am glad to see this resolution make its appearance. It deals with a subject which has been necessary for some time to be brought in as legislation. This is legislation which is desirable and long overdue.
As the Leader of the Opposition said this morning, and as other hon. members have implied, the appearance of this legislation is due very largely to the efforts of the hon. member for Hamilton West, and the many women's organizations across Canada which have been pressing for it for many years past.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, the hon. member for Hamilton West introduced a resolution in 1953 which was not debated, and in 1954 and 1955 when the resolution was debated. Many of us were extremely sorry to see that the government did not adopt that very sensible resolution of the hon. member at that time and bring in this legislation several years ago. It seems regrettable to me that it has been held up so long. This is a matter that has been discussed thoroughly by labour bodies for some time, and it seems to me there has been unnecessary delay in bringing in this very desirable legislation.

As was also indicated by the Leader of the Opposition, this is not only good legislation for women; it is also good legislation for men, because it protects their jobs. As one who has been connected with industry for some time, I know that in many industries, if it is found that a woman can perform a job as well as a man, the man will be displaced and a woman will be taken on in his place because she can be hired at a lower rate of pay. If it becomes necessary by law to pay women the same rate that is paid to men for doing a certain job, then of course the men who might formerly have been displaced will not be displaced in future, and this will be a protection for their jobs.
As has been said this morning, this legislation is in operation in five provinces, and I very much hope that it will soon be in operation in all of our ten provinces. I think this legislation will be an example to the other five provincial governments to bring in similar legislation as soon as possible. I also hope it will serve as an example to industry generally, and that equal pay will be afforded to women in the near future for jobs which they perform alongside of men.
The hon. member for Waterloo North said that the children of working mothers were very often neglected. Social workers report that generally this is not the case, and that the children of working mothers are frequently better looked after than are those of non-working mothers. I am wondering from what the hon. member said this morning if he is making a charge against the working mothers in his own riding of Waterloo North that they do not look after their children as well as mothers who do not work.


Norman C. Schneider: They cannot look after them as well while they are working in factories.


George Harris Hees: I was very interested in hearing what the hon. member said. In conclusion I would say that like many other hon. members, I am glad to see this legislation make its appearance. It is legislation that is good for both men and women, and it has been long overdue. I am pleased to see that at long last the government has listened to the urging of the hon. member for Hamilton West and the many women's organizations across Canada which have been pressing for it and that finally the government has decided to bring in this measure.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, like many other hon. members I am interested in this resolution practically, I suppose, because it seems perfectly obvious and reasonable that if a piece of work is done well the employer
30. 1956	6669
Female Employees Equal Pay should not care very much by whom it is done and the remuneration for the doing of such work should be the same whether the person who does it is a man or a woman or even a child, despite the fact that it might take the child longer to do it. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not going to take the retrograde step of going back to child labour which it took so many hundreds of years to eliminate.
Philosophically, I suppose, I am interested in the bill because it is another step in the long struggle for the emancipation of womanhood. That is also too long a story to go into here.
I really rise to my feet for one purpose and that is to bring out an idea which I do not think has been brought out sufficiently strongly this morning although the minister, when he spoke, quite rightly paid tribute to the work of the hon. member for Hamilton West and the work of Miss Agnes Macphail, both of whom were advocates of legislation of this sort in this House of Commons. All honour to them and to others like them. I am quite sure that the efforts of Miss Macphail in particular-and I say this with due deference to the hon. member for Hamilton West, but Miss Macphail got an earlier start- certainly had a great influence upon the thinking of labour unions and farm people and most certainly upon the thinking of the hon. members of the political movement to which I belong.
We have, of course, some cases where discrimination of various kinds raises its ugly head even in this extremely advanced country, or so we call it, of ours. Fortunately it does not exist in the same degree as in some other countries. I remember watching some girls selecting oranges from a movable belt to pack them in boxes. The girls on one side of the wall had skin of one particular colour and those on the other side of the wall had skin of another colour. I asked the foreman what the wages were in each case and I discovered that the ratio was about 4 to 1 in favour of the girls of one particular complexion, of one particular ethnic group, amongst the people we saw working.
When the minister was speaking he used the words "the crystallization of public opinion". I was thinking perhaps more of the initiation of opinion amongst the public in regard to these things. It occurred to me that it is not always and indeed it is not often those people who are burdened with the responsibilities of government who lead in the fight for reforms of various kinds.
I am thinking, for instance, that when we talk about the emancipation of women we should be ashamed of ourselves that women

Female Employees Equal Pay received the vote at such a late date. My thinking takes me away back to the scenes and days of my boyhood when the suffragettes used to throw bricks through the glass windows of shops in London. You could perhaps call them fanatics if you like. They certainly were fanatical along that particular line but I suppose their fanaticism served a useful purpose. I think their attempts to gain independence occurring prior to the first great war certainly impressed the minds of the people during the war when women did come into their own in the matter of taking their place side by side with their men in the war factories of Great Britain.
The point I really want to make is this. I said it is not always those who are burdened with the responsibilities of government who are the cause of reform and I think that is perhaps one of the most valuable functions of an opposition. I am thinking of private members' resolutions such as those we had introduced in this house by the hon. member for Hamilton West. In this party we have an hon. member who has probably introduced more private resolutions than has any other individual, and I am thinking of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. There is satisfaction in seeing certain ideas embodied in legislation. Ideas advanced by the hon. member have proved to be of benefit, as will this resolution, to the people of this country.
Legislation providing for the emancipation of women indicates the great need there is throughout the world for greater steps to be taken to see that women are given the franchise. I shall not attempt to give a list of those countries where the franchise is denied to women, but I do want to emphasize this idea of private members bringing forward resolutions which quite often are the basis for legislation some time in the future. Sometimes I find some fault with the impatience shown by my friends on the government side. They are quite often inclined to be impatient with resolutions moved by members of the opposition. That impatience to me is very childish. They take the attitude that they are the government, that they should run the country, that they should bring in any resolutions which are needed, that they represent the will of the majority. The practice is to toss out or to vote out any resolution moved by the opposition.
I am coming back to the minister's statement about the crystallization or I would say the initiation of public opinion in regard to any particular idea and which eventually finds itself incorporated in the form of a resolution which is of benefit, not only to those who are in opposition but to those who sit on the government side.


I know that I have at times wearied the house with a resolution in regard to federal aid for education. I remember one misguided Liberal friend-they are not all misguided -who characterized that resolution as being simply a move for political purposes, a deliberate attempt to deceive the public. That simply indicated the supreme ignorance as to one of the most important functions of the opposition.
That is the point I thought I would make in regard to this resolution. I do believe that members can perform a useful service to the country by bringing up such matters in this house. That is one of the things we were sent here for. We should bring up these matters so that they may become publicized, so that they may be discussed throughout the country, so that they may become popular. Then the government, which is always watching which way the water is flowing or, if I may use another simile, which always has its ears pretty close to the ground, decides that, as a majority of the public wants it, it will bring in a resolution to that effect and the thing becomes law.
I congratulate the government, I congratulate the minister, I congratulate those who initiated this idea. I am pleased it has been brought before us and I shall look forward with interest to seeing the terms of the bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, may I add my word of praise for the work done by the hon. member for Hamilton West for the past many years in her efforts to bring this bill about. I also wish to extend congratulations where they are due. This bill has been a long time coming and it will do a great service and provide justice for the women of Canada. However, I have a problem in my particular riding which has to do with equal pay for men.
A few minutes ago one member of the Social Credit party spoke of men being paid $1.60 per hour in British Columbia. In New Brunswick men are being paid for doing the same type of work 65 cents an hour. The hon. member might also have said that in some areas in my riding men are receiving for doing a day's work less than they would receive in the form of unemployment insurance benefits.
In my riding there is an industry which exists because it is subsidized by cheap labour. The ills which face the economy of the maritime provinces are grave, but surely this government should recognize that the labouring man should not be expected to subsidize industry or the losses brought about by poor government regulations in the province of New Brunswick.

Let me give one example. There is a factory in one little town in my riding where the workmen receive $6.50 for a nine-hour day. But they have to pay $1.50 to $2 per day for board. When it is raining they are unable to work and are not paid, but they still have to pay board. The net result is that these men, many of whom have large families, have to get along on less than they would get if they were receiving unemployment insurance benefits. In British Columbia men doing the same type of work would be paid $12 to $15 a day.
What is happening is that the labouring man in my riding is subsidizing industry which is being prevented from existing because of high transportation costs, because of high power costs, because of a hundred and one reasons which should not-


Milton Fowler Gregg: I hate to interrupt my hon. friend, but I think the committee will agree that what he is talking about now has no relationship, directly or indirectly, to this resolution.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I shall be pleased to amend my completed remarks to conform to the terms of the resolution. It is a pleasure for me to express the satisfaction which we have in seeing this enactment brought about.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Casileden:: It is not my intention to take any more than a minute or two to say a few words in support of this resolution. Equal pay for women for work identically equal to that done by men certainly should have the support of every member of this house. The resolution limits this, however, to federal works. The resolution reads:
To provide equal pay for female employees as compared with male employees of the same employer, for identical or substantially identical work in federal works, undertakings or businesses;
It seems rather ridiculous that a resolution has to be introduced in 1956 to establish the right of women to receive equal pay for equal work. By what right can employers say, "You get less pay for doing exactly the same work as a man, merely because you are a woman"? It is a relic of the dark ages. It is a shameful thing that this has lasted as long as it has in Canada. We are at last taking a belated and very short step towards establishing some elements of justice in this field. It is an unfortunate thing that the government of this country had not recognized this right earlier. I can remember
30, 1956
Female Employees Equal Pay during the war years asking ministers of labour to establish this right for the women when they were working in the factories and war plants and carrying on their task while men were away fighting and to recognize that the women who did such a splendid job should receive the same pay for the same work. That right was denied.
This bill moves towards the elimination of a piece of discrimination which should never exist. If a women did not do the same amount of work, I would say that perhaps she is not entitled to the same pay, but if she does the same work by what right has the employer to make more money out of her employment than out of the employment of a man? Out of such employment he makes so much profit for his organization and the company that he is directing and operating. I do not know why that should exist in Canada. We are pleased certainly to see at last this little bill coming forward and saying that in federal works at any rate the women who do identically equal work will receive equal pay. We have advocated that for years, and I have never heard one person give a legitimate reason why the women should not receive equal pay. This group has fought to remove this discrimination against women ever since the party was formed in 1934. We are glad to see them moving forward. The day is not far distant when organized labour will unite and demand of the governments in all parts of the country that this be universal and that when a woman does the work of a man she should receive equal pay.
I do not know why the government has sat in power for 20 years and has continued to receive the support of the people when it would allow this kind of thing. It is merely a sign that the people are not aware of the injustice, or those who should be speaking about this matter are not doing so. Perhaps the new organization of Canadian labour will take up this subject. Perhaps the fact that the national unions organized in Canada are united at this time is belatedly causing the government to move. At any rate, let us hasten this legislation through and let us wipe this injustice and discrimination against women off the books in Canada and establish a condition in this country to which we can all look with pride.


Mr. Brown (Brantford):: I am very happy to be able to say a few words in support of the bill that is forecast in this resolution. I remember that during the first session of this parliament I supported and voted for the bill introduced by the hon. lady from Hamilton West and I was glad to do so on that occasion. Last year I did not give that support to

Female Employees Equal Pay the bill, for the reason that I understood that the Minister of Labour was bringing down legislation on this very subject. For that reason I am very happy today to be able to support the resolution.
I believe that the legislation that is promised and forecast will be progressive, and I think it is a great step forward in labour legislation. I feel that our government has given leadership at this time in introducing this legislation. I feel that it will be popular; I know that it will be popular in Brantford. I am happy that it has the general support of trade unions across Canada and the labour movement in general.
I have heard some people say that this type of legislation will hurt women to this extent, that many employers, if they are obliged to pay equal salaries to women for equal work, will chose men, and that it will in the end hurt women in seeking employment, but I do not believe that will be true. I have never thought that. I think the Minister of Labour and the government should be congratulated at this time on this splendid move, which I believe will be a landmark in labour legislation.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I should like to make a very few comments in regard to some of the questions raised. First of all I should like to acknowledge the speeches made by the two hon. ladies of this house who have spoken: first the hon. member for Hamilton West for the manner in which she agreed to transfer her support from her Bill No. 6 to my bill; and second the hon. member for Timiskaming for her expression of faith that this oncoming legislation will be well and carefully administered. I sincerely hope that her faith will be justified and I think it will.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni gave a brief personal testimony to the far indirect effect of the former legislation that was brought in against discrimination. I was glad he did so, because it is in that field that I think this legislation that is coming down will have some effect, in a field where it may not have any immediate direct legal application whatsoever.
The hon. member for New Westminster thought that perhaps a result of this action might be a growth in apprenticeship training. If that is so, I shall not be sorry. He also said that it might mean an extension of piece work and it might mean extension of the idea of sharing profits. Those possibilities, I think, remain to be seen.
The Leader of the Opposition gave the bill his blessing, and for that I am very glad. The hon. member for St. Mary asked questions.

He asked whether the legislation will apply to crown corporations or to corporations such as the railways. The answer is yes. It applies to all those activities that come under the jurisdiction of the federal labour laws. The hon. member for Cape Breton South placed stress upon the importance of seeing to it that the legislation should not clash with existing machinery for the hearing of grievances by trade unions or by the civil service association. I can assure him that point has been carefully watched and if he can make any suggestions in that regard when the bill is brought forward I shall be glad to consider them.
The hon. member for Waterloo North raised a question which I think we should discuss later, the effect of this legislation upon the home, the family, children and so on, and I am sure the lady members of the house are much more qualified to discuss it than I am. However, I must admit that I do not look with any great amount of fear on the results that may come in that regard.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: He is off his rocker.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The hon. member for Broadview accused me, of course, of being late in action and that sort of thing. The hon. member for Saskatoon raised another important question, namely, how far the government should go in leading and attempting to crystallize public opinion. That too is a broad subject, but so far as this kind of legislation is concerned I am going to say that I think it would be a very wrong thing to bring in a bill such as this and have it pass the house by 51 per cent versus 49 per cent of the members for the reason that the 49 per cent against would unquestionably reflect not only 49 per cent of the population of their constituencies but a very large body of the women voters of Canada. I think it would be next to impossible for the Department of Labour or any other department to administer an act such as this if it were actively opposed by 49 per cent of the women whom it is designed to help.
I am not going to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska because, as I mentioned before lunch, I feel that they were somewhat out of order. But both with relation to the employment of women and men, and in that regard I keep myself in order, I do deplore the way in which from time to time my hon. friend runs down my native province of New Brunswick where he and I would like to be at the present time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am not running down the province. I am running down this foolish government. If the Minister of Labour would

represent New Brunswick in this house as he should we would not have the conditions that exist there. The Minister of Labour and the government are responsible for the conditions that exist there, and do not let anyone tell you anything else.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I hope this incident will be closed-


George Harris Hees: You are responsible for all the low wages paid in New Brunswick.


Milton Fowler Gregg: -by referring to these words which he used and which I took down as he said them. He referred to the hardship of workers brought about by poor government regulations in the province of New Brunswick.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is not what I said.


Milton Fowler Gregg: If that is not what the hon. member said, I will take it back.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Minister of Labour knows very well what I meant. He also knows that I said that those conditions are brought about in New Brunswick in part at least by the regulations of the federal government, and let no one be mistaken about that. The province of New Brunswick is doing everything it possibly can. It has put into effect minimum wages and it cannot overcome the laziness of the federal government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is there anything else you want to bring up?


Milton Fowler Gregg: -you understand now why I deplore such statements by the hon. member.


George Harris Hees: Don't you wish you had not brought it up?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I think these are the main points brought up by hon. members. I must say I have welcomed the approval and the enthusiastic way in which the resolution has been received today. I know full well that there will be full opportunity for suggestions and discussion of the details later but I can tell you, sir, that as far as I and my department are concerned we are only anxious to see that the legislation arising out of this resolution shall be simple, as I think it should be, and effective. I think it should help to stabilize employment across Canada
67509-424J
30. 1956	6673
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and I hope it will commend itself to the women of Canada whom it is designed to benefit.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Gregg thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 445, to promote equal pay for female employees.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to provide for the payment and recovery of succession duties payable on pensions and allowances; also to extend in certain cases and under certain conditions the time and service that may be counted for pension purposes; and further to provide the funds for the additional liability to the R.C.M.P. pensions account resulting from general pay increases.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Mr. Fulton:: I would request the minister to outline for us the nature and effect of the legislation with particular reference to those conditions of service which are embodied in one clause of the resolution.


Mr. Lennard:: Don't make it too long.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I will not. The purpose of the bill, as is quite evident from its terms, is to authorize means by which the governor in council may carry out commitments which have already been made under, for example, the police agreement with British Columbia, the terms of confederation with Newfoundland and the like, and the excellent explanatory notes in the bill are so clear that I think any further attempt at explanation on my part is quite purposeless and simply using up the time of the committee to no purpose. I think the points that my hon. friend raises can be much more satisfactorily disposed of in considering the sections when the bill is before the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the minister overlooks the fact that he and he alone, so far as the membership of the house is concerned, has seen the bill. Therefore we have not had an opportunity to see the explanatory notes. We are asked here to approve a resolution which I must say at once we are disposed to approve but I think we are entitled to know just what its effects will be because there
6674	HOUSE OF
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act are some questions that arise. There are some conditions of the pension regulations or arrangements at the present time which we would like to see expanded or amended to take care of conditions which have been brought to our attention. With the proposal to bring up to date the R.C.M.P. pension regulations in accordance with the needs of the time and to rectify certain discrepancies which I believe exist, no one in this party is in disagreement.
But from this, for instance, the question arises as to whether it is not time that arrangements were made so that members of the force might count towards their pensionable service the time which they spent in the armed forces in the last war, in other than the provost corps. That is one problem that I know has been discussed amongst those who are interested in this question. We should like to know just how far this proposed legislation goes towards meeting a situation such as that. Before the resolution carries I hope the minister will make some comment. I may tell him that we are almost certain that we will support it, but we want to be certain just what it is we are doing before we give our approval to it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have no objection to doing as my hon. friend has suggested. This bill will do four things. In the first place it will provide that the succession duties which are payable in respect of the estate of a deceased pensioner may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund and then deducted by instalments out of the pension or allowance in order to avoid too great a burden upon the pensioner all at once, especially where the pensioner is a widow.
In the second place, there is a provision which is to permit the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who were absorbed into the force from the province of British Columbia to count for pension purposes all of the time that could be counted for pension purposes under their pensions from that province. As my friend the hon. member for Kamloops is aware, when we took over the policing of the province of British Columbia we took over several members-there were about 15 that would be affected by this bill -who were absorbed into the mounted police. The purpose is to make sure that when they get their pensions they will derive benefit in them not only from the service that they have had in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police but also for service they had in the British Columbia police force.
This legislation therefore has nothing to do with the point about which my hon. friend spoke, namely increasing or changing any benefits in respect of the pensions of members


of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police generally. It is just to take care of accrued pensions of the members of the mounted police taken over from the province of British Columbia.
Then we have the same problem with regard to those members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that were taken over from the province of Newfoundland when that province, which was then a colony, became part of confederation.
The fourth purpose of the bill is to provide for additional liability to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension fund resulting from general pay increases. In other words, if we increase the pay a larger amount must be paid into the fund correspondingly. This bill will provide the mechanics whereby that amount can be paid.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Pearkes:: May I ask whether any provision is being made for those ex-members of the force who had already retired and gone on pension long before those increases in pay were granted?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder whether my hon. friend would clarify his question? He asks whether they will get an increase in pension because there has been an increase in pay in the civil service? Is that what he means?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am not talking about the civil service. I am talking about the mounted police.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes?


George Randolph Pearkes: Their pay has been increased considerably in recent years; but great numbers of the force who contributed greatly to the development of western Canada in the early days are now living on very small pensions. It is that class of people who could be helped tremendously if, on account of the increases in pay which have now been granted to the force, they could receive some small increase in their pensions, or perhaps some small monthly bonus for the number of years which they put in prior to a certain date.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, from my hon. friend's standpoint I am sure that the increases of which he speaks would be highly desirable. However, the question as to whether or not they should be granted now or at any other time is one that is not relevant to the provisions of this bill. As I said in reply to my friend the hon. member for Kamloops, this bill deals only with the question as to what provision is to be made for mounted police force members who came from British Columbia on the one hand and from Newfoundland on the other. It does

not go to the question as to whether past pensions or present pensions should, as pensions, be increased.


George Randolph Pearkes: As we have not the bill before us, it was impossible for me to know that. I was only expressing the pious hope that something might be done for this very worthy class of people.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Garson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 446, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SUPREME COURT ACT


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 443, to amend the Supreme Court Act and the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps this bill is of sufficient importance that I should make some brief comments on the motion for second reading. The bill will try to avoid certain anomalies and to provide certain conveniences for the administration of the court in a general way. The four main purposes of the bill are as follows. First of all, there is a provision to establish the office of deputy registrar of the court, the intention being that either this new officer, namely the deputy registrar, or the registrar of the court himself will personally report the decisions of the supreme court. With the abolition of appeals to the privy council, now that the Supreme Court of Canada has become the court of last resort in this country, it becomes increasingly important, I think, that the highest possible standard of service should be given in respect of the reports of its decisions. We therefore feel that the editing of these reports, and particularly the preparation of the summaries and head notes and -we hope-the argument of counsel, should be undertaken by a senior officer of that court. After this new arrangement goes through we will have a senior officer look after it. Inasmuch as the registrar could not possibly do it and also look after his ordinary work the arrangement, as I have said, will be either that the registrar or the deputy registrar will do the work of the court registrar and the other of the two will do the reporting. In this regard we have been very fortunate in getting the services of Mr. Harvey who up until quite recently has been editor of the Ontario Law Reports and who I think, by
Supreme Court Act
general consent, is regarded as the most able law reporter in the Dominion of Canada today.
Second, we propose to increase from $2,000 to $10,000 the minimum amount that must be involved in a case appealable as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada. The present amount-that is the $2,000 limit-was fixed in the province of Quebec some years ago, in 1875, to be precise and for Ontario the amount of $1,000 was fixed in 1896. In 1920 the sum of $2,000 was made uniform in all of the provinces, and this amount has remained unchanged to the present day. That is to say, the amount that may be involved to entitle a litigant to appeal as of right to the court of last resort in Canada has been, and is at the present time, the same as it was in Quebec in 1875, in spite of the fact that the purchasing power of a dollar, whatever dispute there may have been as to the change in it in the last 10 years, is certainly very much less now than it was in 1875.
Now, this increase to $10,000 would reduce somewhat the number of cases that reach the Supreme Court of Canada as of right but, of course, leave to appeal may always be granted by the Supreme Court. Therefore, what we are dealing with here, inasmuch as all of the other cases can be handled on the basis of application for leave to appeal to make sure that there is some principle *of law involved, which should have the consideration of the Supreme Court- what we are really dealing with here are these cases in which there is only a question of fact which has already been passed upon by the trial court and by the appeal court of the province. I think in most of those cases it will be open to quite considerable doubt as to whether there is any purpose in having a further appellate court go over what is a pure question of fact and arrive at some different disposition from that which has been affirmed in both the trial court in which were involved the judge and jury, who have had the opportunity of hearing the evidence given by the witnesses and all of the advantage that that brings and in the provincial court of appeal.
The Supreme Court of Canada, of course, can be applied to for leave to appeal in any cases where that seems to be warranted. It is simply a question of their not having the appeal as of right in these cases we are now discussing.
Third, we propose to alter the procedure on appeal; that is the method by which a litigant who is appealing from the provincial court of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada launches an appeal in the Supreme Court. The normal method in the provincial

Supreme Court Act
courts is for an appellant to serve a notice of an appeal upon all of the opposite parties to the suit and then file that notice of appeal within the prescribed time in the court of appeal. Under the Supreme Court Act, however, the practice heretofore has been that no notice of appeal is served or filed. Instead the appellant must make an application to the court to have the security for appeal that he must give approved; and when the security is approved the appeal is deemed to be commenced notwithstanding the fact that the other parties to the case have received no other notice of it.
We think it is desirable to bring the appeal procedures in the Supreme Court of Canada into line with that which prevails in the provincial courts of appeal. The bill, therefore, will provide for the launching of the appeal to the supreme court by notice of appeal, by filing it with the registrar within the time prescribed by the act.
Fourthly, we propose to amend the Supreme Court Act and the Criminal Code with respect to the applications for leave to appeal in both civil and criminal cases. At the present time an application for leave to appeal in civil cases must be made to the court, but applications for leave to appeal in criminal cases are, under the Criminal Code, made to a single judge of the court. It is proposed that in all cases the application for leave to appeal should be made to the court but that the quorum on the hearing of the application would be three judges in both civil and criminal cases with the single exception that in capital cases the quorum would have to be five judges.
I think I should point out in that connection that the joint committee on capital punishment made a recommendation the other day that is somewhat different from this provision here, namely, the recommendation which would provide an appeal as of right to anyone who had been convicted in a capital case, and also other recommendations to the effect that the provinces, because it would be the provinces that have the responsibility for the administration of justice, should in such capital cases see that the accused was provided with competent counsel to defend him if he had no means of providing counsel himself.
I suppose there will be those who will say that we should give immediate effect to the recommendations of the joint committee. I am suggesting to the members, however, the present provision for these reasons. In connection with the report of the joint committee on capital punishment, on corporal punishment and on lotteries, there are a number of provisions which can only be implemented by those governments in Canada which, under

the British North America Act, are responsible for the administration of justice, namely the provincial governments. In the Fauteux report, which was tabled the other day, there are, it is true, quite a large number of provisions which can be implemented by the federal government, but there are a larger number which must be implemented either by the federal government and the provincial government acting together or which the provincial governments only can implement. That being so, we have felt that inasmuch as these various reports all deal with aspects of what, after all, is one entire problem, namely the administration of justice in the enforcement of criminal law, the least that we could do would be to confer with the provincial attorneys general who have the primary responsibility for the administration of justice, before we attempted to take any action within our own sphere of jurisdiction here to implement recommendations in which the interest of the provinces is at least as great as that of the federal government, if it is not greater. I say that because while we may enact these provisions, it is the provincial authorities that have to enforce them. As we all know, as I think it was stated in this chamber just this very day, no law is any better than its administration. Thus when we are dealing with a problem of this sort we should certainly confer with those who have the responsibility of that administration before we attempt to make any changes in it. Therefore I am recommending to my fellow members and to this house, sir, that in the present circumstances we adopt for the time being this provision that in capital cases the application for leave to appeal should be made to a quorum of five judges; and that this will stay in effect until such time as we can discuss with the provinces, for example, whether they are prepared to undertake this responsibility, which has been suggested, that they should provide counsel if necessary for the accused. We should also at least pay them the courtesy of getting their reaction to this idea of there being an appeal as of right to the supreme court, in which, if they are to undertake the cost of providing the counsel, they must have a considerable interest.
It is for that reason I recommend, as I have said, that we adopt this provision with regard to the quorum upon the understanding that we shall discuss this other matter with the provincial authorities. If a reasonable majority of them are agreeable to adopting this other provision and if we ourselves are advised, that this is a wise provision, we will bring in later amending legislation to provide for it.
There are one or two other minor matters which I do not think there is any purpose in

my mentioning at this time. These four provisions are the main items of the bill and I think we can go into the other details when the bill is in committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, there are certain very grave reservations that we have with respect to this bill notwithstanding that in a number of respects it will effect a considerable improvement over the existing arrangements.
The most important ground of criticism as far as we in this party are concerned is that we regret exceedingly that the department has not seen fit to take the important and long overdue step of providing that in capital cases, that is mainly in cases of murder trials, there shall be an appeal to the supreme court as of right. We think that the time for such a provision is long overdue.
After all, as appears from the bill now before us, in civil cases up to the present time involving sums of only $2,000-when I say "only" I am referring there to the sense of comparing a sum of that nature with a man's life-in civil cases involving only $2,000 the appeal is as of right. It is true that the bill before us proposes to raise that limit or that floor, as it were, to $10,000, but I may say at once we are opposed to that. If it passes, then we are still going to have the fact that when a cash sum of $10,000 is in dispute you have an appeal as of right, but when a man's life is hanging in the balance you have to go and apply for leave to appeal. We consider that to be an entirely anomalous situation and one which runs counter to the concepts of justice which should prevail in this country.
The minister has said he is recommending the present proposal, that is that there should be an application for leave to appeal in capital cases to be heard by a quorum of five instead of by a single judge as in the past, but he is doing that instead of going all the way and enacting at once the provision that appeals will be heard as of right mainly on the ground that he feels the provinces should be consulted before the step we recommend is taken.
I might emphasize here that this step, namely making appeals on capital cases as of right, is recommended in the recent report of the special joint committee on capital and corporal punishment, as the minister himself pointed out. The reason the minister said he felt they should consult with the provinces was because the provinces would have to undertake certain expenses in connection with the hearing of appeals if they were allowed as a right and therefore the provinces should be consulted first.
Supreme Court Act
I suggest that that argument is insufficient on two grounds. In the first place it is not as though this were a new suggestion made for the first time and embodied anywhere for the first time in the report of this committee. This is a suggestion which has been before law enforcement officers for consideration for many years. Secondly, the argument that there might be some financial expense incurred by the provinces is one which I venture to say that no province would have the temerity to suggest publicly as a reason for arguing against the adoption of the suggestion.
That sort of argument, to my mind, is even worse than the situation which we find prevailing where, if you have $10,000 in dispute, you can appeal as of right whereas if your life is hanging in the balance you have to apply for leave to appeal.
When a man's life is placed in jeopardy as a result of a charge laid by the crown of whatever province it may be, then it behooves us and it behooves the provinces equally to see that that man has a proper defence and a fair trial; and if, as we recognize in the very fact that we have a supreme court and in the powers of appeal we give it, there are certain issues which are so important that they require to go before the Supreme Court of Canada and we require that court to hear the case as a court of last resort, then to my mind there can be no excuse for saying that this supreme issue, of whether or not a man shall lose his life as a result of our judicial process, shall not come before that court as of right and that we are going to wonder whether we should give the man the statutory right to go to that court because it might involve some expense to the law enforcement agencies of this country. That is an argument I cannot support for a moment. It is not an argument, I believe, that any province would advance publicly. It is just not an argument. It is a line of reasoning that does not stand up in the light of the issues which we are considering in this question.
The minister has said he considers that the matter should be left in abeyance until this report of the committee and all its implications can be discussed with the provinces. That means we are not going to have legislation until next year at the earliest. I point out to you, sir, that men are still being tried for murder in Canada and particularly now when the whole question of the retention or abolition of capital punishment is a question which is so greatly exercising the thoughts of our people it seems to me to be an untenable position for the Minister of Justice to take to say we are going to delay

Supreme Court Act
any longer in granting an appeal as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada in a capital case.
If there had been an appeal as of right the situation in the Coffin case would never have arisen. I have already expressed my very critical views in this house of the conduct of the minister and the results that developed there with respect to the manner in which that case was handled. As it was, because there was no appeal as a right, because there had to be an application made for leave to appeal and because of the way that matter was handled, there exist in the minds of millions of Canadians, I should imagine, very grave doubts as to the final outcome and the execution in that case. That whole messy, unfortunate and deplorable situation should not have arisen. I know the minister has been urged before that we adopt legislation granting appeals as of right.
I admit that this will be a substantial improvement if the bill carries, even if the amendment which we propose to move in committee is not accepted; but this legislation will still be a great improvement over the previous provision where such application came before one judge. However, I express the greatest regret that the minister has not seen fit to go the whole way and grant appeals as of right. I cannot refrain from expressing the gravest criticism against the grounds on which he has rested his case for his decision not to go that far.
The other main ground of our criticism of the bill is that it increases from $2,000 to $10,000 as the minimum sum which must be involved in civil litigation before there is an appeal as of right to the supreme court. I do not believe it is sound that appeals or the right of appeal should be governed by the financial amount in dispute. I recognize that in almost every province there is a division between the initial jurisdiction of the county court, on the one hand, and the supreme court or its equivalent depending upon the province, but that is only the initial hearing. Once a decision has been given, whether it be in the county or supreme court, as far as I am aware-I hope those who come from other provinces will correct me if I am wrong-there is the same right of appeal from the county court to the appeal court of the province as there is from the supreme court to the appeal court. That limitation or differentiation as to the original jurisdiction is of no application to the principle we are discussing here as to whether there should be a financial limit applicable in the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The minister says that the limit of $2,000 was made uniform in 1920 and that there has been a change in the purchasing power of the dollar since that time. That argument is not sound in principle. If it were the minister would have to establish that the purchasing value of the dollar has declined five times, that in 1920 the dollar would purchase five times what it will today. That is a sorry admission to come from the government which has been in power I should think on a rough calculation at least two-thirds of that time. I do not think that any such argument can be maintained because it is not a sound principle on which to base the right of appeal.
If the purchasing power of the dollar should go up, will there be another amendment to lower the limit? Are we to vary the ceiling or the floor on the amount in dispute before there can be appeal as of right every time the cost of living index varies? As I say, I am not satisfied that it is sound in principle to have a financial limit in matters of this kind and I am absolutely opposed to raising it from $2,000 to $10,000. Two thousand dollars may be more important to a litigant, particularly one who is not blessed with many resources of his own, than $10,000 may be to another litigant. The principle of law involved in the $2,000 case may be as important if not more important, but because the amount in dispute happens to be $9,999 instead of $10,001, if this bill goes through there would have to be application for leave to appeal in the one case with appeal as of right in the other.
In this connection may I point out that when you interpose this obstacle of having to make application for leave to appeal you impose upon the litigant in a civil action or the accused in a criminal case an extra cost in addition to the cost of having his appeal heard. That is a reason additional to those I have advanced why appeals in criminal capital cases should be as of right.
I should like to revert to this subject of consideration for a moment and say that I feel there is an urgent necessity for further reform in our criminal law with respect to the providing of adequate facilities for the proper skilful and thorough defence of every one accused with a capital crime. I regret to say it must be confessed that there have been cases, certainly in the initial hearing, where an accused has been grossly prejudiced by an inadequate defence because of lack of funds. I know of one such case, and those with whom I have discussed this have told me that they have personal knowledge of similar cases.

I submit that so long as that situation exists we cannot disclaim responsibility in this parliament because criminal law is a matter of federal jurisdiction. Some of the responsibility must be shared by the provinces whose duty it is in the administration of justice to appoint counsel for accused who cannot afford to retain their own. I believe this matter requires the most careful and immediate consideration by the bar associations and law societies of the various provinces.
While we are undertaking a general study of the question of capital punishment, while we are considering this question of the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in capital as well as other criminal cases, this other matter also requires to be considered immediately by the department with a view to bringing down at the next session-I doubt if there is time at this session-some amendment or improvement to our law so that it can never be charged against us in Canada that a person accused of a capital crime has Suffered because of inadequate defence.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Is my hon. friend aware that the provision of defence counsel for accused would be the responsibility of the provincial authorities?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I mentioned that the responsibility must be shared by the provinces, but I repeat that we have regretfully to face the fact that there have been cases where men have been prejudiced-I am not going to say that this went as far as a final miscarriage to the extent of execution-in the supreme courts of the provinces when it was necessary to have counsel appointed by the crown. Admittedly the crown in the province makes the actual appointment, but I am saying that so long as criminal law is a matter of federal responsibility-I hope it will always be-we cannot just say that this is a matter exclusively for the provinces to find a remedy for. The question of appeals to the supreme court that we are considering right now shows to what extent this is a joint responsibility and not an exclusive responsibility.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend's advice is
always so wise that I like to make sure that I understand it so that, if possible, I can profit by putting it into effect. Is my hon. friend urging that we should amend the criminal law here by attempting to throw a burden upon the provincial administration of justice, upon the provincial governments, by saying that under a federal law they must provide counsel for an accused? Is that what my hon'. friend is suggesting?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think it is a case of
misunderstanding on the part of the minister. I am inclined to think it is a case of trying to pin me with something he knows would
Supreme Court Act
not be sound and he knows I did not suggest. I pointed out initially that the minister has said that he is going to discuss with the provinces all the problems that arise within the fields of enforcement covered by the special joint committee of this house, and the reports of the Fauteux commission and the various other commissions that have reported or are in the course of reporting.
What I said was that here is a situation which must be within the knowledge of the minister, as much as within my knowledge and the knowledge of several others with whom I have discussed it. So long as that situation exists it is not a matter to which we can close our eyes in this parliament, or to which the minister can close his eyes in his department and in' his official capacity. But I suggest that if he is going to have these discussions with the provinces this, in my view, is one of the matters that should be put at the head of the agenda of those discussions, ensuring that there is always available to an accused charged with a capital crime an adequate defence and that he does not suffer and is not prejudiced in any respect by lack of funds with respect to his defence.
Whether the provinces would agree with the guarantee that I am asking be written into the Criminal Code, or whether they would agree to enact uniform provincial laws, is a question that must be determined in the course of such discussion's. That is all I have said, and that is where I rest. I hope the minister is not trying to say that, notwithstanding the fact that he knows that these deplorable situations have existed in the past, he is not going to do anything about it. I hope that is not what he is saying.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Then I understand my hon.
friend is urging me, and very properly so, to do what just a few moments ago I said I was going to do. I am glad to have his support, and I think he is right in what he has said. We are going to confer with them. We are going to seek their advice, seeing that they are the administrators of the criminal law, as to what they think of this. It is riot merely a question of the money involved; it is a question of whether the procedure we finally adopt is a practical procedure which has been evolved by people who have had the actual experience of administering justice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is quite so. The minister did not say-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: wonder whether I might suggest to both hon. gentlemen that there are clauses in the bill

Supreme Court Act
dealing with the question of appeals, and if this discussion is going to be carried on back and forth the time to carry it on in that way would be when we are in committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think that probably this matter is one that does require detailed discussion in committee, and I shall defer my further remarks under this heading until that time.
The third criticism we have to make of the bill is that it follows what we regard as an unsound legislative principle in that it incorporates into one amending bill provisions relating to two entirely separate statutes. We have raised objections to this same procedure being followed on other occasions. Whilst I realize there may perhaps be some room for difference of opinion as to whether it is a sound legislative practice, I regret to see it being adopted by the department which should set the pattern for legislative excellence, namely the Department of Justice. This bill is entitled "An act to amend the Supreme Court Act and the Criminal Code", which makes it obvious that it is amending two separate statutes. This means that from the day this bill is given royal assent and is proclaimed, those seeking amendments are going to have to look in two different places to see what is the effect of one bill. If this practice were enlarged upon and carried forward into the future I think our statutes, between the periodic revisions that occur, between the times when there is a complete revision and revised statutes, would become a hodgepodge in which it would be even more difficult for lawyers, let alone laymen, to find amendments than now.
The minister may say there are only two acts and the amendments deal with the same general subject, appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is so, but if you are applying the principle, then why apply it to three, four, five, or six bills, and so you can go on? Either the principle is sound or unsound. We regard it as unsound, and we intend at the appropriate stage to move accordingly that the bill be divided.
In these remarks I have made I have expressed in perhaps strong terms criticisms of the bill. I do so because I do not think there is any more important field of legislation than this, and we here have real regret that the bill does not grapple with the problem and solve it at once, in fields where we believe solutions are urgently called for. Nevertheless I must in fairness say that we believe that the provision with regard to the appointment of the deputy registrar is sound; that the simplifications of the procedure with regard to appeals to the supreme court is, generally speaking, desirable and
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite) .1
sound; and the provision for a quorum of five in capital cases, whilst it does not go as far as it should and is to that extent subject to severe criticism, is nevertheless as far as it goes, a real improvement.
The one thing for which I cannot find any justification and about which I cannot find one kind thing to say is the raising of the floor for appeals in criminal cases as of right from $2,000 to $10,000. Because the bill is not capable of amendment to bring about the things we would want at this stage but only in committee, and because as far as it does go it is an improvement, we intend, notwithstanding the quite severe strictures we have made about it, to support it on second reading and then make real efforts to improve it in committee.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):: I shall be very brief. I wish to support what was said by the hon. member for Kamloops as far as this bill is concerned. It is an improvement, with the exception, as the hon. member pointed out, of the increase from $2,000 to $10,000, for leave to appeal cases as of right. Like the hon. member, I can see no justification for that, because after all these appeals are not entirely a matter of monetary consideration; they are a matter of privilege, and I do not think the amount of money involved should have any consideration whatsoever.
As the hon. member pointed out, it is much easier for some people to appeal because of a $10,000 consideration than it is for many others to appeal because of consideration of the $2,000. I think it should be thrown wide open, and the monetary limit should be abolished entirely. If it is not going to be abolished, then it should be left at the $2,000 mark. I think this section of the bill is untimely and unnecessary.
Referring briefly to capital cases, I think the quorum of five is sound, but like the hon. member for Kamloops I dislike intensely the thought that a man appealing a murder conviction is given less consideration than somebody suing for $10,000. A $10,000 tag on a man's head is entirely unjustified. I should like to see appeals made possible as of right in capital cases. I only hope that if the minister is not willing to do so now he will take the report of the committee on capital punishment and talk it over as quickly as possible with the attorneys general and law enforcement officers of the provinces, so the necessary legislation can be brought in to provide these people with an appeal as of right.
I hope he will introduce such a bill as soon as he can at the next session and have it passed, because it is an unfortunate thing

that a person condemned to death cannot have an appeal as of right but has to make application for leave to appeal. It is an unfortunate thing and, as I said before, a man's life has a very low price tag on it when compared with the $2,000 or $10,000 limit in civil cases.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by Mr. Nowlan:
That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to divide Bill 443 into two bills, in order that one may deal separately with amendments to the Criminal Code.
I might just say at this stage that earlier in the session a similar motion was accepted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Is the house ready for the question? The hon. member for Wetaskiwin.


Ray Thomas: I intended when speaking a moment ago to agree-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Order. I think perhaps the fault is mine. I recognized the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, but I am informed by the clerk that a motion of instruction to the committee of the whole is not debatable at this stage. The question is the following: It was moved by Mr. Garson and seconded by Mr. Gregg that Bill No. 443, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act and the Criminal Code, be now read the second time. It was moved by Mr. Fulton and seconded by Mr. Nowlan that it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to divide Bill No. 443 into two bills, in order that one may deal separately with amendments to the Criminal Code. Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Applewhaiie):
Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Applewhaiie):
In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Applewhaiie):


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker:: 
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Is it agreed that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The house went into committee on the bill, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is the clause which raises from $2,000 to $10,000 the amount which must be in dispute in a civil action before there will be an appeal as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada. As was stated a moment ago in the house, we think that is a most undesirable principle, for the reason that it would seem to penalize litigants to whom $2,000 may be just as important as, or more important than, $10,000 would be to other litigants. We do not believe this juggling about of the floor of the amount which must be in dispute in this manner is sound in principle. The legal point at issue in the dispute involving $2,000 may well be more difficult than the legal point involved in a dispute about a matter involving $10,000. It seems to us again a matter where the principles of justice are opposed to the suggestion made in the bill, and we are therefore altogether opposed to this section and intend to vote against it.


Mr. Mclvor:: I have a question for the minister. How much would the appeal cost? What would be the court costs of making this appeal?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be very difficult to say in general terms what would be the cost of the different cases unless one knew what factors were involved; for example, how much it would cost to provide transcripts of the evidence which they will already have had before for the provincial court of appeal. But the point which the hon. member for Fort William raises is quite important, and presents an angle of this matter that I think perhaps has been overlooked by those who have taken part in the discussion until now.
If some plaintiff in a very clear-cut case where the facts cannot be challenged, is able to secure a judgment in a trial court and then is taken, we will say by an insurance company, to the provincial court of appeal and goes through the expense of that court,

and then is subjected to a further appeal to the supreme court he may, if he has not a long enough purse to keep up this process of briefing his own counsel, be put in rather an embarrassing position. That is another side of this same question.
What this present clause provides is that where there is, in cases between $2,000 and $10,000, a successful litigant who has got a judgment of the trial court and has maintained that judgment in the court of appeal, he cannot be taken further into the supreme court in a case which, for the most part, involves only questions of fact. For if some principle of law were involved, as the hon. member for Kamloops mentioned, then it is inconceivable to me, and I am sure to him, too, that the supreme court or indeed the court of appeal of the province itself, upon application for leave to appeal, would not grant leave to appeal if there were some principle of law involved that needed to be settled.
It may be that the step from $2,000 to $10,000 is too great a step to take at one time, but I do think the limitation which was imposed in the first instance in Quebec in 1875 does not make sense in 1956 in the whole of Canada. And it is not only upon the question of the purchasing power of the dollar, though it is true I did mention that as one of the circumstances. It also has to do with the nature of the cause of action. For example, there will be a good many automobile collision cases which arise under present circumstances, having regard to the value of the cars involved and the like, which will easily run up above $2,000; they may run to $3,000, $4,000, $5,000, and $6,000, having regard to all the people who may be injured. Now, if it is a clear question of fact; if that has been threshed out in the trial court and an appeal has been taken to the appeal court of the province, and it has been gone over again there, is any real purpose served by one of the parties, the party against whom the judgment has gone, being able to take this question of fact to the Supreme Court of Canada and have it gone all over again by the judges of that court, who already have a very heavy burden of litigation at the present time?
I do not think the matter of whether it should be $10,000 or some lower amount is one upon which the government would want to take too firm a stand, but I am certain that it is not fair either to the litigants on the one hand or to the supreme court on the other that we should retain in 1956 this money limitation which was first put into effect in this country in 1875.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And which was ratified in 1920.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, it was ratified in 1920.


Mr. Zaplitny:: Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to agree with the protest raised by the hon. member for Kamloops on the ground that, particularly since the supreme court now is the final court of appeal, and since it is an important principle of British justice that finally everyone should be able to take his trouble to the foot of the throne-this court is now is the foot of the throne in Canada- certainly nothing should be put in the way of those seeking justice.
The minister has mentioned the rise in the cost of living as one of the factors and, as I understood it, the main factor involved in making this change. If that is so, it is really a sad commentary on what has been going on with reference to the cost of living; but even at that I doubt very much whether five times the present amount is the appropriate amount. Certainly it does not take five times as much now to lubricate the wheels of justice as it did in 1920.
I think the only ground on which the higher amount could be argued is that the court could be put to an extra amount of work and therefore an extra amount of expense in looking after relatively small cases. But, since the principle is so important, in view of the fact that it is the court of last resort, I would certainly suggest to the minister that he recommend at least a lower amount than $10,000. It seems to me to be a pretty broad jump from $2,000 to $10,000, when it interferes with the right of last resort to the supreme court. Unless the minister is prepared to recommend some lower figure, I hope someone on this side of the house will move a motion in order that the amount be retained at $2,000, or that some much smaller figure than $2,000 be substituted therefor.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is the committee ready for the question?
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 58; nays, 31.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I declare the clause carried.
Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 6-Quorum on application for leave.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister whether it would be agreeable to him to have clause 6 stand until after we have disposed of clause 19, for the reason that we intend to move an amendment to clause 19 which if carried, as I hope it will be, would have considerable effect on clause 6. This I may say is the reason I regret that the minister did not
Supreme Court Act
adopt our suggestion and split the bill into two separate bills, because here we are in the position of having to ask now that we defer one clause until a clause near the end has been disposed of.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is quite agreeable, Mr. Chairman.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it agreeable that clause 6 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
Clauses 7 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 17-Entry of appeals on list and order of hearing.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman-


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister if he will just say a word on this clause? On the face of it, it does appear to be sensible and just that the chief justice or one of the puisne judges at his direction be given some discretion concerning the order in which cases are called. On the other hand practitioners from the western provinces and the maritime provinces particularly attach very considerable importance to knowing when their cases are going to be reached and called on the list. If it it left as it is at present so that the western cases will be called first it is a course that does lend some certainty to the time at which counsel must travel to Ottawa. If they have that certainty they are able to reduce their expenses and thus considerably reduce the cost to their clients.
If I understand the amendment it gives the chief justice discretion to vary the order in which cases shall be called. While it seems on the face of it to be sensible to give him some discretion I am somewhat in doubt, and I would appreciate a word of explanation from the minister.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, my impression is that the case is almost exactly opposite to what the hon. member understands it to be. In other words the reason for this amendment is to enable the chief justice, in cases in which unforeseen circumstances have arisen which make it impossible to try a given case, to rearrange the lists in a manner which will provide an absolute minimum of inconvenience to all the other litigants involved. But for this amendment he would not have the power to rearrange the business of the court, and everyone would be put to an inconvenience.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In other words it is anticipated that rather than altering the list in toto in the order in which the various regions are called, this is merely designed to give power

Supreme Court Act
to deal with individual cases within the subdivision of the list. Am I correct in putting it in those terms?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. If the list all the way were to be a law of the Medes and Persians and could not be changed at all there would be no kind of flexibility to meet a difficult set of circumstances.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
On clause 19-On question of law with leave.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, we now come to the two clauses dealing with the amendments to the Criminal Code involving the question of the right to appeal to the supreme court in criminal cases, and so far as we are concerned here the main subject of consideration is capital cases. As I said earlier, we feel that in cases where the penalty is death the accused should have the absolute right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada for final adjudication, instead, of having to apply for leave to appeal.
I do not think I have very much more to say, except to point out I do not feel the argument that provincial attorneys general would be faced with extra costs is really one that can be seriously advanced or seriously maintained where a man's life is at stake. The only argument I can see for justification for the present proposal is if the minister were to tell me that when the application for leave is heard-if the amendment carries, it being then subject to be heard by five judges -they are in effect disposing of the appeal itself. On the face of it that is an attractive argument. For that reason I think it is so much better to have five judges than to have one, as was the case formerly; but it is not quite that simple.
What is being argued in the application for leave is really and properly of a much more restricted and technical nature than the appeal proper. If leave is applied for, it being the duty of counsel for the crown who would be opposing the application for leave to see that the points argued on that application are not extended beyond the proper legal limits, then I do not think it is a safe argument for us to accept that the court is in effect hearing the appeal itself when it hears the application for leave to appeal. I think this is so important that every safeguard all the way through, including this most important one of an appeal to the court of highest resort, be granted to an accused person on a capital charge, that I propose to move an amendment to this section which I shall read. I move:
That section 19 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

Subsection 1 of section 597 of the Criminal Code is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(1) A person who is convicted of any indictable offence whose conviction is affirmed by the court of appeal may appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
(a)	in any case where the conviction is for an offence punishable by death;
(b)	in all other cases;
(i)	on any question of law on which a judge of the court of appeal dissents;
(ii)	on any question of law, if leave to appeal is granted by the Supreme Court of Canada within 21 days after the judgment appealed from is pronounced or within such extended time as the Supreme Court of Canada or a judge thereof may, for special reasons, allow."
If, sir, you will compare that proposed amendment with section 597 (1) of the Criminal Code as it now stands you will see that the effect of it is this. Subsection (a) as it presently appears in the code now becomes subsection (b) (1) of this amendment, and the proposed subclause (b) of section 19 of the bill appears as subclause (b) (2) of the amendment. In effect all that is done is to insert a new subclause providing that in capital offences leave shall be as a right.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, before the amendment is put I want to reinforce the arguments of the hon. member for Kamloops and express my support thereof. In passing may I also say that I agree absolutely with what he said on the motion for second reading with respect to the inclusion of two separate bills in this bill. I did not speak on second reading, in an effort to save time, but I think it is perfectly open for me to speak on the section we are now dealing with, on the matter of amending the Criminal Code.
It is a most peculiar situation in which we find ourselves. The first five pages of Bill No. 443 deal with the Supreme Court Act, and then you come at the very bottom of the fifth page to a little section which alters substantially the Criminal Code. I listened attentively for an explanation from the Minister of Justice as to why these two acts should be united in bonds of unholy wedlock, but I did not hear any explanation or even an apology therefor.
The hon. member for Kamloops has said that you would have to look through two acts in order to find the amendment. The minister shakes his head, but I suggest that he has not had much experience practising as a country lawyer in a small town with a library not quite as extensive as might be hoped for. The minister may have that experience after the next election, and if he does I think he will find it is going to be awkward to have to go through all the statutes in order to find out which ones have been amended and which ones have not.

Some years ago a former minister of national defence, an able lawyer in his own right but who had apparently intended to forsake that field and did not worry too much about the problems he was creating for his confreres, used to run five or six different acts together in one bill dealing with national defence. There might have been some justification for that because they all dealt with national defence. It might have been said that he was preparing a handbook on military law for the service personnel who were not too well versed in the law. But here we are dealing with legal matters, with appeals under the Criminal Code, and surely these two things could be dealt with on a different basis.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, has not this question been disposed of by the house?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am dealing with this section which is amending the Criminal Code.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The point of order raised by the minister is one I was thinking about raising myself. The question before the committee is an amendment moved by the hon. member for Kamloops which enlarges the conditions under which appeals may be taken. I think we are going a little far afield if we start to compare National Defence Act amendments with the bill we are now considering. I would ask the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings to cooperate to the extent of restricting his remarks to whether the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kamloops should be accepted.


George Clyde Nowlan: May I just point out that on second reading we were dealing with the principle of the bill. If on second reading 1 had attempted to refer to this section I would quite properly have been ruled out of order and told that I should deal with it in committee. That is one reason we should never have this situation. If this continues the government would be able to bring in one bill to amend the statute law of Canada. It might possibly contain only one section, stating that particulars could be obtained by applying to the queen's printer. If you sent a postcard, then you could find out whether a particular bill had been amended during a particular session of parliament. I did want to put myself on record with respect to this and I submit it was proper to do so on this section, rather than when dealing with the principle of the bill for which there is no principle.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I would inform the hon. gentleman that the house has put itself
Supreme Court Act
on record on the subject, and as far as I am concerned I am not able to allow further discussion.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am going to discuss for a moment the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kamloops.


An hon. Member:: It is about time.


George Clyde Nowlan: It was not my fault, because I did not draft this bill. I tried to save time by not speaking on second reading, but if hon. members over there want it I can spend an hour discussing this amendment.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


George Clyde Nowlan: When you try to co-operate that is the reaction you get from some hon. members.


An hon. Member:: You can't take it.


George Clyde Nowlan: I want to reinforce the argument which has been advanced by the hon. member for Kamloops. We have here a proposal that in offences where the punishment may be death, there shall be a right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. I believe that recommendation has been placed before the house in another manner. It is something which has been approved of by lawyers in all parts of Canada, and I think there has been a recommendation by the Canadian Bar Association to this effect.
This amendment should commend itself to the sentiments of hon. members generally. A ceiling of $10,000 is being placed on appeals in civil matters, but even when considered on a mercenary basis the right to appeal is automatic when the amount involved is over $10,000. Are we to say that a life is not worth $10,000? As I say, this amendment should appeal to hon. members generally.
There is something repugnant in the idea that a man or woman sentenced to death is precluded from an appeal as of right. There is a procedure followed in my province which might be adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada, and I think the same is true of most other provinces. There is an appeal as of right on matters of law in both criminal and civil cases. Then when there is a question of both fact and law, or of fact, the appeal is by leave. The practice with our provincial court is for the court to hear the application for leave to appeal, which usully involves a complete review of the facts and the law. If that application is granted almost invariably the appeal is granted at the same time. That is possibly one way in which this matter could be dealt with.
I repeat that this amendment should commend itself to the committee. It covers something which probably will be law in the near

Supreme Court Act
future. The mere fact that it might possibly involve provincial governments in some expense is no reason that I can think of why this matter should be deferred in order that the provinces may be consulted. If it is right, it should become law whether the provinces approve or not; if it is not right, the approval of the provinces has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of morality; it is a matter of justice, as well as being a matter of law. I repeat that this is an amendment which should commend itself to the committee.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I submit that the hon. member for Kamloops has rendered a service in the study he has given to this bill and the recommendations he has made to the committee. A matter of this kind has to be handled by one learned in the law. I listened to the hon. member very carefully when he spoke on second reading, and I agree with everything he said. If there is one thing to which the Department of Justice should be paying particular attention it is the question of whether a person involved in a capital case is getting justice.
We have had more than one example where a man is picked up and finds himself faced with a capital charge and the difficulty of getting defence counsel. I think all that should be dispelled. I submit that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kamloops is absolutely in order. When a man's life is at stake an appeal should be automatic.
When you consider the application to appeal and the cost that is involved, the average person who is affected, in the circumstances that the bill describes, is just not able to handle the cost. I think the time has now arrived when the Department of Justice, regardless of how the provinces may look at it, should lay it down as a principle of justice that, as far as we are concerned, it is not going to be a matter of money in order to get into the Supreme Court of Canada, that the right of appeal should be automatic, and a thorough examination should be made by the five judges, as we have it now-and that is an improvement.
I do not think there should be any question. There are enough lawyers in this house, and I believe every one of them, if they were to express a private opinion and there were no political implications, would say without any hesitation that the amendment suggested should be adopted. There should not be any quibbling about it.
Perhaps it is a matter of an oversight on the part of the drafters of the bill, and they did not analyse it in the way in which it has been analysed by the hon. member for Kamloops. I do not want to repeat anything he
[Mr. Nowlan.l
said, but I agree with every word of his remarks on this particular subject. If you read that little booklet written by a newspaperman on the Coffin case, I think the need for this type of legislation will be apparent. It is time we did something to prevent a repetition of the kind of thing that happened there.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid that the remarks I made at a previous stage of this bill on this particular subject matter have not had much effect upon those who have taken part in the present debate, and for that reason I should like to attempt to elucidate a little more effectively than I did before just what our position is in this matter.
There certainly is not any question of an oversight. We in the Department of Justice began the over-all revision of the Canadian Criminal Code, which had not been consolidated for over 60 years, as the first step toward what might be regarded as an examination, if not an overhaul, of the administration of criminal justice in this country. We then followed that up by the appointment of the Fauteux committee and then the two commissions under Chief Justice McRuer and then the joint committee of both houses of parliament. All of these committees and commissions have been dealing with separate branches of the criminal law. We now have the Fauteux report and the three reports of the joint committee of parliament. We hope this fall to have the reports from Chief Justice McRuer. We shall then have a review of all of those portions of the criminal law and of penal reform that have not already been considered in the revision of the Criminal Code which was passed by this parliament.
Having regard to the fact that the enactment of the criminal law is the responsibility of this parliament of Canada, and that the administration of justice and the enforcement of the law is exclusively a provincial right and responsibility-and it is a responsibility to which every one of the provinces attaches a great deal of importance for very obvious reasons-I am sure the provinces would not want the federal government stepping in and interfering with their enforcement of the law and their administration of justice. In those circumstances it is no oversight that we have decided that the whole field that has been examined by the Fauteux commission and by the two royal commissions under Chief Justice McRuer and by the joint committee of this house and of the Senate, should be, as a matter of the most primitive form of courtesy, if for no other reason, discussed with

those who are responsible for the enforcement of the criminal law, before we undertake to bring in any legislation in this house which will have to be enforced by them.
If we make any allowance at all for common sense, surely we must realize that the people who are right on the firing line of the enforcement of justice must have gained from that experience over the whole history of our country some insight as to what the law should be, that is the substantive law; and also an excellent idea as to what are workable procedural changes.
Therefore, even if we were not trying to maintain something which is of the very essence of good criminal law in this country, those good relations between the federal parliament which enacts the law on the one hand and the provincial legislature and government which enforces the law on the other, but if we were only to regard the matter of bringing before parliament wise provisions of law, we should certainly want to have a discussion of these reports that we have obtained from the various commissions and the joint committee of the two houses of parliament with the provincial attorneys general and law enforcement officers. To what end? To the end that we shall thereby be able to bring in a much wiser law than would otherwise in my judgment be available. We need not be so taken up with our own conceits that we should think that, having little or no experience with the administration of the criminal law, we can reach judgments that cannot be a little better if we consult with those who have extensive actual experience.
In this particular matter that is under discussion, I do not know how the government could have gone any further toward meeting the viewpoints that have been expressed here this afternoon than by putting into effect at once the provision which the hon. member for Kamloops himself is frank enough to admit is a great improvement; that is, that application for leave to appeal would have to be made to a quorum of five, which is a majority of the whole Supreme Court of Canada. Unless we are going to say that this quorum cannot be depended upon to adopt a fair attitude toward the applications made to it, and therefore we have to give an appeal as of right because the quorum will not deal with such applications satisfactorily-unless we take that view, which I think would be quite unwarranted, then in this interim we have a very good and very workable provision to take care of the very points that have been disturbing the minds of those who have taken part in this immediate debate.
Supreme Court Act
I have said-and if there is any doubt about it I want to make it clear now-that our consultation with the provincial authorities over the whole field covered by the Fauteux report, by the two McRuer commissions and by the three reports of the joint committees of parliament will be to the end of securing a criminal law more workable in all its aspects. If, after having had that discussion, it appears that it is feasible and workable, and that it will work out in practice as we think it might be good in theory to have this appeal as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada, then, as I have indicated in the clearest possible terms, so far as the policy of this government is concerned, there is nothing in our minds at the present time that would stand in the way of bringing in that reform.
But surely, even if we did not think we would have a wiser grasp of this whole problem after talking to the people who have had all the responsibility of enforcing it, even if we only thought that as a matter of courtesy between the two levels of government we would get a better enforcement of our law if we observed some of the civil amenities as between the two levels of government, on that ground alone the course we are presenting would be a wise one. May I remind the hon. members who have spoken that no law is any better than its enforcement. So if we are going to have a better substantive law, which will work better, we have to carry along the judgments of those people who are going to enforce that law. Therefore on all these counts the procedure we recommend to the house is the one which I think should be adopted, and for that reason I must oppose the motion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I regret that the minister should have attempted, as he has, to camouflage the issue under discussion here. The issue here is not the procedure on appeal. The issue here is the principle of whether there should be an appeal as of right in a capital case. If the minister says it is necessary to discuss it with the provinces before we can do anything, why has he brought in these quite substantial amendments with regard to the procedure on appeal, whether the appeal should be heard by a quorum of three or a quorum of five, the posting of security costs and all these things? These are procedural matters in which the law enforcement officers certainly have an interest. But the minister has brought in these amendments without, so far as I am aware-he certainly has not said so if it was the case-discussion with the provinces with respect to matters in which they could well say that they have a direct interest.

Supreme Court Act
But here in discussing this amendment involving not procedure but the principle of whether there should or should not be an appeal he turns around and says that we have to send out a smoke signal and discuss it with the provinces. Why does he camouflage the issue in that way? The minister said that the essence of criminal law is the preservation of good relations with the provinces.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, no.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I really never heard anything quite so absurd.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is not quoting me correctly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I am not I should like to be corrected, but that is what I understood the minister to say.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I said that the criminal law enactments we put through in this house have to be administered by another level of government; that the criminal law, like all other law, is, so far as the ordinary citizen is concerned, no better than its administration, and that in my judgment for that reason it is a wise and essential move that in these matters affecting another level of government we should consult those who are going to enforce the law, not with the view that they should have any kind of control over our judgment but at least that we should hear from them as well as from commissions, committees and so on before we bring this law into parliament for enactment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Did not a committee of parliament sit for two years and hear from the provincial representatives? What more does the minister want?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I shall answer that question right away.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And it brought in a recommendation after having heard from the provincial representatives who were invited there to make their recommendations.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend asked a question and I shall be glad to answer it. We want to discuss with the provincial administrators of justice recommendations that were the product not only of the evidence given by the provincial people, but of a large mass of other evidence as well.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Certainly; and the committee heard them and brought in a recommendation that in a capital case an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada be granted as of right. That is not a matter of procedure. It is a matter of principle, a matter of whether or not this parliament believes that

people accused of murder should have the right to go to the highest court in the land. When it comes to working out how that will be done, making provision as to the time at which transcripts and factums will be transmitted and who is to be responsible for the cost of the appeal if the accused does not prefer to retain his own counsel, that is a matter of procedure and should most certainly be discussed.
But we are only asking here that there be a decision on the principle after the due consideration that has already been given to the matter and after the opportunity that has been given already to the provincial representatives to be heard. I believe the minister has a case with respect to the other matters of enforcement of law, penal reform on which the Fauteux commission has reported and so on. These are cases where practically every decision taken is going to have to be administered by the provinces, the jail provisions and so on.
But that is not so here. This is a decision on principle on which we are asking for action now after, as I said, the provincial representatives have already been heard from. Men are now being charged and tried for murder. I do not say that is so at this very moment, but there are murder cases pending, and men's lives are depending on them. There is a case for justification and a basis for delay in respect of the other matters. They are serious matters, but after all it is not a vital matter to put a man in the wrong sort of jail or administer the wrong sort of penal reform, things which may be changed after the recommendations of the Fauteux commission and others are considered. But you cannot change your mind about taking a man's life by hanging, and the question of whether or not he has the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada may determine whether or not his life is taken by hanging. We have heard from the provincial representatives, and it is a matter of principle upon which parliament is entitled and I think is under a duty to decide at this moment.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask my hon. friend a question before he takes his seat? Is his argument to the effect that the application for leave to appeal cannot safely be entrusted to a quorum of five Supreme Court of Canada justices?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is not my argument at all. The minister again is seeking to camouflage the question. What I am saying is that you are placing obstacles in the way of a man accused of murder having access to the Supreme Court of Canada if you make him

come forward and obtain leave to appeal, because you are imposing upon him an additional burden of expense and difficulty.


George Hugh Castleden: Did any of the provincial representatives recommend in their evidence that we should deny the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada to persons charged with capital offences?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would speak subject to correction by the chairman of the committee who sits across the way here, because for one reason or another I was not at all the meetings of the committee. However, my own impression is that no provincial representative suggested that there should be an appeal as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is the committee ready for the question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before you put the question, may I say that I am in the same position as the minister. I cannot recall all that was said. However, I should think it will probably be found that the reason they did not say that is that they were not asked, and the reason they were not asked is that the committee did not regard it as a matter where it was vital to obtain a decision or because they regarded it as a matter of principle on which we should make up our minds and upon which the provincial representatives were perfectly free to express an opinion if they wished. The fact that they did not express an opinion is significant, in my mind, to show that they were not asked because the committee regarded it as a matter for decision here.


George Hugh Castleden: I suggest to the minister that where hearings have been held in the lower courts at the provincial level, frequently local or provincial feeling is quite strong. It seems to me that the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada should be available to every Canadian in order that he could be removed from any provincial atmosphere that might affect the situation.
Of course, as the minister says, a committee of five judges sits and studies whether or not the right of appeal should be granted. However, in the case of capital offences it seems to me we are moving in the wrong direction if we place any obstacles in the way of Canadian citizens that may deny them the right to appeal to the very highest court in the land. It seems to me that right should be undeniable and should be known to everyone.
I deplore the trend here. It seems to me that the move to increase the floor from $2,000 to $10,000 and the whole trend is to try to lighten the work of the Supreme Court of
Supreme Court Act
Canada. I think the judges of the court are well paid. They are paid to do a job, and surely the matter of justice should not be a matter of cost.


Ray Thomas: I think I made my position on this matter perfectly clear, Mr. Chairman, when I spoke on second reading. I think the minister should not only take into consideration the evidence that was taken in the committee in this regard, but should remember this fact. He was talking about co-operation and the relationship between the federal government and the provincial governments. I want to remind him that this is not a matter of social amenities. It is a matter of whether or not some of these cases which are now pending are going to result in the death of a man or woman while the minister is observing the social amenities as between the Department of Justice of this government and the departments of justice in the provincial governments.
This is a matter of life and death, or at least it could easily be so. Surely to goodness nobody in this country has a better right to appeal as of right than a person who is convicted of murder and who could be hanged. I want the minister to think about this matter. As was pointed out earlier, it is a matter of principle. Regulations and so on surely could be worked out, having regard to the responsibilities of the federal government and the responsibilities of the provincial governments so far as money and costs are concerned. Those matters can be worked out later. But this is a matter of principle about which I feel very strongly. I think that a man should certainly have the right to appeal without any worries in that regard. Let the Minister of Justice and the attorneys general of the provinces work out their various little problems later.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Fulton) negatived: Yeas, 32; nays, 67.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 19 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder whether we might revert to clause 16, Mr. Chairman. The Prime Minister has called my attention to the fact that there is a typographical error in the language of that clause. It reads as follows:
Section 71 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
It should read as follows:
Subsection 1 of section 71 of the said act is repealed . . .

Supreme Court Act


Edward Turney Applewhaite: May I suggest to the Minister of Justice that if there is no further debate to be had on clause 19 which is under discussion, we should dispose of it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Very well.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 19 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is there unanimous consent to revert to clause 16?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Clause 16 should read:
Subsection 1 of section 71 of the said act is repealed . . .


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I would ask the Minister of Justice to be kind enough to write out an amendment that we may attach to the bill.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Very well.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: On clause 16, Mr. Harris moves:
That clause 16 of the bill be amended to read that "Subsection 1 of section 71", etc.
I might point out that according to the copy of the bill I have before me, that amendment will not make sense.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just insert the words "Subsection 1 of" before the word "section".


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Actually what I think the Minister of Finance is moving is that, in the second line of the clause, the words "section 66" be struck out-


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, Mr. Chairman. Clause 16
now reads:
16. Section 71 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
The amendment would be to this effect:
That clause 16 be amended to read "Subsection 1 of section 71 of the said act is repealed".


Edward Turney Applewhaite: In the first line?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. If you approve the motion could be:
That clause 16 of the bill be amended by adding before the first word "section", the words "Subsection 1 of".


Edward Turney Applewhaite: All right. Has the committee heard and understood the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is the motion
agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is the clause as amended agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: We now revert to clause 6. Shall clause 6 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 6 agreed to.


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


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, there is a further clause that I should like to add at the end of the bill. It will be clause 21. First of all I had better establish the basis in which I am making that request. At the present time there is an appeal in existence. A question has been raised by us with a representative of the court as to whether the present bill would apply to that case. We are of the view that since this particular provision is procedural in character, on applying the usual principles of interpretation it does in fact apply to existing cases. But out of the abundance of caution and to remove any question on that score I would ask one of my colleagues to move as follows:
21. Section 44A of the Supreme Court Act, as enacted by this act. applies to all applications for leave to appeal heard by the Supreme Court of Canada after the time this act comes into force, whether the application was made before or after that time; and in the case of any application for leave to appeal made before that time under section 597 or 598 of the Criminal Code, those sections of the Criminal Code shall, for the purposes of the said section 44A, be deemed to have authorized an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada with leave of that court.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the minister any copies?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


George Clyde Nowlan: In other words, you are not making this retroactive but you are saying that the leave shall be deemed to have been granted. Is that the effect of the amendment?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Out of an abundance of
caution we are making the present enactment do what we think it does already; that is, apply to all existing cases.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In order that we may be certain we understand this, would this be a fair way of putting it? Let us say an application for leave to appeal was launched yesterday, at which time the application had to come before a single judge. The application will be heard, let us say, tomorrow, this legislation having gone into effect in the meantime. Therefore the application has to

be heard by the full court tomorrow, although at the time the application was made the law provided that it be heard by a judge. Therefore this section is saying that in the case of applications which are heard after the coming into effect of this legislation, they shall be deemed to have been made under the circumstances brought about by this legislation. Is that it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. I do not think I have anything to add to what I said before. The intention is that by this new clause 21 of the bill it will be made certain that section 44A of the act, which this bill puts into effect, will apply to a case which is now in being.


George Hugh Castleden: Can the minister tell us what is the particular case. Is only one case concerned here?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, just one case.


George Hugh Castleden: What case it is?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is a case before the Supreme Court of Canada.


George Hugh Castleden: From what province?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I can give my hon. friend that information privately later. I do not have the information with me at the moment.
Clause 21 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave of the
house, shall this bill be read a third time now?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, next sitting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES POWER COMMISSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lesage for the second reading of Bill No. 250.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Mr. Dinsdale:: Would it be possible for the minister to indicate who would make up the personnel of the commission proposed by the bill?


Jean Lesage: The commission already exists, Mr. Chairman. This bill is only to amend the
Northwest Territories Power Commission existing act. The chairman of the commission is the deputy minister of northern affairs and national resources. There are two other members, one from the Department of Finance, Mr. George Lowe, and the third is Mr. Patterson, director of the water resources branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The chief engineer is Mr. E. W. Humphrys.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agrees to.
On clause 5-Powers.
Howard Charles Green: This is the clause which
provides for investigation to be made by the commission. Can the minister tell us whether there are any such investigations in mind at the present time?


Jean Lesage: Yes, there is one going on to supply electricity at White Horse.


Howard Charles Green: There are none in the Northwest Territories.


Jean Lesage: Yes, for the establishment of a diesel plant at Fort Simpson, if my memory serves me right.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Release of former owner.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In this clause there is some reference to projects being carried on outside the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory. It says specifically,
. . . subject to the approval of the governor in council and in compliance with the laws of the province.


Jean Lesage: That is clause 5.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is correct, yes. May we have permission to revert?


Jean Lesage: Yes.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Just how extensively would this measure apply to areas other than the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, particularly the northern parts of our provinces?


Jean Lesage: As I explained on second reading, the only thing we have in mind is regions adjacent to the Northwest Territories or the Yukon Territory. But what we have in mind especially is a case existing at the present time at Fort Smith, which is immediately on the 60th parallel, as my hon. friend knows. There is a power line going south from Fort Smith into territory of Alberta which is the property of the Department of National Defence, and which the Department of National Defence would like to turn over to the commission.
I can give the hon. member an example of another possibility. As my hon. friend
6692	HOUSE OF
Northwest Territories Power Commission knows, there are rapids between Fort Smith and Fort Fitzgerald on Great Slave river which could eventually be developed tor hydroelectric power. They are in the province of Alberta. The possibility would be the development of these rapids, as for instance for Pine Point, if there was going to be concentration of the minerals which lie on the south shore of Great Slave lake.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Would it be possible for a province upon application to have consideration under this act?


Jean Lesage: That is not the intention.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question on this clause. We have been discussing paragraph (f) of clause 6 of the act, where it says that the commission may "raise or lower the levels of rivers, lakes, streams and other bodies of water, and make stream or river diversions". My question is this. Is that subject to some sort of expropriation proceedings?


Jean Lesage: Definitely. It is done under the laws of the provinces, as is mentioned in subsection 1.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Pardon?


Jean Lesage: That is subject to all provincial laws, as is mentioned in subsection 1 of this clause.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: And in the case of the Northwest Territories?


Jean Lesage: It is subject to the ordinances of the Northwest Territories council.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: They would not enter on land without the normal procedure of compensation?


Jean Lesage: No, sir.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
On clause 9-Supply of utilites.
Jean Lesage: The proposed amendment to section 22 of the act would authorize the use of surplus funds for extension, expansion or improvement of the plant in respect of which such surplus funds accrued. In 1955 the Fort Smith plant was extended and improved by the installation of a fourth generating unit and erection of a fuel oil storage tank, the total cost of which was approximately $48,000. Since this plant has an accumulated surplus in excess of contingency reserve requirements, the commission considered it would be prudent to finance this expansion from such surplus funds rather than by increasing the capital loan which would result in increased annual costs. It was to enable


this to be done that the above suggested amendment to section 22 was proposed.
Since the amending act was not passed by parliament by the end of the commission's fiscal year, March 31, 1956, the proposed amendment would not apply to the 1955 expansion work unless made retroactive. The Auditor General's representative has agreed that if the proposed amendment to section 22 is made retroactive to March 31, 1956, it will be quite in order to finance the aforementioned expansion from surplus funds on hand, hence the purpose of the addition that I will now propose.
I would ask my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys to move:
That clause 9 he amended by adding thereto the following subclause:
"(2) This section shall be deemed to have come into force on the 31st day of March, 1956.''


George Prudham: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
On clause 11-Agreements.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am not sure whether clause 11 is broad enough to cover the question I am going to direct to the minister, but on March 3, 1956, the Financial Post carried an article which indicated that the U.S.S.R. is contemplating rather substantial power developments in the Arctic region, which include atomic power heating stations and a scheme to change the direction of the Arctic current and so forth, which will have serious implications for weather conditions in the northern part of Canada.
Section 11 mentions that the commission may enter into agreements with any persons. Who is responsible for carrying on international negotiations concerning future power developments in the Arctic area? Would this commission have any responsibility for that, or would it come under some other department of government?


Jean Lesage: This commission has no such power, Mr. Chairman.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Has the minister heard about the contemplated projects in the north?


Jean Lesage: I have heard of them, sir, but I have not had an opportunity to consult the Russians in order to see how serious they are about them.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, if the headwaters of the Yukon river were used for the production of power in accordance with plans which have been put forward in the papers from time to time, would this commission not be involved in some way or other?


Jean Lesage: One of the sites which is presently being investigated to provide needed power for Whitehorse is a site on the Yukon river about two miles from Whitehorse. The plans that are being evolved at the present time are such that anything that would be put up there to provide power at the present time would have a salvage value and could be used if the Frobisher plan, as we call it, ever becomes a reality.


Howard Charles Green: Is the commission working in any way with the Frobisher people?


Jean Lesage: It is the water resources branch of my department which has been working with the Frobisher people, not the commission. The commission is supplying electricity to the north but it is not involved in policy matters. It is the water resources branch of my department which does that work.


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


Jean Lesage: the second reading of Bill No. 433, to amend the National Parks Act.
He said:
His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the purport of this bill, has given consent, so far as Her Majesty's property rights are affected, that the house may do therein as they shall think fit.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, that is a new one.


George Clyde Nowlan: Is the minister going to give a word of explanation?


Jean Lesage: The Cape Breton Highlands national park was established in 1936. The land, which was provided by the province of Nova Scotia, contains approximately 390 square miles. The purpose of the bill is to delete a small area containing 13-3 square miles from the park. This is known as the Panhandle-I am sure the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) is aware of this-and lies near the southwest corner of the park. This is being done at the request of the provincial government, the official request being in the form of an order in council dated February 2, 1956.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
National Parks Act
On clause 1-Lands withdrawn from Cape Breton Highlands national park.


George Clyde Nowlan: The minister has read the formal statement advising the house that His Excellency the Governor General has consented to this bill being introduced so far as it affects the property rights of Her Majesty. Is it the intention of the crown to divest itself of property rights in the lands and premises as described in this bill? The bill does not go that far; it simply says that these lands shall no longer be part of the park.


Jean Lesage: The intention is to pass an order in council to revert these 13-3 square miles to the province of Nova Scotia.


George Clyde Nowlan: Has the description been approved by the province of Nova Scotia?


Jean Lesage: The description and boundaries have been worked out after consultation between officials of the government of Nova Scotia and my officials.


George Clyde Nowlan: Can the minister explain the phrase "constant perpendicular distance of three hundred feet"?


Jean Lesage: I cannot.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 349, to amend the Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Marler-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Consular officer.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this bill was considered at some length in the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines; and therefore the opposition do not feel that there is any necessity to take a great deal of time on it today. However, there were one or two amendments made in the committee and it would be helpful if the parliamentary assistant would explain these.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Mr. Chairman, before explaining the two amendments which were brought in by the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, I wish to acquaint hon. members with the fact that the minutes of the proceedings of the committee were placed in the mail boxes of hon. members this afternoon, but there are some 25 copies on the Clerk's table available to hon. members

Canada Shipping Act
at the present time. This bill was considered at great length by the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and two amendments were made.
The amendments will be found in Votes and Proceedings of Friday, July 20. The first amendment has to do with clause 9 of the bill, which deals with section 119 of the act. As hon. members will recall, this clause deals with certificates of service granted to mariners who have demonstrated their ability to operate their vessels through actual experience but who because of lack of basic education are unable to pass the ordinary examination for a certificate of competency. Under the present section a mariner applying for a certificate of service is required to supply evidence of his service and pass a simple examination consisting of an eye test, knowledge of the fundamentals of the rules of the road and in the case of home trade vessels a knowledge of one-flag international signals.
There has always been an understandable reluctance on the part of many mariners, particularly older men, to appear before examiners, and many of them had not obtained their certificates before the expiration of the time limit. I should say that the section dealing with these certificates of service provides that the mariner shall have served as master of a home trade inland or minor waters vessel for a period of 12 months within a period of 10 years starting with 1948. The bill provided that this limit be extended indefinitely, and some objection was raised in committee to the fact that while a mariner might have acquired experience in waters such as the Newfoundland coastal waters or in the St. Lawrence he would have no experience, say on the west coast.
Therefore an amendment was moved in committee to the effect that the minister would be empowered to limit a certificate of service to waters described in that certificate. This was done by an amendment to subparagraph (c) of clause 9 amending section 119 of the Canada Shipping Act, which adds at the end of the subclause (c) the words "within the limits prescribed by the minister and specified in the certificate".
Following this first amendment to subclause 1, the wording in subclause 2 had to be changed somewhat. I should first explain that the previous subsection 2 said that the holder of a certificate for a vessel under 150 tons could on application be entitled to surrender his formal certificate and have this certificate endorsed so as to be good for ships of up to 350 tons. Since we are now limiting the application of these certificates to certain waters we could not have this provision in the new subclause 2,
[Mr. Langlols (Gaspe).l
because it might not be in the interest of some holders of present certificates to obtain new certificates, which would be endorsed for ships of higher tonnage but limited to certain waters. Therefore it is for this reason, as hon. members will notice, that new subclause 2 as amended by the committee does not contain the provision that "the holder is entitled upon surrender thereof to be granted a certificate under subsection 1 for those waters."
That deals with the first amendment. The second amendment is a very simple one and it has to do with clause 25 of the bill. This clause was amended in order to further clarify the wording used in the first part of the clause. The amended clause reads as follows:
(1)	The international convention for the prevention of pollution of the sea by oil, 1954, set out in the fourteenth schedule (hereinafter called the convention), is approved.
(2)	The governor in council may make regulations-
Then (a), (b) and (c) follow. A period was added after "approved" in the original text, and the clause was divided into two subclauses, one dealing with the approval of the convention and the second giving power to the governor in council to make regulations. As I said, this is only a matter of further clarification of the wording of the clause.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Exemption from registry.
Howard Charles Green: Clause 2 makes a provision that ships from 10 to 15-ton registry shall no longer be required to effect registration under this act. Hitherto the exemption has been for ships under ten tons. This is only one of several changes made in the Canada Shipping Act by these amendments, which have the effect of lowering standards. I doubt very much the wisdom of doing that in connection with this act.
The Canada Shipping Act has been the basis of our marine law for many years. Before that we depended upon the merchant shipping act of the United Kingdom. The provisions, by and large, have stood the test of time. Yet here we are making a change so that it will be no longer necessary for ships from 10 to 15 tons to be registered. They will be thrown into the category of the smaller ships which are licensed and which number about 120,000- these, of course, are the small motor boats running around the Ottawa river, the Rideau canal and the various lakes in Canada- about 120,000 small boats licensed under the Canada Shipping Act, as distinguished from ships that are registered. From now on

ships from 10 to 15 tons may come into that category. It will not be necessary to register them.
The parliamentary assistant told us in the committee that there are about 17,000 ships registered in Canada, as distinct from those that are licensed, and of that number 3,354 are in the category of from 10 to 15 tons, there being 857 on the west coast and 2,497 in the rest of Canada.
I am afraid this change is one that is unwise and really not necessary. We were told in the committee that it was done in order to cut out red tape. I suppose we should all be in favour of doing away with red tape in governmental activities, but this practice of registering ships has been a very important factor in our whole shipping picture. Apparently no shipping organization asked for the change. For example, neither the merchants' exchange in Vancouver nor any of the other organizations there interested in shipping asked for this change. Apparently it was requested by different individuals. 1 am wondering whether a good many of them are not owners of pleasure boats who did not want to be bothered registering their ships which might be from 10 to 15 tons. However, from now on it is not going to be necessary to register them, and in my opinion that breaks down the formalities of registration which have been in existence for so long.
The parliamentary assistant took the position in the committee that the department is not very particular about this amendment, and that if the committee saw lit to recommend going back to the old law, that is, that only ships under 10 tons should be exempt, there would be no objection from the department. I hope that since the sittings of the committee the department has had time to consider this matter further, and I would ask the parliamentary assistant now whether it would not be possible to leave the provision as it was before; as it is under the law at the present time. The present section 8 reads as follows:
8. Ships not exceeding ten tons register tonnage employed solely in navigation on the lakes, rivers or coasts of Canada and pleasure yachts not exceeding ten tons register tonnage wherever employed or operated are exempted from registry under this act.
I suggest that we would be wise to continue that provision rather than make the change contained in clause 2 of the bill.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: As I explained to the committee when the bill was considered there, this amendment is to provide that ships are exempted from the requirement to be registered if their net tonnage does not exceed 15 tons. Here we are dealing
Canada Shipping Act
with net tonnage. The law as it stands puts that limit at 10 tons and we are now asking that it be raised to 15 tons. I wish to remind hon. members that owners of ships below 15 tons net tonnage will still have the privilege of registration if they wish to do so. Otherwise they must take out a licence, which involves a much simpler method. I also wish to repeat what I said in the committee, to the effect that this has nothing to do whatsoever with building standards and inspection requirements. The ships that are registered or licensed will be subject to the same requirements that apply to all other ships covered by the inspection regulations.
I also wish to add that in adopting the new limit we are following the same practice that has been adopted in the United States and in the United Kingdom. All we are doing is to relieve the owners of these small craft from the trouble of going through the complicated procedure of registration when we think that registration achieves no practical purpose. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra put it, and I think I used the same expression in the committee, all we want to do is to cut red tape and cut down on formalities when we are of the opinion that formalities and red tape achieve no practical purpose.
Moreover, in the committee I also gave figures indicating that even with the present exemption for ships below 10 tons net registered tonnage our list of shipping shows that well over 1,000 ship owners with ships below 10 tons have found it convenient to register them, and they are in fact registered and appear in our shipping list. Raising the exemption from 10 tons to 15 tons does not necessarily mean that all owners of ships between 10 tons and 15 tons will take advantage of the new limitation, but they will be at liberty to register or license their ships as they wish.
A while ago the figure of 3,000 ships was mentioned as being the number of ships which will be affected by the change, but it must be said that this is the number of ships between 10 and 15 tons net tonnage which are actually registered. The amendment of the provisions of the present section raising the limitation to 15 tons does not mean that these ships will automatically cease to be on the registry. They can be withdrawn from the registry only on application of the owner, and unless the owner takes that action the ships will continue to be registered.
As far as the attitude of the department is concerned, I expressed it in the committee when I stated that the department was not

Canada Shipping Act unduly insisting for this amendment, but I must say that we have since considered the remarks made in the committee and we have not been convinced that the amendment proposed in the bill should not be carried. We must bear in mind that the registry of these small ships involves a lot of work in the department, and if we can cut down that work when we think it is possible to do so without affecting the requirements of the department as far as inspection is concerned, I think we should do so. For these reasons I believe the proposed clause should remain as it is. As I said a moment ago, all we are seeking to do is cut down on red tape and formalities which achieve no practical purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 24 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 25-Regulations.
Howard Charles Green: Clause 25 is the clause which deals with the international convention for the prevention of the pollution of the sea by oil, and that convention is included as a schedule to the bill. As the parliamentary assistant knows, section 495a does two things. In the first place it gives power to the governor in council to make regulations for carrying out the international convention which aims at preventing pollution of the sea by oil. In the second place it gives power to the governor in council to make regulations to prevent the pollution by oil from ships of any inland, minor or other waters of Canada. There are two distinct powers contained in section 495a.
I take it that it will be some time before the international convention becomes effective, and it is unlikely that there will be many cases under the convention off the coasts of Canada outside territorial waters. The parliamentary assistant has stated that the plan is to seek help from the navy and the air force-


J. G. Léopold Langlois: For enforcement.


Howard Charles Green: -in order to enforce the regulations, that is, to be able to prove that a ship has polluted waters within 50 miles of the Canadian shores. But the other powers are very important right now. As far as the west coast is concerned, as soon as publicity appeared concerning the prevention of pollution by oil there were favourable comments in all the Vancouver newspapers. There we have had trouble for quite a number of years-I am sure the Minister of Fisheries will agree with me-caused by the pollution of the waters off our shores by oil, sometimes from ships and sometimes from


refineries. I guess the worst case of pollution in Vancouver harbour was caused by a refinery.
I urge upon the parliamentary assistant that prompt action be taken to have regulations drawn up and put into effect dealing with the pollution of our own waters. It has become a great nuisance on the west coast, and I think the department should act quickly. I should like to know from the parliamentary assistant what the intentions of the department are in this regard. During the sittings of the committee I gained the impression that it might be some time before regulations were enacted. One cannot complain about that as far as the pollution of waters beyond our territorial waters is concerned. But with regard to pollution within our territorial waters there should be action now. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to let us know what the plans are in connection with that particular part of the problem.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: In answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra may I say this. As he himself must have noticed when the matter was before the standing committee, our officers of the steamboat inspection branch had already been busy working on the preliminary draft of these contemplated regulations. We expect that within three to four months from the time this legislation becomes law, these regulations will be finally drafted. The hon. member will also recall that in committee I stated that we would have to consult with the industry. I believe he will be pleased to hear me say that we have not waited for these regulations to be drafted and come into force before taking some action with respect to pollution. I have here a notice to ship masters which has just been handed to me. It bears the date of July 15, 1956 and reads as follows:

To ship masters
The discharge of oil from ships in the Port Alfred area-
This is in the case of Port Alfred. This is an example.
-is causing a serious pollution problem, resulting in serious damage-


Howard Charles Green: Where is that from?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: That is from the Department of Transport. I was going to read the whole thing. Perhaps I had better start back at the beginning again:
The discharge of oil from ships in the Port Alfred area-
That is one of the national harbours board ports on the Saguenay river.

-is causing a serious pollution problem, resulting in serious damage to property and the ruination of bathing beaches.
You are requested, therefore, to refrain from the discharging of oil-contaminated ballast water or oil waste in any other form in the Saguenay river area.
This notice is dated July 15, 1956, and is signed "Deputy Minister, Department of Transport". It is just an example showing that we have already taken some action. We are doing this in respect of other ports also. This is just one example applying to the port of Port Alfred in the Saguenay river.


Howard Charles Green: It will be three or four months before the regulations are drawn up?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: How long does the parliamentary assistant expect it to be before this international convention comes into force? It must be approved by a certain number of nations. Perhaps we could be told approximately when it is expected the convention will be in effect.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I am told that is anybody's guess. I can make a guess. I would say twelve months. As the hon. member knows, it is rather hard to give a precise answer to the question just asked by the hon. member. I would say roughly twelve months.


Howard Charles Green: About a year?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: In other words the international convention will be of no effect and our regulations passed to implement that convention will have no effect beyond territorial waters probably for at least a year?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: What about the great lakes? My understanding is that this international convention does not cover the great lakes at all.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: No.


Howard Charles Green: So there may be oil pollution by ships in the great lakes provided it is not done within Canadian waters. Is that right?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Are any steps being taken by the government to negotiate with the United States a treaty or convention covering oil pollution by ships on the great lakes? That would seem to be necessary before the problem is met in that particular part of Canada.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: As I said in answer to the hon. member's previous question, we expect that regulations governing the waters which are excluded from the provisions of the convention will be ready in some four months' time. As regards the great lakes in particular,
Canada Shipping Act
in committee I stated that we had had preliminary discussions with the United States authorities, and that we were asking for their co-operation in respect of the great lakes area and in respect of these inland waters bordering United States shores as well as Canadian shores.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
On clause 27-Regulations.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few brief remarks to make. The information the parliamentary assistant gave us in committee was exceedingly interesting. I might say that the suggestions made by the parliamentary assistant with respect to making regulations under this section were, I thought, very excellent. In that respect I think the department should be commended.
However, there is one other thing I should like to mention and it is this. In the report of the committee I believe it will be found that the minister told us that eventually there were going to be three ships on the great lakes equipped with helicopters for search and rescue work; one on lake Ontario, one at the eastern end of lake Erie and one on lake Huron. When questioned about this matter the parliamentary assistant told us that the one on lake Huron was under contract now and would probably be ready in a year or two; that the one for lake Erie might not be ready for five years, though possibly it would be ready at some time sooner than that; and that the one for lake Ontario would be ready in the same length of time.
I should like to bring this matter to the attention of the parliamentary assistant. Every year there is a big death toll by drowning on the great lakes. Only two or three days ago eight people were drowned in Georgian bay, and there will be a bigger toll before the the summer is over. We all know that it is too late to do anything this summer, but surely by next summer something could be done.
I know it is not possible to get these ships equipped with helicopters by next summer. I would agree on that point. But could not some interim or substitute method of search and rescue be provided by next summer as a stop-gap to prevent these drownings, or to help in their prevention until these ships are ready? Could not greater use be made of the Royal Canadian Air Force or something of that nature until the Department of Transport ships are ready? These matters are always brought very forcibly to everybody's mind at this time of year, when practically every time you pick up a paper you find that there

6S98
Canada Shipping Act
has been a drowning or a boat accident in the resort areas on the great lakes.
I wish the parliamentary assistant would consider the possibility-if not for this summer at least for next summer-of doing what I have suggested, until such time as these new ships are constructed for the department, namely to have some temporary additional search and rescue work done by the R.C.A.F. in co-operation with the Department of Transport or something like that. May I call it six o'clock?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: We shall be very pleased to look into the situation which has just been brought to my attention.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Mr. Blackmore:: Six o'clock.


William Alfred Robinson: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that we are almost on the last clause but two, and unless there are lengthy remarks to be made perhaps we could try to clean it up.


Mr. Herridge:: I am going to be only a minute or so. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member call it six o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: I want to ask a question later.


Mr. Hosking:: We waited until eleven o'clock the other night. Five minutes will finish it.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I did not rise on section 1 because there was no necessity to do so, but I do want to say that the committee made a very comprehensive and complete study of this bill with the assistance of the parliamentary assistant and his officials. I think all the members of the committee recognize the competence with which the parliamentary assistant handled his end of the discussion. We are also indebted for the very clear-cut and informative answers we received to questions placed before the officials on various sections of the bill.
On the basis of our study of the bill in committee, and recognizing this as a technical subject in which we have to rely to a great extent on the experience and ability of the officials, this group supports this bill as a move in the right direction and something that will end up to the general advantage of the people of Canada.

We were particularly pleased by the introduction of section 27, which provides for the licensing of the operators of small boats on inland, minor and other waters. A number of the members of this group have noticed the increasing number of small boats on our various waters, and as in the case of the increasing traffic on our highways there is no question but that the time has arrived to have some regulation with respect to the licensing of boats and the licensing of operators.
We realize that legislation of this type is not going to be introduced suddenly and be functioning perfectly within a short time. We were therefore very pleased to learn that it is the intention of the department to implement the legislation gradually as the result of co-operation with launch clubs, yacht clubs and other persons who are interested in navigation and the operation of boats. We were also interested to learn that the department is doing something to educate the public, in the terms of the legislation, as to the necessity of licensing boats, and I presume they will do the same with respect to the licensing of operators. I think the small pamphlet that has been issued by the department is very excellent indeed. I think it is a very sound and democratic procedure to seek the co-operation of the people in the administration of legislation of this type, and I believe the department is to be complimented for adopting that approach to this situation.
During the discussion on this section there were some interesting remarks made concerning the question of life preservers. That subject was in the minds of a great many members of the committee as the result of some extremely unfortunate accidents that occurred in recent weeks. During the discussion some members of the committee cited their various personal experiences concerning life preservers that had been sold to people in various parts of Canada. I for one was very surprised to find that you can buy a life preserver marked "government approved". I personally thought it meant that the preserver was approved by the Department of Transport, but the committee learned it simply meant in some cases that it was approved by the provincial department of health as being new material, as in the case of a bed mattress. But that is not of much concern for your health if you happen to drown when you are wearing the preserver.
In that connection we in this group think the department should do everything possible to inform the public of the situation with respect to life preservers, and ask

that they only purchase life preservers which have the approval of the Department of Transport if they wish to be safe when they are on the water.
In that respect we urge a continuing educational program as far as the operators of boats and the public generally are concerned. We think the department should do everything it can to co-operate with the manufacturers. I am sure that when the public and manufacturers and all concerned understand the situation it will not be too long before the public in its own interest and the manufacturers in their interest will co-operate with the Department of Transport for the greater safety of those who travel on our beautiful lakes, rivers and other bodies of water.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I have just one brief question. During the hearings before the committee the parliamentary assistant told us that we were going to start hearing representations from boating clubs, yacht clubs, manufacturers and various individuals with respect to forming a good and practical set of regulations for small pleasure boats on the great lakes and other minor waters of Canada. I believe this question was asked before, but I would like to reassure myself concerning this matter. When does the department plan to commence holding these hearings before the committee?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I am sorry; would you mind repeating your question?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I was just asking the parliamentary assistant when the officials of the Department of Transport plan to commence holding hearings of representations from small boat owners, yacht clubs, manufacturers, and so on?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Before answering this question, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. member for Kootenay West for his kind remarks. I wish to assure him that the officials of the department and myself were most pleased to be of assistance to the committee when it considered this bill.
Turning now to the question I have just been asked regarding the meetings and consultations we are going to have with the boating organizations and with all those interested in boating in Canada before the regulations are drafted, I must tell the hon. member we are going to contact them and seek their suggestions as soon as this bill becomes law.


Howard Charles Green: Am I to take it there will be no regulations in effect before the remainder of this boating season; is that right?
Canada Shipping Act


J. G. Léopold Langlois: As I said in committee, we are planning to send out a questionnaire to all these organizations I have just mentioned and to all those who have shown an interest in these proposed regulations. We are planning to hold meetings and discussions some time in the fall; therefore it is extremely unlikely that these regulations will be in force during the present season.


Howard Charles Green: Can the parliamentary assistant give us an estimate of how many licenses it will be necessary to issue to operators of these small boats?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: There are some 100,000 boat licenses issued in Canada; so if you take it as an average that there are two operators per boat who are going to seek such a license, you can roughly estimate the number of operators licenses to be issued at something in the neighbourhood of 200,000.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: One further question, Mr. Chairman. During the sittings of the committee the parliamentary assistant told us, as I understand it, that they were considering licensing boats other than those equipped with 10 horsepower motors. If that is the case, would the remarks of the parliamentary assistant apply if it is decided as a result of these hearings to license boats with motors of less than 10 horsepower?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: As I said in the committee, it is rather difficult for me to give any definite commitments as to what the regulations, which have not yet been drafted, are going to contain; but there is a possibility that we will require that the operators of boats with engines of less than 10 horsepower be licensed. There is a definite possibility of that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
On clause 29-
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this is the clause which adds to the Canada Shipping Act as the fourteenth schedule the international convention for the prevention of pollution of the sea by oil, 1954. That conference was held from April 26, 1954, to May 12, 1954, and 1 notice in article 15 the following provision appears:
The present convention shall come into force 12 months after the date on which not less than 10 governments have become parties to the convention, including five governments of countries each with not less than 500,000 gross tons of tanker tonnage.
Can the parliamentary assistant tell us how many governments have already become parties to this convention? Can he also tell us which countries have over 500,000 gross

Canada Shipping Act
tons of tanker tonnage, and how many such countries are parties to the convention?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: So far the United Kingdom is the only country which has ratified the convention. In reply to the second question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, the countries with more than 500,000 gross tanker tonnage are the United Kingdom, Norway, the United States, Holland and France.


Howard Charles Green: Are those the only countries which have over 500,000 tons of tanker capacity?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: There may be a few
more, but I am sure those five have that tonnage.


Howard Charles Green: Am I to understand that
although it is two years since the conference, the United Kingdom is the only country which has become a party to the convention?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any prospect of the ten countries, including the five which have this gross tonnage of 500,000 tons in tanker capacity, becoming parties to the convention in the near future?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: We hope so. We are
informed that the convention is being considered by the governments of a number of these countries.


Howard Charles Green: When the required number of
countries have become parties to the convention, it will take a further period of 12 months before the convention comes into effect?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: I notice that article VI of the convention refers to territorial waters. What does the Department of Transport consider to be the territorial waters of Canada?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Three miles.


Howard Charles Green: Here is another illustration of the need for Canada to make up her mind about her territorial waters. For several years the Department of Fisheries has been trying to get a definition of Canadian territorial waters which will meet the actual needs of the country today. We seem to go along year after year without making a decision on this point, expecting that some day there will be an international treaty under which all nations will agree to just what constitutes territorial waters.
From what I read about the situation there seems to be very little prospect of any agreement being reached on that point in the near future. In the meantime various countries

are making declarations as to what they consider to be their territorial waters. I suggest to the Prime Minister that it is about time Canada made up her mind as to what Canadian territorial waters are to be. Here we are becoming a party to a convention which refers to territorial waters, and surely there should be some clarification of what this government considers to be Canadian territorial waters.
I believe the Prime Minister knows that on the east coast they are asking for a 12-mile limit. They are in trouble with their fisheries because there is no 12-mile limit and our fishermen are being unfairly treated. On the west coast we have the situation created by Hecate strait between the Queen Charlotte islands and the mainland of British Columbia. This should be considered Canadian territorial waters, yet these waters have not been positively declared as such.
Frankly I cannot see why the government delays in taking a stand on this question. I think it is just chasing a will o' the wisp to be waiting year after year for some kind of international agreement. I hope something will be done this year by the government, and that there will not be any further delay in reaching a decision as to just what constitutes Canadian territorial waters.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The matter is now under very active consideration. We do not want to make a declaration at this time which would call for contestation by our friends. We are endeavouring to arrange matters so that we can make our declaration and not have it contested by adjoining countries, and countries with whom we have always had cordial relations.


Howard Charles Green: When does the Prime Minister expect that this declaration will be made?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is to be a discussion on this matter at the next general assembly of the United Nations. We hope that before that time we will be able to inform these adjoining and friendly powers of the position we are going to endeavour to promote at this meeting of the United Nations.


Howard Charles Green: Will that be made public at the time or will it all be confidential?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The communications we are having with these friendly powers at this time are confidential, but the agenda for the next meeting of the United Nations provides for a public discussion at which time we would be taking our position on several of the controversial points.


Howard Charles Green: Will that constitute a declaration by Canada as to what she considers her territorial waters to be?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not
know that a declaration by Canada as to what she considers her territorial waters to be would advance us very much unless we got a recognition from others that they would respect those territorial limitations.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not a fact that quite a few other countries have made unilateral declarations as to what they consider their territorial waters to be, and apparently in most cases those declarations are respected by other nations?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They are not; they are contested. The matter is being considered now by an international committee which was set up by the United Nations and which will be making its report. I hope and expect there will be discussion on that report, at which time many governments will be making their positions clearly known.


George Harris Hees: I gather from what the Prime Minister said that at the United Nations the Canadian government would try to indicate, would endeavour to propose-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Would endeavour to promote an international theory as to the extent of territorial waters and the way in which they are to be determined from point to point.


George Harris Hees: The Prime Minister is saying that at this international gathering we would endeavour to propose. What in the world is stopping Canada from standing on her two feet and making a proposition? Why do we have to endeavour to propose?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@Quebec East: Because of the number of divisions we have in our armed forces. We do not want to start a war. We think the method we are following is the one that is most apt to get recognition without any conflict as to what will be regarded internationally as the territorial waters.


George Harris Hees: There are two different things. One is making a declaration of something you are going to do, and another is making a proposition of what you think is a fair attitude. The Prime Minister said they were going to endeavour to make a proposal.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Not endeavour to make a proposal.


George Harris Hees: You cannot stand up and make a proposal regarding what Canada thinks should or should not be done and ask other people in a straightforward manner whether or not they agree with that, or do we always have to be mealy-mouthed in our attitude to other nations?
Canada Shipping Act


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We do not
have to be mealy-mouthed, but we do not find that it would be of serious advantage to adopt the attitude of the hon. member.


Howard Charles Green: As I understand it, the Prime Minister is referring to discussions of this question which will probably take place in the general assembly of the United Nations later this year. I presume those discussions would be among all the nations that are members of the United Nations, but does that mean that no decision will be reached by Canada unless all these nations agreed to a definition of territorial waters?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Canada itself cannot enact international law, but Canada will use its best endeavours to get recognized as international law the principles for which we shall be contending.


Howard Charles Green: I should think it very unlikely that all these nations would reach any agreement, because they are so very far apart. As the Prime Minister knows, there are different limits set by many different nations. It is not a matter of war at all; it is simply a matter of what these nations consider to be their territorial waters. For example, I believe some of the nations in South America claim that their territorial waters run out for 200 miles. Will Canada not be in the position, if the Prime Minister's course is followed, that she simply goes to the meeting of United Nations and puts forward her suggestions; then, if no agreement is reached, shall we not be back exactly where we started?
Does there not come a time when Canada, as I believe Australia and many other nations have done, can and should say that Canada considers her territorial waters to be 12 miles from the shore line estimated in such and such a way? Will it not be necessary for Canada to take that step at some time, in any event, if there is ever to be any definition of Canadian territorial waters?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We shall certainly say what we consider should be regarded and recognized internationally as Canadian territorial waters, but we do not want to start something that we are not in a position to carry through. We shall have to have, not the unanimous consent of all the United Nations, but we shall have to have recognition by, for example, the authorities of the United States, the authorities of France and the authorities of those countries who have historic fishing rights on the great banks. We should have, by general recognition to make it regarded as binding upon all nations, acceptance of the decision that was

Canada Shipping Act rendered by the international court of justice with respect to the conflict between northern European countries and the United Kingdom. That has set a principle which we think should be applicable to our own shores. We think the conditions are such that the decision that was there rendered would apply to many parts of the Canadian shores, and we think this effort by the United Nations to clarify the international law in that regard is very much worth while.


Howard Charles Green: May I take it from the Prime Minister's replies that the Canadian government has already decided what it considers should be Canadian territorial waters?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: -and is merely waiting for an opportunity to place that opinion before the general assembly of the United Nations?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should not like to say that there has been a firm decision that may not be varied as a consequence of our conferring with the other nations, but we think, for example, that this decision of the international court of justice is applicable to most of our shore line. We think the 12-mile limit should be recognized, but we must admit that even if it is there are historic fishing rights that we shall also have to recognize within those territorial waters.


Howard Charles Green: Are those not separate things? Are not the historic fishing rights one thing and the question of territorial waters another thing?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It will be helpful, I think, to have those matters discussed at the same time and, in order to get recognition of our claims, to have our claims qualified by the knowledge given to those who might be disposed to contest them that it is not intended thereby to exclude the historic fishing rights that have been established over the centuries.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: While we are on this subject, I too should like to address a question to the Prime Minister about it. I have in my hand an extract from the Times of London for June 8 last, as quoted in the July 13 issue of the fisheries council of Canada Bulletin. This extract says in part:
The international law commission today finally confessed its failure to be able to agree on a firm formula regulating the breadth of the territorial sea.
It goes on to set forth some details and then states:
The commission recognizes that international practice is not uniform as regards the delimitation of the territorial sea. The commission considers that international law does not permit an extension of the territorial sea beyond 12 miles . . .


Then it goes on at the end of this extract to say:
Members were probably influenced in their final vote by a serious warning sounded by Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice (United Kingdom) against a general licensing of the 12-mile limit.
In view of our close relationship with the United Kingdom within the commonwealth, and in view of the general expression of support for the 12-mile limit by the Prime Minister, I wonder whether he could tell us whether there are any direct discussions going on with the United Kingdom, and could he perhaps give us some information as to why apparently the United Kingdom is so much opposed to this extension, with which I think most of the people in this country agree?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: On a point of order, are not these territorial waters more a concern of the Department of Fisheries?


Howard Charles Green: On the point of order, this very convention we are considering refers to territorial waters, and this whole discussion has been completely in order, if the hon. member had only been listening.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not attempt to state what are the reasons of the United Kingdom for desiring to maintain the territorial waters within the three-mile limitation. They are probably the same reasons they had for supporting that stand before the international court of justice.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: My question was whether the Canadian government is carrying on any direct discussions with the United Kingdom on this subject with a view to perhaps laying the groundwork for some agreement in the general assembly.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There have been discussions with the authorities of the United Kingdom and there will continue to be further discussions, but the whole matter will probably be threshed out publicly in the discussion of the report of the international commission that has been set up.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of the fact that certain South American countries such as Peru and Chile, I believe, have made unilateral declarations extending their territorial waters up to 200 miles, would the Prime Minister tell us whether or not, in view of the talks that have taken place, the government would consider suggesting that Canada's territorial waters extend beyond the 12-mile limit?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I do not
think we would venture to claim that the territorial waters extended beyond the 12-mile limit. We would not think there would

be very much chance of having that recognized internationally, in spite of the declarations that have been made by some of the South American countries.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Prime Minister what the stand of the government is with regard to Hecate strait?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I cannot make any formal statement. There are these several questions about which we do not think it would be advisable to take a stand publicly that would be apt to be controversial before there is this opportunity to have a general discussion of the report of this international commission of experts.


George Harris Hees: I take it from what the Prime Minister has said that at this United Nations meeting the Canadian government is going to put forward the suggestion that foreign draggers stay outside of our 12-mile limit.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There will be qualifications to that attitude because of the historic rights that have to be recognized with respect to the waters bordering our shores.


George Harris Hees: Does that mean that anybody now fishing within our 12-mile limit is going to be allowed to continue to do so?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Chairman, it does not mean that and it does not mean the contrary. It does not make any assertion whatsoever in that regard. That matter will be considered when there has been a sufficient recognition of the 12-mile limit for territorial waters.


George Harris Hees: Then could the Prime Minister just say simply what it does mean?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It means that the question is not yet one that is determined satisfactorily under international law.


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


Howard Charles Green: Next sitting.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


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



INCOME TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, July 3, consideration in committee of Bill No. 418, to amend the Income Tax Act-Mr. Harris- Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Income Tax Act
On clause 1-
Mr. Michener:: Mr. Chairman, in a sense I am fishing outside the territorial waters of second reading. I began to speak just before the motion for second reading was carried, and by arrangement it was agreed that I and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, I believe, could carry on with a few general remarks on the first item.
I had been drawing attention to a number of examples of changes in the Income Tax Act which might very well have been considered by the banking and commerce committee had the bill been referred to that committee, where some of the ideas which originate in the house-and I think some very good ideas originate in the house with respect to income tax-might have been put forward and discussed and perhaps received more serious consideration than they do under the method now employed in making up the budget and the amendments to the Income Tax Act. The amendments in the bill are largely technical, and in so far as they are not they carry out the decisions of the minister as disclosed in the budget address.
I had indicated one weakness of our income tax legislation in comparison with others countries, namely that not enough consideration is given to the parents of children. Not enough deduction of taxable income is allowed for those who are raising children. Certainly we do not do as well in Canada as is the case in other countries. I had cited the example of Great Britain.
I now refer to one oddity of the act. If a man is fortunate enough to have a child toward the end of the year he is immediately entitled to family allowance with respect to that child, and the deduction from his taxable income which he is entitled to receive goes down from the $400 for a child not receiving the family allowance to $150 for a child who is getting the family allowance with the odd result that although only one instalment of family allowance may be paid for that child, that is, the December payment, the father loses $250 by way of deduction from income and gains only one small payment of $5 per month by allowance. That is a rather Irish way of putting it but that is the effect of the regulations as they are because there is a great difference between the amount allowed as a deduction and the tax payment received in the case of a child in receipt of family allowance and one which is not. It makes a difference of perhaps $45 to a parent in that particular circumstance.

Income Tax Act
Another type of exemption which it seems to me could well be considered by the committee is the encouraging type of exemption which would permit the father of a family or a householder who wants to see his child educated in a good school to deduct the school taxes which he pays to another governmental authority. I have raised this point before and I raise it again. It seems to me it is one that deserves serious consideration, particularly in the light of the responsibilities which municipalities have now and which they will have to load on the home owner. It would not result in the loss to the treasury of a great deal of revenue and it would be easing the lot of the parents of children who, as I say, are not as well dealt with under our income tax law as they are in some other countries.
Another sort of exemption which would be good and which would be an encouragement to the enterprise of our people is an exemption which would allow a family to deduct from taxable income the amount paid for medical and health insurance. Certainly it is a problem which is receiving consideration. The problem of health insurance is one that receives consideration from all levels of government, and it is a big issue. But it seems to me it would be an encouragement to those who are prepaying their medical and hospital costs if they were allowed to deduct those payments from their taxable incomes. It would not be difficult to work out an arrangement by which medical expenses, which are now deductible if they are more than 3 per cent of income, or prepayments on insurance of this kind could be deducted, depending on whichever was the larger.
Another item with which I want to deal I can leave until clause 3 is reached, because it relates to the change in the exemptions allowed to the teaching clergy. However, there is one other item with which I wish to deal and that is the position of the selfemployed. I wish to say a few words again about that issue, because it has again escaped the attention of the minister in his revision of the numerous sections which deal with approved pension plans. I see that they are now called registered pension plans. There are quite a number of provisions in the act dealing with them, but there is no relief for the self-employed. There is no correction of the injustice which has been pointed out time and time again in this house, and which has been the subject of representations to this government for at least ten years. I refer to the injustice which exists as between the position of those who are employed and are on payrolls and that of those who are working for themselves, with respect to the

pension fund savings which they are permitted to make and to deduct from their taxable incomes.
I want to bring to the attention of the committee the people who are involved in this issue. They are the self-employed, the people who are in the professions and those who are working for themselves, such as the farmers and so on. They are set out in the very excellent table of statistics which the Minister of National Revenue produces each year. I refer to "Taxation Statistics" for 1955. At page 9 each profession and occupation is listed separately, beginning with the medical doctors and surgeons. There were 10,000 of those who paid income tax in Canada in the year ended 1953, which is the last year for which figures are given. They are not all the doctors, because there are upwards of 14,000 in the country, but 10,000 of them are in the income brackets and they paid on an average of $11,000 of income each in the year 1953.
Their case is, I think, quite a special one, and it was presented to the government not so long ago in a brief of the Canadian Medical Association in which the argument I think is stated very clearly and very well. They say that over the past ten years repeated representations have been made by the medical association separately and jointly with other professional associations to the effect that self-employed taxpayers should be entitled to make provision for their own retirement. Such encouragement could best be demonstrated by permitting income tax deferment on personal purchases of annuities and other retirement funds in the same manner that now applies to approved pension plans.
The committee well know that the approved pension plans are available only to people who are employed, who are on payrolls. They can set aside up to $1,500 of their own earnings and their employers can put in an equivalent amount, making a total of $3,000 with respect to current purchase of pension rights for the future. That is all deducted from the income on which the employee and employer pay taxes in the current year. The fact is that an employed man, when he is at the height of his earning ability, is able to put aside money on which he has not been taxed for a pension which will be paid to him when he has retired and when he will be taxed at a much lower rate. The case for the medical profession seems to me to be particularly good.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not only the medical profession; every other profession.


Daniel Roland Michener: Income Tax Act


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure that I shall be making the same speech now that I would have made when we were on second reading, when the hon. member for St. Paul's and I agreed to let that pass. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. However, I have one or two matters that I should like to bring to the attention of the committee and of the minister on the consideration of this bill, which involves, as somebody suggested, a variety of amendments to the Income Tax Act.
I think perhaps clause 1 of this particular bill has some rather interesting material in it. I note, for example, this change which extends the phrase that requires the inclusion of the value of board and lodging to any other benefits of any kind whatsoever. Perhaps when we get into the detailed discussion of the bill the minister might be prepared to give us some reason for what appears to be a rather tightly drawn part of the act. Also in clause 1 is mentioned for the first time in the act, so far as I know, the matter of a supplementary benefit plan. I suppose that is one of the most important and in some ways interesting features of the Income Tax Act amendments this year, and certainly it is one that will be of great interest to the trade union movement across the country.
I would like to tell the minister that I have been having some discussions of this clause, pro and con, with one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Cape Breton South, and I have been rather inclined to defend the clause and say that it appeared to me to be a fairly satisfactory and fair arrangement. However, I should like to warn the minister that when we come to clause 19 of the bill he may have to do some explaining for the benefit of my colleague from Cape Breton South, because in the course of our private conversation he said to me-and I am going to quote him for the minister's benefit now-that he thought this description of the supplementary benefit plan was "wrapped in mystery, and like the language of Biblical parables was subject to as endless a variety of interpretations which later will be clarified by regulations written behind the scenes and which we will never see."
I thought at the outset of my remarks I should serve notice on the Minister of Finance that when we come to clause 19 he will have to give some particular clarification of it before the hon. member for Cape Breton South and myself are in complete agreement as to the meaning of this clause.
There are one or two points in this act that I have an interest in discussing, apart from the particular reference I have made so far to clause 1. One of them is the fact

that in the province of British Columbia, and perhaps in other parts of the country as well, we have an increasing number of organizations which are setting out to provide housing for senior citizens. In this regard I should like to supplement the plea that I know has been made by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary in respect of some rethinking of the definition of what constitutes a charitable organization in this connection. Such an organization has been getting under way in the Alberni valley where I make my home, known as the Alberni valley memorial home society, which is set up as a community organization with participation by various local service clubs, trade unions, and other organizations of that kind, which are making contributions to this project. I have had sent to me a copy of a letter signed by the director of the legal branch and addressed to the secretary treasurer of this organization, which says:
After careful consideration we have come to the conclusion that Alberni valley memorial home society does not qualify as a charitable organization within the meaning of the Income Tax Act and donations to it are not allowable deductions under the provisions of section 27 (1) (a) of the act.
Well, apparently that is the position that has been taken by the legal branch of the Department of National Revenue; therefore it leaves open to members who are interested in this matter only the recourse of suggesting to the Minister of Finance that consideration should be given to an appropriate amendment to section 27 (1) (a).
There is one other matter, Mr. Chairman, that I should like to touch upon briefly. It has been brought to my attention a number of times, and I believe it has been touched upon by some other members of the house. I refer to the problems that arise in respect of the financing of the education of university students by the students and their families. I am not going to deal with this at any great length at this time, but I do feel there would be a great deal of merit in considering a change in the allowable exemptions of these people under the act for students at recognized institutes of higher learning. There should be allowed to them at least in addition to the basic $1,000 exemption the amounts they are required to pay in university fees. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that this would be a very beneficial change for our young people, who would find it easier to finance themselves or for their families to finance them in respect of their university education.
There is one other matter, Mr. Chairman, and this with me is not a new subject; it is a subject I have taken up during the last two sessions, and both times the minister has told me "no". However, I am going to persist in bringing this matter forward as long

as I am here and able to do so, until I feel some progress is made concerning what I have described as an injustice applied to those whose incomes are derived from wages and salaries in respect to deductions which are allowable for the expenses incurred in making a living.
I notice that in the Canada Gazette, part 1 of the July 21 issue, there is contained information bulletin No. 10 issued by the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue, from which it would appear, so far as this campaign which I and others, and certainly the trade union movement, have been conducting that perhaps we are going backward instead of forward.
While this information bulletin certainly does not change the existing law, it appears to be an indication that the Department of National Revenue is placing greater emphasis upon collecting every last allowable benefit that working people may have been receiving, and is making sure that employers do not allow employees any possible benefits in the way of free board or accommodation or transportation and so on even though they may have to travel a great distance from their homes in the course of earning their living. In one place it says:
However, employees who are hired lor the purpose ol filling a specific job away from home are not regarded as travelling "in the course of their employment". They are not on travel status for their employer but are in the same position under the act as employees who have to leave their homes and go afield to get work.
I do not agree that this is always necessarily the case. I have drawn the attention of the minister before to the type of problem that exists on the British Columbia coast, where there is something more than the matter of employees having to go to jobs away from home. In this case they may have to travel back and forth several times during the year because of summer shut-downs for fire seasons or winter shut-downs because of snow.
Under circumstances like those it seems to me there is a need, in our logging industry and possibly in other industries where this business of travelling expense is something that is necessarily incurred while an employee is making his living, for reconsideration. As I mentioned before, the same situation applies in respect to any allowable deduction for tradesmen in regard to tools or special clothes. If these things are going to be allowed to farmers and fishermen and in the course of business expenses to corporations and individual businesses, there is no reason why under reasonable circumstances there should not be some provision whereby people on
Income Tax Act
wages and salaries should not have the same sort of provision as this which applies in other connections.
While I am not too optimistic that the minister is going to get up and announce that he is prepared to move an amendment to the present bill, I feel there is an injustice under the present act, and it is certainly one which I intend to pursue with the minister as long as I have an opportunity of doing so.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, I shall defer any further remarks particularly with respect to the matter of the supplementary employment benefit plan until we get further into the details of the bill. These two or three points I wanted to raise prior to the committee stage, and I am very glad to have had the opportunity of discussing them tonight.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of questions I would like to direct to the minister on clause 1. In the first place the term "registered pension" appears throughout the bill to have taken the place of the words "approved superannuation". I would like the minister to explain why the change was made and what necessitated it. My second question is this. What type of benefit has the department in mind when it uses the phrase "of any kind whatsoever"?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, concerning the first question the change of the wording to "registered pension" is to overcome the misunderstanding which I think has arisen over the use of the word "approved" in the present act. We do not approve pension plans as such. All that the Department of National Revenue does is to register pension plans whereunder the employer may be entitled to deduct certain payments made into the fund for income tax purposes. On the other hand, the use of the word "approved" would indicate that we had in some manner indicated approval of the plan itself, and we are trying to avoid that in what we are doing here.
With respect to the other question, we have in mind other forms of benefits that might be derived in the normal course of employment other than board and lodging. I think the hon. lady will understand, because she is well acquainted even with the law, that there is a rule that provides that when you use such words as "board and lodging and such other benefits" you are confining yourself nevertheless to board and lodging and some similar benefits, whereas there might be a benefit in connection with the employment quite apart from board and lodging which ought to be taxed, and that is the provision which we are making here.

Income Tax Act


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned as usual with the advantageous position in which certain corporations and their employees are placed in comparison with self-employed persons. I am presuming that the minister it talking about such things as golf club memberships and so on.


Walter Edward Harris: No, not quite that, although that might be it. An example would be the free use of motor cars and things of that kind which are taxed; some similar benefits of that nature.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Let us take the cost or service club fees. If a corporation is large enough it may pay the fees of as many of its employees as can qualify for membership in as many service clubs as happen to be in that particular district. These men who are working for a large corporation are deemed to be carrying out the service of their company, and quite rightly so; because undoubtedly they would not of their own volition belong to these clubs which are strictly on a classification basis. However, a self-employed person who likewise belonged to a service club for precisely the same reason an employee of a large corporation belongs to it is not permitted the deduction of those fees.
In my estimation that is not right. What is approved for one should be approved for the other. You may say, truly enough, that the individual who works for a corporation receives no personal advantage and I agree; and you might also say that the individual who works for himself does receive some personal advantage. The individual who works for himself may have some personal advantage; nevertheless he loses a great deal.
The same is true of the operation of a motor vehicle. A person may use an automobile registered in the name of an unincorporated company 99 per cent for company business, but the law says that if he does not possess another motor car he is deemed to use that car 25 per cent for personal use. Where a corporation makes a motor car available to an employee for his own use that employee has nothing whatsoever added to his salary for the advantage he gains from the use of that car, and the company is permitted to charge as a deduction the cost of operation and depreciation.
Those are the three things which come immediately to mind, but I know there are many others. There are dues for golf clubs, dues for service clubs and the cost of operating motor vehicles. I know from personal experience that the self-employed person is at a considerable disadvantage as compared with the person employed by a corporation.
fMr. Harris.!


Walter Edward Harris: Beginning at the last and working backward, where an employee of a corporation is allowed the use of a motor vehicle, that is added to his income for taxation purposes. It may well be true that in some cases the hon. member may know of the zealous Department of National Revenue not being able to find it, but in fact it is being done at the present time.
With respect to fees for service clubs, memberships and matters of that kind, it has always been thought that those would be an expense of the business concerned but they are not added to the income of employees, as the hon. member has indicated, in the case of corporations. I would suggest that the amendment before the committee at the present time may permit that to be done.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That does not give any advantage to the self-employed person who has all these expenses added to his personal income.


Walter Edward Harris: There would be no disadvantage, because if you allow it as an expense to the corporation and charge it as income to the employee, there is no discrimination against the self-employed.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: How can the minister account for the wholesale resignations from service clubs of persons who were members as representatives of their respective businesses, but who found the fees were added to their incomes for taxation purposes?


Walter Edward Harris: I think the service clubs will maintain their present membership, because most members really feel it is an advantage both to themselves and to the community to belong to such clubs.


Mr. Campbell:: I was hoping the minister would comment on one point brought out by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, that is the matter of donations to housing or cooperative bodies which are being set up for the purpose of providing low rental accommodation for older citizens. Such donations are not allowed as deductions for income tax purposes. Would the minister comment as to why this is not being done, and if there is not some way these bodies can get around the present act?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the hon. gentleman, in particular the subject which he has brought to my attention. The real difficulty here is that to all outward purposes these companies which negotiate loans or arrangements with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to build tenements or homes for older people have on the face of it a profit motive. I think everyone realizes that there is no profit, at any rate not in the present, although there may be in

the distant future if in due course Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are paid off. We would then have a building on which there was little or no debt, and at that point presumably profit would enter into the picture to the benefit of those persons who constitute the corporation.
On the other hand I am free to confess that if there were not such a possibility of profit we could very well consider that this might be held to be a charitable donation and therefore exempt under the act. All I can say at the moment is that I have been considering the point and will continue to do so. If some of the doubts which I now have can be overcome perhaps I may be able to say something about it.


Mr. Leboe:: This clause contains the words "of any kind whatsoever" and it seems to me that we are entering a really dangerous field. Somewhere along the line somebody is going to have to put a price tag on these services. For instance quite often the people living in logging camps are supplied with free wood and free light from the power plant, as well as other services. Somebody is going to have to put a price on those services. It seems to me that the thing is wide open, and it should be spelled out more firmly than it is.


Mr. Monleiih:: What about firemen and policemen who wear uniforms which are usually purchased as a group? Is it intended to cover that by the phrase "of any kind whatsoever"?


Walter Edward Harris: No. Firemen and policemen and the like are not charged income tax on the value of their uniforms, and it is not intended to do so.


Marie Ann Shipley: I was quite interested in the remarks of the hon. member for St. Paul's with respect to professional men, and making contributions to pension funds deductible. I submit that the self-employed person should have the same benefit as the person employed by others, but there is one particular group which I think deserves special consideration, and I refer to the medical profession. When I speak of the medical profession I am not including dentists. It is well known that some medical men make high incomes, but some do not. Generally those in the lower brackets are the hardest worked. Many of them work 18 hours a day to make the incomes they do.
I realize that in the large cities it is sometimes difficult to get a doctor after hours, as it were, but that is not so in the smaller communities. Doctors there work late at night, and when a doctor is sure the case is an emergency he will go out in the middle of
Income Tax Act
the night. I know from actual experience that many doctors work 18 hours a day and are on call 24 hours a day. It seems to me that if any concession is to be made, this group of professional men should receive special consideration.
Included in professional men we have lawyers. Personally I like lawyers as individuals, but it seems to me they are the one group of professional men that have a terrific advantage. They never have to work after hours, except those who are members of parliament and take their duties so seriously that they are here some Fridays and some Mondays. They may work after hours, but if they do it is by desire, because nobody is going to die through not having a lawyer. The rates of pay received by most professional men are as high, and a great deal higher in many cases. I am particularly thinking of the legal rates of pay. That seems to me almost a cartel or a combine; I do not know the exact word for it. However, the fee for the time involved is very great; often it is a percentage of the business.
Medical men get a certain fee; they are obliged by their oath to work at any time of the day or night, and they do. It seems to me that they, above all other professional groups-and I have no objection to all the other professional groups having this concession-should be entitled to this concession first, and then let it be spread out.
When I started to speak, I said I did not include the dentists in the medical profession. I like dentists as much as lawyers, as individuals; but it is a common practice today following extractions, if there is any bleeding or complication and you do succeed in locating your dentist, for him to say, "Call your doctor." That is a common practice throughout Canada today. I like to see them all happy but let us start with the medical profession first.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: While the legal brethren are recovering their breath from the effects of the remarks of the hon. member for Timiska-ming, I should like to come back for just a minute to the question reintroduced by the hon. member for The Battlefords.
From what the minister says, I think that he would agree as regards the people who are contributing to the projects that we are discussing for providing housing, their gifts at the local level to get the project started are free-will gifts. Therefore there is a case for them to be regarded as charitable donations. I was wondering if the societies were to include a clause in their charters which would make it very clear that there

Income Tax Act
was to be no profit, a clause that would require that any surplus that might accumulate at a later time would be reinvested in improvements or expansions of that particular project, whether that might simplify the question of having the contributors to those organizations qualify on the charitable donations.


Walter Edward Harris: May I point out that I thought we had passed through the general discussion, and that we were now confining ourselves to the actual clauses before us. However, just to answer my hon. friend's question, that is one of several ways that has occurred to us to consider the matter; but my hon. friend, I think, can take it from me that we are considering all the alternatives to see whether there is some plan that will meet the case. If I might say so, I would rather not discuss it further, because we should like to get on with the clauses.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I must come back to this question again. I am not quite satisfied yet. I am thinking now of the passes, for instance, that are granted to railway employees and employees of various companies in the transportation business, including T.C.A. and C.P.A. Surely we are leaving this too wide open. I should like the minister to say something on this and clear the matter up for me. I am not referring to members of parliament, because they come under the Railway Act and it is not passes that they or members of the Senate have, but it is other people who have passes. It would seem to me that they would be required possibly to say, "We had so many passes that were worth so much."


Walter Edward Harris: I hope the hon. member will not put ideas into my head. I have no intention of taxing the value of free passes on the railways available for railway employees. If I did that I would feel that I should have to tax the free passes of members of parliament as well. So in those circumstances I am sure my hon. friend would let it go at that.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I should like to, but it was pointed out several times in the committee that any words that are said on the floor of the house or in committee have no bearing on the interpretation of the act. That being the case, it seems to me that it is too broad when it says "any kind whatsoever". Though the minister might give an undertaking here, I do not think, from my experience and from what I was told very plainly by one of the ministers, that means a thing. It is the interpretation of the act. I do not feel satisfied in that regard. I think the act is fully spelled out there.
[Mr. Barnett.!


Walter Edward Harris: It is not, and that is why we are trying to extend it. There are some quite obvious things, such as the hon. member for Hamilton West has mentioned, which ought to be taxed; but there are those such as my hon. friend has mentioned that will not be. If it should happen that, using this broad clause, we get into a field where hon. members feel we should not be, this would be the place to attend to it; but under the present circumstances I can only suggest to the hon. member that there are benefits on which people ought to pay, and that is the purpose of the particular amendment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As I understand it the act as it now stands reads "board, lodging and other benefits". I wish the minister could explain a little of what difficulties the department has run into in a reasonable interpretation of what are "other benefits", because this matter in a way is related to some of the other things I have been discussing.
The hon. member for Cariboo, I think quite rightly, has pointed out that in the outlying districts where facilities are provided by companies in the logging and mining business and occupations of that kind, there are certain things on which the hon. member mentioned putting a value. One of the concerns I have is that some of these companies may use this legislation to put on an arbitrary dollar value and start charging their employees or making deductions for things which by custom over a long period of years in the type of industry to which I have been referring have been provided as perhaps an inducement to people to go out to the more isolated and pioneering parts of the country.
"Of any kind whatsoever" is very broad. Whilst the minister says if this creates a difficulty he will be glad to consider it, nevertheless it might be much easier to consider the implications now before it becomes law than to wait till it has to come back here as the result of people crying about various injustices, and perhaps wait for the accumulation of quite a volume of them before anything is done about it. I wish the minister could give us some information as to why this change is deemed to be necessary.


Walter Edward Harris: I have given one example
which I think is a good one, and that is the use of motor cars. There is no real provision in the act whereby we can assess for the use of motor cars except under a clause such as that which we are now placing before the committee. I think my hon. friend would agree with me that where an employee of a company is allowed a free motor car, or there is some arrangement made whereby he gets an advantage which you and I do not because

we have to pay for our motor ear, he should be taxed for it. A very strict construction of the words as they are now, "board, lodging and other benefits" may not include that because the words "other benefits" may relate directly to board and lodging and would not extend to cover motor cars. The purpose of the amendment is to take care of that type of thing. I do not suppose we will go to the limit at all that my hon. friend has suggested, but there are far more obvious advantages of a greater value that go to people and which ought to be taxed.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: On the basis of the experience accumulated by the Department of National Revenue would there not be some advantage in adding a specific category? Would it not be enough for present purposes to add a suitable phrase to cover the question of transportation facilities? If other instances occur of real abuse of this provision then they could be added on the basis of experience, instead of creating a situation where someone in the field may get a wrong idea as to just how that should be interpreted.


Mr. Fleming:: In reply to various questions as to what it is the minister has in mind that he is seeking to achieve by the inclusion of the words "of any kind whatsoever" he has several times given one example, namely some benefit in relation to the use of a motor car. If there are other benefits that are within the contemplation of the government in introducing this measure then I think the committee should be told, but if only one has come to light and is in the mind of the minister now then it seems to me he has not made out a case for introducing wide words such as "of any kind whatsoever". If it is simply a matter of reaching motor car benefits, why should that not be spelled out specifically in the clause?
I think the discussion tonight must indicate very clearly that there are many hon. members who approach the amendment with a good deal of apprehension, because no one sitting here tonight can fully conceive what may arise some time and what may be included within these very broad words that we are being asked to include in the section. The words of the present section have been there for some years. The Department of National Revenue has had a good deal of experience with them, and I think we should be told tonight what are the specific benefits that are thought now not to be within the scope of the taxing provision, which ought to be; and we should be told the full list of them. Then we can judge every one of them on its merits.
If we are told of others it may be that hon. members will not think they are the
Income Tax Act
sort of benefits that ought to be included within the scope of taxable income. So far we have heard of only one example, and I say to the minister that if it is the only case that has arisen in the experience of the department the proper way to deal with that case is by a specific amendment, and not by including words of completely unlimited effect. One cannot imagine broader words than those, "of any kind whatsoever", and I think the reluctance indicated in the discussion thus far on the part of hon. members to include words of such broad effect is a very understandable reaction, when we are given only one example of what they might be applied to.


Jay Waldo Monteith: To follow that up, I think it has become the practice of the Department of National Revenue to interpret the act strictly as it is worded. If these words, "of any kind whatsoever", are included, what alternative are they going to have to taxing everything that can possibly be included, even uniforms of firemen, policemen and every other kind of item? More than once, and particularly in the estimates committee this year when considering the estimates of the Department of National Revenue, the department has pointed out how its hands are tied by the wording of the act. They say they have no alternative but to follow the wording of the act. It appears to me that they are not going to be given much alternative.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, there is one point that crops up at this time. I presume the minister is aware that employees of the C.N.R., for instance, are normally allowed about 10 per cent of their gross earnings for away from home expenses. I have had experience in helping fill out income tax returns for men on the C.N.R., and as long as the returns were sworn to they had no difficulty in having their away from home expenses deducted from their gross earnings, provided their expenses did not exceed 10 per cent. I am wondering how this regulation will affect that practice, which has already been adopted and more or less tacitly acknowledged by the department.
One thing that comes to mind as I look at the act is who gets it in the neck every time there is an amendment to the Income Tax Act. It is the workingman, and this is just another case where the workingman is going to be further punished by another change in the act. The hon. member for Timiskaming spoke of professional people. I happen to be a lawyer myself, but I have no sympathy at all for the way professional men may be treated under the Income Tax Act.

Income Tax Act
Who is the man who has to suffer by reason of our income tax laws? It is the workingman. When he goes on a vacation he is not in the same position as the professional man. He cannot offer the excuse that he is going to attend a convention and therefore claim his expenses as a deduction. I see that professional people are now allowed two conventions a year instead of one. The workingman is not allowed any conventions or any vacation expenses. Every time we turn around we find amendments being made which further cripple and hurt the workingmen of Canada. I think it is time we had another look at the situation.


Walter Edward Harris: My hon. friend has not taken time to look at the act or he would not have spoken as he has. There is a special provision in the Income Tax Act for the employees of the C.N.R. and other transportation companies to whom he has referred, and this clause does not refer to them at all.
To answer the hon. member for Eglinton, I do not suppose I could make a case on motor cars without also making a case on a number of other things, but it does seem that in a very short time we have turned from wanting to have this imposed as a tax on people to not wanting it. The hon. member for Hamilton West thought we should use this provision for the purpose of charging income tax on certain benefits that were obtained, and now my hon. friend seems to think we should not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In fairness I think I should say that the hon. member for Hamilton West was seeking to terminate the discrimination which exists in practice.


Walter Edward Harris: And the way to do that is to charge income tax on the benefits received by the employee. Now, there have been cases-	.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister permit a question at that point?


Walter Edward Harris: Certainly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the minister not consider that the present section is broad enough to permit the inclusion within taxable income of that kind of benefit without any amendment?


Walter Edward Harris: No; that is the point of the amendment. It does not. It refers to "board, lodging and other benefits" and that means other similar benefits.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Does the minister not recognize that this clause will affect the provision regarding transportation company employees?


Walter Edward Harris: There is no conflict. May I say that where there is a specific clause dealing with the costs of persons engaged in transportation, the law is in that section and not in a general section such as this. There have been cases where companies have paid the insurance premiums of their executives, have sought to have those as deductions and have objected to them being charged as income to the executives. There have been cases where they have supplied free furniture, free refrigerators, free things of that kind. These all ought to be added as income to the person receiving them.


Jay Waldo Monteith: May I point out that I know many cases where the insurance premium paid on the life of an executive has been charged back to that executive as income.


Walter Edward Harris: I am glad to know that.


Jay Waldo Monteith: And some of these other things that you mentioned.


Walter Edward Harris: My hon. friend will join with me in hoping that this will cover the particular case.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is covered now in this particular instance, or at least the Department of National Revenue has claimed it is covered.


Walter Edward Harris: That may well be.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has there been a determination on that point? With all respect, it would seem to me that the present language is broad enough to include a benefit of the kind referred to by the minister, namely, the payment of an insurance premium on the life of an executive by his employing corporation.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, there have been cases in which this wording "board, lodging and other benefits" has been brought into question as to whether it is broad enough to cover what we are talking about. That is why we are amending it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Has the Department of
National Revenue ever had a case before the appeal board in this actual type of situation where the appeal board has ruled in favour of the taxpayer and said that the amount was not chargeable to a taxpayer's income?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have had a case in which contributions were made to a non-approved pension plan and when it got before the income tax appeal board it was suggested that perhaps these words were broad enough to cover it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is that not a different matter? That is a contribution to a pension plan.


Walter Edward Harris: But it was in connection with the employee, not the employer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I think the situation referred to by the minister does not support what he was saying earlier as to the necessity for an amendment to include such examples as the payment of premiums on a life insurance policy for an executive. Can the minister point to a decision of the exchequer court or of the supreme court where it has been held that the language of the present section is not broad enough to include payment of an insurance premium in a situation of that kind?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Chairman, I cannot show a case where the income tax appeal board in fact held that these words did not cover the broad benefits concerned. But I can produce a case in which doubt was thrown upon it, and that is the reason for the amendment.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Although the hon. member for Eglinton protested, Mr. Chairman, I must myself register a protest against the minister's misinterpretation of my words. I am sure the minister himself knows that I was not attempting in any way to impose additional taxation upon any individual. If the individual is required by his employer to do certain things and to take certain benefits, wherein he has no choice so long as he maintains his employment with that employer, then you have a situation where his hands are more or less tied, and I do not think he should suffer thereby. Not only from what I have said tonight but from what I have said on previous occasions on various aspects of general taxation I am sure the minister knows that what I object to very strenuously is the discrimination against the self-employed and the small businessman who has an unincorporated business.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 1 carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Chairman. I wish to come back to that matter, but first there is one other subject I wish to mention. In this clause and in a number of other clauses of the present act the minister proposes to substitute the words "registered pension" for the present expression "approved superannuation". He has drawn attention to some difficulties in connection with the word "approved" and has said that the Department of National Revenue really does not give approval. He is proposing to substitute the word "registered", and he says that the 67509-427J
Income Tax Act
department at the present time registers these plans. In the light of my own experience I am just wondering whether that is a very apt expression. Are any of these plans open to public view, or does the same secrecy attach to them as attaches to the return of the taxpayer?


Walter Edward Harris: The same secrecy attaches to them. It is not intended that there should be a central registry of plans. But in seeking to obtain tax deduction the employer must register the plan in order to get the deduction.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then, Mr. Chairman, I think the word "registered" is a most inept word to use. Surely the word "registration" is one that connotes the filing of certain things in a public office, a place of deposit, where a number is attached to each document, and the time of registration is noted. In the public office, in an ordinary case, these documents are all available to view. But surely all that is done here, if the word "approved" is too strong, is to file. They are simply filed there. But surely registration implies something different from the operation that is carried out at the present time, and "registration" surely is not an expression that ought to be introduced here at all.


Walter Edward Harris: For a long time we sought to find the appropriate word. It should be borne in mind that the plan is in fact presented for consideration, independent of the tax return that may be made at a given time. That is to say, an employer seeking to set up a pension plan would be obliged to submit the details to the Department of National Revenue for consideration and ultimate approval. If I use the word "approval", I think my hon. friend will know what I mean. I refer only to approval for tax deduction purposes. To the extent that the plan comes forward for consideration before in fact there is a tax deduction, it would seem to me that "register" covers to some extent at least what we are trying to say. It is much better than "approved"; and I think we ought to continue to use the word "registered".


Donald Methuen Fleming: We use the word "file" with respect to returns and that is a satisfactory word. We never talk about registering returns of taxpayers.


Walter Edward Harris: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What happens with respect to these approved pension plans? In the first place, application is made for approval of the plan. Certain documents are submitted. We will say that a new plan comes into effect, initiated by the employer and employee, and it is filed. Then the department

Income Tax Act
each year may require the filing ot all the information that is required. Surely the actual step is closely akin to the filing of a return or other information that the department has the right to exact. This is not a case of registration at all. I think it is a most unhappy expression that is being coined now for this purpose.


Walter Edward Harris: I think my hon. friend omits one factor with regard to registration, namely the decision of the Department of National Revenue that the plan is one in connection with which tax deduction may be granted. If we use the word "file", as the hon. member indicates, it would only mean that we would have some kind of filing case in which we would put the plan and use it accordingly. The matter goes further than that. It goes to the extent of approval, if you will, for this purpose. There must be some action taken by the Department of National Revenue other than mere filing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Without trying to pursue the matter beyond proper limits, may I say this. I think what the minister has done now is to make out a case for the retention of the present expression in the act. He has not made out a case for introducing an expression like "registered pension". He has made out a case for retaining the word "approved". Where is the difficulty? Who is being misled by the present expression?


Walter Edward Harris: I do not know who is being misled, Mr. Chairman, but I know I was misled when I read the act. Anyone who reads it could readily come to the conclusion that the Department of National Revenue had approved that particular pension plan, and that that approval could extend to the terms of it, to whether it is wise or unwise or whether it is desirable or otherwise for the employee. We want to avoid having any such suggestion made.


Daniel Roland Michener: Is that not true? Is that not a fact? The department does not approve plans the terms of which are not satisfactory, does it? I think the minister is being a little bit squeamish about the effect or the use of the word "approved".


Mr. McLeod:: Just before we go on, Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of questions I should like to get cleared up in my own mind. Whose responsibility is it going to be to set a value on these benefits? That is the first question. Then in the case of the automobile that was cited as an example by the minister, is it necessary that the automobile be registered in the name of the taxpayer in order for it to be deemed to be taxable as income? if it is kept in the name
[Mr Fbiring.f
of the company I do not see how it can be taxable, unless it is transferred as private property.


Walter Edward Harris: As to the former question, the valuation would, of course, be one which ultimately, if not decided between the taxpayer and the assessor, would have to be determined by the courts, or by the assessment that may be made. But in any cases such as those mentioned by my hon. friend there would have to be some preliminary discussion between the parties concerned. I would really think in the latter case it really does not matter who is the registered owner of the motor vehicle. It depends on the facts of the case as to whether the employee receives the use of a motor car from the employer, which is of a certain value to him.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Revenue has many times claimed that he and his department insist upon following the letter of the act and that they are only a collection agency. Under the department of the Minister of Finance the terms of the act are actually determined, and it is up to the Department of National Revenue to collect in full. The minister has even gone so far as to say that in his estimation some of the provisions of the act may appear unjust, but he cannot do anything about it. He and his department must insist upon collecting every penny that they say the act calls for, if it is left to the Department of National Revenue to make up their minds.
The minister says it is not the intention to collect on the uniforms of firemen and that type of thing. However, I do not think there is going to be any alternative, once this becomes law and gets into the hands of the Department of National Revenue, to doing what the Minister of National Revenue says has to be done. They are going to contend that their hands are tied. The decision as to every last detail of any kind whatsoever, as it says here, is going to be in the hands of the tax department.
The minister has admitted that he has not had any great difficulty. There was some small doubt in a small incident, or something of that nature, but he has admitted that he has not had any case go to the appeal board in any instance. As a consequence it would be much better if the wording of the act were left as it is at the moment and the taxpayer were given the small benefit of whatever doubt there may be.


Mr. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the question of the use of motor cars by employees of certain organizations, how would that affect people who were working for the dominion government and the provincial governments, which provide

them with motor cars which they use sometimes for their own private purposes. Will the governments pay these people additional wages to look after the income tax they have to pay on the use of the cars.


Walter Edward Harris: It will depend, Mr. Chairman, on the arrangement with the employer as to whether or not the employee may use the car for his own personal purposes to any great extent.


Mr. Montgomery:: It is well known all over the country that those employees use those cars for their own purposes. Just what percentage of the time they use them is pretty hard to determine, and what the minister is doing in this section is putting into the hands of the assessor, under the Income Tax Act and under the income tax department, the right to decide. He will make an arbitrary decision, such as is being done now all around this country, especially with regard to farmers and others. These people will find that they simply cannot afford to go to court. I think it is quite a vicious section, and it should be reconsidered.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In regard to this matter of the use of motor cars, may I ask the minister what attitude the government proposes to take if this section is enacted in a case where a man is picked up at his residence and is transported to his place of business and vice versa at his employer's expense. Is that benefit to be treated as a part of his taxable income, and will some value be placed upon it by the assessor?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, the question has not arisen in that particular form that I know of. To answer the question asked earlier by an hon. member, I think there is some misunderstanding. I am not aware of any federal employees using motor cars for their own benefit. If they are I think it is contrary to the regulations.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let me put the case. The minister has not answered my point. I would think the minister would have to answer that. I was referring to the use of a motor car or to motor car privileges that are used as an example to justify the extension of the present legislation. Take the case of a senior officer of the Department of National Defence, for instance, who is picked up at his residence and transported to the offices of the department in a government car. Is that to be regarded as a benefit on which a value is to be placed by the assessor and added to that officer's income, and be subjected to taxation?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the discussion on motor cars was to cover the case where a motor car was placed at the
Income Tax Act
disposal of an employee and used by him to his own advantage. The case my hon. friend has stated is one of a company providing some kind of bus service or transportation service for that employee, which is a wholly different matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has not dealt with my example of a senior officer being transported to the offices of the Department of National Defence to carry out his daily duties there. Take again the comparable example of an executive who is picked up by a motor car owned by a corporation and driven by a chauffeur of the corporation, in which he is transported from his place of residence to his place of business and then brought back again at night. Is that to be treated as taxable income? I really cannot see much difference in the two cases. If there is a tax payable in the case of the corporation executive, I fail to distinguish the difference in the case of the senior officer who is transported in a government car from his home to the offices of the Department of National Defence.


Walter Edward Harris: I would be inclined to agree with my hon. friend that there is no distinction; but, as I say, I am not aware of any case where a company sends a car to pick up a person and brings him in and that person is charged income tax on that benefit.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, not now, but we are talking about a case that is going to exist if this section is enacted, and the minister has put his whole case for this wide extension of the meaning of income in this situation on these motor car privileges. Now, surely, the test is not to be the fact that the man has the motor car in his possession and drives it himself. Surely the test is whether there are motor car advantages or benefits made available to him as an incident or term of his employment.


Walter Edward Harris: Well, that is the very point, and the mere fact that a company would send a car to pick up an employee would not, I think, come under the case where we are thinking in terms of assessing persons for the use of a motor car as such and not just the use of the car for a trip to work or something of that kind.


George Randolph Pearkes: What would be the position of the Minister of Finance?


Walter Edward Harris: The Minister of Finance does not pay income tax on his motor car allowance.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, what the minister has just said is quite the opposite of the practice of the department, because

Income Tax Act one of the things the department has insisted upon is that an employee is not permitted to have the advantage of transportation from his place of residence to his place of employment. It is directly opposite to what the department has practised.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In all earnestness I am going to suggest to the minister, in the light of the discussion we have had tonight, that he reconsider this clause before the bill comes up again. These are very broad words, "of any kind whatsoever"; indeed, they are as broad, I think the minister will agree, as any draftsman can write. I do not think there is a member in this house tonight who can foresee the full application of these words. I earnestly urge upon the minister that before this bill comes up again he reconsider the breadth of his words and see if there is not something that admits of a much clearer definition and understanding than those words.


Walter Edward Harris: Perhaps I am at fault in some respects, but I am afraid I cannot go along
with the thought that the words are not clear and understandable.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the clause
carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; it is ten o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall take the second reading of the Telegraphs Act, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport with respect to the St. Lawrence seaway authority and then the Income Tax Act and the Public Service Superannuation Act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In that order?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, July 31, 1956