1957-04-06

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act including provision of a salary for one additional judge of the county court of Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) asked about recent press reports concerning the activities of United States naval vessels in the Canadian Arctic during the coming summer. I am not sure exactly what report he was referring to, though I understand there was one in the April 3 issue of the Montreal Gazette and another in the edition of the Financial Post dated April 6.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: No, it was one which appeared in the Christian Science Monitor.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I have not seen the one in the Christian Science Monitor, but I assume it would be along the same lines.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, it was much the same as the one which appeared in the Gazette.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: These stories were apparently based on a recent United States navy press release. When arrangements were being made for the construction of the distant early warning line Canada and the United States agreed that the United States should be responsible for the sea supply of the D.E.W. line while it was being built.
It was realized that because of the amount of material involved and the urgency of the operation, a large number of special vessels
would be required which Canada was not in a position to supply. At the time this agreement was reached, however, the United States was informed that once the line was in operation Canada might wish to assume responsibility for the annual resupply. Arrangements have already been completed for the Northern Transportation Company to resupply the western portion of the D.E.W. line beginning in the summer of 1958. Discussions are under way to determine if the Department of Transport can assume the responsibility for supplying the eastern portion of the line in connection with their other responsibilities in the Arctic.
As a result of the agreement I just mentioned the United States navy has been sending two convoys into the Canadian Arctic for the past two summers. One of these has emanated from Seattle and the other from New York or Boston. These convoys have had the task of supplying all the United States installations in the north, including those in Alaska and Greenland as well as in Canada. This may be one reason why the number of ships involved seems to be large. Actually only a portion of each convoy enters Canadian waters. The operation this summer will be similar in both size and organization to that of the past two summers.
As in other years Canada will be well represented on both convoys. During the past two summers there have been both official government representatives as well as technical observers working with the commander of each task force. H.M.C.S. Labrador has provided icebreaker support for the eastern task force and the Royal Canadian Air Force has carried out a series of ice reconnaissances. Similar arrangements will be in effect again this summer.
Canada has always been consulted when the plans for the convoys were being made each year. This year, for instance, representatives of the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force attended a series of meetings held in Seattle on February 5 to make arrangements for the sea supply of the western Arctic, and a senior Canadian naval officer attended a meeting in Washington on March 25 when the details of the eastern Arctic convoy were being worked out. Incidentally, each year the United States navy has been required to apply for a waiver of the
3186	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry provisions of the Canada Shipping Act, since the cargo ships they charter operate in Canadian coastal waters.
The suggestion that this summer's task force is being organized to discover a northwest passage rather than supply the D.E.W. line and other United States installations is, I am afraid, the fruit of a rather active imagination. During the past two summers a great deal of hydrographic work has been done jointly by Canadian and United States agencies in connection with the sea supply of the D.E.W. line, and except for the area around Boothia peninsula the task is now almost complete. Plans have been made to finish the work during the coming summer by having both Canadian and United States vessels work at the problem from opposite sides. H.M.C.S. Labrador will proceed from the Atlantic to the vicinity of Prince Regent inlet and carry out survey work there, while the United States navy icebreaker Storis and two other United States coastguard survey ships will carry out similar work on the western side of Boothia peninsula. H.M.C.S. Labrador will be surveying Bellot strait which provides a channel between the eastern and western Arctic, and if it is found that water and ice conditions are suitable the three United States navy vessels may attempt to pass through Bellot strait and accompany the Labrador south to the Atlantic.
Useful hydrographic information will undoubtedly be collected during this joint project by the United States and Canadian navies, and it will be interesting to see if larger ships can pass through Bellot strait. We already know that small ships can navigate the strait because the Royal Canadian Mounted Police vessel St. Roch completed the passage in 1942.
If larger vessels can navigate this route it will provide a useful alternative for ships carrying supplies to the area, but it will probably always remain a second choice since ice conditions in the vicinity are known to be difficult in most years. Any ship wishing to pass from the Atlantic to the Pacific or vice versa would probably follow the route farther north through Lancaster and Viscount Melville sounds, which H.M.C.S. Labrador used in 1955.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government considers these waters to be Canadian territorial waters, and, if so, whether the United States government admits that such is the case?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not know whether we can interpret the fact that they did comply with our requirement that they obtain a waiver of the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act as an admission


that these are territorial waters, but if they were not territorial waters there would be no point in asking for a waiver under the Canada Shipping Act.


Howard Charles Green: There is no doubt, then, that the Canadian government at least considers them as territorial waters?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Oh, yes, the Canadian government considers that these are Canadian territorial waters, and we make it a condition of the consent we have given to these arrangements that they apply for a waiver from the provisions that would otherwise apply in Canadian territorial waters.


REFERENCE TO HEADLINE AND ARTICLE IN TORONTO &quot;'STAR&quot;
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a question of privilege, but I will put it in the form of a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister join with me in expressing the resentment of the entire house at the screaming headlines in last night's Toronto Star? They read, "More Canadians on U.S. Probe List. Aim at Pearson. Recall Pearson also Third Canadian Official Mentioned by Woman".
The first sentence of the article, which is written by Harold Greer, reads:
Hon. Lester B. Pearson may be next on the list of persons the United States Senate internal security subcommittee can do without.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, political difference notwithstanding, I believe the Prime Minister would be expressing the views of the entire house in indicating resentment at these headlines and I would express the hope that if there is any truth in the report that such an investigation is being made he personally will protest to President Eisenhower.
Right Hon.	L.	S. St.	Laurent	(PrimeMinister): Mr.	Speaker, I am sure I	wouldbe expressing	the	views	not only	of all
hon. members of the house but also of all Canadians if I say that such smear reports, however good they may be for circulation purposes of newspapers, are very undesirable.


INDO-CHINA  REPORTED HUMILIATION OF CANA- DIAN PERSONNEL BY COMMUNISTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon.	L.	S. St.	Laurent	(Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet and in order to forestall possibly any questions that may be raised about it, I should like to refer to a statement in a radio

news report this morning that the last bulletin of the external affairs department contained information that Canadian personnel in Indo-China were being humiliated by the communists. That is no doubt based upon a paragraph which reproduces in the March bulletin an article published in the International Journal, and must necessarily refer to events that took place when not only Canadian personnel but other international personnel comprising Indian and Polish troops arrived in Indo-China.
There were incidents at that time which were protested against by, I think, the governments of the three nations that had troops there. During the last year there has been no report of anything that would require any protest on our part respecting the attitude of any person or body of persons in the region toward these United Nations forces.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace suggested that the new terminal facilities at Dorval airport were substantially behind schedule owing to delays by subcontractors, and inquired what action was being taken in this regard.
There have in fact been no material delays on the part of subcontractors of which I have been aware, although due to the general shortage of steel the steel erection has taken longer than my officials expected. We have now reached the stage where the pouring of the concrete slab and concrete beam coverings will commence in the very near future. In the meantime the prime contractor for curtain wall construction has been proceeding with the fabrication of the curtain wall sections so these may be erected as soon as the concrete work referred to has been completed.


Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: May I ask a supplementary question. Could the Minister of Transport tell us what was the first announced date of completion of the building, and the completion date now expected?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, so far as dates which have been announced in connection with the terminal I would say that they were merely dates by which the officials had originally expected that the work would be finished. However, they are no more gifted
Inquiries of the Ministry than anybody else when it comes to determining the course of future events, and it has not been possible to carry out the work as quickly as was thought at first.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has approval been given to the design for the special commemorative silver dollar for the British Columbia centennial celebrations next year? I ask the question because I have received information that there is some hitch in actually authorizing the striking of the coin.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not know that there is any hitch. We were informed within the last few days that arrangements were being completed for the striking of the commemorative dollar, and no suggestion of any hitch has come to my attention. I sincerely trust that there will be none and that the dollar will be available for circulation in due time.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare may I draw to the attention of his parliamentary assistant the fact that the organization in charge of civil defence in a certain western community has issued a circular with the following engraved in large letters on the back: "C. D. Needs You Now".


Mr. Herridge:: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the parliamentary assistant wishes to reply.


Mr. F. G. Robertson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be very glad to take notice of that, but I think after next June you will find that we are all with C. D.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do you want to say where you will be?

3X88
Inquiries of the Ministry POWER



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received any official response from the premier of British Columbia with respect to the government's offer to co-operate with that government in the matter of public power development on the Columbia?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there has not been any communication since the possibility was expressed of the government being interested in the development of power on the Columbia after negotiations with the United States government have been completed.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask why it is necessary to wait until the negotiations are completed before any attempt is made to reach agreement with the province of British Columbia?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not
know that it is necessary, but those negotiations aim at retaining for Canada as much as possible of all the benefits, either upstream or downstream, which might result from regulating the flow of the Columbia river. I think they would very probably affect the kind of physical works that would be erected for the purpose of making that control of the flow as effective as possible.


Howard Charles Green: Does that not mean that it may be many months or even years before anything can be done about the Columbia river? Our understanding was that they could proceed very shortly to build the Mica dam.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Of course, I would imagine that if the government of British Columbia wished to proceed with the building of the Mica dam they would communicate with us, have the plans prepared and have them dealt with as expeditiously as they might find it in their interest to do so in conformity with the provisions of the legislation that is applicable. It may very well be that it will be considered by the government of British Columbia that the dam should be a provincial work and not a work erected by the federal government.


Howard Charles Green: Does that statement mean that there need not necessarily be delay until negotiations with the United States are completed, and that this co-operative arrangement could be started at once?
[Mr. Knowles.)


Mr.   Si. Laureni@Quebec East: It means that we will give consideration to any proposal the British Columbia government may feel it should make at any time.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I wonder whether he has had a chance to read the story in this morning's Globe and Mail with regard to the nuclear blast set off by the Russians and also the Reuters dispatch in last night's Journal which reports the leading British medical journal, namely the Lancet, as having stated that the radioactive accumulation from H-bomb explosions may be near the danger point? Would the minister consider making representations to the British asking them to review their decision to have H-bomb experiments in the south Pacific until this matter is further considered?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will he make representations to the Russians at the same time?


Mr. Brooks:: Or to the United States.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, may I answer that
question. The whole matter was thoroughly gone into at the recent meeting between representatives of the government of the United Kingdom and representatives of the Canadian government. The results of those discussions were announced in the communique that was issued and similar results had been announced in the communique issued after the discussions between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY REPORTED INCREASE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION- INCREASE IN PROPOSED TOLLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, since he seems to be more inclined to answer today. Will the minister comment on the report out of Cleveland that the additional capital outlays for construction of the St. Lawrence seaway may necessitate an increase in proposed tolls which will price the seaway out of the transportation market?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is obviously a matter of opinion. It is a little too early for us to assess at the moment the effect of the increase in costs that has taken place since the project was started in relation to the probable volume of traffic that will be making use of the seaway when it is opened in 1959. I think it would be useless for me to comment now on what are purely speculative reports.


John Borden Hamilton: May I ask a
supplementary question. Has the minister considered at all the effect on the tolls of the increased capital outlays, which apparently will be required for the construction of the actual seaway?


George Carlyle Marler: I should not like to give the house the impression that this was a matter that had come before me as Minister of Transport. I know the matter has been very seriously considered by officers of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, but I have not been a party to the discussions and I do not think it would be wise for me to communicate to the house my own rather fragmentary impressions of the matter.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I
ask a question supplementary to the one asked by my colleague the hon. member for York West. While appreciating what the minister has said, that the facts and figures are at the present time somewhat speculative, surely this house is tremendously interested in knowing whether there is a substantial change already indicated. I would hope the minister would be able to give us some answer, and not leave us completely in a void.


George Carlyle Marler: If the estimates of the St. Lawrence seaway authority were before the house I would hope I would be in a position to give hon. members all the information they desired regarding the affairs of the authority, but I would scarcely expect to discuss a matter of such importance on the orders of the day.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Without wishing to persuade the Minister of Transport to alter the brush-off he gave me, I suggest to him it would be of great interest to this house if within the next week he could make some statement on the important question of the additional seaway costs.


George Carlyle Marler: I shall take note of the hon. gentleman's observation, but I am not sure I shall be in a position to satisfy his desire for information.
Inquiries of the Ministry INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR



INQUIRY AS TO CATERING FOR CANADIAN EXHIBIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William McLean Hamilton: Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce inform the house whether or not government funds are being used either directly or indirectly for the travels of the Belgian caterer who has been retained to operate the Canadian restaurants at the Belgian international fair, and who is now in Canada in search of information already well known to dozens of Canadian restaurant operators?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have not been following the matter closely, but I shall make inquiries and let my hon. friend know. It is my understanding, however, that a contract has been entered into with the Belgian firm to cater for the period of the fair and that the caterer is travelling at his own expense. However, I shall look into the matter.



REPORTED CANDIDACY OF HON. LIONEL CHEVRIER IN NEXT ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Borden Hamilton: Since we have been talking about the St. Lawrence seaway I wonder if I might direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the report true which was contained in last night's Montreal Star to the effect that Hon. Lionel Chevrier has been named Liberal candidate in the Laurier constituency? If so, does the Prime Minister regard it as proper that the chairman of a crown corporation should also be a candidate in this election?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have no information whatever that Hon. Lionel Chevrier has been named a candidate in any constituency. I would not be at all surprised if there were many constituencies that would be very happy to have him as their candidate, but I have no information that any offer has been made to him by any constituency.



INQUIRY AS TO DATES OF PROROGATION AND FORTHCOMING ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Now that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare has mentioned the month of June, can the Prime Minister tell us when it is expected this session will be prorogued and when the election will take place?

Supply-Post Office


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope it will be possible to arrange for prorogation at the end of next week and to have dissolution follow immediately, so the usual period required between the notice of dissolution and voting day can be arranged in a manner that will comply with the statutory requirements.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the middle of June?


Howard Charles Green: Could the Prime Minister not tell us the date?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There are only two possible dates. One would be June 10, the other would be June 17.


Howard Charles Green: Which is it to be?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope it will be June 10, but that will not be possible unless we can arrange for prorogation at the end of next week.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
335. Transportation-movement of mail by land, air and water, including administration, and to authorize and provide for the adjustment, as of October 1, 1956, of rural mail delivery contracts in effect on that date or entered into by way of renewal after that date, under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 33 of the Post Office Act, notwithstanding paragraphs (b) and (c) thereof, $51,940,991.
Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few words I would like to say at this time concerning this item, and they have to do with the mail carrier service in the rural areas in the interior of British Columbia. In view of the fact that there was a substantial surplus in the Post Office Department last year I feel there should be a review of the situation that arises in many rural post offices where mail has to be carried from the post office to the railway trains or other distributing points.
I mentioned this to the minister a year or so ago when he was first given the portfolio, and I think he is quite aware of the necessity for doing something to alleviate the situation that exists in some of these rural areas. I do not think it is reasonable that the post office department should show a large surplus every year. A little experimentation along the lines of giving slightly improved service in these rural areas would be well worth while even if the Post Office Department showed a deficit for a year.
The most recent case I have in mind is one which I think is under investigation by

the Post Office Department at this time. I am referring to the situation that obtains at Dunster, in my own riding, and there are others which arise from time to time.
I would hope the Post Office Department would consider doing a little more in the way of increasing the remuneration paid to the people who carry mail, particularly taking into consideration the prevailing wage scale in the area where the work is performed. This is a factor which I fully realize is difficult to overcome in many instances where you have a high wage scale prevailing in one part of the country and a low wage scale prevailing in another. Under these circumstances it is difficult to have a uniform policy that is going to apply across Canada. However, I think a closer look should be given to the matter to see if the service can be improved somewhat at the rural points.


Mr. Lapointe:: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my hon. friend's remarks, and I have had conversations with him previously about the particular situation he has mentioned. We are trying to expand these services. We realize that in these distant areas where travelling may be difficult people are just as anxious to receive their mail as elsewhere, and we plan to expand these services further.
As regards the wages paid to the couriers, I might say that these services are performed under contract, as my hon. friend realizes, so the price paid the courier is the price at which he has tendered. However, in estimating what we consider to be a fair price for a contract we take into consideration the differential in wages in various parts of the country basing our calculations on the figures provided to us periodically by the Department of Labour.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, I would like once again to draw to the attention of the authorities the question of new post office facilities at Saskatoon. I use the word "authorities" because the Postmaster General will hasten to assure me it is now the business of the Minister of Public Works. Plans for new post office facilities at Saskatoon have already been authorized. I suppose "authorized" is to be preferred to the word "okayed" which was on the tip of my tongue; it is amazing how slang creeps into our language. Anyway, "okayed" is what I mean.
I have a press dispatch which appeared in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of April 2, which reached me only today. The headline reads, "Postal Business Tops $1,000,000 for First Time", and this of course refers to the city of

Saskatoon. I shall not take the time of the committee to read the entire article, but it says in part:
Postmaster L. H. Duggleby was beaming today as he checked financial records that showed the Saskatoon post office did more than $1,000,000 in business for the fiscal year that ended March 31.
I need not question the minister concerning the new post office, because he has already given me assurances that plans have been approved for the new post office and the site has been purchased, but I think it would be just as well to check on these matters once more. Therefore I might say we are simply waiting for the Minister of Public Works as the head of that department to give the word, as it were.
I have two matters to draw to the attention of the Postmaster General, one of which is that the post office in Saskatoon is now responsible for the mail delivery, at some distance from the centre of the city, to the residents of the town of Sutherland, which was amalgamated last year with the city of Saskatoon. The mail is now delivered from the central office in Saskatoon rather than from the little local post office at Sutherland where the people used to call for their mail. May I say that is a great advantage to the people of Sutherland. They appreciate the action of the post office in this regard, and though I might point out that we thought it was a trifle slow in coming nevertheless the conditions were fulfilled.
However, the point is that the central office has the extra business to handle. If one were to read the statement from the postmaster at Saskatoon to which I have referred one would see that business in every sphere has increased. I am merely seeking to point out that with the growth of our city the need for the new post office facilities is becoming greater and greater. We already have the assurance of the Postmaster General that new facilities will be provided any time as far as he is concerned.
Another matter with which I wish to deal concerns the extra delivery men for Sutherland. There was another statement made by the Saskatoon postmaster which I quoted a month or two ago when I spoke on this question. The local postmaster stated that he did not want to undergo another Christmas rush like the one last year unless he had these added facilities.
One must know that if it involves a new building, these facilities cannot be provided before the next Christmas rush, but they could be provided and ready for the one which would come after that. Owing to the great increase in population-the population is now some 72,000 and is going up-it seems
Supply-Post Office
to me that these facilities should be provided and the post office officials and workers should not be asked to handle that immense amount of business with the facilities with which they are now provided.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could make some further statement as to what progress is being made as the result of recommendations to the department with regard to a general increase in the remuneration to rural mail couriers. This is something in which many members are especially interested, particularly those who come from rural ridings, because we are all aware that the rural mail couriers work under most difficult conditions in some cases. They perform a vitally important service, and quite often put up with conditions which do not exist as far as many public servants are concerned. They are men who certainly receive and deserve the appreciation of the people they serve and I wonder if the minister could say what formula, if any, has been arrived at in order to increase the remuneration of the rural couriers generally.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I did announce some time ago in the house that on my instructions a survey had been made last fall and that every case was being looked into. My hon. friend may have seen in the estimates that there is provision for such an increase. Each case has been analysed very carefully, and there are now between 200 and 300 to be processed out of a total of over 5,000 cases throughout the country. This is being done at the present time; the adjustments have been determined, and these rural mail couriers will be advised before the end of this month of the adjustment that has been made in their contracts.


John Angus MacLean: Thank you very much. In that connection I take it that each case is being judged on its merits and that there is no formula.


Hugues Lapointe: Each case has been looked into individually. This procedure has to be followed because in some cases the courier had made an application within a month or two before the decision was made. As he could make this application under the law if he could meet the terms of the section of the act, the application had been processed and he had already received that increase. Naturally, therefore, in those circumstances his case had been settled and he would not receive as much as the others whose cases had not been considered for some years. That made it necessary for each case to be looked into individually.

Supply-Post Office


Mr. Montgomery:: Could the minister give some indication as to what percentage of the contracts are being increased; just a rough idea?


Hugues Lapointe: About 80 per cent of them will be increased.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Did I understand the minister to say there would be a retroactive adjustment on the payment, or does it date from some particular date?


Hugues Lapointe: The item in the estimates provided that the increase will be retroactive to October 1, 1956.


Gage Workman Montgomery: May I ask the minister whether this is a change in policy on the part of the department?


Hugues Lapointe: It is a change in policy in this manner, Mr. Chairman. Under the postal act, increases in contracts for rural mail delivery can be dealt with under certain circumstances, one of them being that the contract has to have been in effect for two years, and there must have been a lapse of at least two years before an application can be considered for a new increase in the price of a contract.
The situation which arose was that in a case where, for instance, the contractor had received an increase in his contract say four years ago, after his contract had been running two years. He had made an application which had been examined, and his contract had been increased. When the contract was renewed this constituted a new contract, and he could not ask for a further increase until two years had run on the new contract, so he was still operating on the price determined four years previously and the act, as it exists now, would not permit him to make an application or permit the department to give him an increase on that contract.
By providing an estimate as we have done this year it does, however, give the department the authority to look into every one of these contracts and, regardless of the length of time the contract has been in effect or the time which has elapsed since the last increase, to make an adjustment if it is deemed necessary.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask a question of the minister; perhaps this occurs when the old contract is up, say, and new contracts are called for. Supposing the successful contractor's tender is lower than what is paid to the old contractor. Is there a readjustment made after that, or just what is the situation?


Hugues Lapointe: If it was before October 1, yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Of last year?


Hugues Lapointe: The item in the estimates mentions October 1, and if it was before October 1, 1956, there would be a readjustment; there have been quite a few cases like that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: But supposing it was not before October 1, what is the result? Say it was up next year?


Hugues Lapointe: He would have to wait two years under the act.


Gage Workman Montgomery: The policy in the past seemed to have been a very fair one; what is bothering me now is the answer given by the minister to the hon. member for Royal a few minutes ago.
In the past, if I have understood the policy correctly, you have tried to use the rural mail couriers and treat them alike in so far as mileage and so on were concerned. I say this because I have letters on file over the last two years in which they point out that a certain man may have asked for an increase. Another man say 20 miles, 30 miles or 40 miles away under similar conditions was only getting so much, therefore this was fair for this particular rural mail courier.
Now, as I understand it, the policy of the department is that they will pay a rural mail courier on the standard of wages he might earn if he were working in that community in some other industry. I do not think that is quite the same as treating them on the grounds on which they have been treated in the past, because a man could very well earn $2,500 a year in one community and 50 miles away he could not earn that amount of money. Therefore if you are going to base it on the Department of Labour figures I think you are going to have an irregular level of contract prices, and in that case it will not be as satisfactory as it has been in the past.
I must say that in the last few years it seems to me the department has been using very good judgment in increasing these rates for rural mail couriers. That is a fair way of handling it. As I pointed out a year ago, certain other practices which are creeping into this department are not to my liking. This is another thing of the same kind.
I suppose it is early to talk about it; we shall have to wait for a year and see, but I am afraid I shall find that some mail carriers in my constituency will receive the increase while others, using the same equipment, travelling the same distances and working the same hours, will not receive it. I want to see all rural mail carriers treated in the same way, and I think their remuneration should be based on the mileage and service given, as was done in the past, if I understand the position correctly, and not on local wages or employment conditions.


Hugues Lapointe: I can assure the hon. member that his fears are not justified. We are applying the same principle in this connection, but we are being more generous in view of the increased cost of operation and the increase in wages generally. This policy was followed because it was so specified in the act, and the section of the act referring to this increase said the increased amounts were not to exceed the amounts paid generally for comparable services in the same area.
This is the policy we have followed in making these readjustments, and we take into consideration the hourly wage for similar work in the area, the distance to be covered and the number of boxes to be served. Of course the distance covered and the number of boxes would bring in the time element; the greater the distance covered and the more boxes, the longer it will take for the route to be completed. That, together with the hourly wage, will give us an idea as to what the general average adjustment should be, and that is the principle we have followed all along. I can assure the hon. member that what he fears will not take place. I am quite certain of that.


Gage Workman Montgomery: May I ask this further question. I recall that in former times these contracts were usually renewed by tender. Tenders were called for when a contract was to be given out. Is there not a tendency nowadays not to call for tenders but simply to renew the existing contract?


Hugues Lapointe: No, there has been no change in that respect. This is being done purely to adjust the prices of contracts now in effect. It makes no change in the rest of the policy.


Mr. Hodgson:: As the minister knows, I have a little empire right in the centre of the province of Ontario. Generally speaking routes are comparable, though there be one or two exceptions. I think the combination of mileage and boxes is a fair way of estimating the cost of distribution or the price that should be paid.
A year or more ago I do not know exactly what happened, but one contractor lost his contract to another who had probably underbid him by a few cents. Since that time, it is true, a few contractors have applied for and obtained small increases, but most of the couriers in my area are veterans or people rising in years or incapacitated in one way or another, and they are very nervous about applying for increases. Even though they feel their remuneration should be increased, they are very hesitant about making application in case they should lose their jobs. I understand that all the contracts will now be examined and put on a fair and equitable basis.
Supply-Post Office


Hugues Lapointe: None of them need apply.


William McLean Hamilton: I
have a couple of questions to ask, but perhaps I should say first of all that I read with a good deal of pleasure the announcement of the appointment of the assistant deputy minister of this department. He has been with the department a long time and has rendered fine service. The approaching retirement, also announced, of the present deputy minister has indicated the need for a replacement, and certainly we saw with considerable pleasure that Mr. Boyle would be one of the people to be considered. For years he has rendered outstanding service to the people of Canada in this department.
To proceed with other matters, would the minister care to comment on whether we are able to continue an all-up air mail service in Canada, and whether he anticipates doing so despite the change to a new type of aircraft which is being made by Trans-Canada Air Lines, in putting into service a plane which has considerably less mail carrying capacity than the former type?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, I am told that this matter has been considered and that we will be able to continue that service. There were some difficulties at the beginning in connection with schedules, but now all these difficulties have been adjusted in a manner which permits us to continue the service. I am informed that as T.C.A. continues to develop this service the mail carrying capacity will be increased.


William McLean Hamilton: Actually it is not a question of the capacity of the existing aircraft. New aircraft are coming into operation which will help deal with this situation within two or three years, but I am glad to learn that at the present time this seems to be under control.
On another question, I know the department has a policy that all mail weighing up to eight ounces shall be carried by air where its delivery may be speeded by so doing. Does that policy apply to all mail-and I emphasize that word "all"-or only to mail within certain dimensions?


Hugues Lapointe: First-class mail up to eight ounces.


John Borden Hamilton: The
reason I ask is that on certain occasions-and I have checked this-small letters in regular No. 8 or No. 10 envelopes seem to have covered the route say from Ottawa to Montreal substantially faster than mail in large size envelopes, perhaps 11 inches by 14 inches, mailed at the same time. I have made enough checks on this to make it worth while asking again for confirmation whether

Supply-Post Office
mail weighing less than eight ounces but contained in large envelopes is still carried by air.


Hugues Lapointe: I am informed that the size of the envelope has nothing to do with it; it is purely a question of class and weight.


William McLean Hamilton: Would the minister tell us what was the increased cost when we put into operation this all-up service a couple of years ago? This was information which he agreed to give last year during the sittings of the special committee on estimates as reported at page 697, when his cost ascertainment division got into operation.


Hugues Lapointe: Does the hon. member mean the increase in cost for air services?


William McLean Hamilton: Perhaps it would be helpful if I read an extract from the proceedings of last year. It is reasonably brief. We were discussing at the time the all-up mail service. One member of the committee, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, was questioning whether it was necessary to have an all-up mail service.


Hugues Lapointe: I remember that.


William McLean Hamilton: At
that time the following discussion took place:


Mr. Regier:: ... I wondered how many millions of dollars we might estimate it has cost us. Mr. McLeod asked whether the one cent increase was enough to offset that additional cost. I think it is rather a vital point, whether, it may be, we could consider returning to the 4 cent rate, and have an airmail rate as well, although I am not advocating it.


Hon. Mr. Lapointe:: I see your point: but you will recall that at one of the previous meetings it was stated that we were proceeding at the present time to do some cost ascertainment and that we expected a report on that would be ready by September. I think that the figures would be available at that time and we would probably be able to give them to you, but at the present time we have not got them.


Erhart Regier: You mean a year from now, when the estimates are down, you could?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: Yes, definitely.
I am just asking the minister to fulfil his commitment.


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry, but I am told that we cannot separate the cost of the first-class matter under eight ounces that goes by air from the cost of what goes by train. Our cost ascertainment figures do not show this information. We pay Trans-Canada Air Lines a flat amount for so many ton miles of mail carried, but we cannot break it down to the individual cost of letters.


William McLean Hamilton: will not pursue that matter.


Hugues Lapointe: I regret that I do not have that information.
[Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace) .1


William McLean Hamilton: However, it does make it rather difficult for some of us when we try to investigate the operations of the Post Office Department. We ask questions, are told by the minister that they will be answered next year, spend considerable time following up these matters and keeping track of them so we can get the answers next year, and then the minister rises and says he is sorry but he does not have the information. I think it would be helpful if the minister would follow the minutes of proceedings and evidence of last year's committee and see what commitments he made.
The department has been doing some experimenting with the operation of its own trucking systems within metropolitan areas rather than letting contracts, as was done previously. What has been the experience of the department in that connection? Can we be given comparative cost figures for centres such as Windsor and Ottawa, where I believe the system has been in operation for some little time?


Hugues Lapointe: I am informed that it is only in Windsor that the department has been experimenting with the use of its own trucks. Parcel post delivery was being done in Ottawa by our own trucks and that was given up. As far as Windsor is concerned, we are still experimenting because the conditions under which we operate are changing and it is difficult for us to give a definite answer with respect to whether it would be to the advantage of the department. Such factors as the maintenance of trucks, salaries, accommodation in which to put the trucks, garage services and so on, vary from place to place. That has happened in Windsor, and it is very difficult for us to arrive at a definite answer.
Personally I have not yet been convinced that it would be an economical method of operation, and I do not envisage the Post Office Department operating a truck service and becoming a transport company throughout Canada, because my limited experience of trucking indicates that it is a very complex business and has to be operated with great efficiency in order to be profitable.


William McLean Hamilton: Since certain experimentation has been carried on in Windsor I think it would be interesting for the committee to have figures covering what the cost was under the contract system in the last year in which service was provided in that way and the cost in the first year in which the department operated its own trucks.


Hugues Lapointe: 
William McLean Hamilton: Does the department have the figures?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes. I will be glad to
provide them to my hon. friend.


William McLean Hamilton: should like the minister to confirm what I am about to say. At this point we have no statistical or factual information whatsoever that the minister can give us other than his own opinion about the matter. The minister is not in a position to give the committee any further information on this matter so the committee may inform itself. Is that correct?


Hugues Lapointe: Our studies are not completed to the point where definite statistical information can be provided about which we would be sure.


John Borden Hamilton: Is Windsor the only place at which this experiment is being carried on at the present time?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: To come back to the mail carriers again, I know it is a big job and cannot be done in a day, but how soon does the minister think the department will have the mail routes compiled in such a way as to be able to give the increases?


Hugues Lapointe: It will be completed by the end of the month, the end of April.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: How soon will the increases be given?


Hugues Lapointe: About the 18th, I think.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: How about the letter carriers in the towns?


Hugues Lapointe: They are classified civil
servants. They are not contractors for the department.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: When will their increases come through?


Hugues Lapointe: They had an increase at the time of the last general raise, and their increase was higher in percentage than that of any other employees of the department.


William McLean Hamilton: Does the minister anticipate any substantial variation in the estimates now before us as the result of information which may have been made available to him between the time the estimates were drawn up and the present? I refer particularly to the fact that the supplementary estimates brought in a little while ago had to do in part, in fact almost completely, with 1956-57.


Hugues Lapointe: There is nothing beyond the supplementaries. Our estimate is the
Supply-Post Office
same figure that has been given plus the supplementaries. So far as these estimates are concerned, they are based on the experience of the last few years and the expected increase in the volume of business which has been continuing. That is the basis of our present estimates, and we do not expect any great differential between the estimates and what the actual figure will be at the end of the fiscal year. Of course if something happened such as an increase in salaries on a percentage basis our estimates would be away out.


William McLean Hamilton: Does that apply to the 1957-58 estimates as well? What we now have in front of us in the light of the existing information can be expected to be the figure?


Hugues Lapointe: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
336. Financial services, including audit of revenue, money order and savings bank business:	and
postage stamps, $2,653,265.
William McLean Hamilton: Can
the minister inform the house how many stamp vending machines are now in operation across the country?


Hugues Lapointe: As to those that are under the control of the department the figure is the same as it was last year, namely 500. We have not ordered more or installed more because we wanted a long enough period of time in which to judge the efficiency of these machines. They were installed over the last two years, I believe. There is always a question of possible mechanical breakdown. We therefore waited for a period of time before ordering any new machines of that type in order to make sure they would be properly working machines. The experience has been quite satisfactory, though there is the occasional breakdown in the individual machine. However, the experience has been fairly satisfactory and we propose eventually to extend the service.


William McLean Hamilton: Can
the minister give us something a little more definite than that weasel word "eventually"?


Hugues Lapointe: As they are required and requested we will issue them. As the situation is now, we have not issued the complete stock we have on hand.


William McLean Hamilton: should like to take just a moment on that point. I do not believe there is anything which brings greater convenience to a large section of the Canadian public than the installation of these stamp vending machines. Many people are not always in a position to be in possession of the postage stamps

Supply-Post Office
they need. Many people also must mail urgent letters after post offices are closed, as well as other places where stamps are sold. For some time the department attempted to meet this need by co-operating with a private corporation which installed some vending machines in a very limited way and at what seemed to be, and I believe was, a tremendous profit to this particular corporation.
The department now has a machine which seems to be satisfactory. I suggest to the minister that there are in this country many more localities than 500 where these machines can be immediately and satisfactorily installed. Now that the minister knows the machines are satisfactory from an operating point of view I think it is most regrettable that he should continue to delay the further installation of these machines. It is the sort of thing the minister could very well overlook unless his attention is drawn to it and he is urged to do it. Not too many people are going to write him and say that they could not buy a 5-cent stamp at a particular point. However, I want him to know that these machines are performing a valuable function and that in my opinion their use should be extended very considerably.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I believe this is the last item, Mr. Chairman. I have had some correspondence with the Postmaster General for several years in connection with the people of Creighton, Saskatchewan, who are obliged to go over to the neighbouring province of Manitoba in order to buy their postage stamps. I might mention that this is the largest village in Canada. I wonder whether the Postmaster General could say anything about the possibility of these people buying their postage stamps in their own province. Since we started discussing this matter with the minister the population has gone up by about 300 per cent. That is in the last three or four years.


Hugues Lapointe: I am afraid my hon. friend is referring to the establishment of a post office. He would be out of order in speaking about that matter on this item, and I think he knows it. But in order to satisfy him may I say this. If he goes down to his letter box I think he will find that he has received a letter from me this morning giving him the information he desires.


William McLean Hamilton: Will the Postmaster General comment on any changes which have occurred in the operation of the post office savings bank in the past year, whether its operations are extending or contracting and, most particularly, whether the department is continuing to

carry on the rather senseless practice, in my estimation at least, of operating post office savings banks in localities which are adequately served by private banks and where the operation of the post office savings bank is largely a matter of competing with the private commercial banks.


Hugues Lapointe: There have been no changes as regards policy except that the rate of interest on deposits was raised from 2 per cent to 2J per cent in November, 1956. As regards the use of this savings bank service provided by the post office, I think I expressed my views fairly clearly last year on the matter. I believe it is a good service. I believe it serves a certain class of the population. I think it is something to be encouraged. My own personal views are that this service should be continued.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to go on record as opposing the proposal made by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace. I might point out that this service is superior to the service that is being offered by the chartered banks. Any person in Canada who has the good fortune to have an account with the post office savings bank can get money at any place in Canada without paying exchange and without requiring any identification. I think most Canadians would object strenuously if the use of the post office savings banks should be limited only to places where there are no chartered banks. I see no reason why those who have post office saving bank accounts should not have the same facilities in a city like Ottawa or a city like Montreal as are available in these small communities where there are no chartered banks. I hope the minister will never yield to the suggestion that the post office savings banks be closed in all places except those that are too small to warrant a bank.


William McLean Hamilton: I can
appreciate the socialist viewpoint which has been expressed by the hon. member who has taken his seat and which seems to be concurred in by the government in its existing policy, as in so many other things.


Hugues Lapointe: We are not ashamed of it, either.


William McLean Hamilton: No;
that is one of the regrettable things. The government has reached a point where it is not ashamed of being socialist in mind.


Hugues Lapointe: Branding a policy by name has never been an argument against it.


William McLean Hamilton: Unfortunately, because of the limitations on the debate, we cannot enter into a discussion about many of the particular socialist problems.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would the Tories close these post office savings banks if they were to form a government?


William McLean Hamilton: I was
just coming to that. My remarks were made in the light of a report the post office issued about three years ago, which drew attention to the fact that the operation of this bank was costing the taxpayers close to $400,000, about $377,000 each year. The minister took issue with that last year, I must say in fairness to him, but we must also remember that these were highly qualified management consultants who made this report. They made the unequivocal statement that it was costing the taxpayers $377,000 a year.
The point I made before referred specifically to the operation of the post office savings bank in competition with the private banking system of the country. There was a point, Mr. Chairman, at which the post office savings bank might have been open a little longer and thus offer some additional facilities to the taxpayers. But even that has now gone by the board, since the majority of the private banks in residential areas are open in the evenings for the convenience of their customers. It would seem to me that the continued operation of these banks, which originally served a very definite purpose when our banking system in this country was not as extensive as it is today, is an unnecessary form of competition and an unnecessary duplication of service. In most cases it serves little useful purpose, but does cost the taxpayers a substantial amount of money.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member did not answer my question. Will the Tories abolish the post office savings bank if they ever form a government?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Wait until election time to fight the campaign. If you want to get into an election fight come into my riding; I should like to take one of you over the boards.


William McLean Hamilton: I am
not in a position to enunciate policy, which should properly come from the party leader and which will come in due course. But as a private individual I may say I am completely opposed to the intrusion of government on a competitive basis into operations which can be very effectively carried on by private business.
Canadian National Railways
Would the minister, Mr. Chairman, comment on whether further studies and exploratory work are to be done in connection with the offset printing of postage stamps, and how extensive this will likely become in Canada? For his information, may I say I refer to offset printing of stamps as opposed to engraving.


Hugues Lapointe: We have been making studies, and we are not satisfied yet that we would get as satisfactory results by offset printing as those offered to us by engraving. However, the study is continuing. I think my hon. friend will recall that the other day we had a discussion about the beauty of the stamps issued by the department, and I did mention that in my opinion both processes, the engraving and offset process, could be used and eventually probably would be used by the department.


William McLean Hamilton: Would the minister explain the rather substantial increase in the estimate for the manufacture of postage stamps and stamp postage supplies?


Hugues Lapointe: I am told it is simply the result of an increased volume of mail and in the issues of new stamps during the year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
635. Transportation-movement of mail by land, air and water, including administration-further amount required, $1,250,000.
William McLean Hamilton: Could the minister let us know whether work is now under way here on the electronic mail sorting machine?


The Deputy Chairman:: I do not propose to refuse the minister the right of reply, but this is purely a transportation item. The question having been asked, if the minister wishes to reply perhaps the house would like to hear it.


Hugues Lapointe: I believe this item is a
transportation item, is it not, Mr. Chairman? The matter to which my hon. friend refers comes under operations. However, in order to satisfy him I shall tell him the machine is being installed at the present time in the Ottawa post office.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


George Carlyle Marler: the second reading of Bill No. 411, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the

Canadian National Railways Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1957, and to authorize the guarantee of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: This bill in every respect, in so far as its text is concerned, follows the usual annual bill which comes before the house for the financing of the Canadian National Railways and its subsidiary companies. The budget itself came up for review before the sessional committee on railways and shipping, and the budget papers are contained in the records of that committee commencing at page 185.
I should like to inform the house that I must correct two figures that were given in the statement I made yesterday at the resolution stage. I refer to paragraph 3 of my remarks, which are contained on page 3167 of Hansard. I referred to the bill as containing three specific parts, and the figure for the second part was given as $91,500,000 when it should read $92 million. Then the figure for the third part was given as $80 million. It should read $91.5 million.
If hon. members have before them a copy of the report of the sessional committee on railways and shipping they will find that there is a typographical error on page 186. The reference to the $92 million to which I have just referred is in the printed text completely omitted. The words read, "January 1, 1958 to June 30, 1958, interim financing authority required with respect to capital projects authorized in 1957 and prior years," and following that where the words, "gross capital expenditures" appear, the figure $92 million should appear opposite on this page but does not.
Hon. members will notice that there follow the words, "Funds available from depreciation accruals, $42 million" and that sum subtracted from the missing figure of $92 million would of course then balance with the figure of $50 million that does appear as the net amount.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: On what page is that?


William Moore Benidickson: About the centre of page 186, in the right hand column. The figure $92 million should be inserted. It was omitted by the printers. This figure did appear in the mimeographed budget papers that were presented to each member of the committee.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, it is always somewhat difficult to follow the resolution stage of a bill just 24 hours later with second reading and expect that much can be said without some repetition. I shall do my best today, sir, not to

repeat anything I have said, but perhaps I may enlarge upon some of the comments I made yesterday.
First of all let me say that as this bill comes before the house it has its greatest impact, I think, in bringing home to us each year the tremendous sums which are required to carry out the operations of the railway company. I believe we are impressed each year as well by the fact that since the Canadian National Railway company is a crown corporation and subject to the whims, fancies and requirements of geography, politicians and considerations of that kind, it probably works under a much greater handicap in the transportation field than does its private competitor.
I think as well we must note each year that the railway company does have a more difficult job from the financing standpoint. It must come before the house each year and lay everything before it, because by the terms of reference under which it operates if there is any surplus at all in a year it is returned to the people in the form of dividends on the equity stock which the government holds, whereas the private railway company is in a position to add a little more readily to its reserves in addition to the usual amount of depreciation which can be obtained each year.
I am speaking from memory, sir, but my recollection is that the Canadian Pacific Railway as the result of last year's operation was able to retain several million dollars-I think as much as $20 million-from accrued earnings and transfer it to its reserves. This is something that is not available to the Canadian National Railways, even if that much money turned up as profit each year.
The requirement for large amounts of money for the operations of the Canadian National Railways will continue, and certainly it will continue on an ever-increasing scale in connection with the railway's financing of Trans-Canada Air Lines operations, because of course that company is just approaching a stage where large financial outlays will be required to cover the changeover from the piston engine phase of operation through the phase of the jet-propeller type of operation to straight jet operation. Tremendous amounts of money will be required for that purpose.
This is of special interest to us, because we must remember that this is money which the government of Canada ordinarily borrows in the bond market and on which it pays something like 3J per cent or 4 per cent interest. In relation to the bonds which the Canadian National holds, obviously those are fixed and in connection with the railway's financial

statement the amount is paid back to the company. However, in connection with the equity stock it holds, I think we will find that while this year has been exceptionally better than previous years, still the return on the government's money is something like li per cent or 2 per cent. Therefore even with fairly good years of operation we find it is necessary to fall slightly behind in the return which is received from the equity interest of the government as against the amount which must be paid when we go into the market to borrow funds to pay out for this preferred stock or lend to the company on this preferred stock issue.
I sincerely hope, sir, that with the growing importance of the northern areas of the country which the Canadian National Railway has always serviced we will keep in mind what the president of the railway said, to the effect that though it had been a great disadvantage to its competitive position with the Canadian Pacific Railway over the years the indications now are that with the increased development there and the increase in the gross national product it could represent a phase in the operation of the Canadian National Railways comparing in importance with the original opening up of the country which was performed by the Canadian Pacific Railway many years ago. If that should be a correct prediction then I think we can foresee a time when the Canadian National Railways will be returning to the government a fair equity return on its investment.
I mentioned one thing yesterday to which I think I might return today. That is that it is most difficult for us to understand why it is necessary for the Canadian National Railways to continue to be the financing agent for the national air line operations. That has been impressed upon me more and more each time I have been a member of the special committee on railways and shipping, and I recently asked the president of Canadian National Railways about this matter. On page 182 of the minutes of the committee he said-I am not going to read all the questions and answers-the following:
The history of it, of course, was in the days the Trans-Canada Air Lines was formed, and the Canadian National Railways provided a nucleus of an organization-provided a staff, in other words-to get the organization going. We still have a number of interlocking arrangements with them. For instance, we provide their legal services, we provide their medical services, we look after the treasury work, in the sense of the handling of their bank accounts, and things of that kind. But, over the years it is gradually drawing apart, and they are becoming more and more a completely independent organization in that respect. The reason we continue such operations as we do is, that we believe, between ourselves, that it is more economical to do so. We also provide a general secretary between the two companies as well.
82715-202J
Canadian National Railways
There was also a certain amount of discussion dealing with the question of whether it was easier and cheaper to finance the operation of the government's air line by making its requirements a part of the larger bloc financing required by the national railway. I think, as a matter of fact, you will find that this year's requirements of the railway are up about $50 million, and that approximately $20 million of the increase is required for the air line itself.
Now the air line is on a profitable basis, and has been for some period of time. As a matter of fact it is interesting for us to note that the net income this year, after provision for depreciation and all other fixed charges, was $1,556,212. It is most difficult for us to compare the operation of the air line with the Canadian Pacific Air Lines operation. The only comparison or standard we could go by is to take perhaps the air passenger miles flown. I see there are approximately four times the passenger miles flown by the government air line as compared with the Canadian Pacific Air Lines. The Canadian Pacific report indicates that there was a net profit on their air line operations of $525,000. I think, therefore, we can see an indication here that the government air line is maintaining a standard of profit which compares with the private operation.
Someone may say it is no more difficult for the government air line to carry out operations in far-flung areas of the country, perhaps where the return per passenger mile is not as great as that in a concentrated population. The government air line furthermore must carry out some of these operations in fulfilling its role in the public interest, but I may add that Canadian Pacific Air Line is also a pioneer in a great many respects with regard to thousands of miles of its operations and must, I think, be facing the same type of lower return on certain segments of its line. The over-all picture, however, would indicate some satisfaction to us in seeing these profits more or less on a comparable basis if we check the air passenger miles flown by each company.
Of course this government-operated air line is going to grow and grow. It seems evident that its financial requirements, first of all, can be handled on its own. There does not seem to be any reason now why there should be a continuation of our mixing its financial requirements with the national railway system, and I am quite sure that Trans-Canada Air Lines is in a position to stand on its own feet in that regard.
There was one other thing about which I have been thinking and which I mentioned very briefly the other day. I think there is

Canadian National Railways considerable reluctance when anybody says, "Well, why not sell the national air line?" There is a great deal of national pride in it; but I do not think, Mr. Speaker, we should simply continue and increase the number of crown corporations simply as an indication of the stature or the glory that must be attached to any single cabinet minister. Furthermore, I do not see a situation where the national air line, in some package deal, will be disposed of to some private interest. I mentioned the other day, however, that there was certainly a precedent set in Alberta where a gas collection and distribution company was being organized and the people were given the opportunity to buy into what was, I think, a crown corporation.
The financial structure of this air line at the moment is not so great that it would frighten any people involved in the floating of bond issues or equity stock issues in any way at all. As a matter of fact its requirements, as I see the right-hand side of this financial statement, are much less than many of the current operations of large companies in Canada today. I mentioned these figures yesterday in general; I did not have the statement before me, but the company has notes payable to Canadian National Railways of $20 million and debenture at 3| per cent, maturing January 1,	1973,
for $20 million. It also has reserves of $6 million for insurance, and for overhaul $393,939. The total capital stock including 250,000 shares of common stock at a par value of $100 per share amounts to $5 million. Its surplus as of January 1 was $6,267,000.
I specifically mention these figures because, of course, they are the amounts, plus an amount for good will, which would have to be replaced if there was any indication of seeing that this stock was generally held by the public and not by the government through its agent the Canadian National Railways. I do not know what is involved here, but subject to what might be considered as an item for good will probably the overall picture of about $60 million would cover the lower right-hand corner, as accountants say, of the balance sheet of the company.
As a matter of fact, if there were debentures issued for $50 million or $60 million almost the same type of unit transaction could be used in seeing that the ownership of this company was spread throughout the public generally, as is the method used in many types of financing operations. If there were $100 debentures units, there would be $50,000,000 involved in 500,000 units, and using a par value of $10 for the common stock I think we could set it up on the basis

of unit debentures, each unit at $100 entitling a person to buy five common shares at $10 each.
Someone will say that once you do a thing like that, of course, you are leaving it open to the purchase of large blocks of shares by foreign investors. Well, Mr. Speaker, in this case I do not think that would be possible, because the Aeronautics Act provides that no more than 40 per cent of the controlling interest in such a company can be owned by persons other than Canadian citizens.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask a
question of the hon. member for York West? Why is he so anxious to sell Trans-Canada Air Lines, and why was he so anxious to have the government build the trans-Canada pipe line?


John Borden Hamilton: Well, I think that is a very easy question to answer, Mr. Speaker. Of course the minister had made an offer to Canadian companies four or five years ago, as I understand it, to build Trans-Canada Pipe Lines.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Three years ago.


John Borden Hamilton: But when he was making the offer last year apparently he restricted it to one company and attached about $150 million worth of assistance to them. In those circumstances, why would not anyone say it would be much better for the people of Canada to build the pipe line?
I have just mentioned one of the considerations which I think might arise and one of the difficulties which I think would be involved in connection with the type of operation of which the minister has been speaking. There is a restriction under our act which deals with aeronautics and foreign control cannot occur in this field, but we can see what happened in the Alberta instance. According to newspaper reports many people in the street were interested in investing in an enterprise concerned with the collection and distribution of gas out there, and I am convinced that the same thing would happen here; the people of Canada would become financially interested, and we would not continue to have the remote type of control we have in this case.
Let's face it. I do not think the system of government in this country or in any similar parliamentary democracy was designed to supervise the continued expansion of crown-owned corporations. I do not think that is our function here. I do not believe it is our function to be spending as much time as we are spending in reviewing the operations of these companies. Ordinarily the shareholders of companies can ensure that those companies

are operating efficiently, and I think to a great extent it has become a waste of time to put hon. members through this mill year after year.
Here is an opportunity to see whether we cannot stop this type of management, reverse this trend in government affairs and return to a more business like way of handling operations of this kind. I shall say no more on this particular subject, though there are a few more things I should like to say about the railway situation.
I said earlier that the extension of rail lines, though it will bring undoubted advantages, particularly in the north land, involves also the danger that the profits or returns, if any, from such expansion will not compensate for the capital expenditure necessary for such extensions.
Prospects of a sound financial position could all be lost if we were to go through a period, as once we did in this country, when pressure groups all over the place were demanding that lines be built whether or not they were likely to prove an economic operation. I think a good criterion to use would be this; that if there are any particular areas in this country with regard to which it is argued a railway line would certainly be a sound proposition, then perhaps-and I suggested this last year-the time has come when we should say to the people in these particular areas, "Are you prepared to put your guarantee on the debentures which must be issued in order to carry out this type of expansion?" As a matter of fact it will be difficult for us to put such a proposal because, if I understand the accounting system of the railway company correctly, it is almost impossible to determine which of the operations are profitable and which are not.
There is another thing I might mention. There was an indication in connection with the figures concerning the over-all railway operation that the company is facing a depreciation problem, and there was also an indication that the railway might have to come back to parliament for legislation enabling it to deal with that problem.
The matter arose in this way. . The railway has a dieselization program under way, and naturally the ordinary type of depreciation is taking place with regard to the new locomotives.	But back in 1940 a new
depreciation plan was set up for the remainder of the steam locomotives. I think they were given a residual life of about 30 years from 1930. But there is an indication in the auditor's report that under this depreciation plan, at the end of five or six years there will be a sum of $30 million in steam locomotive equipment which will
Canadian National Railways not have been written off; and there was an indication from the auditor that it would perhaps have been wiser if provision for this residual depreciation had been started this year.
If it had started, then based on a period of five or six years another $6 million would have to be taken off the profit figures of the railway this year, thus reducing the figure which was presented to the committee and to the house. I do not know whether this depreciation item is being taken into account next year, and I think the parliamentary assistant might indicate what plans the government have made, if any, to take care of this situation. If they do nothing, then at the end of five years we shall find that for several years the railway has shown an illusory profit figure. Someone is going to draw a line, put $30 million under it, and we will find ourselves $30 million in the hole. I think the government should tell us what it intends to do about this.
Before closing, I should like to repeat that the railway is in the black. It is in the black even though its present operations cannot be compared with the ordinary types of operation of a private company in other fields or, even with its competitor in this particular field. I think for their service and loyalty the officers and employees of the company deserve a great deal of commendation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to take just two or three minutes to say that this group supports this routine bill to meet the annual necessities of the Canadian National Railway. I understand the committee which deals with publicly-owned railways has studied the administration and operations of the C.N.R. in the past year, that it has questioned the president and other officials, and that on the whole it has received a very satisfactory account of. shall I say, the mechanical operation of the railroad.
One question in particular comes to my mind. I think we are fortunate in having Mr. Donald Gordon as administrator and head of the C.N.R. We are fortunate to have a man of his capacity in that position. I must say that my pride as a Canadian was somewhat hurt when I noticed in this bill that some $14 million is proposed for branch extension, in view of the fact that we had a former chum of Hermann Goering suggesting that a new type of railroad would be more efficient than the standard railroads in this country for developing our northland.
I refer to the suggestion that a monorail is the most efficient way of serving some of these northern areas, and that it is possibly

Canadian National Railways the cheapest way. I have no knowledge on that subject, but I would ask the parliamentary assistant this question. Has any study been made ol the possibility of developing monorail railroads in Canada, particularly in our northern areas, and if so what were the results? I should also like to ask him whether monorails have been satisfactorily operated in other parts of the world under conditions similar to those which exist in our northern territories.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a very few observations to those made before we rose for lunch. It is merely stating the obvious to say that Canadian National Railways has now become an institution of vast importance in our lives. The figures with which they deal have now grown so that they are far larger than those of many government departments, and they show every sign of increasing.
It is a fortunate thing that we have in the president of the road a man of wide experience and a man who has regard to the impact of his organization on the country's whole economy. I quote his own words with regard to the capital program, as found at page 209 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the sessional committee:
We have just slowed the whole thing down on the basis that we are attempting to do too much and that the country is attempting to do too much having regard to its productive capacity.
I quote that merely to show that I feel we have at the head of the railway organization a man whose wide grasp of affairs enables him to see the economy as a whole. It is almost ironical to look back to the twenties, when a leading newspaper in Canada published certain articles under the title, "The Whisper of Death", which were designed really to cast doubt on the possibility of operating this conglomeration of roads which had been brought together under the name of Canadian National Railways. As we look back across the intervening decades we take comfort and satisfaction from the fact that the difficult fusion of these roads has been completed to the extent it has, and that the operating situation has improved to the extent it has.
I have pointed out that we have in the Canadian National one of the significant sources of expenditure in the whole country. When you add to it the St. Lawrence seaway and agencies like the C.B.C. and others you
[Mr. Herridge.l
realize that government and instruments of government have come to play an enormous part in our national development. In my opinion the matter of capital expenditure which we shall be discussing this afternoon is so important that I propose to quote very briefly from the remarks of the president of the railway to show that, as I said, he has this matter in mind. I find the following at page 208 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the sessional committee on railways and shipping:


John Borden Hamilton: . . . You told us there was a ruthless cutting of the capital budget to assist in this anti-inflationary drive; yet the money to be spent this year, as I understand it, is going to be more than last year. Does that mean that you started out with a great many more demands than last year and you cut down on that amount?	.	.
Mr Gordon: No. It means that the rate in spending had got to the point that we were involved in projects that could not be stopped. A great deal of our 1957 expenses arise out of commitments which have been entered into. For instance, there was the matter of equipment. We had placed orders for equipment last fall in connection with the diesel program. We had to do so in order to get delivery any time this year. I can give you a general picture in that respect; that we had estimated our requirements in the first approach, what we would need in the way of equipment requirements on the basis of traffic, our retirements of equipment and the figure for the utilization of equipment, and we budgeted for 7,600 units of equipment to take care of equipment of all kinds. But we cut that arbitrarily in half. We have not yet placed our orders for box cars because we are not satisfied with the prices quoted. We are now negotiating with the car companies telling them that we think their price is too high.
We have cut our planned dieselization program. We had it in mind this year to start complete dieselization by areas. You may remember that I said in previous committees that we would attack our dieselization program on the basis providing for specific services, in a five year program. We finished it last year and this year we started on complete dieselization on a territorial basis. Our plan was to start on each coast, west and east, and gradually complete it right towards central Canada. On the basis of that program we planned 654 units but we cut that down to 373 units. In other words, we reduced it by 281 units which meant about $58 million. That means that the progressive rate of our dieselization has been slowed down. We have just slowed the whole thing down on the basis that we are attempting to do too much and that the country is attempting to do too much having regard to its productive capacity.
I mention this and stress it, because not only the president of the national railway but other leading authorities have pointed out the desirability of this stretching out process, not merely because it will relieve the present pressure which is so great but because we may very well be glad two, three or four years from now to have, so to speak, some accumulated work at a time when the pressure is not so great; indeed, when the pressure might not be quite as great as we would like.
APRIL e, 1957
I wish to say a word about Trans-Canada Air Lines and its relation to the Canadian National. The matter was discussed in the committee, and I notice that Mr. Gordon said in effect that there was a certain convenience in the relationship between Canadian National and T.C.A. because it might enable T.C.A. to finance on a slightly lower basis. I realize that should not be disregarded. On the other hand, it seems clear that the situation has changed since the first beginnings of T.C.A. when, as I understand it, part of the administrative organization was really supplied by Canadian National and that was an additional reason for the connection. That reason, as I understood Mr. Gordon's evidence, is gone.
Therefore it would seem to me that there is a great deal to be said for allowing T.C.A. to navigate completely under its own steam. It would seem to me that it would be easier for the public to get a clearer picture of the situation. It does not seem to me that there is any longer any natural reason for a combination of administration. As far as the hotels are concerned, I can see that the hotels are to a considerable degree an integral part of the railway operation, but I do not see that with regard to T.C.A. I hope we may perhaps hear more about that when we get into committee, because on the face of it there does not appear to me to be any continuing valid reason for it.
I think those are the only points I wish to raise. I simply repeat that we have here one of our great national enterprises, one of the great spenders of money, and I hope, notwithstanding that Mr. Gordon, as he indicated, has done certain cutting of expenditures, that if the pressures continue this year as they show some signs of doing he may be able to relieve the situation even more. Even from the short extract I read from his evidence it is clear that some of these expenditures can be made sooner or later. He is holding back certain expenditures because he does not like the prices at which rolling stock is offered.
We all know what has happened to prices. No one needs to tell Mr. Gordon how he should do his bargaining. However, in addition to doing good bargaining I hope he will be able to continue, as he has done, to use this tremendous organization, with its hundreds of millions of dollars of capital expenditure, as a kind of safety valve of which at the present time we have need.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
Canadian National Railways
On clause 1-Short Title.
John Borden Hamilton: I should like to say a few words on clause 1, inasmuch as I believe this is the last place where general remarks might be made. I have been greatly struck by the evidence before the committee dealing with the length of time involved from the filing of an application with the board of transport commissioners and the reaching of a decision in connection with fixing the rates the railway may charge.
Someone may say that this discussion is not in order at this time, but I say it is very much in order because, of course, upon what the board of transport commissioners may fix as rate charges depends to a great extent the amount of money for which the railway is obliged to ask in this annual vote. I am inclined to feel that the Minister of Transport might use some influence to see that the board of transport commissioners is not used just to provide a lawyers' field day. The president of the company has indicated that long before a decision is reached in some of these applications, his expenditures have already caught up with his income and in some cases have passed it. Either yesterday or today I read one paragraph in his report which indicated that.
It seems to me that if we are to expect the railways to be run on an efficient basis and to have an equal opportunity to succeed in the same way as we expect private corporations to do, then we must at all times be striving to put them in the same position. Mr. Chairman, I cannot see the steel companies or some organization like that, faced with rising costs, obliged to go through a long drawn out formula covering maybe eight months or nine months while some procedure was gone through in order to determine whether they were going to be allowed to meet those rising costs.
I strongly suggest that we remove any criticism of the board of transport commissioners over the lengthy time involved in these decisions. I realize that they are complicated but it seems to me that it is the old story of the lawyers' courtroom list. If we want to get on with the job, it can be done. If we want to stall around and see that it is handled one week from now or one month from now, then of course the list can be juggled; and that is what happens. I would therefore ask the Minister of Transport to do what he can to see that this time gap is shortened as much as possible.


George Carlyle Marler: From the point of view of the operator of a railway, having regard to the suggestions which have just been made by the hon. member for York West, I think it would seem to be an ideal situation, that is,

Canadian National Railways that all the railroads would have to do when they wished to increase their rates would be to go to the board of transport commissioners and ask for an increase. But surely the hon. gentleman realizes that increased rates, while adding to the revenues of the railroads, at the same time add substantially to the burden of those who must pay the increased rates of which he is speaking.
So far as I have been able to make out from examining the record of the recent increases in freight rates, there has not been at any time undue delay having regard, first of all, to the magnitude of the problem; second, its complexity; and third and perhaps foremost, the fact that it is not only the railroads' interests that are concerned but also the interests of a large body of people; and in the past that large body of people has desired to make representations to the board.
In the case last decided the board granted an interim increase of 7 per cent in July which was, I think, somewhat unusual. I do not say that in any critical sense at all. However, it seems to me that this action showed that on the part of the board there was an appreciation of the need of some immediate increase. Then after the matter had been fully and thoroughly debated before the board a further increase of 4 per cent was granted, effective on January 1 of this year.
As I believe hon. members know, the matter is still under review because, as we all appreciate, there are two factors that are constantly varying. Those two factors are, first, the volume of traffic; and second, the level of expenditures. Nothing stays sufficiently static so it can be dealt with in the same way as an ordinary piece of civil litigation before the courts. I do not think I would accept the implied criticism-perhaps that is a stronger word than I should use-or the suggestion that there has been delay on the part of the board. I fully appreciate the desire of the railways to get on as soon as possible, but I think we must steer a middle course between satisfying their demands instantly and giving those who are going to be affected by any increase the opportunity of being heard.


John Borden Hamilton: I certainly do not want anyone to take from my remarks the impression that I am recommending that someone, just on an ex parte basis, may approach the board, ask for additional revenue and get it. That was the furthest thought from my mind. What I was referring to was the actual time lag, the time involved in the mechanics of the operation. It seems to me that the railways are constantly in touch with these matters. I am sure the length of time they require for preparation
(Mr. Marler.]

is in the long run negligible, because they have staffs who are in touch with this situation all the time.
As for the other representations, it seems to me that a time could be fixed for them to come in. Then we would not be open to the suggestion-and as I have said, I have read it here in print-that we are following behind the rising costs that are facing the railways. It is simply a criticism on my part of the actual mechanics. I hope that matter can be brought into line so the companies will not be so much different from ordinary commercial corporations.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: There is a word I should like to say with regard to this matter, and it pertains to the board of transport commissioners. It has a direct bearing on the revenues of the railway. It has a further direct effect upon different parts of Canada. It seems to me that within the last few days, and particularly since the budget has come down, the government has somewhat reconsidered, shall I say, its stand taken previously with regard to the freight rate structure of Canada. When the government brought down its budget it indicated that it was going to have a reconsideration of the freight rate structure in the Atlantic provinces. It was contended that this reconsideration was because of the fact that it appeared that the freight rate structure as applied to the Atlantic provinces was such that it had prevented the proper development of that part of the country.


George Carlyle Marler: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentleman stops to reflect for a moment he will realize that a discussion of the proposed changes in the Maritime Freight Rates Act really has no relation whatever to Canadian National financing. I think he knows that whatever benefits are obtained under the Maritime Freight Rates Act, they do not add to or subtract from the revenues of the Canadian National. While I know the subject is related to railways, I do not think it is related to the financing of the Canadian National Railways.


William Moore Benidickson: And in particular to the capital accounts of the railway now before the committee.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not know where else this problem could be discussed, and I do not intend to take very long.


An hon. Member:: On the budget.


The Chairman:: I assume the Minister of Transport was, in effect, raising a point of order, and perhaps I should have risen earlier on my own initiative. I believe the hon. member will agree on reflection, that this bill

hardly provides a vehicle for a discussion such as he has attempted. I would appreciate it very much if he would confine his remarks to a discussion of this bill concerning the capital expenses of the Canadian National Railways.


Charles Edward Johnston: The point is
that the hon. member who just preceded me was talking about the operations of the board of transport commissioners and the length of time it took them to make decisions. Certainly if those remarks were in order, then my remarks are just as much in order. I am of the opinion that the hon. member who preceded me was in order when he was discussing that particular problem. My argument is an extension of the problem which he brought up.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member who preceded the hon. member who has the floor now attempted to bring his remarks in order by saying they would have some effect on the capital expenses of the railroad. But I am not too sure I agreed entirely with that. If I am doing any injustice to the hon. member I must admit that perhaps I was dilatory in rising to indicate that feeling to the hon. member for York West. However, I do feel that this discussion should not be allowed at this time. I would appreciate the co-operation of the hon. member in that regard because after all, as he has said, these remarks which he is attempting to make now could have been made during the course of the budget debate.


Charles Edward Johnston: They could not have been made by me during the budget debate because of the very limited time that was allotted to this party for participating in the budget debate. There are some arguments as to why that condition existed, but I do not suppose this would be the proper time to debate that.
What I did want to bring to the attention of the government in the few words I had to say was that I do appreciate the position in which the maritime provinces have been placed with regard to their freight rate structure and I am glad the government is doing something about it, particularly because of its effect on the economy of the country and the revenues the railways will receive. Some action should be taken by the government to see that this reconsideration is given to the western provinces as well. There should be some effort to have greater equality in the freight rate structure across this country.


William Moore Benidickson: I regret that I must rise and point out that we are on clause 1 and in committee.


Charles Edward Johnston: If they are going to use a strict application of the rules- 82715-203
Canadian National Railways


George Carlyle Marler: It is a good idea to follow the rules.


Charles Edward Johnston: -it could probably be argued that this is not the proper time to say everything I have in mind. The chairman has just admitted that possibly he allowed the other hon. member a little more latitude, and if one wishes to have an extension of privileges it might be in order for us to remember some of these delicate points which the government wishes to bring up now; especially when they have to do with giving consideration to other parts of Canada rather than the two central provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Capital expenditures authorized.
John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, since I was the culprit on clause 1, I shall do my best to stay within the rules on this clause. I think this is the proper time to raise this question in committee, because we have the explanatory notes regarding the sum which is required for capital projects. The total amount is indicated, less items of depreciation. In other words the railway has within its own resources certain funds which it acquires by way of taking depreciation and setting up reserves.
I dealt generally with the question of what happened to the residual amount which will still have to be set against the provision for locomotive depreciation account at the end of the next five or six years. I might refer to my question of the auditor at page 221 of the minutes of the committee. I asked Mr. Wilson this:
On the question of depreciation, Mr. Chairman, there is a reference here, of course, to a deficiency which we are facing in connection with $30 million worth of steam equipment. Is this something which should be handled now: should it be started now on an annual basis through for a period of years or what is the ordinary good accounting practice on it?
Then Mr. Wilson answered:
I think we have to consider it as a problem for examination. We have stated in our report we recommend it to be provided for out of income. The method is open but we think, as a general statement, that some means should be found to provide for that out of income.
I would ask the parliamentary assistant if steps are being taken in connection with the amount that has been requested here, to take into account the fact that there may be $5 million or $6 million more which should have been provided in the depreciation reserves of the company.


William Moore Benidickson: This is a crown company whose direction properly comes from the board of directors. As a crown company of

Canadian National Railways great consequence it does, however, appear annually through its officers for questioning by a parliamentary committee. I know that on page 4 of the auditor's report some reference was made to this matter. My hon. friend himself referred to it before the luncheon recess. I think this whole matter of taking care of depreciation is something with which the government, as such, should not interfere unusually with the board of directors of the company.


John Borden Hamilton: I have not the exact reference here, Mr. Chairman, but I believe Mr. Gordon referred in the committee to the fact there might have to be some special type of legislation in order for the company to make provision for the actual amount of depreciation which should be taken to cover this residual amount at the end of the term. I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant to inform us what is taking place.


William Moore Benidickson: I think perhaps the Minister of Transport could speak on that.


George Carlyle Marler: I think it was quite obvious in the sittings of the committee that this problem of the ultimate writing off of the residual amount on the books for steam locomotives is a problem that must be disposed of eventually. The only question that really arises is as to method and as to timing. It was quite clear from the evidence before the committee that the management was fully seized with the necessity of making some provision.
As the hon. member indicated just a moment ago the auditor, Mr. Wilson, said he thought that provision should be made out of income. It is quite obvious that it might have been convenient to have some charged to income for the year 1956, but there were difficulties in the way. The statute on the point was not as clear as it might have been, and I think all I can say is that no decision has yet been reached by the management or by the Department of Finance as to how the problem could best be dealt with.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a supplementary question on that point. May we take it that it is not intended to allow this to drift along and find that we have a $30 million item to deal with at the end of five or six years?


George Carlyle Marler: No, Mr. Chairman. I do
not think anything the Canadian National Railways has done would allow its policies to be described as drifting along. The hon. member can feel perfectly certain that the matter will not be neglected.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have another question to ask on clause 3. I would like the parliamentary assistant to take us through the figures in the explanatory note, if he will, having regard to this situation. As I understand it there are three sums which enter into the present situation. First of all there are outstanding at the beginning of 1957 certain authorities and certain liabilities. Second, there is the additional authority and additional anticipated expenditures in 1957 itself. Third, there is an authority covering the first six months of 1958. I think I am correct in saying there are those three items, and I would be grateful if the parliamentary assistant would just go through the figures in the explanatory note, and if he would mention in particular the exact significance of the $36 million concerning uncompleted work.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, the references in the explanatory note that could be related to the complete report of the officers of the Canadian National Railways as given to the committee would be as follows. In clause 3(1), when a reference is made to road property, having a possible expenditure of $118,605,000, I would refer my hon. friend to page 187 of minutes of the committee as printed. There is there, of course, a reference to an item of $36 million for uncompleted work to which my hon. friend has referred. That will be taken care of in clause 4 of the bill, where there is reference to a maximum authority for borrowing. In this same way it is possible to refer each of the other items in clause 3(1) to certain pages in the report of the sessional committee on railway and shipping.
With respect to the next item, branch line construction, I would refer to page 188 of the committee report. Similarly I would refer with respect to hotels to page 188. The equipment item would appear in detail on page 189 of the report of the sessional committee. The investment in affiliated companies is explained in detail on page 190 of the committee report.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, clause 3(b) concerns the money required for Trans-Canada Air Lines as well as the railway company. I wonder if either the Minister of Transport or the parliamentary assistant could tell us what the arguments are for continuing to handle the financing of these two companies on a combined basis?


Mr. Philpott:: Mr. Chairman, before the Minister of Transport answers may I say that I for one was shocked and amazed this morning to hear the hon. member for York West, who is usually sensible, make the suggestion

that there should be a sort of lingering, slow-motion sale of this great national institution, Trans-Canada Air Lines.


John Borden Hamilton: You had better ask your paper out in Vancouver.


Elmore Philpott: I was particularly interested to hear only a few minutes later the hon. member's much more mature and wise colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood, express the sentiments of this whole house when he referred to the great national asset the Canadian National Railways had become.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There was nothing said by my colleague the hon. member for York West differing from that.


Elmore Philpott: Certainly that was my understanding of what he said. I understood him to make a suggestion which in my opinion would be nothing but a slow motion sale of Trans-Canada Air Lines. It seems to me it is a good principle at this time to invoke the old motto, "Let well enough alone."
Without taking up the time of the committee unduly I want to say I know of no public institution that is serving the whole of Canada with greater satisfaction than Trans-Canada Air Lines. This is an institution that is not costing the taxpayers of Canada a cent, and which is operating efficiently in the interests of the whole country.
If we were pushed to it no doubt we could think of a hundred reasons why this great national asset should be retained for the use of the people of Canada, but if I had to select just one argument it would be this. If for any reason we made the great mistake of turning over to private enterprise this organization which has been so laboriously built up as a great successful public enterprise, we would of course have all the rules of private enterprise apply. One of the first effects of such a mistaken policy would be that the sections of the country which are now served by Trans-Canada Air Lines and which do not compare with the earning power of the whole system would very readily be abolished.
As I say, I do not intend to delay the committee, but I want to quote just one authority which I think will commend itself to the hon. member for York West. The authority to which I have referred said:
There is no necessity tonight to plunge into a discussion of the philosophical divergencies between socialism and Liberalism. It is not possible to draw a hard and fast line between individualism and collectivism. You cannot draw it either in theory or in practice. That is where the socialist makes a mistake. Let us not imitate that mistake. No man can be a collectivist alone or an individualist alone. He must be both an individualist and a collectivist. The nature of man is a dual nature. The character of the organisation of human 82715-203J
Canadian National Railways society is dual. Man is at once a unique being and a gregarious animal. For some purposes he must be collectivist, individualist . . . No view of society can possibly be complete which does not comprise within its scope both collective organisation and individual incentive. The whole tendency of civilisation is. however, towards the multiplication of the collective functions of society.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would suggest that if the hon. member for Bow River was out of order a few moments ago then surely the hon. member for Vancouver South is much more out of order at the present time.


Mr. Stick:: On what grounds?


Elmore Philpott: On the point of order, the whole status of the Canadian National Railways has arisen. I certainly do not want to be out of order, and if even one hon. member thinks I am I will just conclude by saying-


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, if that rule is going to be applied I think it should be applied fairly.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. May I point out to the hon. member who has raised the point of order that paragraph 3(b) reads as follows:
(b) to make capital expenditures not exceeding in the aggregate $92 million in the calendar year 1958 prior to the 1st day of July of that year, by investing in securities of Trans-Canada Air Lines to enable Trans-Canada Air Lines to discharge obligations-
And so on. It seems to me that the remarks which the hon. member for Vancouver South had been making were quite relevant to a discussion of that clause. I am not so certain that the quotation he is now reading has that same measure of relevancy.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that a discourse on private and public ownership is out of order in relation to the matter now before the committee.


Elmore Philpott: I would conclude by saying that the authority from which I have just been reading was Hon. Winston Churchill, speaking at St. Andrew's hall, Glasgow, on October 11, 1906.


George Carlyle Marler: I would just like to reply to the remarks of the hon. member for York West and say that I followed very closely the sittings of the sessional committee on railways and shipping when I noticed his interest in the financial relationship between Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines and the government, but for the life of me I could not see what difference it made whether the moneys that are provided to Trans-Canada Air Lines came from Canadian National Railways or directly from the Department of Finance. It seemed to me that what was important from the viewpoint of

Canadian National Railways Trans-Canada Air Lines was that when it needed capital sums it should have some place from which it could obtain them.
That of course is the situation at the present time. It has in the past been financed by Canadian National Railways, and Canadian National Railways has financed its over-all requirements either by borrowing from the public or from the government or by a combination of both methods. I can understand that perhaps that if one were starting today one might not follow exactly the same procedure that we are now following, having regard to what has already happened, but I cannot see at all what benefit would accrue to anybody by saying, "Well, T.C.A. in future shall borrow directly from the government."
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Guarantee.


John Borden Hamilton: On clause 5, Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not want to get into an argument with the hon. member who was just on his feet. However, I do not think he needs to worry about abandoning any lines, because from appearing before T.C.A. I have found they are just as particular as the board of transport commissioners.
Now in connection with this clause I would like to ask this question of the minister, and there may be a very simple answer to it. Is it inherent in any bond issue by any crown company that there is a guarantee of the government behind it, or is there any real reason why guarantees should continue to be given on all issues of bonds of this type?


George Carlyle Marler: I think the parliamentary
assistant will answer that.


William Moore Benidickson: I think there are no public issues of crown companies without that guarantee on the part of the crown and, of course, it is obvious that the guarantee of the crown provides a lower rate.


John Borden Hamilton: Has there been any thought at any time, in connection with the provision of new lines, to cover the cost of those lines by a separate bond issue?


William Moore Benidickson: If I may ask my friend, what would be the merit of doing that?


John Borden Hamilton: I think I was getting around to that in my earlier remarks, that it might obviate the necessity for meeting pressures from time to time. You will recall that I said I hope we will never get back into the system we once followed of building these lines because of pressure groups. If we do we will not have the railways run economically and efficiently. This might bring home to those areas seeking additional services the actual costs which are
involved, and I did suggest at one stage that perhaps the municipality or the provincial authorities, wherever the development is going to be made, become the guarantors in these circumstances in lieu of the federal government.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I do remember the speech of the hon. member yesterday, and I also remember that when he got down to admonitions he suggested that the Canadian National Railways should be very careful about branching out into certain branch lines. A few paragraphs further on in the record of his speech he made considerable reference to the advances they could properly make in commuter service in the area in which he is interested. I think we have had a great deal of evidence before the committee on railways and shipping that this particular commuter service of the C.N.R. has proven to be expensive and has accrued losses.


John Borden Hamilton: Of course, Mr. Chairman, that was a very foolish example to cite. The president himself suggested that if that type of service were going to be available it probably would have to be underwritten by the municipalities involved.


George Carlyle Marler: Just one remark before leaving this subject, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for York West would know if he had gone back to review the branch lines that have been built in recent years that there has been no case, with the exception of one that I will mention in just a minute, where the immediately prospective or future traffic was not in the opinion of the railways sufficient to justify the investment. There was one exception in the case of the Beattyville-Chibougamau-St. Felicien branch line where a subsidy was granted, which is referred to in the accounts of the company. Generally speaking, however, the Canadian National Railways has obtained traffic guarantees which have not had all the complexities which there would be if the suggestion the hon. gentleman has just made with respect to a sort of separate financing for each branch line were followed, but has had guarantees of enough traffic to make the line self-sustaining.
Clauses 5 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 11-Auditors.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we still think it would be better for this work to be done by the Auditor General of Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would like to ask if the Minister of Fisheries has changed his opinion on this subject since he joined the cabinet.


William Moore Benidickson: Not being a member of the cabinet, I have not discussed this matter with the minister on that level.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Fisheries is a Liberal, but my hon. friend is something else.


John Borden Hamilton: On clause 11, of course, I am quite sure we feel exactly the opposite, that we are much more satisfied to have a continuation of the auditing of this crown company's accounts, to the greatest possible extent, by outside auditors.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the bill be read a third time; now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


George Carlyle Marler: third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PRAIRIE GRAIN PRODUCERS INTERIM FINANCING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris (for Mr. Howe, Port Arthur) for the second reading of Bill No. 263, to amend the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act, 1956, and the amendment thereto of Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wonder if the minister before closing the debate will make some comment on the remarks made by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras).
I am reading from page 2724 of Hansard, where the hon. member is reported as saying:
I am satisfied that if the situation continues the government will come forward, as the minister has stated on more than one occasion would be done, with a system to alleviate adverse conditions again through some scheme that will be discussed with the Canadian farm organizations, as was done in the present case. Though it may not meet all the demands or requirements, I am confident it will be a scheme that will meet with the general approval of all the farm organizations in that regard, just as the government has tried to meet their wishes over the past years.
To be specific, I wonder if the minister would enlarge on that part of the quotation which says "as the minister has stated on more than one occasion would be done"?
Grain


Mr. G. H. Caslleden (Yorkton):: Before the minister answers those remarks, I would like to make it clear that the opposition to this measure by western members is due largely to the fact that if this is implemented we feel it will kill any opportunity there may be to have cash advances given.
The shortage of cash on the prairies in recent years, combined with the increasing cost of production, has had a very serious economic effect on a good many farmers. Some have had to leave their farms completely. I have known many farms which depend on grain and cattle raising where the herds have been completely ruined because there was not sufficient cash to pay debts and tax arrears in the fall of the year, with the result that the farmer was compelled to cut into his herd and sell some of his basic stock. The stock was not ready for sale, but he was compelled to sell it to get cash.
The fact is that the bill now proposed does nothing about relieving the grain grower in the west. Representations have been made on his behalf, and the minister must know what kind of representations have been made. He must know what has been the thinking Gf the people in the west. On December 3 last the farm union organization in their presentation to the federal-provincial conference had this to say:
The bank loan legislation implemented last year has not provided a solution. We feel that a permanent system of cash advances must be instituted to provide financial assistance to farmers during periods when due to congested storage facilities they cannot deliver their grain.
The minister knows they have not been able to deliver their grain. He knows what the situation is, and we need something which will meet that situation. These proposals will not do it. I thought perhaps we should try to block this legislation a little longer, but it is too late in the session to do that. We merely voice our opposition; and I endorse the words of the hon. member for Mackenzie when he says that if the government has anything else in mind we would like to know about it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas) is rising?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not spoken in the debate as yet. May I speak at some time? I am not closing the debate. I did not open the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But this bill is in the minister's name.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):: On a point of order, I have no intention of speaking on this bill, but I would like to point out to the

Grain
minister that the committee on agriculture is now sitting, and that many hon. members who have followed this bill closely throughout its various stages are tied up there. Undoubtedly there are some hon. members on that committee who would like to speak further on this measure.


An hon. Member:: Too bad.


Ray Thomas: I ask the minister to take this into due consideration. Possibly we could go on with something else at the moment, at least until that committee has adjourned for the day, in order to give the members of that committee an opportunity to express their opinion.


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


Ray Thomas: Possibly he will want to
speak on the point of order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the benefit of listening to all of this edifying debate, which revolves round a very small point.
References have been made to other plans for putting cash advances into the hands of the farmers. I have never received a well worked out plan; in fact I have never received any plan endorsed by any farm organization. We have heard vague talk from the opposition about cash advances, free of interest, on farm-stored grain. Various people have suggested ways in which the cash could be put out but no one, as far as I have been able to follow the debate, has suggested any way in which such an advance could be recovered.
Mr. Chairman, I did have a meeting with representative farm organizations a month or so ago, and at that time those present urged that this legislation be passed. They said they were not ready to put forward any other plan at this time but that they might be in the autumn. I said I would be glad to discuss such a plan with them. I mentioned the fact that the plan must be a scheme not only for putting out money but also for getting money back, because loans are loans, and when I am responsible for paying money out from the treasury I like to have some reasonable safeguard about getting that money repaid. Despite all the vague talk and nonsense spoken by the opposition, no definite alternative plan to the one now being considered has been put forward at any stage.
I say I have not followed the debate, but apparently the people in the west have followed it, because I have here a number of telegrams, which I think I should read. They have evidently been sent as the result of

people reading Hansard and noting that all opposition parties have opposed this legislation and voted against it. I just put these messages on record, because I have been told I do not know the real feeling of farmers about this legislation, and that farmers are all opposed to it.


George Hugh Castleden: Will you read the ones that are opposed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am reading the only wires I have. The first is dated March 29, and it is from Mr. Ben Plumer, chairman of the Alberta wheat pool, addressed to myself:
We are very much concerned with the delay in the passage of the interim financing act for grain. The improvements provided in this legislation can he of much greater importance to farmers this year than they would have been in any recent year. On behalf of Alberta wheat pool I would urge that the government make every possible effort to have this additional help provided, and it may be especially important this year.
The next wire is from Mr. G. L. Harrold, president of the Alberta federation of agriculture. It was addressed to myself, dated March 29:
Amendments to interim financing act considered most important to Alberta farmers. Urge government pass amendments this session to meet early fall needs. We reserve right to make further study and presentation toward still more acceptable plan.
Next, a telegram from Mr. A. W. Platt, president of the farmers' union of Alberta:
Alberta farmers' union believe farmers will need cash for farm-stored grain early next fall. We do not believe that the present act with the proposed amendments is the best scheme that can be devised but it will be very helpful. We therefore urge proposed amendments be passed at this session of the house. We believe these amendments worth while and will support them.
That is more than those who purport to speak for the farmers' union will do in this house, apparently. The next is from Mr. J. E. Brownlee, president of the United Grain Growers Limited, and this telegram is dated April 1, 1957.
The directors and officers of our company believe that a substantial demand for loans on farm-stored grain will develop again this fall and we are very anxious that the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act now before parliament be passed before the close of the present session so that assistance as provided therein may be made available to applicants by September first. We believe the terms of that act substantially meet views recently expressed to you and comprise the only provisions which can now be made effective before the next crop is harvested.
Should farm organizations agree on any other plan for future years your government will no doubt give same earnest consideration.
The next one is from George W. Robertson, secretary of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, and is dated March 29. It reads as follows:
In the opinion of our board there is urgent need for an adequate method of making available cash

advances against farm stored grain in the coming year. The interim finance act is the only avenue presently available for this purpose and since this legislation expires on June 1 we would strongly urge that the proposed amendments to this act be enacted at the present session of parliament so that terms of act with increased maximum advances may be available to producers. We shall look forward to a further discussion with you at a later date on the whole question of legislation for this purpose in an effort to reach agreement more in line with previous suggestions for a permanent solution of the problem.
The next wire is from W. J. Parker, president of the Manitoba wheat pool. It is dated April 1 and reads as follows:
I consider there is positive need for policy providing cash advances against farm stored grain. I urge that the proposed amendments to interim finance act be enacted forthwith so that its terms with increased maximum provisions may be available to producers not later than September 1 next. If western farm organizations can agree on better plan for this purpose at some later date we would welcome opportunity to present such to the federal government.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would the minister indicate whether or not these wires are in reply to inquiries from the minister's department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I could not say.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Could the minister table the other correspondence that is related to these telegrams?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If there is any other correspondence I will be glad to table it. However, I believe that these telegrams represent the views of the western farmers about this legislation. Hon. gentlemen opposite tell me that is not so, that they have better knowledge of what the western farmers want, but I take the views of the heads of the organizations that represent the western farmers and have represented the western farmers before some hon. members opposite were born.


Mr. Campbell:: To whom are you referring?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe the
United Grain Growers organization goes back to 1906. I notice one or two opposite who were not very active in 1906. I was practising my profession in 1906 so I can exclude myself from that category.
It is all very well to talk vaguely about interest free loans on farm stored grain. Suppose such loans could be had for all the grain. How could the farmer pay income taxes and repay his loan and meet his current expenses. There is a great deal of nonsense talked about the advantage of letting farmers borrow all the money they like on farm stored grain without interest, but I think nothing would wreck the economy of the west faster than such a plan. It would put people everywhere heavily in debt and they would have little with which
Grain
to pay their debts and their current living expenses. Cerainly there are two sides to the question, as responsibile farm leaders recognize. As I say, no farm leader has even put forward a concrete plan along the lines that the opposition is advocating. Why? Because when they get a plan on paper they themselves see the weakness in the plan.


George Hugh Castleden: The United States farmer is in a much better position. That country has such a plan. No interest is charged on the advance if he sells his grain to the government within the first year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government buys his grain and takes delivery of it. That is what we do to the extent to which we have storage available. I do not think I need to say any more. Hon. gentlemen opposite now say they are willing to accept the legislation. That is all I need at the moment and therefore I will close my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George Hugh Castleden: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Extension by the governor in council.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I note that the minister's experts are in the gallery. I wonder whether they would make available the correspondence between the minister or any officials of the department and the various organizations that were good enough to send the telegrams. The telegrams all seem to be couched in similar language and several of them certainly contain reservations. The first one the minister read, which was from the president of the Alberta wheat pool, I believe, seemed to assume that as soon as the legislation was passed the additional benefits would be made available to the farmers who, with seeding coming on, are in a very serious position so far as cash is concerned. I am sure the minister's officials will agree that the cash situation on the prairies is much more serious today than it was a year ago.
The president of the Alberta wheat pool seemed to assume that as soon as the legislation was passed it was going to be possible to get $3,000 instead of $1,500.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt my hon. friend, I suggest that it is he who is assuming immediate

Grain
availability and not the president of the Alberta wheat pool. I will read the wire again.
We are very much concerned with the delay in the passage of the interim financing act for grain. The improvements provided in this legislation can be of much greater importance to farmers this year than they would have been in any recent year. On behalf of Alberta wheat pool I would urge that the government make every possible effort to have this additional help provided and it may be especially important this year.
Where does the hon. member find any reference to expenses for seeding?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: My point has to do with the reference to this year. I am sure that the gentleman who sent that telegram had in mind the immediate situation, which is not going to be altered by the passage of the bill. It is not going to make any difference until next fall.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is my hon. friend suggesting that Ben Plumer is not intelligent enough to understand what the legislation means? He means September, October, November and December. I do not know why my hon. friend claims superior knowledge about these matters.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am just saying that it is implied in the telegram that when the legislation is passed it will make more money available immediately than is available under the present act. The minister knows but apparently Mr. Plumer does not know that the passage of the legislation is not going to change the cash position on the prairies so far as seeding is concerned and that is the time when there is a need for cash.
I am sure the minister's advisers will confirm my statement that the shortage of cash is much more serious than it was a year ago, and I am aware of the fact that the passage of the legislation is not going to relieve that situation at the present time. I hope the minister will make available the correspondence that resulted in these telegrams being sent. While we are waiting for it, I might point out that the minister did not answer my previous question regarding the commitment made in his absence by the chairman of the standing committee on agriculture. As found at page 2724 of Hansard of March 26, he said:
I am satisfied that if the situation continues the government will come forward, as the minister has stated on more than one occasion would be done, with a system to alleviate adverse conditions again through some scheme that will be discussed with the Canadian farm organizations, as was done in the present case. Though it may not meet all the demands or requirements, I am confident it will be a scheme that will meet with the general approval of all the farm organizations in that regard, just as the government has tried to meet their wishes over the past years.

I think it is unfortunate that the farm organizations have not been able to agree on some program and that all seem obliged to agree with the minister that this legislation is better than nothing. In their telegrams several of them have indicated that they wish to qualify because they all realize that they are going to find it extremely difficult to explain to the rank and file of their members why, in the year 1957, with our whole Canadian economy so buoyant, with the gross national product the highest in Canadian history, this sector of our Canadian economy should be in the position in which they cannot get the cash available at the moment so they can start the year's operations in a position where they have paid off their debts of a year ago and may be able to start paying cash for their petroleum products and other necessary expenses in connection with this spring's seeding operations.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that this legislation was not spontaneous with the Department of Trade and Commerce; it was requested first by the western federation of agriculture at its meeting in Winnipeg. It was later endorsed by other farm meetings. There seemed to be general requests for this legislation. I read the relevant correspondence on an earlier occasion; I refer to the committee stage of this bill. As far as the remarks of the hon. member for Provencher are concerned, I will say that this government never fails to give serious consideration to any proposal put forward by the farm organizations, if it is a proposal of general application. We like to make sure that it is acceptable to all farm organizations.
I do not think the farmers of western Canada need to be told that the government is responsive to requests that are made through them. The wheat storage legislation resulted from suggestions made verbally to me in various farm meetings in the autumn of 1955 as a means of helping the farmer and that seemed to be the one method that all could agree on as being most helpful. Therefore, that legislation was put before parliament and passed. This legislation arises in the same way. My hon. friends may put themselves forward as being much wiser than are the leaders of the farm organizations but personally I do not accept that assertion.


Mr. Hansell:: I am sure that the minister's remarks of a few moments ago, when he read the telegrams, were quite enlightening to those perhaps who cannot see behind the telegrams. I am not concerned as to whether or not any feelers were put out that called

forth those telegrams, but the fact of the matter is that the minister, in a previous debate, made a statement to the effect that if the opposition continued to talk, perhaps this legislation would be left standing on the books. That statement was given some publicity. I am not saying that was a threat or anything of that kind.


An hon. Member:: It was fairly close to it.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not saying that it was; the minister may have thought that. But when that statement was publicized, naturally these telegrams would pour in. As my friend the hon. member for Wetaskiwin whispered to me a little while ago, what do the telegrams say? They say to the minister: "For goodness' sake, since we cannot get the loaf, please give us some crumbs". The minister read the telegrams. What do they say? Mr. Harrold's telegram indicated that they were willing to have this bill passed until some still more acceptable plans could be devised. The telegram from Mr. Platt said that it is not the best bill. The other telegrams indicated something along the same line. I do not think this group here can be accused of talking too much and wasting time. But the reason we have spoken and voted against it is not that we do not want the farmers to have some assistance but rather that we believe the farmers should get what they want; and they want something better. Within reason we believe that they should have something better. I hold in my hand a little handbook published by the Farmers' Union of Alberta as late as January, 1957. It is a condensed book on grain policy; it has 15 sections. Section 8 simply states as follows:
We favour a permanent system of cash advances on farm stored grain.
If that system were given to the farmers I do not think we would need any of this loan legislation or borrowing legislation or legislation giving authority to stand behind the banks when they lend farmers money on their grain of which they have not been able to dispose. That is the picture as I see it. Once again I want to say that we are not against the farmers being able to borrow money; of course we want them to be able to borrow money, but we are against giving them crumbs when we think they should be given the loaf.


Mr. Harkness:: I do not intend to go back into the matter of the arguments in favour of a system of cash advances on farm stored grain which occupied most of the time when this matter was being discussed at the resolution stage and again on second reading. However, I should like to point out again to the minister that the telegrams he has read, if they establish anything, establish the fact
Grain
that the farm organizations are expecting and hoping that some system of that sort will be put into effect rather than establishing the fact-as the minister seems to think the telegrams seem to indicate-that the farm organizations wanted this particular piece of legislation. All that they indicate is that they want it in lieu of something better. What they really want is something better and the something better they want is a system of cash advances. As far as clause 1 is concerned, subsection 2 of section 13A reads as follows:
No person who has received a guaranteed loan under this act before the 1st day of June, 1957 is, until such loan is repaid in full, entitled to receive a guaranteed loan referred to in subsection (1).
As the new legislation calls for or provides for a maximum loan of $3,000 whereas the old called for or provided for a maximum of only $1,500 I should like to ask the minister whether this provision is not likely to work a hardship on a considerable number of farmers who secured loans when the maximum was $1,500 and when that was all that they could secure. You will have many cases of men who have all kinds of wheat, or in other words all kinds of security. They received, we will say, the maximum amount or as much of a loan as they could get. When next fall comes along they will perhaps have not been able to pay back all of the $1,500 they obtained. They may be $100 short of paying it off or $200 or it might be only $50. But whatever the amount they may be short of paying it back, the fact is that they cannot get any further loan until it is paid back in spite of the fact that they would be eligible for a $3,000 loan under the new legislation whereas previously they were eligible for only a $1,500 loan. I should like to ask the minister whether there is any real necessity to have that particular subsection in the act and whether there should not be a provision so that the farmers, of whom there are likely to be a large number who will be in this situation, should be in the position in which they may get up to the maximum of $3,000 which is now provided for.


Clarence Decatur Howe: These loans are supposed to be for one year only. The retirement is automatic, as wheat is delivered on quotas established for each year. It has been the experience to date that loans are repaid out of the crop that they are intended to finance. It would, I think, be unfortunate if farmers could pyramid the loans from year to year. If the amount of an earlier loan is not repaid on September 1 the borrower could deliver some new crop wheat and get it paid possibly by October 1, and borrow

Windsor Harbour Commissioners then under the provisions of this bill. I think it is essential that the paragraph be retained.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Will the minister not agree that the only reason the loan would not be repaid is that the farmer would not have a large enough quota to enable him to deliver sufficient grain to discharge the loan? In any case where the farmer was able to deliver enough grain the loan would be discharged. The only cases in which loans would not be discharged would be those in which the quota was too small to enable the farmers to do that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know of any cases where those facts have obtained. Every farmer has a large enough quota to enable him to repay his loan. Deliveries this year in the country are over 100 million bushels ahead of this time last year and last year we had little trouble about getting loans repaid.


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


George Carlyle Marler: the second reading of Bill No. 224, to incorporate the Windsor harbour commissioners.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to establish a corporation to manage and develop the harbour at Windsor, Ontario. The city council of Windsor, the senior and junior chambers of commerce have made representations in favour of the incorporation. The city has advised that upon enactment of the legislation it would vest in the proposed commissioners two lots of waterfront property having about 2,400 feet frontage and other smaller blocks of property. These civic bodies consider highly desirable, in the interests of proper and orderly development and expansion of the harbour, that control be vested in a local body. Increased activity expected to result from the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway is a further reason behind the proposal.
The bill is substantially similar to the Port Alberni Harbour Commissioners Act of 1947, and the Belleville Harbour Commissioners Act of 1952. At the present time the Department of Transport administers a public wharf in Windsor harbour approximately 850 feet in length from which an annual gross revenue of approximately $15,000 is derived. This wharf, together with the warehouse thereon, would

be placed under the administration and control of the harbour commissioners. The proposed commission will consist of three commissioners, one to be appointed by the city of Windsor and two by the governor in council. I am sure the house will not find the bill to be controversial and I hope it will be adopted readily.


Howard Charles Green: On behalf of the official opposition, I am very glad to speak in support of this bill. I think the council and the citizens of the city of Windsor are to be complimented on taking this step. As we all know, there will be great developments in the whole St. Lawrence and great lakes area as a result of the St. Lawrence seaway. Sometimes I have been surprised that the cities so closely affected have not seemed to realize more clearly just what extensive developments there could be. Probably those cities which are in the forefront in realizing what the future may hold are the ones which will make the greatest progress.
Windsor is the first city, I think, to take the step of having a harbour commission set up, that is since this development has been commenced. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there are now seven similar harbour commissions, three of them in Ontario, at Belleville, Hamilton and Toronto, all of which were set up a good many years ago. There is one in Manitoba, the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commission. There are three in British Columbia, New Westminster, North Fraser and Port Alberni. I know that all three harbour commissions in British Columbia have been very successful in their operations and have been largely responsible for the growth of industry in the respective areas under their jurisdiction.
I notice the present bill is in very much the same terms as the last bill of this nature which was passed, the Port Alberni Harbour Commissioners Act, which is chapter 42 of the statutes of 1947.


George Carlyle Marler: And the Belleville Harbour Commissioners Act, 1952.


Howard Charles Green: That is a later one which I overlooked. I thought the Belleville act was passed quite a few years ago.
In the ordinary course, this bill should have been referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines where it could be examined in detail and where we could hear evidence from witnesses. For example, we could have heard from representatives of the city council of Windsor as well as officials of the Department of Transport.


Mr. Mclvor:: And the hon. member.


Howard Charles Green: And the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) who, I am sure, would have made a real contribution to the proceedings. But in view of the fact we are in the last days of the session, I am afraid if this bill went to committee the result might be the legislation would not become law at this session. It is for that reason we in the official opposition are not asking that it go to the committee. Hon. members who served on that committee will remember that we had amendments to the New Westminster Harbour Commissioners Act before us a few years ago, and it has been the custom to have all these bills referred to that committee. However, as I have said, under the circumstances we do not ask that that be done with this bill.
We wish the new harbour commission success in their operations and we hope that they will be a great factor in making the city of Windsor an even greater city than it is at the present time. I have had the privilege of visiting there and I think it is one of the finest, most aggressive, up to date cities in Canada. I am very glad to be able to support the bill.


Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, first may I extend to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) the appreciation of the city of Windsor for his interest and his perseverance in bringing this bill before the house at the present time. May I also extend our appreciation to the Acting Leader of the Opposition for the very kind remarks he has made with respect to the city of Windsor and to the success of the Windsor harbour commission. This bill is the fruit of much study and investigation on the part of the Windsor junior chamber of commerce and the Windsor harbour promotion committee which was organized by the city council of the city of Windsor.
Situated as we are in Windsor on the Detroit river at the juncture of the upper great lakes with the lower lakes we have the city of Detroit on three sides of our community. Behind us is one of the most fertile agricultural areas in all Canada constituting the county of Essex and the county of Kent. In addition to this we have a very extensive manufacturing development there. We have one of the largest automobile manufacturing plants in the British Empire as well as a concentration of pharmaceutical industries.
The food processing plants in Essex and Kent counties supply the tables of the world with tomato products, pickles, relishes, corn, peas and a variety of other vegetables and fruits. The acres of garden under glass in Essex county are today supplying eastern Canada with fresh cucumbers and tomatoes.
6,	1957
Windsor Harbour Commissioners Soon our fertile gardens will supply the same markets with early tomatoes, early potatoes and other vegetables.
The counties of Essex and Kent were the original tobacco producers in Canada, this industry having come up from the United States through the state of Kentucky.
For many years we have supplied most of the table salt consumed in eastern Canada. Today we have a large and thriving salt mine a thousand feet below the surface of the land and of the Detroit river. This mine produces salt in rock form and it is shipped to many distant parts.
Much of our grain is processed into alcoholic beverages and allied alcoholic products which are shipped to the farthest corners of the globe and of course some of our grain is used as fodder for cattle.
I recall that a few years ago while in Bolivia, South America, though I am a teetotaller, I was glad to see in a shop window a product of Hiram Walker, Walkerville, Ontario. The International Playing Card Company also ships its products all over the world.
As I said a moment ago the city of Detroit is on three sides of our proposed port. This is the centre of a vast industrial and manufacturing area comprising the lower part of the state of Michigan, parts of Ohio and Indiana and the central United States. Within a radius of 50 miles of Windsor there is a population of four million people.
The city of Detroit has practically exhausted its port facilities and is not able to take full advantage of the many opportunities afforded that area by the development of the St. Lawrence seaway. For many years there has been an urgent need for adequate planning of our water resources so that they may be utilized more fully.
On the agricultural side, I would like to refer to some figures contained in a return made to an inquiry filed on January 22, 1956 giving the figures for the production of fall wheat, spring wheat, corn and soybeans for the years 1950 to 1956 inclusive. In 1955,
19,963,000	bushels of fall wheat were produced in the province of Ontario. Of this amount 2,056,000 bushels of fall wheat were produced in the county of Kent and 1,588,000 bushels were produced in the county of Essex in the same year. The total amount of fall wheat produced in the counties of Kent and Essex in that one year was 3,644,000 bushels. If one computes the percentage one will find that this represents about 18 per cent of all the fall wheat produced in the entire province of Ontario.
In 1955, 31,300,000 bushels of corn were produced in the province of Ontario and
3216	HOUSE OF
Windsor Harbour Commissioners
23.693.000	bushels were produced in 1956. I do not have figures showing the production of corn in the counties of Essex and Kent for 1956 so I shall refer only to 1955. In 1955 the county of Kent produced 10,772,000 bushels of corn and in the same year Essex county produced 5,263,000 bushels. The total production of corn in Essex and Kent counties was 16,035,000 which represents approximately 51 per cent of all the corn produced in Ontario in the year 1955.
Ontario as a whole in 1955 produced
5.650.000	bushels of soybeans and in 1956 it produced 4,905,000 bushels. Again I have not figures showing the production of the counties of Essex and Kent for 1956 but the figures for 1955 indicate that the county of Kent produced 2,034,000 bushels of soybeans and the county of Essex produced 2,041,000 bushels. The counties of Kent and Essex therefore produced a total of 4,075,000 bushels of soybeans in 1955 representing about 77 per cent of all the soybeans produced in the province of Ontario.
Dealing now with manufacturing in this area we see that the total selling value of factory shipments from factories in the counties of Kent and Essex for the years 1952, 1953 and 1954-the only years for which figures are available-was as follows: In 1952 the county of Kent produced manufactured goods sold at a total value of $134,172,567, whereas the county of Essex produced $724,814,976. That is about three-quarters of a billion dollars. In 1953 Kent county produced $135,813,826 and the county of Essex produced $756,836,929. For the last year when figures are available, Kent county produced $121,273,639 and Essex county produced $550,513,764. But the fact remains that we have not developed our waterfront resources to their whole potential as they do not serve our factories and our farms to the fullest extent and do not attempt to serve an adequate portion of the Detroit river basin. Windsor is now in a position to meet the need existing in this area.
This port has presently abundant transportation facilities, that is to say, by rail, by truck and by air. The Canadian National Railways serves the area with connections by car ferry to the United States. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company also serves the port with connections over the New York Central line by tunnel to the United States. The New York Central line has its main line running from Chicago to New York with its Canadian terminal at Windsor, running from Windsor to Fort Erie. The Chesapeake and Ohio railway also serves the area with connections in Canada at Chatham, Sarnia, St. Thomas, Niagara Falls and other points and of course, with all points in the United States.


The Essex Terminal railway serves the port area linking with all main rail lines in Windsor running as far south as Amherstburg.
The international border of the United States is no problem since the transportation business is served by a tunnel for automobiles and trucks under the Detroit river. We also have a four-lane suspension bridge over the Detroit river. Then we have car ferries which shuttle across the river at several points. In addition the New York Central railroad has a double tube tunnel under the river for its purposes.
Now by air, Trans-Canada Air Lines serve Windsor and Detroit giving a freight and passenger service regularly from Toronto and points east-in fact, to all areas of the globe.
The trip to Toronto is made in less than an hour, a fact which it is interesting to note, while the distance by road is 250 miles. The Guest Air Lines give a direct service to this area from Mexico. Further air lines to distant countries are contemplated.
By road Windsor is the terminus of highway No. 2 to Quebec city and highway No. 3 to Niagara Falls. Recently a four-lane nonaccess highway, highway No. 401, has been serving this area. When the latter is completed it is expected that trucks and automobiles may drive through to Montreal without stopping-a distance of over 500 miles.
There are a number of areas available in the seven miles of waterfront in the city of Windsor which must be developed wisely and cautiously to attract commercial and industrial users. The Canadian National Railways is using approximately two miles of our undeveloped waterfront from the limits of the old town of Walkerville to the city limits. As a matter of fact, there are many miles of deep waterways available on the waterfront and in the small rivers leading into the Detroit river, as far south as Amherstburg. This is waiting development by large and small industrial users having to transport their products to distant ports of the world at the cheapest possible rate.
The Windsor harbour commission has as its purpose the providing of a pattern or framework for future development of the port by bulk storage, terminal warehouses or any other means found to be of advantage to the area. It must be anticipated that the needs will change from time to time and we must be prepared to meet the demand for years to come. To this end, appropriate and adequate facilities must be provided to handle both foreign and United States business as it is needed.
The present port-based industries in the Windsor area have an aggregate annual payroll of approximately $2 million, but the

Detroit area has port-based industries whose aggregate annual payroll is about $200 million. It can be seen, therefore, that the port of Windsor has a definite economic potential in the field of water transportation.
Toronto, Hamilton, Belleville and other ports in Canada have been similarly served by efficient harbour commissions which this bill seeks to provide for the city of Windsor and environment. Its purpose is to preserve deep water frontages, to control the development of the waterfront and to zone and rebuild the unused areas for the purpose of encouraging and servicing foreign trade as well as domestic, for the present and the future. As I see it, the benefits could be summarized as follows: First, it would mean lower freight rates to Canadian and overseas ports; second, it would mean the establishment of secondary industries, their bulk storage and their shippers; third, it would provide revenue to the port and to Canada from the United States business.
May I congratulate the minister once again for bringing forward this bill and may I say I feel it should be given the whole support of this house and I so recommend.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say a few words in support of this bill which is before us to incorporate the Windsor harbour commission. I do so largely out of my own observations of the operations of the Port Alberni harbour commission to which the minister referred when he was introducing the bill and upon which type of act he said this bill was based. I feel that it is generally agreed in the Port Alberni area that the operation of the harbour commission which was established there through the board of harbour commissioners a number of years ago, during the time when Mr. Gibson was representing Comox-Alberni in this house, has been generally to the advantage of the people of Port Alberni and has enabled the orderly and planned development of the harbour. It has also enabled considerable local benefits to be established in the way of facilities. For those reasons I am certainly glad to see that the people of Windsor are desirous of having their own board of harbour commissioners. It will, I am sure, assist in the development of the area which has been so eloquently described by its representative; and in years to come they will be glad of the fact that this bill was brought before the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Windsor Harbour Commissioners
On clause 1-Short Title.
Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the sponsor of the bill whether the bill would give authority to the proposed board over any harbour or potential harbour facilities outside the city of Windsor?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, the jurisdiction of the commission arises from the several clauses of the bill, first of all, from clause 2, which makes it a corporation; then from clause 4 which sets up the boundaries of the harbour. I think clauses 12 and 13 deal with the powers of the corporation and give it power to make by-laws and to regulate and control the use and development of all land on the waterfront. If the hon. member will look at the bill closely I think he will find that the jurisdiction of the commission must be exercised within the limits of the harbour itself.


Erhart Regier: Do I take it from the minister's reply that the proposed harbour board will not be able to exercise any jurisdiction outside the city limits, that is outside the limits of the city of Windsor?


George Carlyle Marler: I did not say that, Mr. Chairman. What I said-and perhaps I should have said so more specifically-is that if the hon. member will refer to clause 4 when we come to it he will see that the boundaries of the harbour are specifically described. Whether they correspond to the actual boundaries of the city of Windsor I do not know, but he will fully understand that those boundaries might be changed from time to time. But the area of jurisdiction of the commission is that set forth in clause 4 which we shall reach shortly.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Definitions.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I have one question to ask on clause 3. Under the definition of vessel, I find the word "raft". The Port Alberni Harbour Commission Act does not include that word and I am wondering what is the purpose of including the word "raft" here.


George Carlyle Marler: I am surprised that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra would suggest that we should leave it out.


Howard Charles Green: What is it intended to cover? Rafts of logs or timber?


George Carlyle Marler: I cannot think of any other kind of raft offhand. Perhaps if I had enough time to let my imagination roll around I could think of a raft which was made of something other than timber.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Windsor Harbour Commissioners
On clause 4-Boundaries oj Harbour.
Howard Charles Green: In clause 4, also, there appears something which is a little different from the wording of the other bill. In the last line but one of the first subsection is included the word "buildings". It says:
All waterfront property, wharves, piers, docks, buildings, shores and beaches in or along the said waters.
What type of buildings are intended to be covered? I would point out that the other act does not cover buildings.


George Carlyle Marler: I would like to make it clear that all these three statutes, the one now before the committee, the one incorporating Port Alberni and the other incorporating Belleville are not identical in language, but they are substantially the same in substance. In this particular case I understand the word "buildings" has been used because on the property of the Department of Transport to which I referred earlier there is a warehouse, and that, I imagine, is the reason why the word "buildings" has been embodied.


Erhart Regier: I asked the minister about this before. I do not blame him if he did not know the answer, but I would like to ask the hon. member for Essex West at this point whether clause 4 gives jurisdiction to the proposed harbour commission over any area of waterfront outside the city of Windsor? I shall have something more to say if the answer is in the affirmative.


Donald Ferguson Brown: As far as I
understand it, this gives jurisdiction only within the limits of the city of Windsor. It does not include areas either upstream or downstream from the city of Windsor; it is only within the territorial limits of the city of Windsor which has about seven miles of waterfront on the river. It does not go down river, and it does not go up river.


Erhart Regier: I am very pleased to hear that, because we have a parallel case in the case of New Westminster. I noticed the other day that the mayor of New Westminster is at the present time, according to news releases, prepared to recommend that the New Westminster harbour commission be completely scrapped and that a new harbour commission be instituted which will give adequate voice to all the areas beyond New Westminster, which takes in about nine municipalities.
For a number of years I have observed the ill effects of a harbour commission whose powers are vested within the narrow confines of a city yet whose jurisdiction extends for miles beyond that city. The effects of the operations of such a harbour commission


have been to the detriment of all the surrounding municipalities along the waterfront. I am therefore pleased to note that the hon. member for Essex West has said that this bill will affect the waterfront only in so far as the waterfront is within the limits of the city of Windsor.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 11-Property.
Howard Charles Green: Subclause 2 of clause 11 reads as follows:
The corporation, subject to such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon at the time control thereof is transferred to it, may hold, develop, and administer on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada or the council of the city of Windsor any property owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada or by the city of Windsor in or in the vicinity of the harbour.
Why is the power taken to hold, develop and administer property outside the harbour as defined in the bill?


George Carlyle Marler: I think the only explanation for using the rather broader language, "in or in the vicinity of the harbour", is that it is intended to cover the possible case of a piece of property which might actually straddle the actual limits of the harbour as set forth in clause 4.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
On clause 13-By-laws.
Howard Charles Green: There seems to be a provision in clause 13 which is pretty severe. I refer to subclause 1, paragraph (g), which reads as follows:
(g) the prescribing of the punishment, by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both, to be imposed upon summary conviction for the breach of any bylaw.
That is a bylaw of the harbour commission. In the Port Alberni Harbour Commissioners Act the comparable paragraph reads as follows:
(i) to impose penalties recoverable upon summary conviction for the violation of any of the provisions of this act or the bylaws of the corporation; such penalties not to exceed fifty dollars or thirty days' imprisonment, and in default of payment of such pecuniary penalty and the cost of conviction the period of imprisonment to be fixed by bylaw not to exceed sixty days or to continue after such payment is made.
In the bill now before us power is being given to impose a fine up to $500 and imprisonment up to six months. These penalties are much greater than in the case of the Port Alberni Harbour Commissioners Act.


George Carlyle Marler: The reason for the amount here is that it was found in connection with other harbours that the small amount the hon. member has just mentioned, $50 I think it was in the case of Port Alberni, was not a sufficient deterrent. I would remind the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that in 1951, when the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act was reviewed and amended, provision was made then for a pecuniary penalty of $1,000. In the case of Windsor I think that would seem a little too high but I think that $500 is a reasonable amount.


Howard Charles Green: There is another point. There does not seem to be any provision in the bill for the commission to sue and be sued. In the Port Alberni Harbour Commissioners Act section 14 is in these words:
The corporation may institute and defend all suits, actions and proceedings in any court in respect of the property of the corporation and the land comprised within the harbour.
Why has a provision of that type been omitted from the present bill?


George Carlyle Marler: I thought I would find a specific text in the bill which would state explicitly that the corporation might sue or be sued but I infer that it has not been put in the bill expressly because I think it must have been considered that it was one of the inherent powers and disabilities of the corporation which would flow from the mere fact that it was a corporate body and that it would as such have the power to sue and, correspondingly, be sued. I will give consideration to that point and if it is necessary to introduce an amendment perhaps that could be done on some later occasion. But I doubt very much if the legislation needs an express provision to put the corporation in that position.


Howard Charles Green: It does not matter to me very much. I do not expect to be suing the commission or to be sued by them, but I do not see why it is put in one act and not in the other.


George Carlyle Marler: I am sure that the new commissioners will be comforted by the promise of the hon. member not to take action against them, but I think I should say that the drafting of the bill now before us afforded an opportunity to the Department of Justice to see what had been done in the case of Port Alberni, in the case of Belleville and in the case of Toronto, and it was only after all these statutes had been considered that this particular draft was prepared. I do not believe that the omission of this power and disability is an oversight. I think it has been deliberate on the part of the department.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
Windsor Harbour Commissioners
On clause 19-Seizure and detention of vessels.
William McLean Hamilton: Is the inclusion of the word "and" at the end of subclause (a) of clause 19 correct or should it be "or"?


George Carlyle Marler: I am told that the word "and" has been used because it is believed that it should be "and".


William McLean Hamilton: Would not anyone who did not pay the charges with respect to the handling of a vessel automatically be violating the provisions of the bylaws?


George Carlyle Marler: I find that in the one case we have "and" and in another case we have "or". I think I would prefer not to make a change. I doubt if it is a very significant provision at all events.


John Borden Hamilton: May I point out to the minister that it could conceivably have significance. Let us imagine a situation in which a particular vessel comes within the confines of the harbour and commits breach after breach of the harbour regulations, something that the master could do.
However, as long as he pays his harbour charges and can get the vessel outside the confines of the harbour the vessel is exempt from seizure. In order for the corporation to seize any vessel, this particular clause insists that the man must do two things: first, he must fail to pay; second, he must violate the provisions of a by-law. I would suggest to the minister with some respect that he might just consider changing this wording to "or" in order to bring it in line with at least one of the other existing acts.


George Carlyle Marler: I have been faced with the
situation that I have one that says "and" and another that says "or". I can fully understand that if I said "or", the hon. gentleman could have said that I should have said "and".


Howard Charles Green: You are too suspicious.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not say "and/or"?


George Carlyle Marler: I think there is a very good reason for not doing so. First of all, I do not think "and/or" is particularly good English. In the second place, I do not particularly want to send the bill back to the other place with a change which has so little significance in connection with a commission which is just at the moment being formed. Seriously I doubt

North Pacific Fur Seals if the difference between the use of the word "and" and the use of the word "or" is particularly important.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 25 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (for the Minister of Fisheries) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to implement the interim convention on conservation of north Pacific fur seals, signed at Washington on the 9th of February, 1957, by Canada, the United States of America, Japan, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and for carrying out Canada's obligations under the said interim convention.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Mr. J. Watson MacNaughi (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Chairman, this resolution relates to the interim convention signed at Washington on the 9th day of February, 1957 between Canada, the United States of America, Japan and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the regulation and control of fur seals in the North Pacific. The convention provides, among other things, for (a) the establishment of a North Pacific fur seal commission of four members, one from each of the signatories; (b) a six-year co-operative research program; (c) the prohibition of pelagic sealing except to a specified extent for research purposes; and (d) a sharing of the land kill so that Canada and Japan receive each year from the U.S.S.R. and the United States 15 per cent of the seal skins taken on the rookery islands by the two latter countries. The islands in question are; Pribilof islands owned by the United States, and the Commander and Robben islands under the control of the U.S.S.R.
It will be recalled that in 1911 a convention was signed by Great Britain for Canada, the United States, Japan and Russia in relation to fur seals in the North Pacific. The principal provisions of the newly signed convention which were absent in the 1911 convention are:
1.	The 1911 convention left research and management to the parties having control of the breeding areas. The other parties to the convention sharing the skins had no voice in the management of the fur seal herds. Under the new convention a commission is

to be established, composed of a representative of each government, which will have the duty of recommending to the four governments co-ordinated research programs and appropriate measures based on research, including the composition of the annual kill, the size of the herd to be maintained, the methods of sealing best suited to achieve the objectives of the convention. In general, all parties under the new convention are recognized as having an interest in the management of the seal herds of the north Pacific ocean.
2.	The new convention provides specifically for co-ordinated research to determine, among other things, the extent to which the food habits of fur seals affect commercial fish catches and the damage fur seals inflict on fishing gear. Having important commercial fisheries along some of the migration routes of the fur seals, this matter is of great importance to Canada. We will under the new convention have equal say in the matter of the over-all size of the seal herds and also be able to obtain the necessary scientific information as to the effect of predation by fur seals on stocks of fish of concern to us. It would have been difficult to obtain this information if all four governments had not joined in the co-operative research program.
3.	Each country undertakes an obligation to take a number of seals pelagically for research purposes; the rookery-owning countries also undertake the tagging of an appropriate number of seals.
The arrangement for the sharing of seal skins follows closely the provisions of the 1911 convention. We are to take 15 per cent from the United States of the commercial kill on the Pribilof islands and 15 per cent from the U.S.S.R. from the commercial kill on the Commander and Robben islands. Because the cost of research in the western Pacific will be heavier than on this side, a formula for compensating the U.S.S.R. during the years of heavy pelagic take for research is included in the convention. Under this formula, if in any year the number of seals taken for research around the Commander and Robben islands exceeds 2,000, we will forgo our share of seal skins for that year from the U.S.S.R., but in such case the United States will increase our share of the Pribilof take to the extent of 375 skins. This represents an estimated 50 per cent of what we would normally be getting from the U.S.S.R. in any one year.
Under the provisional fur sale agreement made between Canada and the United States in 1942, after Japan terminated the 1911 treaty, our share of skins from the Pribilof islands was increased from 15 per cent to

20 per cent. The Japanese share of the Pri-bilof islands' take was divided up between us and the United States. This was also our proportion of the skins under an agreement made between the United States and Great Britain on February 11, 1911, just before the quadripartite treaty of July, 1911. When the provisional fur seal agreement was made in 1942 and continued in 1947, it was understood that it was a temporary expedient until such time as a new agreement could be made to which the other interested countries would again be parties.
The newly signed convention exempts the Indians from the prohibition of pelagic sealing on the same conditions as contained in the previous conventions, that is that sealing would be allowed by Indians in canoes without firearms.


Mr. Pearkes:: I should like to say a few words on this resolution. I think it is well that we should look at the background of the history of this industry. Seventy years ago this was a tremendously important industry on the west coast. The Victoria Sealing Company constructed special boats, which were built on the west coast, in order to carry out sealing operations. There were somewhere between 55 and 60 schooners operating out of Victoria, employing something in the nature of 1,500 men who were going out on the annual sealing expedition. They were carrying out their lawful profession of sealing on the high seas.
Just before the close of the last century United States fishermen, supported by armed vessels from the United States, endeavoured to close the Bering sea to our Canadian fishermen. There was a period of difficult situations occurring in which the Canadian fishermen were abused and every attempt was made to run our Canadian ships out of the Bering sea. It was only the persistence of the sealers from British Columbia, who in spite of the danger that they were running continued their lawful operations, that established the fact the Bering sea was not a closed sea to the United States. The result was that in 1891, 1892 and 1893 by agreement by United States and Great Britain, Canadian seamen refrained from fishing for seal in the Bering sea.
Then there followed a convention in Paris, France, under which an award was brought down in 1893 to the effect that the Victoria Sealing Company had every right to fish in the Bering sea; the rights of British Columbia seamen were established. Then, Great Britain, in order to find the means of co-operating with the United States and not being anxious to pursue the matter further, agreed that compensation should be paid, first of all to
North Pacific Fur Seals the Victoria Sealing Company and then subsequently to any company which might be operating there. These claims were never paid and Victoria lost a great deal of business from the prohibition against their sealers. A lot of these special shipbuilding operations, which were carried out in the shipyards there were lost also.
However, it was as a result of the efforts made by the British Columbia fishermen that Canada established her right to a portion of the pelts which were eventually taken in the Pribilof and Commander islands. Under the treaty of 1911, Canada received 15 per cent of the pelts which were killed in the Pribilof islands on the American side and of those killed on the Russian and Japanese side of the Pacific. I think I am correct in saying that never at any time did Canada receive her share of the 15 per cent of the Russian seals.
These fur seals spend the period from November to June each year off the west coast of British Columbia, and particularly off the west coast of Vancouver island. There are in the herd something over 2 million fur seals. It has been estimated that these consume about 15 pounds of fish per day per seal. You can see, therefore, what great havoc is wrought on our stocks of salmon and other fish. In fact, I wonder whether, if there were no fur seals or if the number were reduced, it would be necessary for the Department of Fisheries this year to impose regulations prohibiting trolling on the west coast during the winter months for spring salmon. It seems to me that British Columbia suffers very considerably from the ravages of the fur seal herd. British Columbia gets nothing in return.
I am going to make a suggestion that the moneys which are derived from the sale of Canada's share of the pelts should be used directly for the benefit of British Columbia fishermen. Instead of having these moneys placed in the consolidated revenue fund, they should be used entirely for the development of the fisheries on the Pacific coast because British Columbian salmon are feeding this herd all during the winter months. There is a precedent for that sort of thing being done. As the parliamentary assistant will know, under the Halifax fisheries commission of 1877 there was a sum of $5,500,000 paid in compensation which was to go to the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. Newfoundland received $1 million, leaving the sum of $4,500,000 out of which, by act of 1882, it was agreed to pay the interest on the actual bounties to those who were engaged in the Atlantic fisheries. This amount was fixed at $160,000, to be distributed so much per ton per vessel; so

North Pacific Fur Seals much per man per boat and so much to each boat owner. It seems to me that what is fair for the Atlantic coast fishermen is also fair for the Pacific coast fishermen.
That is the reason I feel entitled to suggest that the moneys derived from the sale of the pelts of the fur seals should be devoted exclusively to the development of the Pacific coast fisheries. I hope the parliamentary assistant will discuss this suggestion with his colleagues. Because he comes from the Atlantic coast he will realize how beneficial it is to the fishermen on the east coast. They receive this advantage and I am certain he would not wish to deny a similar advantage to the fishermen on the west coast.
I am pleased that under this convention will be set up the commission which will make inquiries into the development and feeding habits of these fur seals. With the reduction of the quantity of the salmon run it is extremely doubtful at the present time whether we can afford to allow this herd of fur seals to develop. Surely food, as originating from our salmon, is more valuable to the world than the fur pelts which are obtained from the kill of the seal.
Six years has been set as a period during which a research program will be conducted, I suggest to ascertain whether it is really worth while perserving these seals. I would like to call the parliamentary assistant's attention to the fact that in recent years cubs of these fur seals have been discovered in increasing numbers off the west coast of Vancouver island. Originally all the cubs were given birth on the Pribilof islands and young cubs were not found off Vancouver island. This would indicate to me that the large herd of fur seals are finding it difficult to get sufficient food in the northern waters and that they are now moving south because the cubs are being born elsewhere than in the northern islands.
I had occasion to write to the minister calling his attention to the incidence of some of these cubs being found a couple of years ago. Perhaps I might refresh the parliamentary assistant's memory on that point and ask him to make quite certain that this is one of the matters the commission will take into consideration during their research.
I was going to ask a question regarding the Indians. I take it that the Indians can kill as many seals as they see fit or as many as they require for their own purposes providing they are killed from canoes with spears. I understand there are no restrictions on the number of seals which Indians can kill with spears from canoes but of course they are not allowed to use firearms.

I believe I am correct in saying that the number of seals to be killed at sea is as follows: Japan, 3,250; United States, 1,750; Russia, 1,250 and Canada 750. If those figures are correct they do not quite agree with the 2,000 limit which the parliamentary assistant mentioned and I would like to be informed on that matter.
With those reservations and with the earnest hope that arrangements will be made so that the moneys derived from the pelts of these animals will be used for the benefit of Pacific coast fishermen, we are in agreement with the adoption of this convention.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, the background and history of the fur seal situation has been pretty well covered in general outline by the parliamentary assistant and by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich so I shall not attempt to cover that ground at this time, but there are one or two matters with which I would like to deal.
I would like to say at the outset that I am very pleased to have the statement from the parliamentary assistant that this new treaty is going to bring in to the fur seal situation the same principles of management that have been incorporated in treaties in respect to the sockeye salmon and other fisheries treaties to which Canada has been a party in recent years. I think that represents a definite step forward in relation to this question.
I am also glad to note that definite provision is being made for an analysis through scientific study of the effect of the fur seal upon our great Pacific fisheries on the west coast. I certainly agree with the emphasis placed on this consideration by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. The hon. member brought forward a most interesting suggestion in relation to the possible direct return to the fishermen on the Pacific coast of the benefits which Canada receives from the fur seal kill, because of the effect the fur seal has upon the plenitude of our commercial fisheries, based on the fact that embodied in the setting up of the commission provision is made for a real study of this relationship. It is fitting that the benefit of that study should accrue to those who are concerned with the commercial fisheries in British Columbia.
There is one additional matter to which I think consideration should be given in this connection because if anyone has a first claim upon these benefits I feel it should be the aboriginal population of the coastal areas of British Columbia. In his opening remarks the parliamentary assistant mentioned that the new treaty as proposed carries forward in the same terms the rights of

the native Indians of the west coast to utilize these fur seals for food. I have recently received some representation on this point from some of the Indians who dwell in my constituency. They have their eyes on the fact that Canada is entering this treaty and have a genuine interest in this particular matter. I think perhaps we should view this situation in its true perspective.
I have before me some rather interesting statistics on the fur seal kill which came to my hands in a copy of the report of the ninth British Columbia natural resources conference before which a paper was delivered by two gentlemen from the fisheries research board of Canada biological station at Nanaimo, British Columbia, namely, Messrs. M. P. Shepard and J. C. Stevenson. On page 183 of this report they set out in table form the history of the fur seal kill in the period beginning 1876 to 1955 and in this table it shows that during the period from 1876 to 1910 inclusive all of the kill of fur seals was pelagic, done by Canadian sealing vessels, and I assume that, absorbed in these figures, were the kills made by the aborigines during that period of time. But following 1910 the pelagic killing of the seals and the operation of sealing vessels ceased.
The figures are set forth for the aboriginal kill during those years and it shows in the period 1911 to 1915 the average kill was 815, from 1916 to 1920 the average kill as 319, from 1921 to 1925 it was 2,880, from 1926 to 1930 it was 2,406, from 1931 to 1935, it was 1,266, and from 1936 to 1940 it was 1,300. Then in the period from 1941 to 1945 the kill dropped to 15 and then a note indicates that this reflected the interference due to wartime conditions. In the period 1946 to 1950 the kill was 124, then in 1951 it was 534, in 1952 it was 28 and in 1953 it was 54. Then during 1954 and 1955 no kills are recorded and a footnote explains that surveys by the Department of Fisheries in 1954 and 1955 revealed that the Canadian coastal Indians possessed no serviceable aboriginal equipment, that is to say canoes and spears suitable for taking fur seals.
Now I think it is important that the house should realize the situation, for while the parliamentary assistant tells us that the historical rights of the Indians are protected benefits are not much more than theoretical.
As I mentioned earlier, I have received some recent representations on the subject pointing out to me that the non-availability of deer has meant a decrease in the food supply in recent years along the west coast of Vancouver island. Undoubtedly as far as the Indians along the west coast of Vancouver island are concerned, they would like
North Pacific Fur Seals to be allowed the privilege of taking a reasonable number of these seals for food and for their own use as they require them, with something a little more modern than canoes and spears. I think that this is a problem that should be considered because there are not a great many Indians along the west coast and in parts of the country where they do, from time to time, have a legitimate need for access to food supplies. Furthermore they should have this access in a manner which would be a little easier than going out over the Pacific breakers in canoes with spears, as their ancestors did.
This matter should be taken into consideration in the light of the suggestion made by the member for Esquimalt-Saanich. If in the over-all consideration of national policy and our arrangements with other nations having rights and interests in the fur seal kill it is necessary for us to agree to a limitation of this kind upon the taking for their own use of the seals by the Indians we might well consider some alternative form of benefit which might be given to them in recognition of the fact that they have not available to them facilities which for some good reason they feel should be their right.
I am not going to expand upon this matter any further at the present time but I do feel that, along with some of the other considerations that are involved in this treaty and which were introduced into discussion by the parliamentary assistant and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, this is something that we should have in our minds when we consider the adoption of the bill which will ratify this treaty.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Sinclair) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 412, to implement the interim convention on conservation of north Pacific fur seals.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could request the unanimous approval of the house that this bill should be now read a second time. I have spoken to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes), the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) and on the understanding that the bill is referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries they have indicated that they can see no objection to having the bill read by leave now, a second time.
3224	HOUSE OF
Rocky Mountain Forest Conservation


George Randolph Pearkes: On
the understanding that it is to be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave.
Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Sinclair) thereupon moved the second reading of Bill No. 412, to implement the interim convention on conservation of north Pacific fur seals.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 225, to amend the Eastern Rocky Mountain Forest Conservation Act-Mr. Lesage-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Agreement Approved.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, there are just two clauses in this bill, which provides for turning over certain equipment presently owned by the federal government to the provincial government. I wonder if the minister would tell us just what equipment is being turned over to the province of Alberta and what its value is?


Mr. Lesage:: Mr. Chairman, a description of the equipment can be found on the last page of the annual report of the Eastern Rocky Mountain forest conservation board for the fiscal year 1955-56. It includes cars, trucks and trailers, tractors and heavy equipment, radio equipment, office furniture and equipment, and various other items of movable equipment, the total cost of which as on March 31, 1956 was $605,747. The depreciated cost at the same date was $218,939. It is clear that at the end of the agreement-in 1973, I believe-all this equipment will	have been completely
depreciated for a long time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder if the minister could tell us whether there is any agreement, written or otherwise, on the part of the provincial government that this equipment will be used solely for the purpose of maintaining the roads and for other work in the Eastern Forest conservation project. In other words, I take it that the general purpose of turning this equipment over to the province is because the agreement between the province and the dominion is to come to


an end; the dominion is not putting up any further funds to provide new capital work there, and I would think the main consideration in turning over this equipment is that it should be used to maintain the roads which have been built, and to carry on any other work necessary to prevent forest fires in that area.


Jean Lesage: I am sorry, but I must point out that the agreement is not terminated; the agreement is still in force. The bill before the committee has the effect of amending the agreement and, of course, this is the property of the board to be used for the board's purposes. There is a federal member on the board-General Kennedy- who is still the chairman of the board.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was about to ask the minister whether this has been agreed to by the province and whether they are satisfied with the terms of the agreement.


Jean Lesage: I do not have the date, but the agreement has been signed by the Hon. Norman Willmore, minister of lands and forests in the provincial government, and by myself.


Charles Edward Johnston: I take it, then, that the provincial government is quite satisfied with the terms and arrangements under which this agreement has been made? Surely the machinery which has been turned over to the provincial government at a depreciated value in accordance with the terms of agreement of both parties-and I am not objecting to that at all-should be at the disposal of the government of Alberta for use in the way it thinks best for the carrying out of this type of work. I think the federal government should recognize this, and leave it to the good judgment of the province to use the machinery in their custody in the way they think fit.


Jean Lesage: The property and equipment will be turned over to the provincial government in 1973, and by that time this equipment will be completely depreciated.


John Whitney Pickersgill: An Indian gift.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The point I was getting at is this: until 1973 the equipment will be used for maintaining the roads and for general conservation work in that area?


Jean Lesage: It is the property of the board.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Jean Lesage: the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 160, to amend the Exchequer Court Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.


Jean Lesage: the second reading of Bill No. 209, an act to amend the Territorial Lands Act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder if the minister would say something in connection with this bill?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, the Territorial Lands Act was passed in 1950. This act replaced the old Dominion Lands Act and is now the statute which governs the administration, control and disposition of the lands in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, with the exception of quartz and placer mining rights in the Yukon Territory.
In the Territorial Lands Act a simple procedure was provided for taking proceedings before a stipendiary magistrate to evict persons who were trespassing upon or unlawfully occupying crown lands. The power to hear such proceedings was given to a stipendiary magistrate and could not be exercised by anyone else. When the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act were revised and came into effect on the 1st April, 1955, the appointment of stipendiary magistrates was no longer necessary and the positions were abolished. The amendment proposed by the bill will allow the proceedings to be heard before a judge of the territorial court.
There is nobody now to judge these cases of eviction. The amendment proposed by the bill is very simple: it will allow the proceedings to be heard before a judge of the territorial court.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is only one consideration which occurs to me and which I would like the minister to deal with. When the other act was amended in 1955 and the position of stipendiary magistrate was abolished, I am sure there were considered to be very good reasons for it at that time, although I have no idea what reasons they were. My colleague, the hon. member for
Territorial Lands Act
Calgary North (Mr. Harkness), suggests that the reasons may not have been good in the strict sense of the word. However, here is a case where in order to get a matter dealt with at all it has to be brought under the jurisdiction of a county court-


Jean Lesage: Territorial.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A judge of the territorial court. I am wondering whether consideration has been given for this reason and for such others as there may be to reinstating the position of stipendiary magistrate in the territory. It does seem a little open to question whether we should give too many minor matters to a judge of the territorial court.


Jean Lesage: The amendments to the new Yukon Act and Northwest Territories Act were passed before I assumed the position I now occupy-they only came into effect in 1955-the old acts continued in effect until that year when the new Criminal Code came into force. I understand it was considered when the new acts were passed by the house that there was no need any more for stipendiary magistrates and that is why there was no provision for them in the new Yukon Act and Northwest Territories Act. Since 1955 the matter has been left in abeyance. There have been a few cases of eviction that could not be brought before any court because there was no court with jurisdiction to which they could be taken. Hence we have this amendment to the Territorial Lands Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Judge of the court.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask the minister a question or two with relation to what he told us on second reading. Are there any other cases where the department found itself embarrassed by the fact that there simply was no stipendiary magistrate, or do all the cases to which he referred relate to evictions?


Jean Lesage: That is right. I have not been embarrassed except by such cases.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How many were there, just two or three?


Jean Lesage: There is not a very great number of cases. They only involve two or three people.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am trying to get a considered opinion from the minister with respect to whether he now thinks, in the light of experience, that it was as wise as it then seemed to abolish the position of stipendiary
3226	HOUSE OF
Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act magistrate or whether there are reasons which might give rise to the conclusion that they should be reinstated because of the volume of business that it might be possible to bring before them?


Jean Lesage: No. As a matter of fact, there are only one or two cases of procedures in eviction where action has to be taken because of some squatters who had established themselves on the approaches of the new Whitehorse bridge over the Yukon river.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As far as I know, there is only one territorial judge in the Northwest Territories, and I do not know whether or not there is more than one in the Yukon. I should like the minister to tell us that and whether the number of cases of all kinds which might normally go before a stipendiary magistrate is so small that one judge in each territory is sufficient to handle cases of every kind, even cases that in a province would come before a supreme court judge.


Jean Lesage: That is my understanding.


Douglas Scott Harkness: How many judges are there in the Yukon?


Jean Lesage: One.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: When shall this bill be read a third time? Now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Jean Lesage: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CURRENCY. MINT AND EXCHANGE FUND ACT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE REMEDY ALLOWANCE FOR TEN-CENT PIECES

John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. 240, to amend the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, on the face of it this is a very simple measure, and I think it is essentially a very simple measure. I took a little trouble to inform myself about some of the background of the mint and its activities and I should like to put on the record two or three facts which interested me and which


I think are not wholly irrelevant. I will reassure members of the house by saying that I shall not take more than three or four minutes with the information that I wish to put on the record.
First of all, I should like to recall that apparently we find the first known coins about 700 B.C., and the first British coin is tentatively placed in the second century B.C. We come then to the history of the royal mint in London which began in Anglo-Saxon times, but the thing that interested me was that coinage was not then confined to one place nor did the sovereign insist too strongly on the right of coining which, according to the civil law maxim, "is inherent in the bones of princes."


Mr. Nowlan:: Pardon?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: "Inherent in the bones of princes". Nevertheless, the ecclesiastics did a bit of coining in those days too. I am referring to an article on the royal mint and its branches found in the Canadian Georgrahic Journal, volume 3, 1931, at page 57. In part it has this to say:
. . . nor did the sovereign insist too strongly on the right of coining which, according to the Civil Law maxim, is "inherent in the bones of princes", for we find the Archbishop of Canterbury and other ecclesiastical dignitaries issuing their own coins alongside those of the King. Indeed, for many years after coinage became fully recognized as a prerogative of the crown we find the management of the mints, as of other departments of government, largely controlled by ecclesiastics, perhaps because they alone, as a class, had the necessary education.
There is one further passage I should like to put on the record.
As late as 1548, according to Ruding, Bishop Latimer, in a sermon at St. Paul's inveighed against bishops and other churchmen occupying stations in the mint. "They are," he said of them, "otherwise occupied .	. . some comptrollers of
myntes. Well, well, ... I would fayne knowe who comptrolleth the devill at home at his parishe, while he comptrolleth the mynte?" . . . The saying is that since priests have been mynters money hath been worse than it was before."


George Clyde Nowlan: They must be minters now because it is a lot worse.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I continue:
"And they say that the evilnesse of money hath made all things dearer." It may he fitting at this point to offer the assurance that the present high cost of living is not due to church interference in matters of coinage.
I apologize for this interlude, and I now come to the bill, which is very simple. The explanatory note indicates that its purpose is to increase the allowance for error in the manufacture of the 10 cent piece. The note is in these words:
The purpose of this bill is to increase the remedy allowance for 10 cent pieces. The new high speed rolling mills, which were installed in the mint

early in 1956, cannot give as precise a thickness as former mills. The proposed new remedy allowance is the same as that in the United States.
It is a substantial increase in the remedial allowance. But if my arithmetic is good, it is still only about one quarter of one per cent. Inquiry from the mint shows that so far as loss is concerned, there is no reason to expect loss because the error is just as likely to be one way as the other. I therefore think the machine can be regarded neither as moral nor immoral but as being quite amoral and that we have no reason to think it is discriminating either for or against.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the acting minister of finance or whatever his title is,-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, acting for the Minister of Finance, closes the debate on this bill, there is one question I wish he would answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The parliamentary assistant will close the debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He cannot close the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the hon. gentlemen should wait to see what the question is so as to see who knows the answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I say that the parliamentary assistant will close the debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He cannot close the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is noted that the machines referred to were installed in the mint early in 1956. It is also noted that it is intended to have this bill made retroactive for about 15 to 16 months. What I should like to know is this: Are the dimes that have been minted in the last 15 months or 16 months illegal? If so, is there any penalty attached to those who have been circulating and spending these dimes?


William Moore Benidickson: The hon.
member's question is well taken. It is possible that in the number of coins that have been produced since 1956 there may have been some that were slightly under the required accuracy and some that were over. But I can assure my hon. friend that the committee which reviews this matter have only on one occasion had need to draw it to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), and this bill has come forward.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
6, 1957	3227
Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act
On clause 1-Schedule amended,
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance whether -by his answer to my question a moment ago he meant that only one dime has been found to be beyond the degree of tolerance?


William Moore Benidickson: The machine that was referred to was with respect to the manufacturing of the dimes for this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the parliamentary assistant explain that answer?


William Moore Benidickson: It is a new machine.


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: Will it make any more dimes in the dollar?


William Moore Benidickson: It is a new machine and it is a machine that is also used in the United States.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That does not make it any better.


William Moore Benidickson: In the greater quantity of production with this machine it has been found, both in the United States and in Canada, that this new degree of tolerance must be accorded.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask the parliamentary assistant whether or not these coins are legal tender?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or are they just tender?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am quite serious in that question. My understanding is that these coins are legal tender up to a point; and I do not believe that their being legal tender depends on anyone coming along and weighing them. I would think it depends on the imprimatur of the government of Canada.


William Moore Benidickson: I think the point is that there is a committee, as I have said, which from time to time inquires about the efficiency of the mint. This bill will indicate that this committee will disregard a tolerance of the nature referred to in the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the parliamentary assistant this question since he has told us- and the bill also tells us-that this machine is in operation in the United States and that the same degree of inaccuracy is found there. Might that be one reason why on the United States coins we find the words "In God we Trust"?


Ernest George Hansell: I just want to ask one simple question. Has the government considered throwing out all the machines that mint nickels because there is nothing left in Canada that a nickel will buy? As for pennies, yes; chain stores and supermarkets use them for advertising 99-cent bargain sales.

Prairie Farm Assistance Act


Howard Charles Green: May I point out that a nickel pays the 5 per cent sales tax in British Columbia on a dollar purchase.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: Shall this bill be read a third time now?


Edmund Davie Fulton: By leave.


John Whitney Pickersgill: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with hon. gentlemen opposite and I understand that there would be no objection to proceeding now with the amendment to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The minister is here. It is No. 1 on today's order paper.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 157, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Number of acres for which award may be made.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, the members in the committee are in very good humour this afternoon and I do not propose to make any extended remarks. This bill was referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization. The minister was good enough to have his officials on hand to answer questions. While legislation never measures up to the expectations of opposition members who would like something better, nevertheless this legislation makes provision for payments which the minister anticipates will be a good deal higher that would have been possible under the previous legislation. It also makes provision for these payments to be
made without any additional levy on the people concerned. It was the hope of all hon. members who were at the committee meetings that at some stage it might be possible to get a more comprehensive plan that would provide assistance for farmers in all parts of Canada. But those who are from the prairie area are glad that this amendment has been brought forward this year.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Blocks ineligible for award.
Mr. Quelch:: It is very hard to decide whether or not this is a good section. I think that under subsection (a) the farmer will be worse off under this amendment than he would have been before, but under subsection (b), he will be better off. On balance, he will probably gain more as a result of (b) than he will lose as a result of (a), and therefore we must support the section.


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

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. gentlemen on both sides of the house for their wonderful co-operation which has enabled us to do more today than the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) thought we could do. On Monday it is proposed to begin with the hospital insurance bill, and then take the Agricultural Products Marketing Act. After that the Minister of Finance will consult with hon. gentlemen opposite about the menu for the rest of the day.


Howard Charles Green: What about the Income Tax Act? Is that not supposed to be on on Monday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not quite sure whether the minister is prepared to proceed at the beginning of the day. In fact, he did indicate to me he would like the hospital insurance bill first and the Agricultural Products Marketing Act next. He may be quite ready to go on with it third.
On motion of Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East) the house adjourned at 5.56 p.m.