1958-08-18

Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement to the house on the riot which took place yesterday morning at Collins Bay penitentiary, where 441 inmates are held.
The disturbance started at 10.30 while the majority of the inmates were having their morning recreational period in the yard within the prison walls. There had been no advance warning either by rumour, as is usually the case in disturbances of this sort, or by any indication whatsoever. The breakout was sudden, and a number of the prisoners proceeded to set fire to buildings, smash windows, throw pop bottles, etc.
By 10.50 sufficient extra guards had been assembled so that an armed shock troop could be sent in equipped with rifles, tear gas, nauseating gas, and other appliances. Within ten minutes thereafter the riot was under control, and by 11.30 the inmates had been sufficiently secured so that the vehicles of the Kingston fire department and the township fire department could enter the gates and fight the fires. City, provincial and Royal Canadian Mounted Police also assisted in quelling the outbreak.
One hundred and thirteen inmates were actually segregated as those being involved in the riot. During the course of the riot two men were injured. A guard suffered scalp lacerations, presumably from flying glass or a flying pop bottle. One inmate suffered a leg wound which is a flesh wound only. He was wounded when a number of inmates attempted to storm the kitchen and, when ordered to stop, refused to do so. Approximately 12 shots were fired in the air as warning shots, but when the immates still refused to stop a low shot was fired and one inmate was wounded. This immediately stopped the attack on the kitchen and undoubtedly saved an enormous amount of property damage.
An estimate of the damage to the buildings based on information at present available is $52,500. This is exclusive of machinery,
which could not be properly assessed until power was turned on and the machines of various types tested. The buildings damaged were two dormitories, the carpenter shop, paint shop, dissociation cells and minor damage to several other shops. An investigation is under way to ascertain, if possible, the cause of the disturbance and what, if any, further steps may be taken to prevent similar action in the future.
I would like to compliment very sincerely the staff at the penitentiary for their prompt action. Within half an hour after the riot had broken out the inmates were contained. The promptness of the action beyond a shadow of doubt saved many thousands of dollars of property damage and, as it was, for a riot of this size the property damage was small in comparison with other such occurrences. I would also like to acknowledge the prompt assistance rendered to the staff by members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Ontario provincial police, the Kingston police and the local fire-fighting forces, to whom we are extremely grateful.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motions:
The following proposed resolution:-Resolved, that it is expedient that the houses of parliament approve the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Saskatchewan respecting the South Saskatchewan river project, signed on the 25th day of July, 1958, and that this house do approve the same.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to standing order 21(2) this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 32-Mr. Fisher:
For a copy of all correspondence since September 1, 1957, between the Minister of Transport and the shipping federation of Canada on pilotage and associated matters.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 33-Mr. Fisher:
For a copy of all correspondence since September 1, 1957, between the Minister of Transport and the dominion marine association, on pilotage and associated matters.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 34-Mr. Fisher:
For a copy of all communications between the government and United States authorities on the question of pilotage on the great lakes since January 1, 1958.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would want to pursue this motion, in view of the fact that the only relevant communication is an aide memoire dated March 20 which was delivered by our embassy in Washington to the state department, and in which are expressed Canada's views on legislation before congress. A copy of this aide memoire was tabled by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) on June 24.


Mr. Fisher:: I ask that the motion be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



SALE OF CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS WEST INDIES FLEET

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36-Mr. McWilliam:
For a copy of all correspondence relating to the sale of the Canadian National Steamships West Indies fleet, received by the Canadian National Steamships Company, Canadian National Railways or the Minister of Transport, along with a copy of all tenders received by the Canadian National Steamships Company for the purchase of this fleet.
to remind the house that when I was asked on Wednesday last by the hon. member for Laurier whether I would table the correspondence between Canadian National Steamships and those tendering for the West Indies fleet, I replied as follows, as reported at page 3452 of Hansard:
I do not know about the ethical procedure in this regard, whether all correspondence between a company such as the Canadian National and all those tendering should be made public. I will discuss the matter with Mr. Donald Gordon, and if they are willing and it is possible I shall be glad to do so.
I have spoken to the president of Canadian National Railways and he advises me that the correspondence between Canadian National Railways and those having business dealings with the company has always been regarded as privileged, and on no occasion has the railway been required to produce such correspondence. Mr. Gordon feels strongly that any other position would be most prejudicial to the business interests of the railway.
On various occasions the point has been discussed during the proceedings of the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping, and the position of the railway has always been supported. In the circumstances the government feels that the motion should not be passed, and I trust the mover will be disposed to ask that it be withdrawn.
Mr. Chevrier:: May I add another word, Mr. Speaker, and it is this. In view of the statement which was allegedly made by the minister that he had had no correspondence with, or had no correspondence from, the Toronto firm, and the letter which later appeared in the Toronto and other papers indicating that there had been correspondence, I had thought it would surely move the minister to consent to the production of those documents.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the management of the Canadian National has always regarded as privileged correspondence between the company and those having business dealings with it. Parliament has always supported this position in the past and for this reason the government feels that the motion should not be passed.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, if I may, the other day when there was a discussion on this matter I understood from the minister that there would be no objection to tabling the correspondence that had taken place between the Toronto firm and others, as indicated in this motion.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, if I might clear up the misunderstanding which the hon. member obviously has about this, I should like


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the letter I received was written by Mr. Rashkis on the letterhead of the Aurora Leasing Corporation, and when I was asked about this matter on the telephone as to whether or not I was familiar with the bid made by the Aura Shipping Company I said I was unfamiliar with any bid by any company of that name.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he will be good enough,
Inquiries of the Ministry in accordance with the custom of the house, to table the agreement which he mentioned on Saturday morning, as reported at page 3652 of Hansard, in respect of arrangements concerning northern defence installations and the agreement reached, apparently, on July 23 between the governments of Canada and the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: As far as an agreement, as such, is concerned, there is no agreement. What I said was that agreement had been arrived at with respect to agreed procedures as provided in the agreement on the distant early warning line and by the co-ordinating committee in that behalf.
Later on I said that the regulations now in effect and which came to their final determination on July 23 are such as to ensure that Canadian sovereignty is maintained, and that there is nothing which interferes in that direction. In other words, a series of discussions brought about the achievement of regulations, and I will be glad to table those regulations as they represent the consensus of the agreement arrived at between the two countries as the result of a series of discussions and consideration over a period of time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder whether the Prime Minister when tabling these regulations would also include those made previously under the agreement which was signed between Canada and the United States on May 5, 1955, which has been tabled in this house and which does provide not only for the protection of Canadian sovereignty but for administrative regulations to be issued. What I am asking for is the tabling of all supplementary arrangements and administrative agreements made under this master governmental agreement.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman has, of course, answered his own question. He has before him a document which has already been tabled. Then following negotiations, as I have stated, general regulations were issued on July 23 by the authorities. I will comply at an early date with the suggestion which has been made.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Minister of Labour, or in his absence to the acting minister. Would the minister tell the house whether the 15 unions representing the non-operating employees of

Returned Soldiers Insurance Act the Canadian National Railways, or the company, have accepted or rejected the reports of the conciliation board which were made public on July 30?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I will take the question as notice and bring it to the attention of the minister.



NIAGARA PENINSULA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last during my absence the hon. member for Welland asked the following question, as reported at page 3505 of Hansard:
Today the Toronto Globe and Mail reports that the Niagara peninsula growers have 1,000 tons of surplus cherries as a result, according to the secretary of the marketing board, of a recent large volume of imports at low prices. Does the government intend to give any help to these fruit growers?
The answer is as follows. No formal request has been received for assistance for sour cherry producers in the province of Ontario, but the Ontario pear, plum and cherry growers' marketing board has an appointment with the stabilization board for Wednesday, August 20, and the cherry situation will presumably be discussed at this time.
I think perhaps I should add the following information with respect to the situation, having regard to the article from which the hon. member quoted. The Ontario sour cherry crop for 1958 is estimated at 16,900,000 pounds, or 8 per cent below the 1957 production of 18,300,000 pounds and below the five-year average (1953-1957) production of 18,700,000 pounds. Sour cherry production in the United States for 1958 is now estimated at about 40 per cent below the 1957 production.
The article referred to makes reference to increased volume of imports at low prices. During 1957, 3,728,628 pounds of sour cherries were imported from the United States at an average value of 14.4 cents per pound. To date imports during 1958 total 2,783,000 pounds, at an average value of 13.5 cents per pound.



RETURNED SOLDIERS' INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. C-33, to amend the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act-Mr. Brooks-Mr. Chown in the chair.

On clause 1-Where remainder of an annuity is $1,000 or less.
Mr. Carter:: Does the minister intend to speak?


Mr. Brooks:: This is a bill to amend the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act. The general principles contained in the measure were discussed in the house when the resolution was before it some time ago, and on second reading the bill was referred to the parliamentary committee on veterans affairs. It was very thoroughly considered in that committee and was unanimously endorsed. It has now been returned to the committee of the whole for consideration, and if there is any information desired by any hon. member on the different sections I shall be very pleased to give it when we come to those clauses.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, we have already given our support to this bill at the resolution stage, and we support it again now in committee. As the minister has pointed out, the bill has been before the committee on veterans affairs and has been very thoroughly discussed. There are, however, a few brief observations which might be made at this time.
The original act, which was passed in 1920, was designed to give insurance coverage to veterans of the first world war and to the widows of those who had been killed in action or who had died of wounds. It was a cheap form of insurance requiring very low medical standards, and it was non-participating; it did not pay any dividends and, of course, it was not negotiable. It was merely intended as protection, not for the veterans but for the veterans' families and dependents.
I wish to bring to the attention of hon. gentlemen some interesting facts brought to light in the committee. The first was that veterans were very slow in taking advantage of this insurance. That is understandable, because at the time they were occupied with getting established and were faced with more pressing problems. In many cases they were saddled with debts and could not afford the premium, but they did become aware of the insurance and took advantage of it when they began building homes and raising families.
The committee was informed that 48,319 of these policies were issued with a value of $109,299,500, and at June 30 of this year 10,570 policies were still in force with a value of $22,362,060. Approximately 12,000 of these policies had been terminated by death, 18,000 had been surrendered, and the balance had lapsed or been converted to different forms of policies.

I think the most interesting fact that came before the committee is that after 40 years the fund is still solvent with a balance of $17 million, and while the government has made contributions from time to time this has been more or less in lieu of interest which has not been charged on the money because this has not been handled in the same way as it would be handled by an ordinary commercial company. Looking into the future we can see that at no time will this insurance be expected to cost the government more than $5 million, since no new policies have been issued since August of 1933.
The changes in this bill are very simple, because they have to do with the payment of claims. The first change merely extends the discretion of the minister to determine the form of payments and the remainder of annuities when they are $1,000 or less; at the present time this discretion extends only to $500.
The other change has to do with substituting the word "contingent" for the word "alternative" as it applies to beneficiaries within the meaning of section 5. Apparently beneficiaries under this legislation were divided into two classes. The original group protected by this insurance were members of the veteran's immediate family, his spouse and children. It sometimes happened that there was no spouse or children living who could benefit; therefore the legislation made provision for a second group of beneficiaries such as parents, brothers and sisters and other relatives who formerly had been described as alternative beneficiaries. Under the amendment the term has now been changed to "contingent". Needless to say we are in favour of these changes and wholeheartedly support this bill.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of this group I want to say a few words in support of this bill, and at the same time to reprove the inaccurate approach of the editor of the Globe and Mail to this little group over here. If he carries on in this fashion I shall be forced to term his paper the "Job and Wail". We are glad to see that the minister has introduced this bill, in that it meets the wishes of the veterans organizations in this country. I want to quote from the brief of the Canadian Legion presented to the standing committee on veterans affairs, and of course the minister will understand that I am laying the foundation now for discussion on a later bill that will come before the house. In its brief dated July 17, 1958 the Canadian Legion said:
We are in complete agreement with this bill and wish especially to commend the government for 57071-3-235
Veterans Insurance Act
the introduction of clause 3. The amendment is one that the legion has been pressing for over a long period and we believe that the repeal of section 10 of the act will remedy a situation that has been both unjust and unfair, resulting in many pensioners' families being without the protection that the pensioner thought he was providing.
I give the government credit for introducing these amendments at this time. The passage of this measure will not be very much of a drain on the public exchequer and will affect only a relatively few people, but it has removed from the point of view of the Legion and hon. members of this house a certain minor injustice that has existed throughout the years. On that account this group gives wholehearted support to this measure.


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


Alfred Johnson Brooks: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient, in the proposed measure to amend the Veterans Insurance Act, Bill C-34, now before the house, that clause 1 be deleted and that the following be substituted therefor:
1. (1) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Veterans Insurance Act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(a) with a veteran, at any time on or before the 30th day of September, 1962; or
(b) with any of the following persons, at any time on or before the 30th day of September, 1962,
(i)	the widow or widower of a veteran, if the minister has not entered into a contract of insurance with the veteran,
(ii)	the widow or widower of a person who died on service during the war,
(iii)	a member of the regular forces who has not been released from such forces and who was engaged in service during the war,
(iv)	a merchant seaman who received or was eligible to receive a bonus pursuant to The Merchant Seamen Special Bonus Order, or a seaman who received or was eligible to receive a War Service Bonus pursuant to The Merchant Seamen War Service Bonus Order, 1944,
and
(v)	any other person who is, under the Pension Act, in receipt of a disability pension relating to the war."
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, the first paragraph of this resolution incorporates amendments to clause 1 of the bill that is now before the house to amend the Veterans Insurance Act, and contains other recommendations which were made at the time the bill was introduced. I might say that it was on the recommendation of the committee that the
3702	HOUSE OF
Veterans Insurance Act ideas expressed in the resolution were incorporated in the bill. It simply extends the cut-off date for veterans' insurance for world war II veterans to September of 1962. This has had the unanimous approval of the standing committee on veterans' affairs and the approval of the government. I commend its acceptance to this committee.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, we of course support this resolution and particularly want to commend the minister and the government on the changes which have been brought about by substituting a new clause 1 in accordance with the wishes expressed both in the house and in the standing committee on veterans affairs.
Bill C-34, of course, is a counterpart of Bill C-33, which we have just passed, and was designed to extend to veterans of world war II the same type of insurance coverage that was extended to veterans of world war I. In fact it went a little further than Bill C-33, because it provided coverage not only for the veterans and for the widows of those who were killed in action or died of wounds, but it included other categories such as merchant seamen, fire-fighters, nursing services and other groups. This legislation became effective on February 20, 1945, and the first policy was issued in April of 1945. Later this same coverage was extended to veterans of the Korean war.
In the committee it was brought to light that up to June 30, 42,508 of those policies had been issued with a contract value of $133,870,000. Of those, 25,523 were still in force on June 20. The maximum coverage under this act is $10,000 as compared with $5,000 under the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act, and the average policy issued was $3,000 as compared with $2,000 for veterans of world war II. One of the changes in this legislation parallels the change we made in Bill C-33 just passed, in that it expresses the discretion of the minister on how payments should be made on annuities when the remainder is $1,000 or less.
But unlike Bill C-33 this bill has to do with other changes connected with the issuance of policies and, as the minister has described, the most important of these is the cut-off date with respect to eligibility. Originally eligibility ceased three years after discharge. It was later extended to six years and then to 10 years after discharge; but in 1950 the Department of National Defence amended the National Defence Act by placing on active service not only those who served in the Korean war but the regular forces as well, and this created a problem in that members of the regular forces would, under the legislation as it now stands, be eligible for 10


years after discharge, which would make them eligible to around the age of 60 or 65 when they would, of course, constitute a very great drain on the fund in relation to premiums received and much beyond what the original legislation was intended to cover. This was discussed both in the house and at considerable length in the committee, and a brief was also heard from the Canadian Legion suggesting certain amendments.
I think everybody is in complete agreement that the cut-off date of September, 1962, would be satisfactory, and that it perhaps might tend to hurry up the members of the regular forces who might wish to take advantage of this legislation because experience with this, as with the former returned soldiers' insurance, proves that veterans are inclined to be slow in taking advantage of it and probably for the very same reason. Furthermore, it was felt that people who returned to civilian life should have the same treatment as those who elected to remain in the forces, because actually the people who returned to civilian life would have a much more difficult time getting established and would perhaps have greater difficulty in being able to take advantage of this legislation.
Therefore we are particularly happy to see the changes which have been incorporated in the new clause 1, which extends this legislation to all veterans and, as I understand it, makes all veterans eligible who would formerly have been eligible, up to September 20, 1963.
The other change brought about by this bill will delete section 10, which makes the policy under this legislation much more favourable than under the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act. Formerly, with section 10, the payment was reduced if the widow of the pensioner happened to be awarded a pension and that, of course, limited the protection afforded by the policy. With section 10 deleted now this will give full coverage up to the face value of the policy.
We are entirely in support of this legislation and taken all together it constitutes what members of parliament and the government have very much in mind, namely the matters which would be of the deepest concern to members of our armed services on their return to civilian life. This was instituted when the original insurance act was passed in 1920, and the tradition is still being maintained, regardless of party, regardless of government, and I am sure that must be a great assurance to all veterans of Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, without apologies to the editor of the Globe and Mail I

rise for a second time this morning, and I trust he will not consider that my brief remarks on this most important piece of legislation which is to the advantage of the veterans of Canada are repetitious, unnecessary or inconsequential.
We in this group are very pleased indeed that the minister and the government have seen fit to accept the recommendations of the parliamentary committee on veterans affairs with respect to further amendments to the Veterans Insurance Act. The committee heard representations from the senior officers of the Canadian Legion. After hearing those representations, which I think all members will agree were given with good effect and to advantage before the committee, we had a very thorough and most informative discussion on this whole question. We also received further valuable information from the departmental officials as to the administration of this act. On hearing representations from the Legion and information from the departmental officials the committee, after considerable discussion, made certain recommendations in its report to the house.
Once again I say we are very pleased to see that the government has seen fit to accept those recommendations, which do bring about a considerable improvement to this act. I think these amendments have come at a most appropriate time. As was mentioned here recently, experience with this act somewhat repeats the experience with the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act. As the years go by and the date of end of the war recedes, an increasing number of veterans with families growing up have become conscious of the value of this legislation to them. Therefore on that account I think it is most appropriate that the bill has been introduced and a larger number of veterans have been given the advantages that can be obtained under this legislation.
Finally, I would urge all veterans who served in the second world war to give consideration to the value of this legislation and the protection it provides, and on that account to make certain that they all know the details. I suggest to the minister that through some simply drawn pamphlet, memorandum or something of that sort, every effort should be made to inform all branches of the Legion very fully concerning these amendments and when they are to be given effect.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is under consideration.
Resolution reported and concurred in, and referred to the committee of the whole on Bill No. C-34, to amend the Veterans Insurance Act.
57071-3-2351
Veterans Insurance Act
Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans
Affairs) moved that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-34, to amend the Veterans Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
On clause 1-Repeal.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I hesitated thinking the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate or someone else was going to get up. However, once again I rise without any apology to the Globe and Mail to discuss this legislation for a few moments, as it is of great importance to the veterans of the country. This amendment to the educational assistance act-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I think there is some misunderstanding. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo discussed the bill having to do with the Veterans Insurance Act when the resolution was under consideration. We have not yet passed the Veterans Insurance Act. I might say that the hon. member for Kootenay West also discussed the Veterans Insurance Act very thoroughly. Therefore I presume they do not intend to discuss it further, and that we can go right along with the clauses of the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I misheard the order number, and I wondered why we were switching. That is my error. It is very seldom that I am in error.


Mr. Benidickson:: Am I right in thinking that except for the resolution we have just discussed, the right to purchase veterans insurance for most veterans of world war II who took their discharge shortly after the cessation of hostilities would have expired in 1954 or 1955, and that the resolution renews their right to purchase such insurance until 1962?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is the intention.


William Moore Benidickson: What advertising is the minister proposing to do to let veterans know about this?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We advertise, of course in The Legionary and other periodicals of the different veterans organizations. We also send out notices to Legion branches and so on. I will guarantee that it will be well advertised.
Clause 1 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time? Now, by leave?

Children of War Dead Act


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CHILDREN OF WAR DEAD ACT


Alfred Johnson Brooks: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-45, to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
On clause 1-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, the same statement I made regarding the other bills applies to this bill. When the resolution was before the house it was discussed and the different principles were explained. After second reading the bill was referred to the veterans affairs committee. A very thorough study was made of the bill by that committee, and it has now been returned to the house with the committee's recommendation that the bill pass as we now have it before us. If there are any further questions I will be very pleased to answer them when the different clauses are called.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, as in the two previous cases, we support this bill wholeheartedly, particularly as it is designed to increase the coverage by including children who were inadvertently omitted through a technicality in the wording of the original act, and also because it increases the amount of the payments. When the bill was discussed in the committee we learned that 1,125 children are benefiting from the legislation, and that the cost as of June 30 last was $885,939.
The committee received a brief from the Canadian Legion suggesting that the legislation should be extended to cover the children of other classes of veterans, particularly those who have died from causes other than their disability, and also even to disabled veterans. It was felt that the legislation was not serving as good a purpose as it might by restricting the benefits only to the children of veterans who have died of causes resulting from their war service.
The committee discussed the matter and the members felt there was possibly a change in principle involved which deserved further study before any recommendation could be

made. We hope that study will be carried on by the minister's department as well as by veterans organizations and other interested parties. I think most of us in this house believe there is a great deal of merit in the suggestion put forward by the Canadian Legion, particularly in so far as disabled veterans are concerned who, because of their handicaps, have not been able to provide as good an education for their children as they might otherwise have been able to do.
We consider this a fairly strong argument, and we do hope this matter will be thoroughly studied. Perhaps at some future date it might be possible to extend the coverage to the children of other classes of veterans.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Once again without any
apologies to the Globe and Mail for repetition, Mr. Chairman, we in this group support the amendments proposed in this bill. We are glad the government has agreed to introduce these amendments. Possibly there was a lengthier discussion in connection with this bill than in connection with the other two bills in the veterans affairs committee. The representatives of the Legion presented a very complete brief. They had a particular interest in this bill, because I understand it was the Legion who originally proposed this measure. They said on that account they took a keener interest in the operation of the act since it was enacted in 1953. They were particularly glad, therefore, of the opportunity to express their views before the committee and make further recommendations.
After hearing the recommendations of the Canadian Legion, which I thought were very well put indeed with respect to the further amendments they thought were necessary to make this act as effective as it should be, the majority of the members of the committee came to the conclusion that further study was required. I quite willingly admit that these recommendations do introduce certain new features into this legislation, and I quite well understand that members of the committee might honestly come to the opinion that further study is required by the committee, by the Legion and by the government itself.
Personally I gave strong support to the proposals of the Legion, and members of the committee were very sympathetic to those proposals on the whole but were hesitant, generally speaking, about accepting the recommendations without further study. I can well understand that, because while we had an excellent committee a large number of the members had not had prior experience with this legislation, so I can well understand their hesitancy at embarking on something which they did not fully understand. I think

that was the basis of their decision to recommend further study of the suggestions for further amendments put forward by the Canadian Legion.
However, before concluding I do want to say that we were all impressed by the amount of good that is done through this legislation with a relatively small expenditure. I am sure all members of the committee, and all members of this house, recognize the fact that we certainly have a very definite responsibility to the children of those men who gave their lives in the defence of this country. Once again before I sit down, I say that when this or any other government of this country can afford to spend millions of dollars in some cases-I am not objecting to it-to assist in the education or care of people who were on the other side in the second world war and who have since come to Canada because they learned it was a land of opportunity and freedom, we can certainly afford this relatively small sum of money that is required to give effect to the recommendations of the Canadian Legion with respect to this act.
I do hope that as a result of further study of the representations of the Canadian Legion by the government, by members of the committee and by interested people across Canada, next session we will see the minister introducing some further amendments to this act. The amount of good that is done, I think, is remarkable. Therefore particularly in view of that fact we should be beginning to lay the base for wider opportunities for more young Canadians to get a higher education. What better way could money be spent for laying the foundation for wider educational opportunities in Canada for young Canadians than in this type of legislation? I am certain that as the result of an understanding of the results that flow from this legislation, in the near future the government will see fit to extend some similar type of legislation to a wider group of young Canadians.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon, J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. C-48, respecting the development and improvement of the national capital region.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have little to add to that which I expressed on the occasion
National Capital Commission of the introduction of the resolution, except to say that as a result of the suggestions made by hon. members in all parts of the house there was an obvious dedication of the members of this house supporting a capital city worthy of Canada's destiny and of the nation as a whole.
On this occasion, of course, in moving second reading I shall not make any reference to the sections of the bill, except to say that when the original bill was introduced by Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent he simply placed it before the house with a view to having it considered, and also having changes made therein which would be in keeping with the general purposes of the bill and which might be beneficial to those purposes.
As far as the discussion that has taken place is concerned, there was general agreement on the need for improvement of the federal district act, and also a general desire on the part of members to assure that the necessary expenditure will be made in the years ahead to achieve the greatness of a city beautiful. Some mention was made of the plan respecting the city of Washington as an example in that direction. As well, of course, there is the example within the commonwealth of the capital city of Australia, the city of Canberra, where after the area had been determined as the capital of the commonwealth of Australia there have been achieved a planning and a purpose that command the respect of people who visit that great city.
To achieve what we have in mind, of course, will require not only the planning of the commission but the co-operation of the citizens of Ottawa and Hull and the adjoining municipalities, and as well the consideration of the governments of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
I think there is no more for me to say on this occasion except that I believe that out of this bill will come a further expansion and development of the concept of a capital city that was dreamed of by successive prime ministers of this country, one of whom, namely Right Hon. Mackenzie King, gave to the planning a sense of national purpose and dedication which this bill will carry on. All the prime ministers from Sir Wilfrid Laurier down looked forward in prospect to a capital city that would be in keeping with Canada's people, with the contribution of the two major races. All have made their contribution to that end. My hope is that in the years ahead we shall be able to continue the work already under way in making those changes which changing years make necessary while maintaining the general objective that is dear to all of us.
When I look forward a matter of nine years to the one-hundredth celebration of Canada's
[Stage Direction]
National Capital Commission confederation, my hope is that in those intervening years there will be an advance in planning and in the architectural beauty of the city in particular, and that the areas surrounding the city of Ottawa and the city of Hull will see such vast changes that in that year of the centenary celebration we shall have achieved in the main the major objectives and shall have laid the final foundations for this capital city.
Any questions that may arise I shall endeavour to answer, in particular those asked by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith), when we are in committee. In the meantime I shall rest by saying that I ask for the support of hon. members in all parts of the house with respect to this resolution, which I believe is a major step forward and a milestone toward the achievement of that objective which is the aim and purpose of us all.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to delay the second reading of this bill because our views on the matter were expressed on the resolution-that is, our views on the general question-and at that time I mentioned that the resolution introduced by this government was exactly the same as the resolution introduced by the previous government sometime ago. The bill before us now is based on that resolution. We naturally support the purposes of this bill and the ideas and the ideals that have inspired it.
As has been pointed out by the Prime Minister, there is no disagreement in this place with regard to the objective of this bill, namely that our national capital should be one in which all Canadians can take pride. That requires planning. This bill is designed to make that planning more effective than perhaps it had been in earlier days, when I suppose the necessity for planning to make this city a worthy national capital was not as obvious as it has been in recent years.
The Prime Minister mentioned Canberra, the capital of a sister nation in the commonwealth, and what has been done there in the way of planning. Of course the problem there was very different, and perhaps much easier to solve from the point of view of planning, because Canberra was a capital carved out of unoccupied territory and made into a federal district for the purpose of developing a federal capital. That fact must have made it easier for those who were charged with the responsibility of planning that capital, although I know it has also caused some discontent in some quarters of Australia because the capital was divorced to a great extent, by the nature of its location, its development and its planning, from the life of the nation.

It seems to me that Ottawa is particularly fortunate in this regard. It is the national capital, but it is also a Canadian city taking part in the life of Canada, not merely in the life of the government of Canada. We are fortunate in that respect and fortunate also, as so many hon. members have said, in the beauty of its location, which provides the planners with something on which to work; beauty unsurpassed by any capital in the world. This planning which is required and which will be facilitated by this act is one thing, but if it is to be successful, government buildings in the national capital must be worthy of the plan. This means that even the most functional government buildings will have to reflect those aesthetic qualities which the Prime Minister so rightly mentioned as being desirable in the development of a national capital. This applies to government buildings on both sides of the provincial boundary. It would certainly be unfortunate if we concentrated on building good and beautiful government buildings on one side only and ignored, to some extent at least, the same requirements on the other side of the provincial boundary in Quebec.
There is a great deal that needs to be done before this city can be made into a worthy capital, and we are all conscious of projects that need to be carried out. There are many corrections to be made which could have been made so much more easily if the work of planning had been begun 25, 30 or 40 years ago. However, this bill is now before us. It is one with which I think we can all agree. It means that we are approaching another stage in the development of a national city which will be worthy of our great country.
It is well when we consider these matters and talk about planning to look a long distance ahead and not be too much influenced by short-range considerations. We have suffered from that in the past in this country and in this capital. The Prime Minister will recall, as a student of history, that when the east block and west block were originally constructed some of the public men of that time deplored the extravagance, and I remember one famous Canadian saying that the day would never arrive when we would have enough government business in this country to necessitate the occupation of those two monstrous palaces, the east block and the west block.
That was not so long ago, less than 100 years. So it is well to remember that when we plan for the future we should plan for the day after tomorrow, not for tomorrow. As we do that I think we will be able to look back on this bill, as I have said, as another stage of this plan to make Ottawa the kind of capital that Canadians would like to see.


Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: I
wish to assure the Prime Minister from the outset that we welcome this bill most heartily. We see it as an attempt to strengthen the hands of those who are devoting their interest to the development of a truly national capital of which all Canadians can be proud.
We have looked over the bill, and in the main we feel that the provisions of this measure will do exactly what they are intended to do, namely strengthen the hands of those who will be charged with this responsibility. I notice that toward its end this bill repeals a previous act, and I hope the Prime Minister can assure the house that after the passage of the bill now before us there will not be any undue delay before making the declaration that is necessary, because sometimes, with the demise of one corporation there is a considerable lapse of time before the new corporation begins its activities.
The need for national development is so urgent that I hope the present act will not remain in existence very long, but that all haste will be undertaken to proceed at once with the new arrangements. Those presently responsible will naturally hesitate to undertake many necessary measures if they do not know exactly how long they are going to be in charge of their responsibilities. For this reason I hope the proclamation will not be long delayed.
I should like the Prime Minister when he replies to indicate the reason for the omission of section 20, as it was in the old act, calling for an annual report to parliament. I notice nothing in the new bill which calls for an annual report. I know full well that parliament will have an opportunity to discuss the work of the new national capital commission whenever it is asked to vote funds. However, there may well be a period of a year, or possibly of several years, when no additional moneys are being asked for and in that case there might be no convenient way of parliament taking under advisement the activities of the commission for a particular year. I feel there should be something in the bill which would enable parliament to discuss each year what has taken place.
In the main, though we support the principle of the bill, we wish the measure had gone a little further in some respects. I will possibly have a little more to say on that when we come to discuss the various clauses. There seems to be spelled out rather severe limitations on the actions which the commission may undertake; the limitations on real estate dealings are somewhat severe. Very far-reaching authority is exercised by the governor in council, in some ways possibly greater authority than obtained under the old act. I hope this is a safety measure only,
18. 1958	3707
National Capital Commission and that the cabinet has no intention of regarding itself as, in effect, the new national capital commission. As I say, I notice that very little which is of major consequence can be done without the approval of the governor in council.
I regret that the commission is not being given a little more authority to aid the municipal corporations. These municipalities within the federal district, especially as now defined, have heavy responsibilities. If, as the Prime Minister indicated, nine years hence on our one hundredth anniversary as a nation we are to have in the federal district cities of which we can be truly proud, a terrific responsibility is imposed on our municipalities, and I am not sure that the act as it now stands will enable the commission to give the financial assistance which a city such as Hull, for instance, would need if it is to make the progress which I am sure it would like to make within the period of the next nine years. I should like to have seen a little more authority given to the commission to aid the city councils financially in order that they might make their cities into the type of cities we would all like to see.
I also hope the Department of Public Works will work in very close co-operation with the new commission, and that when the department undertakes any project within the federal district it will take into consideration whatever representations the national capital commission will have to make. I refer particularly to the type of buildings and the location of buildings undertaken by the department. I hope the Department of Public Works will not operate as an autonomous and independent organ in putting up buildings in the new federal district.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words on this matter. Everyone seems to be satisfied with the changes referred to in the house today, because the old act was really no longer sufficient to meet the needs of the national capital in the development of the general appearance of the region. Recently many hon. members and possibly the Prime Minister as well have received communications from two bodies on the Quebec side of the national capital.
One of those concerned recommendations about the name of the governing body. In the old days people were not happy about the word "district" appearing in the name, because it created the impression that it was the intention to make of this area a district similar to the district of Columbia in the United States, which has proved an unsatisfactory arrangement from the point of



National Capital Commission view of those living there because that commission decides on the development which is needed and the expense and then undertakes it. The United States government pays a certain part of the cost and the balance is said by the local population through the imposition of taxes. The people there are attempting to persuade the United States government to change the present arrangement that obtains in the district of Columbia.
I know it was never the intention of the government to have obtain here the situation that obtains in the United States capital, but I also know that a minority of Canadians feared that result because they did not understand the intention of the government, and of course we cannot prevent people from being afraid.
The official name of the measure before us is the national capital act, so there is no connotation of a region or a metropolitan section. It looks to the people outside the city of Ottawa and to others as though the act refers just to the city of Ottawa itself. I know this is not the intention of the government and never has been its intention, but because of the representations recently made to the Prime Minister and to some if not all hon. members I know some associations would be more at ease if the name could be changed by adding the word "region" or "metropolitan".
This would tend to lengthen the name, but it is fashionable today to refer to organizations by their initials instead of their full name, and this would not represent too great a change. It would serve to give the people living outside the limits of the city of Ottawa a feeling that they are really included in the national capital development plan, and that all improvements made under the plan would serve to benefit them as well as the residents of the city of Ottawa.
I am pleased that under the present bill the moneys to be spent by the commission will be voted by the house. With the limited amount the commission had to spend in the past it was restricted to a certain amount of work, and we could expect it would have taken a very long time, perhaps even a hundred years, to complete the plan which was prepared under the supervision of Mr. Greber. The moneys will now be voted by parliament, and a good start has been made.
The government has voted $20 million for the green belt around the city of Ottawa; and because buildings and bridges come under the purview of the national capital commission I wish to take advantage of that situation to ask the government when voting money under the new act to include a sum for a new bridge to replace the present

atrocity between Ottawa and Hull known as the Alexandra bridge. If we delay until agreement is reached among the federal government and the two provincial governments it will be a long time before the bridge is replaced.


Mr. Speaker:: I trust the hon. member does not intend to pursue that matter, because it is not strictly on the principle of the bill.


Alexis Pierre Caron: No, Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to refer to the improvement in the appearance of the area the replacement of this bridge would achieve. I hope the government will see that money is voted to enable the commission to correct this situation.
A matter of concern to residents of the city of Hull that has been discussed at length in the past is any attempt that might be made to do away with the E. B. Eddy Company. Some people seem to think that a factory of that kind is an eyesore. The company has considerably improved the surroundings of the mills, and it is really not unattractive. It serves to show visitors to Canada that industry can exist in close proximity to the national capital without detracting from the beauty of the locale and it is an example to visitors of one of our most important industries.
Not long ago I was speaking to the wife of the ambassador of France to Canada. She told me that she considered the plant a beauty spot because it demonstrated the possibilities and potentialities of our country, and I share that view. I hope the new commission will make no attempt to remove from the city of Hull its main industry. We are all in favour of aesthetics, beautiful parks and scenic roadways, but we should also be in favour of industry which continues to help people earning a livelihood.
As the E. B. Eddy Company is the most important industry in the city of Hull we want it to remain where it is. We can continue to effect changes and improvements in the surroundings such as have been taking place in the last ten years. I have from Mr. Weston the promise that he will continue to make the surroundings more attractive to those visiting the city. I express the earnest hope that the commission will be requested by the government to make no attempt to remove this company from the city of Hull.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Oilawa West):: Mr. Speaker, before the Prime Minister speaks in closing this debate I should like to raise one matter very briefly, and that is the omission of any requirement in the bill for an annual report to parliament by the corporation. I should like to ask him, since we have almost reached the luncheon adjournment, if

he would examine this question and, unless there is some very good reason for the omission from the bill of such a provision, to consider the matter with a view to having such a clause added to the bill so we could have it for consideration in committee this afternoon.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


John George Diefenbaker: I have just a very few words. I thank hon. members for their contributions. I do not intend to deal with the several matters raised by them at this time, except the question raised by one hon. member to the effect that government buildings in this city should be in keeping with the national capital plan. I am informed by the Minister of Public Works that all government buildings receive the approval of the federal district commission as to architecture and the like, and also the extent to which the buildings will fit in with the planning of the federal district commission.
When my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to the beauty of Ottawa I could not refrain from mentioning how often I go over to Hull and when there look across to the city of Ottawa, for there is no more noble or inspiring silhouette anywhere in the world than the parliament buildings and the buildings associated with government administration as seen from that city.
Two hon. members mentioned the question of an annual report and asked why this had been omitted from the present bill. The reason is that under this bill the commission is an incorporation under the Financial Administration Act, and under section 85 of that act an annual statement is required to be made to parliament. Therefore any fears that any member may have that an annual statement will not be placed before parliament are entirely met by the provisions of the act to which I have made reference.
As to the other questions that have been raised may I say this. All of them are worthy of consideration and all of them will receive the attention of the new commission, but I do offer a word of advice. It would be somewhat out of keeping with the responsibilities that rest upon that commission if the government endeavoured to dictate to it in any way as to the manner in which, within the ambit of its powers, it will carry out those responsibilities under the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
National Capital Commission
On clause 1-Short title.
The Chairman:: Shall clause 1 carry?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Chairman.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the other day the hon. member for Ottawa West asked a number of questions, and I shall deal with those questions in the order in which they were asked. Some reference was made to the financing of the new commission, and at page 3363 of Hansard the hon. member asked the following question:
Will the Prime Minister say something at this stage about the method of providing the financing; that is, the necessity for funds which will be in the nature of capital and which will not lapse at the end of a financial year and the provision of the operating funds for the annual maintenance work.
Section 16 of the new act provides for the new financial arrangements. Operating expenses of the commission, including maintenance of parks and parkways and of grounds of government buildings, will be financed by an annual vote of parliament.
Capital expenditures will be financed by payment into the national capital fund each year of amounts appropriated by parliament. The fund will provide for construction and other projects undertaken by the commission and also for the commission's share of approved projects which may be undertaken in conjunction with municipalities and other public authorities. Expenditures for lands not immediately required for projects will be financed by loans. Amounts credited to the national capital fund each year will not lapse but will be carried over from year to year.
The hon. member's next question was:
Then I should like to ask him about the commission itself. He will notice that when the previous bill was introduced by the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, in 1957, a good deal was said about the operations of the commission itself; that is, how it was proposed to be set up. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would feel free to tell the committee just what he envisages in that respect?
My answer to that question in general is that the composition of the commission and of its committees is dealt with in clause 3 of the bill. Then there was a question regarding Ottawa river pollution, as follows:
If the Prime Minister is in a position today to tell us-I do not know whether he is or not-I would ask him to tell us what he can about the participation of the federal government in that scheme.
The answer is the mayor of Ottawa is asking, through the federal district commission, for financial assistance from the government. That matter is under consideration. As the hon. member knows, the report of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of

National Capital Commission Commons in 1956 drew attention to the need for cleaning up the Ottawa river, and indicated that the problem is essentially one for the two provinces and the municipalities concerned, but further suggested that because of the national capital interest the federal government should give a measure of assistance.
Pollution is caused by a number of Ottawa sewers which empty directly into the river, and to a lesser extent by sewers of Quebec municipalities. The Ontario water resources commission has recently directed the city of Ottawa to take steps to construct a disposal plant to handle sewage from Ottawa, Rock-cliffe and Eastview. Following this, the city engaged two firms of consultants to design a disposal plant and also an intercepting sewer system. These reports were received in June, 1958.
The recommended plan is the same in principle as that contained in the Gore and Storrie report of 1949. It includes a disposal plant at the mouth of Green's creek, several miles east of the city, and an interceptor sewer 7J miles long extending west from the plant to a point near the Chaudiere falls. The cost of this interceptor, which will connect the various existing sewers which now discharge into the Ottawa river, is estimated at $11,800,000.
The hon. member went on to say:
When this work was carried on by the Ottawa improvement commission, at one stage it was thought that the south boundary of the city was in what is now the centre town section and the driveway system, which we are all proud of now, extended along what is now Clemow avenue and Monkland-
-and so on.
My answer to the hon. gentleman's rather lengthy remarks, which appear at page 3364 of Hansard, is that if something can be carried out along the lines indicated as between the commission and the city with regard to Clemow avenue and Monkland avenue the government will be glad to make the necessary, suitable approaches to the province in that connection.
Then the hon. gentleman referred to parking meters on Wellington street. Wellington street, of course, as the hon. gentleman knows, is a city street and the installation of parking meters is a matter for the city. I would suggest that he direct any views he has in that regard to the city authorities.
The hon. member also asked what main projects were in mind that would require a substantial expenditure of money in the immediate future. The main projects which the commission has undertaken in recent years and which are still being continued are the railway relocation scheme, shared projects with municipalities, for example the Queens-
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
way, park and parkway development and the green belt. The details of proposed expenditures on capital projects in 1958-59 will be found in the commission's capital budget as tabled in the house. The long-term forecast of possible expenditures over a period of years on various projects is contained in the brief submitted by the federal district commission to the parliamentary committee in 1956 and is printed in the proceedings of that committee.
The final questions of the hon. member were based on these statements by him as found at pages 3364 and 3365 of Hansard of August 11:
In 1947 expropriation proceedings were started with regard to properties along the Ottawa river with a view to completing the driveway system along the river in a westerly direction from the centre of the city . . . Work also required to be done to develop the driveway system along the south and southeast shore of the Rideau river.
I may say that I feel sure the commission will desire to give sympathetic consideration to the representations regarding the initiation of parkway construction along the Ottawa and Rideau rivers and also the continued development of Sussex drive; but expenditures for this purpose will, of course, have to be considered in the light of the very substantial amounts required in the next few years for the railway relocation and other construction projects.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
George James McIlraith: There are just one or two more questions I should like to ask. First of all I should like to thank the Prime Minister for the answers he gave to the questions I asked when this legislation was at the resolution stage. I wanted to add one or two remarks about the questions and answers.
On rereading the questions I think I might not have made clear the point I had in mind concerning Clemow avenue and Monkland avenue. At the time the commission preceding the federal district commission was active, that is the Ottawa improvement commission, they had undertaken certain restrictions and certain provisions in connection with the area now covered *by these two city streets, Clemow avenue and Monkland avenue. With the passage of time these streets have become regular city streets, but the federal distict commission is still burdened with their care and maintenance. There is some legal difficulty about having the city take over these streets.
I believe anyone examining the matter would consider it desirable that these streets

be given back to the city for care and responsibility. The only legal way in which that end could be accomplished, as I see it, is through the provincial legislature. My question was merely directed to asking the Prime Minister, if and when the matter came up with the federal district commission or the new national capital commission, to use his good offices to have the province take the necessary legislative action to vest the appropriate parts of that land in the city.
The second subject matter, I believe, had to do with parking meters on Wellington street. I was referring, as I think the Prime Minister will see, only to that part of Wellington street immediately in front of the parliament buildings. While I very much appreciate the Prime Minister's answer on the point, I am going to ask him to pursue the question a bit further. I think he will find in old agreements and records that work was done by the public works department on this street. I hope the Minister of Public Works will not mind if I give him some research work to do, but I believe it will be found the federal government does have some responsibility for work on the north side of Wellington street, mainly in front of the parliament buildings. I think he will find also that part of the land close to the Chateau Laurier is the responsibility of the Department of Transport.
I should like to be a little persistent and ask the Prime Minister to pursue this matter further and settle, once and for all, the question of title to that land with a view to having that part of the north side of Wellington street properly maintained. I for one cannot easily reconcile myself to having this beautiful site on which these buildings are located spoiled by car parking. Indeed, I could say a great deal more about car parking on the hill itself, but I am going to leave that part aside for the moment.
I believe it is important that we not let anything be done now by the city that would tend to mar the beauty of the site of the main parliament buildings. I recognize that with the Prime Minister as busy as he is it is not always possible for him to concern himself with things that may, in themselves, appear like small matters. I do feel quite strongly on this matter, however, and I would ask him to have the appropriate officers look into the matter and do what they can to prevent this further step being taken that would mar the beauty of parliament hill itself.
Then the third matter I want to raise has to do with the annual report. I listened to the Prime Minister's answer to my request earlier this morning that he consider putting a provision in the legislation requiring the commission to make an annual report to
National Capital Commission parliament. As I understood it, his answer was that there is a provision in the Financial Administration Act requiring crown corporations to make a report to parliament on their finances. I am aware of that provision, but what I have in mind is something quite different. I have in my office copies of annual reports of the federal district commission for quite a number of years. These are very fine reports. They contain a great deal of information that does not concern financial administration at all.
If the Prime Minister will look at these reports I believe he will be impressed with their excellence, and I think he will be impressed with the important information they contain describing developments in the national capital, the beautification of the area and the development of the national capital area throughout the years, as well as the projects pending for the coming year. These reports usually contain some maps and pictures, and altogether the reports are very commendable.
I feel quite sure, Mr. Chairman, that hon. members would wish to have copies of such reports in future. I would ask the Prime Minister, notwithstanding the answer he gave to this same point this morning, to reconsider this matter and put a provision in the legislation requiring an annual report.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank my hon. friend for his suggestion, Mr. Chairman. As I said this morning, the commission being a corporation under the Financial Administration Act, an annual statement is required. I believe his request is reasonable. Each year the report has been a compendium of much useful information, and I shall suggest to the commission that the annual report made under the provisions of the act include the type of information that has now become characteristic of those reports. As a matter of fact, under the bill prepared by the former prime minister this section had been omitted for the reason I gave. However, I shall see to it that the purpose the hon. member has in mind will continue to be before the new district commission in the making of annual reports.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Before one o'clock the Prime Minister said that whenever there was a building to be erected in the capital region, the plans were submitted for the approval of the commission. This has been the practice for years, and I feel it is a very good thing to do. If I were to go to the commission and ask them to do something about the Hull side, somebody might say I was interfering with the business of the commission.

National Capital Commission
I should like to ask the Prime Minister, therefore, that the new commission consider spreading the money around a little more so we would have some buildings on the Quebec side. At the moment the plans call for buildings being erected miles away from this House of Commons. There are some beautiful sites on the other side of the river, and these buildings would then be much closer. I know we have one building there now which has been criticized quite a lot, and I will come back to that on another occasion. This was recommended in 1949 by the commission to the government; the recommendation was accepted and they started to buy the land to build the printing bureau, which has been a great improvement. As is stated in the report:
The plans had been prepared for this new imposing building, the construction of which will commence the gradual rehabilitation of a part of the city of Hull, which is now blighted. The building will be accessible from all sides by direct arteries-
And so on. So they found a place which was quite suitable for a building, one of the important ones. If they can find-and I know they can-other suitable places in Hull or in the surrounding area much nearer to the parliament buildings than some of the new buildings which are being built at the other end, I think it would be to the advantage of those working there; it would be advantageous to distribute more adequately the circulation around the city of Ottawa. It would be advantageous also for the park area, and it would also help to change parts of the city of Hull which are very old.
The city of Hull was built as time went by, and some of the houses which are there were built by people working at Booth's, Eddy's and other places where they could get wood very cheaply. They built those houses at night in order to get dwellings in which to house their families. Those buildings are old, and in certain areas they could be bought at a certain price. If this were done it would help to improve the surroundings of the city of Ottawa, and it is still in the national capital plan.
So I hope the commission will accept the suggestions I am making today through the Prime Minister and have a little bit more sympathy for the city of Hull and the Quebec side of the national capital surroundings. I hope if they happen to need the money for that purpose, the government will be large enough to vote the money. Parliament will be large enough, but I hope the government will be satisfied to recommend the expenditures which might be asked for by the commission. As they were saying, the printing bureau building will be accessible from all sides by direct arteries.


I hope we will come to the decision that for the betterment of the national capital another bridge will be built to permit traffic to circulate. At the present time many of the population want to go to Gatineau, that beautiful national park beyond compare with any other in the world. If they want to go there they need to cross the river. In order to cross the river they need a bridge. The bridge situation is really bad. The only way it can be done is through the national capital commission. I hope they will recommend to the government the building of a new bridge, and I hope the government will recommend the expenditure of the money.


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with the reference just made by the hon. member for Hull, may I say this. In the bill that was tabled by the former prime minister, Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, he will find that section 9 provided as follows:
There shall be an executive committee of the commission consisting of the chairman, the vicechairman and three other members to be appointed by the commission-
I felt that did not cover the situation properly having regard to the representations that should be made on the part of the people of the province of Quebec and the city of Hull. It was with that end in view that the bill before us has these additional words:
-of whom one at least shall be from the province of Quebec.
That was an additional change that was made by this government in order to assure that proper representation would be made in connection with the executive committee.


Alexis Pierre Caron: On this question I shall have to tell the Prime Minister that there was always a member from the province of Quebec.


Mr, Diefenbaker:: Oh, no.


Alexis Pierre Caron: It was Mr. Amyot from Quebec who was the member representing the province. We had Mrs. Fontaine representing our side, and we had the mayor of Hull at that time.


John George Diefenbaker: This is the executive committee. There were no representatives on the executive committee.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I will admit they were not members of the executive committee, but they were members of the commission.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Under the bill there is one person representing the city of Hull, where we had two, and there is one representing the outside of the city, which is an improvement on what we had. I think that makes 16 altogether. There are still four who can be

nominated at any time. I hope when those four are nominated, another one will be nominated for the area surrounding Hull or the city of Hull.


George James McIlraith: I am curious about the Prime Minister's answer. I do not understand why he should single out the province of Quebec? Why should he not have provided that the province of Ontario should at least have one, or the city of Ottawa? I just want to point out that the principle being followed in legislation, in designating one particular area, is sometimes a difficult one to administer and is not perhaps as attractive in principle as it sounds. Perhaps he should have put in a provision that at least one shall be from the province of Ontario, or two or three or four or twelve, as the case may be. That is a very doubtful principle to follow, though I can appreciate the hoii. gentleman's motives in putting it in.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the hon. gentleman want that change withdrawn?


George James McIlraith: I do not know why the Prime Minister would want to put me in a spot like that, but I am sure the people of Hull would not mind if it were withdrawn. I do not think this really adds anything at all-


John George Diefenbaker: They asked for it.


George James McIlraith: -one way or another to this bill. Anyway, the point I want to make is that this is a doubtful precedent to set, because once you start that kind of thing there may be provision for at least one representative from Rockcliffe Park, or the province of Ontario, or the Gatineau area, and so on; and I am sure the hon. member for Carleton would wish there to be a representative from the county of Carleton and that the hon. member for Russell would wish a similar provision to be made for Russell. So we would go on.


Mr. Gour:: Mr. Chairman, I think more expropriation could be done on this green belt. All your railways and what you call the station and everything else will be in the Russell riding. Alta Vista drive and Elmvale Acres are among the nicest parts of the capital of Ottawa, and they are near where the station will be. Therefore it has to be something to go with this nice part in my riding.
However, I am not afraid, because I am sure there will be some intelligent people representing the city of Ottawa on this commission; it will be easy to get good ladies and good men to become representatives on the board. And I point out to the Prime Minister, when he is talking about the beauty of Ottawa, that it is hard to compete with the beauty of
National Capital Commission the district of Russell. When members talk about Ottawa and talk about Hull let us not forget that there is no better area than Eastview, with 23,000 people and some of the best buildings that anyone could wish to see.
I am quite certain that the good wishes of all hon. members here will go with this board, and that it will be prepared to continue the good job which has been done up to now. I hope that in carrying out this task it will soon be able to improve the approaches to this city by building a bridge starting from the north in Hull to the south on Sussex street in Ottawa, and also one further down, which would be another link between the provinces and enable the Quebec people to come to Ottawa and the people of Ontario to go to Quebec.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Does the hon. gentleman for Ottawa East agree with that?


Joseph-Omer Gour: The hon. gentleman from Ottawa East always agrees when it is a good thing. He is a bright fellow.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: I guess I would agree to anything which would improve the Ottawa East portion of the national capital area. I am not expecting the Prime Minister to make an announcement at this time about the program of building along Sussex street, or to tell us when the tracks are to be removed. I think I have been in this game long enough to know that the Prime Minister will require some time to become acquainted with all the problems of the capital area before he can tell us.
However, this would have been a wonderful occasion to have announced that the bridge from the end of Sussex street to Hull was going to be built by the federal government. I think everyone would be happy to hear that, and I think if we keep on repeating it, within a short time we will hear an announcement made by the Prime Minister on the subject. I believe that when he does so he will receive the plaudits of all hon. members here.
Another question I should like to raise concerns transportation in this city. I should like to know if negotiations have been held between the federal government and the city of Ottawa on this question, and whether the Prime Minister is aware of any such negotiations. I should also like to ask whether any proposals have been agreed upon, because everyone knows that the displacement or removal of federal buildings from the central part of the city-the greatest offender being, of course, the Minister of Public Works and his predecessor-into the lovely riding of Russell has disturbed the living habits of the people of the city of Ottawa and made transportation very difficult.

National Capital Commission
As a result the city is now facing a transportation crisis, and I think the only solution lies in an agreement with the federal government so that in the future the city may be advised in advance of the government's plans regarding buildings, knowing that if it does provide transportation in such cases it will receive compensation and that the city and the citizens of Ottawa shall not be the losers.
As I said the other day, it is not always an easy problem for people to live in the city of Ottawa. It is an expensive process, and the taxpayers of Ottawa have paid their share toward the beautification and improvement of the city. I hope this transportation problem will be one of the matters which the government will attend to as quickly as possible in an effort to reach a suitable solution.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Definitions.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, under 2(i)
the following definition is given:
"Minister" means the Prime Minister of Canada or such other member of the Queen's privy council for Canada as is designated by the governor in council.
Now the commission is answerable to the Prime Minister of Canada, and I merely want to ask the Prime Minister if he proposes any change by the definition given in this section.


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. gentleman
knows, in the bill that was presented by Mr. St. Laurent the minister was defined as the president of the Queen's privy council for Canada, or such other member of the Queen's privy council for Canada as was designated by the governor in council. There is no change in this regard, and there is no change contemplated. As a matter of fact, though I am Prime Minister I have never been sworn in as president of the Queen's privy council, and I presume that is one of the reasons why this was phrased in its present form.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Prime Minister would permit a question purely for information. Did I understand him to say he had not been sworn as a member of the privy council?


George James McIlraith: No; as president.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, he meant he was not sworn as president; I see.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-National capital commission.
Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, this morning I referred to the communications which had been received by hon. members of this house and the Prime Minister from various organizations on the other side of the river in the

province of Quebec concerning the name of the commission. The official name is the national capital commission, and I wonder if there would be any serious objection to naming it the national capital region commission or the national capital metropolitan commission. This involves just the addition of one word to the title, and would satisfy many people who fear the name is restrictive and bears reference only to the city of Ottawa. It should be easy to change the name along the lines I have suggested without detracting in any way from the project involved.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, that
matter, of course, received consideration at the time the committee sat in 1956. I do not think any one would read a sinister meaning into the expression "national capital commission". The fullest consideration was given to that matter. This is, indeed, the national capital. For that reason the commission received that name. There may be a time when further consideration could be given to it, but at the moment I believe it will be generally agreed that the name is one that actually covers the connotation intended.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say how much I welcome subclause 5 of clause 3 which places a limit on the length of time any member may serve; a maximum of eight years, as I understand it, unless it be the chairman. This will automatically provide new blood in the membership of the commission every once in a while, which I think is a good improvement.
I notice in subclause 3, however, a change from the previous provision. The corporation of the city of Ottawa and the corporation of the city of Hull used to have the right to appoint a member of the commission. I regarded that as being of some value in establishing a liaison between the two city councils and the commission. Has the Prime Minister any explanation to offer as to why that provision has been eliminated; why all members of the commission are appointed by the governor in council and none are to be direct appointees of the city councils?


John George Diefenbaker: When this matter was being considered it was felt that the previous provision served as a handicap to the commission. Under the Federal District Commission Act one member was appointed by the city of Ottawa and one by the city of Hull. These have usually been the mayors of the respective cities. It was felt in consideration of this problem that in view of the frequent negotiations with the cities it is a handicap to the commission to have representatives of the cities at its meetings. The new act provides for the appointment by the governor in council of at least two members

of the city of Ottawa and one from the city of Hull, and one from a municipality in Ontario other than the city of Ottawa and one from a municipality in Quebec other than the city of Hull. That was the consideration that prompted the inclusion of this particular subclause.


Erhart Regier: I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he has any explanation to offer as to how proper liaison will be maintained between the city councils and the commission if there is no direct tie-up between them. I know he said the commission was perhaps handicapped in having direct representation -as he said, the mayor-however, I fail to appreciate how one man could embarrass the opinions of the other 19 members of the commission. I am afraid we may have developed as a result of this move a lack of that understanding which is so vital if the work of the commission is to be at all successful. How does the Prime Minister propose to maintain the necessary liaison?


John George Diefenbaker: There are frequent meetings of the chairman and general manager with the mayor, and between the staff of the commission and the staff of the city. I am sure there will be no lack of liaison or of representation to achieve a proper relationship and to assure that the views of the city will at all times be given full consideration by the commission.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 9-Executive committee.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I fear I did not make myself clear previously when speaking about subclause 1 of clause 9. I should perhaps read this subclause. It reads as follows:
9. (1) There shall be an executive committee of the commission consisting of the chairman, the vice chairman and three other members to be appointed by the commission, of whom one at least shall be from the province of Quebec.
I am concerned about the last part of that sentence containing the words "of whom at least one shall be from the province of Quebec". Those words were not included in the bill that was introduced by the former government. The Prime Minister has offered an explanation as to why he caused those words to be added, but I would point out to him that it is a doubtful principle he is following in putting in this special reference to one province and not the other, because it is now quite possible to have this executive committee without any protection for the national capital.
Under the British North America Act Ottawa is the capital of Canada. That is a
National Capital Commission statutory provision, although there are occasions when I feel some may have forgotten it. This started out as an Ottawa improvement commission. It grew to a federal district commission and now to a national capital commission, a move which I think all persons welcome as an indication of progress which we all commend.
Approximately 12 years ago we provided that on the federal district commission there should be representation from each province in Canada, which was evidence of the growth of the country and an increased appreciation of this program. Now, because of the difficulties inherent in having meetings attended by members of the commission from each province in Canada, it has been found necessary to create an executive committee.
I wish to be clear that I am perfectly agreeable to having a representative from the province of Quebec on the committee. I hope there will be no misunderstanding on that point. I believe it is a requirement any sensible person would have in mind in setting up the executive committee, and I am wholeheartedly agreeable to the idea. But if we are going to legislate on this question, then surely we must also include a provision to the effect that of the three other members to be appointed by the commission, one at least shall be from the city of Ottawa or one at least shall be from the province of Ontario.
We should not have discriminatory legislation in this form on the statute books, and I am sure the Prime Minister would be the first to agree to that principle. I suggest to him that he add the words "and one at least shall be from the province of Ontario". It is a principle that is worthy of the attention of the committee and of the Prime Minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to support what my hon. friend from Ottawa West has said. The national capital region, of course, is in two provinces, namely
Quebec and Ontario. It would be normal_______
indeed it would be desirable, perhaps essential-that on any executive committee there should be members residing in those two provinces. I assume that normally would happen, but in this legislation provision has been made to ensure that it will happen in the case of only one province. We all agree that it should be so for that province, but should not exactly the same action be taken in respect of the other province, as suggested in the amendment that my hon. friend from Ottawa West has ventured to put forward?


Alexis Pierre Caron: May I differ a little with the proposal made by the hon. member for Ottawa West. The idea of the bill as it stands is to have a representative from the Quebec region. I agree with the hon. member for

National Capital Commission Ottawa West that it looks a little discriminatory when we say that one shall be from Quebec and we do not mention the other nine provinces. It can be freely admitted that if it were changed to read that one at least should be from the Quebec side of the national capital region there would be no misunderstanding. As it reads now somebody could be taken from the city of Quebec or from any other part of the province, and he would be too far away to attend meetings of the executive committee.
What the Prime Minister wants, I believe, is to have somebody on the spot to be there when they need him at executive committee meetings. The bill as it stands provides for a member from every province. We find that in clause 3. If the idea is to have a representative from the Quebec side on the spot it would be much better to have it read "from the Quebec side of the national capital region".


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, a little while ago the member for Ottawa West, possibly speaking without that care which he might have exercised, placed this section giving the province of Quebec representation on the executive committee in a position similar to that of the various municipalities. He said, if the province of Quebec is to have a representative why should not municipality A, B, or C have one? There has been no request whatever from Ontario for any specific representation on the executive committee; there was from the western Quebec boards of trade, which asked that in the setting up of this executive committee provision should be made for a representative from the province of Quebec.
I felt that was a reasonable view because of the inclusion in the national capital region of those areas that are administered by the commission. It was to cover that point that this specific reference was made. I must say that I felt that was proper and fitting, and I still do. I feel there should be representation from the province of Quebec. When the hon. member for Hull says that representation on the executive committee should be from the region in question, I can assure him that this is the area from which the representation will be taken.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, may I make myself clear. I think everybody in the house agrees that there must be representation on the executive committee from the province of Quebec. Certainly I did not intend to create any other impression. I for one cannot see any possibility of an appropriate executive committee which did not have representation from the province of Quebec; but what I am pointing out is that in doing so we are creating


a situation where there might not be any representation from the province of Ontario, and the national capital happens to be in the province of Ontario. I think we should keep our sights on the main objective of this legislation, namely the creation of a national capital commission.
I do not want to delay the proceedings unduly, but I would again request the Prime Minister to add wording which would provide also that there be at least one member from the province of Ontario. I think it would be found on examination that this is a reasonable request; it is sound in principal and it is practicable and possible. Without being too persistent, I would like to ask him to consider the matter again and also to consider adding the appropriate words at the end of clause 9, subclause 1, which will provide that at least one member must be from the province of Ontario as well as one from the province of Quebec.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the national capital executive committee would naturally have representation from Ontario. We are not going to set up an executive committee and then appoint the members from various other parts of Canada. This executive committee will be an operative committee. It is natural, in the nature of things, that it will be largely composed of those immediately in the area or environment. Having that in mind we felt as well, because of the extension of the district into the province of Quebec, that we should assure that on the executive committee there should be a representative from the province of Quebec.
The Leader of the Opposition says it is discriminatory. That observation surprises me. I see nothing discriminatory in providing that on an executive committee which deals with the national capital we provide for a representative from the province of Quebec. There is nothing in the nature of discrimination there.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Just so there will be no doubt as to where I stand on this matter, I think the Prime Minister has already said in his last few remarks that there cannot in fact be discrimination because there will always be a member of the executive committee from Ontario. If that is so, and undoubtedly it is so, why not put it in the law? It also is the case that on an executive committee of this kind there will be representation from Quebec. We all understand that, and we all approve it. That has been made clear in the legislation by including the words "of whom one at least shall be from the province of Quebec". Then, as long as those words are included in the legislation and no reference

is made to the province of Ontario, whatever the situation may be in fact-and there will undoubtedly be no discrimination in fact- there is the possibility of discrimination in law, and it is merely to remove that possibility, so there will be no misunderstanding in the future, that my hon. friend has suggested that this very useful and simple amendment might be made to this particular clause.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
On clause 11-Co-ordination of development.
Erhart Regier: I should like to refer to subclause 5, but to make my point I must read subclause 4, which is in these words:
No person shall erect, alter or extend a building or other work on public lands in the national capital region unless the site, location and plans thereof have first been approved by the commission.
I think subclause 4 is very necessary. However, then we come to subclause 5, which reads as follows:
In any case where the commission does not give its approval under this section the governor in council may give such approval.
What I am a little afraid of is that this provision may lead to undue influence being exerted on members of the government. I believe the commission should have the final authority. If the work of the commission is not satisfactory then, if the charge is serious enough, the commissioners can be removed from office. After all, they hold office only at the pleasure of the governor in council.
I do not like to see a situation where a person who is refused permission to undertake the construction of a building on national capital region land can then exert political pressure in order to reverse the decision of the commission. In my opinion this is a weakness in the clause, and I should like to hear what the Prime Minister has to say.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I see no reason for the suggestion that in the exercise of this power political pressure would be exerted against the governor in council. As a matter of fact, my hon. friend's solicitude in this regard would indicate to me that he has in mind examples of political pressure having been applied. If he has not, then I would point out to him that this particular subsection has been in effect since 1946.


Erhart Regier: I realize that it has been in effect, but I do not believe that members of the cabinet should have to be bothered with people appealing to them to do what they can to reverse a decision of the commission.
National Capital Commission I feel that the commission members should have the authority to carry out their work, and that if anybody has received an adverse decision he should not have the right to appeal to the government to upset the decision of the commission.


George James McIlraith: I must say that is a somewhat new doctrine. I have always held the view that when money is appropriated by parliament the government must assume the responsibility for the expenditure of that money, and I would think the government cannot escape that responsibility under our legislation.
I rose to bring up this point. Ever since 1946 it has been the law under the Federal District Commission Act, in wording almost identical to that of the new bill, that when any public building is to be constructed in the national capital area the site, location and plans thereof must first be approved by the federal district commission, now to be known as the national capital commission. That has been a very useful provision. It has done a great deal to co-ordinate the development of the whole national capital area. It has meant that the exterior design of public buildings has had to be co-ordinated and made compatible with the characteristics of the general site and location of the buildings.
I should like to be assured by the Prime Minister, as I have no doubt is the case, that no change is contemplated and that it is the intention to follow the same practice that has been followed in the past of insisting that the section be meticulously observed with regard to all public works undertaken in this area. I must say that this sometimes carries with it decisions that are not always happy for some of us, but I would point out to hon. members that as far back as April 30, 1949, at the time the national capital committee documents were tabled in the house, a full page story appeared in the Ottawa Citizen in which there is reference in item 14 to the construction of a new government printing bureau to be located in Hull.
I do not want to get off on that subject, but I would point out to hon. members what is involved in these things. It means that the site of these buildings are chosen with a view to the development of the whole national capital area, and we must bear that in mind. Further reference to that subject will be found in the national capital general report of 1950, page 210.
The government is also Involved in another way. Because of the aesthetic requirements of exterior design, many of these government buildings may be more expensive than they would otherwise be. I think it is desirable to place that fact on record now

National Capital Commission so that hon. members will understand exactly what they are legislating when they approve this clause. I think it is a wholly appropriate provision, but one that is not widely understood by hon. members, and I should like them to know and appreciate just what it involves. I hope that decades from now there will be many people in this chamber who will thank us for having put this provision in the legislation initially in 1946, and for having carried it forward in the 1958 legislation.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, clause 11 reads in part as follows:
(1)	The commission shall, in accordance with general plans prepared under this act, co-ordinate the development of public lands in the national capital region.
(2)	Proposals for the location, erection, alteration or extension of a building or other work by any person on public lands, or by or on behalf of a department, in the national capital region shall be referred to the commission prior to the commencement of the work.
I do not want to go back to what I said a while ago, but I hope the commission will consider very favourably the Quebec side, which is much nearer the main buildings of the government, when dealing with proposed buildings to be erected for the benefit of different departments.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree that it is necessary for responsible government that subclause 5 should remain, even though it has been in the old act; because there are many crown corporations as to which the cabinet would not entertain for a moment any representations concerning their internal operations. The Prime Minister mentioned the possibility of the old subsection 6, now subclause 5, having been used. I see he has an adviser in front of him, and I am wondering whether the Prime Minister can inform us how often subsection 6 of section 9 of the old act was used in years gone by. I am not asking for the exact number, but has much use been made of the right to appeal to the governor in council in past years? I should like to have an indication of how much use has been made of the provision.


John George Diefenbaker: I can only speak of the period since I became Prime Minister. No use has been made of that subsection during that period, nor has there been any application for its use.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I notice that throughout this bill there is mention of plans. I should like to repeat what I have said before in this house, that I believe everyone would welcome the day when we have a definite plan. At the moment there is no plan approved by the municipalities involved or the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. I feel


that that is what is lacking in our approach towards this national capital development. We have not got an approved plan, something which shows what the commission intends to do. A person may settle 20 or 25 miles from here and within a few years find that he is involved in expropriation proceedings because a new plan has been made. I believe that, as soon as possible, we should have a plan approved by all concerned which would be made public so that the people who live in this region would know what to expect so far as their property is concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
On clause 13-Expropriation.
Jean-Thomas Richard: I have some remarks to make about expropriation. My good friend the Prime Minister will appreciate the point of view I have always taken that there should be a review of the Expropriation Act by the Minister of Justice. This is a very severe act. The purpose of this act, when it was put on the statutes, was to acquire property on behalf of the crown for public works, works of necessity such as wharves, post offices, defence projects and so on. At the moment the same strict regulations or sections which were applied for this purpose in the past are being used under such statutes as this one. I have always felt that there should be some amendments made to the Expropriation Act for use in such cases as the national capital plan.
Some people do not appreciate what is the procedure. It only requires a plan to be signed by the national capital commission and filed at the registry office, without any notice to the owner of the property, for property to become vested in the federal district commission. The rules in connection with compensation are those that existed in the past for ordinary expropriation purposes such as the public works I mentioned. These procedures are very lengthy and slow. The people of Ottawa have suffered from these procedures in the past. I know that in recent years the commission has not been using the Expropriation Act to the same extent, and hardly at all on the Quebec side. I know that in Ontario this act was used to acquire almost all the property along the Ottawa river and a great deal in Russell county. I believe this is the time to revise the Expropriation Act, and I hope the Prime Minister will give some consideration to discussing this matter with the Minister of Justice.


John George Diefenbaker: In practice, Mr. Chairman, the commission follows the course of endeavouring to purchase the property by

agreement rather than by expropriation. What the hon. gentleman says is a fact, that the power of expropriation being an extraordinary one deserves to be reconsidered in the light of present circumstances. I can tell him that the Department of Justice is reviewing the Expropriation Act in detail with the operative departments to the end that anything in the nature of enforced injustice cannot occur.
In saying that, I do not admit that there has been such in the past. Nonetheless, the power being so extraordinary, it certainly should be limited so far as possible. I should like to point out this to him. I do not believe most powers of expropriation-I am speaking now from memory of the law after not having practised for two or three years-have the limitation that is present here. Here, the commission may, with the approval of the governor in council, take or acquire lands for the purpose of this act without the consent of the owner. In other words, if expropriation takes place within the national capital region, it can only take place if the governor in council has directed that it should take place.
Mi;. Mcllrailh: All the authorities for expropriation are that way.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I have to admit that the claim of the hon. member for Ottawa East is correct to some extent. I remember one case where an old man was expropriated-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The hon. member may laugh, but if he had to struggle in French as I have to struggle in English he would not dare laugh at me that way; that is very cheap.
This man was over 65 years of age, and they wanted to expropriate his property. He was living on a small pension, and they gave him the exact value of the house. This man had no money to rebuild and the cost of construction had increased to such an extent that he could not do anything. He could not even buy a lot. It is quite important that the Expropriation Act be revised so that these poor people would not be disturbed for the balance of their lives.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 14-Restrictions on transactions.
George James McIlraith: I notice a change in clause 14. Where the terminology "at a price" was used in the former bill there is a change to "for a consideration". Is there any special significance in that change in the new bill?


John George Diefenbaker: One can imagine a situation whereby a trade would take place, whereby a certain piece of property in possession of the commission might be exchanged for another property of equal value.
National Capital Commission It was in order to cover that situation, as I understand it, that the word "consideration" was inserted.


Erhart Regier: I looked at this clause, Mr. Chairman, and I was wondering why the figures were so low or limitations were so severe. It seems to me that very little can be done by this commission without an order in council. They cannot dispose of any real property if the value is in excess of $10,000, nor may they buy any real property if the value is in excess of $25,000. That means that the greater number of transactions will require orders in council. Does the Prime Minister have any explanation to oiler as to exactly why $10,000 and $25,000 were the figures used, as to why the provision was not made a little bit more liberal or why a little bit more leeway was not given to the commission to act on their own, as for example up to $25,000 for disposal and $50,000 for purchase? In these days it does not take much of a home to be worth $25,000. Surely we do not want an order in council for each and every house.


John George Diefenbaker: It is apparent, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member has not read the Federal District Commission Act. The old section 16 reads as follows:
16. (1) No separate parcel of real property shall be purchased or acquired by the commission at a cost in excess of five thousand dollars except with the previous consent of the Governor in Council; and if the commission is unable to agree with the owner of real property as to the price to be paid therefor, the commission shall, with the consent of the governor in council, have the right to acquire the same without the consent of the owner and the provisions of the Expropriation Act are, mutatis mutandis, applicable to the acquisition of such real property by the commission.
There was that provision in the past respecting $5,000 in the acquirement of property. It was felt that provision constituted too great a limitation on the average transaction. The change that has been made is this. Under the Federal District Commission Act the commission cannot dispose of any real property without the approval of the governor in council. Under the new bill the governor in council approval will not be needed unless the consideration involved exceeds $10,000. Under the Federal District Commission Act to which I have just made reference the commission cannot acquire a parcel of property in excess of $5,000. Under the new bill governor in council approval will not be needed unless the consideration involved exceeds $25,000. It was just to cover the point raised by the hon. member that this alteration was made.


Erhart Regier: I want to assure the Prime Minister that I have read the old act.

National Capital Commission


John George Diefenbaker: Then I apologize to the hon. member.


Erhart Regier: The point I was making in my opening remarks is that I feel that all around the commission is being limited a little bit too much, that it is not being given enough freedom of action to do the effective job that the Prime Minister wants it to do in the nine-year period.
I must say that the first time in my life that I ever heard the Prime Minister make a public speech was in the little village of Craik, Saskatchewan in the year 1941, I believe it was. One of the most telling arguments that he had against the government of the day was the vast number of orders in council that were being issued. Knowing that he has so little love for government by order in council I should have liked to see in this clause and in other clauses evidence that the new commission about to be appointed would have a little bit more liberty of action.


John George Diefenbaker: The effect of the alteration will be to reduce the number of orders in council, that desirable objective to which the hon. gentleman gives his adherence now.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
On clause 16-National capital fund.
George James McIlraith: Would the Prime Minister care to tell us what supplementary estimates he proposes to bring before the house this year dealing with this subject? I have in mind particularly the question of whether or not he proposes bringing before the house provision for funds for acquisition of part of the green belt.


John George Diefenbaker: Authority will be asked for a $4J million loan on behalf of the commission for green belt purchases. In addition to that, of course, there will be these other estimates to which reference can be made when the estimates are before the house.


George James McIlraith: What I want to point out is this. The expropriation legislation provides that payments shall be made at the value at the date of expropriation. Once the expropriation plan is filed the persons concerned have by that time had the valuations of their property fixed. If you are in a period of rising prices, great hardship is suffered by those persons because the crown does not have the money with which to pay them the value of their property. If they have no other assets, they cannot buy other property and they are left in a rather hopeless position. They know they are being put out of the existing property, if it is property that is being taken for


use. The price is fixed as of the date of filing of the planned expropriation. The crown cannot pay them; and if the values go up, of course real hardship is suffered. There has been a great deal of hardship on that score. The hardship has been quite severe. All too many persons are suffering in this area because they have had their property expropriated. They have had no payment made by the crown. The value is fixed as of the date of expropriation. The situation can work a real hardship. Now that the green belt is announced and the delineations of the border fixed by the publicity given in the last few weeks, I would ask the Prime Minister if he would consider providing funds so that these expropriations can be completed as quickly as it is mechanically possible to do so.


Erhart Regier: I wonder whether the Prime Minister could indicate to the committee what has been the cost to the taxpayers of Canada of the development of our national capital so far? I know that for many years certain amounts have been voted annually. I wonder whether we might have the figure of what has been spent so far?


John George Diefenbaker: According to the report as of March 31, 1957, which is the only one I have before me at the moment, the funds advanced to the commission have amounted to $21,540,000 and the total expenditures have been $21,054,991. There have been further expenditures, of course, during the period 1957 to 1958 but I have not those figures before me at the moment. I will have them when the estimates are before the house.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
On clause 19-Regulations.
George James McIlraith: There is a small legal point that I should like to draw to the attention of the Prime Minister. Clause 19 (1) provides for the making of regulations for the protection of the property of the commission and for preserving order or preventing accidents. Then the remaining subsections of the clause have to do with a vehicle being operated or parked and so on and provision for penalties. What I want to point out to the Prime Minister is this. I want to ask him whether he is satisfied with the wording of clause 19 (1) in its breadth, from the point of view of giving authority to make regulations controlling traffic. The authority is quite clear for preserving order and for preventing accidents; but there can be control of traffic that is not protection of property and that is not preventing accidents. I do not want to delay the passage of the clause now in order to discuss the point further, other than to draw the

matter to the attention of the Prime Minister and to ask him to have the appropriate law officers look at the clause and, if they find anything in the points raised, have an appropriate amendment put in possibly in the other place or at some other convenient time.


John George Diefenbaker: At first glance, Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to think that there is something in what my hon. friend has said. However, I wish to point out that this clause was drafted in its present form by the Department of Justice after receiving full information respecting the requirements of the R.C.M.P. relative to these matters which come under the jurisdiction of that body. The purpose is that which the hon. gentleman has in mind-infractions of that nature, in addition to other provisions-the protection of property and the like. If it were not for the fact that the law officers of the crown concluded that this would be sufficient, I should be inclined to agree completely with the hon. gentleman, and I am not going to disagree with him now, even having regard to the authority of those who have prepared this. If he has any suggestion as to an additional word which would correct the situation, I would certainly be glad to accept an amendment in this regard.


George James McIlraith: I am not going to set myself up as a legal authority in a committee such as this, but the Department of Justice has been known to overlook points of law on occasions-I say that without any undue reflection on that department-and it seems to me that authority to the governor in council to make regulations concerning the control of traffic is not given by this section, although regulations are obviously intended on this subject, because subclause (a) of (2) deals with regulations concerning the operation and parking of cars. Perhaps we could let it go at this point, and the Prime Minister will have them take another look at it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 20-26 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 27-One and same corporation.
George James McIlraith: I wish to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that in the bill introduced in April, 1957 by the former government there was a provision that the corporation referred to in section 3 as the corporation established by the Federal District Commission Act was hereby declared for all purposes to be one and the same corporation. This was followed by a somewhat lengthy subclause which provided that the persons who held offices as chairman, members, officers or employees of the federal district commission immediately before the coming
National Capital Commission into force of the act shall be taken to have been appointed or employed to be chairman, members, officers or employees of the commission respectively under the new act for the unexpired portion of their respective terms to which they were appointed or for which they were employed. And then there is further provision for carrying this out.
That provision has been totally eliminated from the new bill now before the committee and the effect of it is that if the bill passes in its present form the members of the commission, the officers and the employees of the federal district commission are immediately out. They would require to be reappointed or rehired and by the mere passage of this bill and the bringing of it into operation that is the consequence. It means that the men who maintain the grounds around the city-indeed, those who maintain parliament hill and do all this excellent work- are left in a position of total insecurity of tenure of their employment although their work may have been such as to bring about the commendation of all of us. I should therefore like to ask the Prime Minister if he would explain just why this subclause 2 was omitted in the new legislation, and precisely what he has in mind.


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. member has stated, Mr. Chairman, this was in the draft bill which was introduced by Mr. St. Laurent. It was unusual, I thought, for such a provision as that to be made in this type of legislation. No one wants any person to be left in a position of total insecurity. Provision has been made in the bill that it shall come into effect on proclamation, and I can certainly assure the committee that the omission to include this provision was based on the fact that in the past a section such as that had been significantly omitted from legislation passed by the former government, and the reasons given were simply that in order to assure that the act should be most effective, while accepting in general the provisions of the draft act, we do not feel that positions should be filled by inheritance or by statute.
There is plenty of support for that stand in legislation passed by the former government.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if I might pursue this matter a bit further. Would the Prime Minister give us an example of some of the legislation of the previous government where the name of a statutory body was changed and some changes were made in its powers, and when this provision or a corresponding one was omitted? I cannot recall any.


John George Diefenbaker: I would have no difficulty in that connection. Let us take 1936, when the

National Capital Commission department of mines and resources was reconstituted by the statutes of Canada, chapter 33. That was passed on June 23, 1936. That is one example. The hon. gentleman must have forgotten that the Federal District Commission Act took the place of the Ottawa improvement commission in 1926-27. This change was brought about by the Federal District Commission Act, the act for which the present bill is being substituted. That act is reported in chapter 55 of the statutes of Canada, 1927, the act cited as the Federal District Commission Act. Section 21 of the act constituting the Ottawa improvement commission-chapter 10 of the statutes of 1899-and the act continuing the said improvement commission-chapter 62 of the statutes of 1919

were repealed and the provisions of the later act substituted for that act and the amendments thereto. Now, that was a pretty good example but there is still another one, the Canadian broadcasting commission.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Corporation.


John George Diefenbaker: This act succeeded the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission Act. It appears as chapter 24 of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1936. I believe the Canadian Broadcasting Act covers the situation very completely. Section 25 of that act reads as follows:
The corporation shall, from the date of the coming into force of this act, take possession of all property and assets and assume all the obligations and liabilities of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission.
Section 27 provides:
The Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, 1932, chapter 51 of the statutes of 1932, is repealed.
Section 28 reads:
This act in whole or in part shall come into force on a date or dates to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council.
And then there is the act respecting national parks, chapter 33 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1930, passed on May 30 of that year, and there are similar provisions although, as far as this act is concerned, one might say there is a distinction because like the first mentioned, those were acts respecting departments of government. The government felt it would prefer to follow those outstanding examples introduced by the previous government rather than the drafting prepared by the last government.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two comments I feel 1 should make about the answer. First of all I would point out that the Prime Minister was obviously prepared for this.


John George Diefenbaker: I read about it in the Ottawa Citizen.


George James McIlraith: I congratulate the Prime Minister on that but I am just wondering what caused him to be so prepared on the point. What has he in mind? He must have been thinking about this subject. I would also point out there are employees who worry about this in a very real way and have every reason for doing so.
I should also indicate that two of the four pieces of legislation to which the hon. gentleman referred dealt with civil servants and have no relevance whatever to the discussion before the committee today and for that reason should not have been referred to at all. One referred to the Canadian broadcasting commission-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Corporation.


George James McIlraith: -and one referred to the Ottawa improvement commission. I am not familiar with the former. I must point out the substantial nature of the changes being made with reference to the Ottawa improvement commission. There was no change of government at the time the legislation was put through. It was being continued under the same government. I wish to draw that to the attention of the committee.
I wish to point out to the committee that the subclause that is omitted deals with the officers of the commission. That is one group of persons. But then it also deals with employees of the federal district commission.
I	think it should be impressed on hon. members that some of these employees of the federal district commission hold humble jobs but they have been there over the years. These were not patronage appointments and they do not benefit through the civil service commission.
This is a proper occasion on which to ask the Prime Minister whether he proposes to make any changes in the commission itself. If so, is he in a position to tell us what the changes are? Secondly, when he deals with that part of the section, will he then tell us about the employees and include some provision in the bill that will protect those employees as well as the officials and members of the commission? In other words, there are two groups of persons referred to in the subclause that has been omitted. I feel it is quite an important thing. The commission has developed in a highly successful way over the years. I cannot help but be impressed with the attitude of all hon. members of the house toward the commission. If you read the debates on the subject for the last decade that will become extremely apparent. We heard what was said on August
II	at the resolution stage and we have heard the fine words spoken from all sides of the house today. I for one am not content to see

a somewhat glaring omission like this in the new legislation that will create the suspicion that there are going to be mass dismissals of employees and mass rehirings. I believe the Prime Minister ought to consider making a firm and definite commitment on this subject.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that when the C.B.C. was set up under the new act in 1936 no provision was made similar to that which Mr. St. Laurent in this case thought should be included, a rather unsual provision and one that naturally must have won his appreciation and support. As far as the commission is concerned, there are certain terms expiring December 31, 1958. There are six members whose appointments-and those six include the mayor of the city of Ottawa-terminate at that time. Then in 1959 there are a further six commissioners' appointments expiring on December 31. One expires December 31, 1960.
In so far as the employees are concerned, no employee or official who is discharging his responsibilities in a way befitting the position he has occupied will ever have anything to fear whatsoever. I wish to make that very clear and very definite.
When the hon. gentleman speaks about the glaring absence in this section, I must say that in so far as two of the cases to which I referred are concerned, the course followed there represents the course followed generally. After all, when a new body is set up naturally those who are doing their work in a proper, fitting and efficient way will have no cause for concern.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of what has happened I am not sure that my hon. friend deserves the congratulations of my hon. friend from Ottawa West for having done his preparatory work so skilfully. He produced four illustrations to support his position, two of which dealt with civil servants and are completely irrelevant, one of which my hon. friend dealt with. He was able to show the difference between that particular operation and this one. The fourth is relevant. It deals with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but it goes back to 1936. My hon. friend says that the provision which Mr. St. Laurent would have included in his bill, and which has been cited, was an unusual one and that the government now proposes to follow the normal and usual course in this matter.
I would suggest to the Prime Minister that perhaps the reason he did not cite any examples to support his case from the end of world war II was that he was not able to find any relevant examples. I suggest also-he will correct me if I am wrong-
National Capital Commission


John George Diefenbaker: Have any changes been made?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -that what the Prime Minister considered to be the unusual provision, the one that Mr. St. Laurent put in, was not unusual and was in fact the one that was followed since world war II when changes of this kind were made.
However, perhaps we can bring this matter to a head and get from the Prime Minister the kind of assurance that we would like to have by asking him to state, if he cares to do so, that the position of the members and employees of the new commission in regard to their security of tenure will be exactly the same as if the section quoted by my hon. friend from Ottawa West, which would have been included in any bill from this side, had been included in this bill. In other words, their position will not be affected in any way by the fact that that provision is not included in the bill and they will be treated in that way notwithstanding its omission. I suggest again, Mr. Chairman, that the inclusion of such a provision would not have been unusual. If the Prime Minister does some more homework he might find that it has been included in more than one bill since world war II.


Joseph-Omer Gour: I ask the Prime Minister not to put himself in a position where he may be tempted, but to put something in the bill which will help him to resist the temptation of some of his members who may try to play politics. I suggest that he have some kind of regulation that will isolate him against temptation of some of his members to have some of the employees released because they were appointed by another party. It will save him a lot of trouble and a lot of temptation.
I might also remind the Prime Minister, if he does not remind himself, that he has found his desk very handy. Two weeks ago he spoke of removing desks. If he did not have his desk in front of him he would not find it so convenient to have all those books in front of him. I ask him to forget about the desks because they are handy for everybody.


John George Diefenbaker: The books were under the desk.


Joseph-Omer Gour: I ask my good friends to include a provision so that there will not be a temptation to put some of the employees out of jobs because they were hired by the Liberals. I think it would help to have a regulation along that line and it would prevent the Prime Minister from running into a lot of trouble.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, of the two acts referred to by the Prime Minister one

National Capital Commission was passed 32 years ago and the other 22 years ago. The bill that he proposes not to follow is one that was introduced one year and four months ago. I wonder why he selects the one passed 32 years ago and omits the one introduced 16 months ago. It does not make a very good case. I would point out also that while he tells us about the date of the expiry of office of many members of the commission he does not go any farther in discussing the clause with which we are dealing, nor did he deal with the unexpired period of the duration of their appointments. May I ask him directly now to deal with that omission? Is it the intention to reappoint the members of the commission when the new act is passed for the unexpired term on the dates he indicated in his statement a few moments ago?


John George Diefenbaker: That matter has not yet received consideration, but in the appointment of the commission under this new act the only consideration will be the efficiency and the effectiveness of those to be appointed.


George James McIlraith: But we have had some rather extraordinary tests of efficiency given to us in the house. We had one the other day by the Minister of Transport in dealing with the auditors of the C.N.R. It was a shocking definition of efficiency, and I would like the Prime Minister to be a little more clear on what he means by that. I would hope he would use the same test of efficiency that some of us would use, and if he does we will be satisfied. I would be much happier if it was in the legislation, but if it is not in the legislation dealing with the commission would he consider, in view of what he has said, putting in a clause dealing with the employees only, similar to the former clause 2?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the form in which the presentation has been made and the removal of this subsection-and also the change in at least half a dozen or more other subsections and sections of the draft act that was tabled by Mr. St. Laurent- represent the stand of this government on this particular question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have been listening very carefully to what the Prime Minister said, and it has occurred to me to wonder whether there was ever in any legislation as early as 1936 any provision of the character suggested by Mr. St. Laurent in this bill. I suggest the reason that there was nothing that the Prime Minister found at that early date is that this kind of situation at that time was, to say the very least, abnormal.


My recollection is-and I am speaking from recollection; I may turn out to be mistaken; I know I am taking a very great risk in speaking from recollection-that when the national film board was established during the war and it took over the employees of the motion picture bureau of the Department of Trade and Commerce, some special provision was made for the security of the employees who previously had been in the civil service and who were then being transferred to this new crown corporation. I do know of my certain knowledge that since the war when, for example, the department of reconstruction and supply was first being set up and taking over the employees of the department of munitions and supply, and again when the department of reconstruction and supply was wound up and its employees were taken into certain departments that were taking over, provision was made for the continuity of employment of the employees.
I know from experience I have had that there have been many, many cases in which similar provisions were made in so far as employees were concerned, and here I am only referring to the second point raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West.
So far as the members of the commission are concerned, if the government wishes to drop that provision in the previous bill I would have no criticism at all. It would seem to me that the government was perfectly justified in doing that if it wanted to. But with respect to the employees there are many precedents going back in my recollection to the establishment of the film board where, when a new name or new constitution was given to some agency and functions were transferred from a department to a crown company or vice versa, legislative provision was made to safeguard the position of the employees.
It would take me some time to look up and verify the references but I have very distinct recollections of having dealt with these matters myself and I know that there were such provisions. I would not like to say, of course, that they were in the precise language to be found in the bill Mr. St. Laurent introduced but I do know that it has been habitual and normal since the war to do so. Therefore, while I would not urge the government for one moment to do it with respect to the members of the commission, so far as the employees are concerned I would urge them to do what has now become and has been for some 15 years the normal practice in these matters.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I would point out again the whole history of this legislation. We have had a national capital development authority operating in this city and area since the late 1890's. It has gradually developed over the years and has come to be a very fine body whose work is recognized and appreciated throughout the country. As a logical consequence of all their work a joint committee of parliament was set up in 1956 to deal with this whole subject. Resulting from the work of that committee legislation was drafted and brought in but was not proceeded with in 1957 because of the dissolution of the house and the calling of a general election.
Similar legislation has now been presented by the present government. During that time not only has the work of this body come to be appreciated throughout Canada but the house itself has come to recognize this subject as a non-partisan one and the commission as a non-partisan commission in all its works, with all the implications of the word "nonpartisan". Today we have this splendid piece of legislation spoiled by the omission of the one clause providing for continuity of employment for the employees. That is something that should not be done. A clause providing continuity for the employees should be included in the bill. From anything the Prime Minister has said I cannot understand why such a clause should not be included at least so far as the employees are concerned. I would regret it very much if the committee were to pass this clause in its present form and by that one act undo so much of the splendid work done over the years, work that has been recognized in all parts of Canada. Notwithstanding the firm position the Prime Minister took a moment ago, I would ask him to consider putting such a clause back in the bill at least so far as the employees are concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, since the Prime Minister has suggested what attitude I should take to a precedent established by Mr. Mackenzie King, I say here and now that I yield to no person in the house in my admiration for Mr. King, but if I were seeking a lawyer I would certainly ask the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent for legal advice before I would ask Mr. King, and so would Mr. King.
I say that the statutory precedents, the numerous precedents, the dozens of precedents, for protecting public servants in legislation brought into the house by Mr. St. Laurent impress me far more than something that happened 22 years ago when the situation was quite different at the very beginning of the Liberal regime of Mr. King. I think that the Prime Minister should reconsider, and give this group of public servants the same protection as was given to the employees of the motion picture bureau when they went to the film board, the same protection that was given to employees of the Department of Finance who went to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the same protection that

National Capital Commission has been given as a normal procedure when these transfers have been made because of changes of this character ever since the war and, indeed, over the last 15 years. That is all we on this side of the house are urging. That is what Mr. St. Laurent intended to do and that is what the government is proposing not to do.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I asked the Prime Minister a few moments ago, because I thought this might clarify the discussion, if he would give the committee an assurance that the security of the positions of the employees of the commission will be the same as if this section, which had been proposed by Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, were included in this legislation. If he could give us that assurance, it would certainly go a long way towards settling our doubts.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought I covered the situation completely, and I am surprised the hon. member did not follow what I said. I said positions are not filled by inheritance or by statute. What I want to assure above everything else is that the efficiency and effectiveness of this body shall be completely unimpaired.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
On clause 29-Commencement.
Erhart Regier: I wonder if the Prime Minister could give any indication as to the commencement of this act? After listening to the interchange which has just taken place, I think it is obvious that possibly not all the members of the commission under the former act will be members under the new act. There may be, therefore, some hesitancy about doing anything about the development of the national capital pending the proclamation of the new act. I think all of us would regret six months of inactivity or perhaps a year might elapse before the act is proclaimed.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend must have been thinking about the past when he uttered those concluding words. The purpose is that at the earliest possible date the proclamation will be made. This date, of course, must be fixed with due regard to the necessary preparations that have to be made to bring the act into effect. I have no hesitation in saying, however, that I believe there should be no delay beyond that which is necessary to assure, as I said a moment ago, efficient and effective service.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
[Mr. Pickersglll.l
On the schedule.
George James McIlraith: We have now a new definition of the national capital region set out in this bill. We have a new green belt. A map has been published and a description of the area. However, I am wondering if the Prime Minister would consider having the mapping section of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys prepare a comprehensive map showing the national capital region, the green belt and all the other relevant data pertaining to this legislation. There is a need for it. While the federal district commission did some excellent map work, they were of necessity limited in this work. We have this outstanding branch of the government service that could do the work, and I would ask the Prime Minister to consider having that branch prepare a comprehensive map with all the relevant data on it.


John George Diefenbaker: I think that suggestion is a very good and appropriate one. As a matter of fact, I have found difficulty myself in trying to follow the actual areas in detail of these various entities. While I have no authority to direct, I shall certainly bring to the attention of the department of mines the need for the preparation of such a map. I think it is necessary. As the hon. member said, there is bound to be confusion without it.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time? Now, by leave?


John George Diefenbaker: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD


Edmund Davie Fulton: the second reading of Bill No. C-49, to provide for the conditional liberation of persons undergoing sentences of imprisonment.
He said: I should just say a word or two on the second reading of the bill. 1 will not go into any detail because I think I gave a sufficiently comprehensive outline of the general principles and purposes of the bill when the resolution was before us, as reported on page 3372 of Hansard for August 11, 1958. I should just say, in addition, the following: This bill which is now in the hands of members deals with a system of parole under

which persons undergoing sentences of imprisonment may be conditionally released to serve the balance of their sentences at large in society. In considering a bill of this nature, therefore, some consideration must be given also to the purposes of imprisonment.
The purposes of imprisonment are generally regarded as being twofold: firstly, the punishment of the offender and secondly, the rehabilitation and reform of the offender. In so far as the first part, namely the punishment of the offender is concerned, we are not immediately concerned with that here except to the extent that no one having overall responsibility for penitentiaries could altogether overlook the punitive aspect of imprisonment. But apart from that indirect concern, we are not here concerned with the punitive aspect of imprisonment but are concerned with the design and implementation of a program of rehabilitation and reform of those who have been sentenced to penitentiary.
While those who administer the parole system which will be set up as a result of the passage of this bill will be primarily concerned with the question of whether a prisoner is qualified to be released on parole, nevertheless it will be their responsibility also to concern themselves indirectly with questions of the rehabilitation and reform training programs in penitentiaries as well as with provision for assistance of those who are released on parole. The purpose of this bill is to provide for the setting up of a system which we believe is generally in accord with the recommendations and findings of the Fauteux committee, and which will assist in a sensible, constructive and valuable program of rehabilitation and reform of prisoners, and their return to society as useful members of society in the shortest possible iime consonant with the overall responsibility of those in charge of the penitentiary system lor the protection of society. This is the ourpose of the bill, and I believe that as ion. members study the bill in detail, they vill see that we will be in a better position o discharge and perform this purpose under he new bill than we were under the Ticket >f Leave Act which this bill repeals and eplaces.


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Ar. Speaker, I feel quite sure it is not neces-ary for me to make any lengthy speech on he second reading of this bill to indicate to he minister that we on this side of the house Till support the measure. Of course we shall iave the opportunity of asking questions and lerhaps voicing minor divergences of opinion
57071-3-236J
National Parole Board
as to the details of the bill. Generally speaking, however, we are in agreement with and concur in the general principles involved in this particular bill.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, all the suggestions to be found in the Fauteux report of 1953 are indeed timely and to the point. We feel that they are well worth reviewing and studying from time to time. One of the important recommendations of the Fauteux report, of course, deals with the parole system in Canada. I understand this recommendation will be implemented in great part by the passing of this bill. I feel sure that there is not a member in the house who has not, at one time or another, been faced with representations from mothers or wives in respect of the imprisonment of their loved ones. There are times when the circumstances under which the imprisonment has taken place, the state of mind of the imprisoned persons and also the deplorable conditions of the family, the wives and children, would argue very strongly for the conditional liberation of certain prisoners. Although we are warranted in commending and can very well commend the remission service of the Department of Justice and while we can also commend highly the present Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) and the former solicitor general, we feel that this whole system was working under a very heavy handicap. It is hoped that this new bill-and I think it will do so-will bring about conditions where it will be far easier to deal with parole.
The Ticket of Leave Act passed in 1899 is, of course, completely inadequate and out of date, and it cannot cope with circumstances and conditions which have been brought about by our modern society and by our social psychology, if you wish to call it that, which inmates carry with them into the remotest corners of our penal institutions. We feel that in many instances it would be perhaps to the great advantage of the prisoners as well as of society to be in a position to offer rehabilitation to many of the prisoners rather than to have them serve their full sentences or their full terms. I think this is particularly true of the younger inmates, young men and women who are just a little bit older than those whom we consider to be juvenile delinquents. I feel that they perhaps need rehabilitation more than they need punishment. I sometimes believe that their plight is due to the way of life that we have chosen to live, with its very materialistic philosophy. I sometimes feel that somehow we may be responsible for creating in the lives of our young men and women psychoses of many sorts. I believe that we should, particularly at this time, try to rehabilitate to a greater extent in many cases rather than to punish.

National Parole Board
For this reason I think that the creation of the national parole board in the form of a quasi judicial body could make possible a far more competent and complete examination of the circumstances and conditions surrounding the imprisonment of an inmate. I also think this body would certainly be in a better position to judge of the effectiveness of granting parole to certain prisoners. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house propose to vote in favour of this bill.
There is, however, a question that arises in my mind as I read the bill. If the present legislation, namely the Ticket of Leave Act, is to be repealed and to be replaced by the parole act, are we to understand that the Solicitor General will join the ranks of the unemployed in this country?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for a very few minutes on this measure. I again say that the members of this group are pleased indeed that the minister has given effect to the recommendation of the Fauteux report with respect to parole by the introduction of this bill. I think there is no question that it is a definite forward step in the administration of justice in the humane sense and in the rehabilitation of persons who have transgressed the law. I am particularly interested in this matter because during my experience in this house it has been brought clearly to my attention what could be done to rehabilitate persons who, through unfortunate background-home life in some cases and associations-have committed serious crimes.
Since I have been here I have always found that those responsible for the administration of the Ticket of Leave Act have done the best they could under the provisions of that act. I remember on one occasion a man wrote to me. He had lived in Trail during the war. I never met the man. He asked for remission of sentence. In his letter to me he said that he had been an ardent supporter of mine and that he believed in the C.C.F. policy, particularly on the question of the socialization of the banks. I went to see Mr. Ilsley about the matter, when he was minister of justice, and he very kindly agreed to look into the matter thoroughly. About two weeks later he called me into his office and he showed me the record. He said to me, "Mr. Herridge, I think there is no doubt about it; this man does believe in the socialization of the banks. He has been going ahead with that work quite extensively in recent years". It was his third bank robbery. Therefore on that occasion I did not proceed any further with my representations on behalf of this to me unknown person. However, I mention 
that as one little humorous incident in a number of what, over the years, have been tragic incidents for the persons concerned.
In recent years throughout Canada there have been a good number of people and groups who have taken an increasing interest in the rehabilitation of persons who have transgressed the law. I am sure that those who take an interest in persons of this class do so for purely unselfish purposes. It is one of those aspects of society in which persons are interested because they have some sense of brotherhood so far as their fellow man is concerned and some sympathy for those who have fallen by the wayside.
I want to make one point before sitting down because I am a great believer in getting support for the law and for its administration.
I am quite sure the minister would agree with me that sometimes his officials have not been able to do all they would like to do because they lacked the normal public support in the performance of their duties to meet certain serious problems.
I suggest, therefore, that if this measure is to be fully successful it must receive the co-operation and understanding of each section of the public in this country, and in this connection I should like to read one paragraph from the report of the committee which was appointed to inquire into the principles and procedures followed in the remission service of the Department of Justice of Canada. This paragraph struck me very forcibly. It appears on page 54 of the report, and it reads as follows:
Finally, it is clear to us that education of the public is essential in order that proper parole principles and procedure may become better understood. Unfortunately one parolee who violates the conditions of his parole often receives such widespread publicity that the whole system appears to be defective.
I am sure that many members of the house would agree with this from their own experience.
Usually overlooked, of course, at that time, are a substantial number of parole successes in the same community. The decision to grant parole involves the taking of calculated risks and this should be more widely appreciated. Like probation, the success of parole requires public understanding and support.
I am very interested in that aspect of this question and I urge that the minister's department do all it can to enlist the sympathetic support and understanding of representative groups in Canada. I suggest that women's organizations would be very interested in the work of helping to develop a public understanding of this type of legislation. To that end I suggest there should be some sort of pamphlet or news release or at least some sort of information given by the

minister's department to the public and, certainly, to certain representative organizations bringing to their attention the principles involved in this legislation and giving them some education as to the administration of the act, and seeking public co-operation.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a remark or two to make on this subject, and without reiterating what others have said, may I say I was pleased to see that legislative effect is to be given to the report of the Fauteux committee. I know the committee also made recommendations with respect to other matters under the jurisdiction of the minister in one way or another which are connected with the question of parole, and we hope that those things will be given an equal amount of consideration and will lead to a type of approach similar to that expressed in this bill.
There is one important factor arising out of the bill, and that is the selection of members to constitute the parole authority or the parole board. I know the minister himself would be the first to say that the attitudes, the education background and the philosophy of these individuals must be given paramount consideration, for certainly the parole authority could make or break what is an excellent piece of legislation.
There is one recommendation which the Fauteux committee made which I have not been able to come across in the bill, and I must add that I have not had a great deal of time to look into it and compare it with the report. That was the authority of the parole board to consider, in the first instance, the legality of a particular sentence and to make a comment, if they consider that the sentence was illegal, to the attorney general of a particular province. This matter may be dealt with in the regulations which are to be made following the passage of this bill. Another is adequate preliminary studies and interviews by the board before the normal time that a person might be eligible for a parole.
There are one or two other matters that were dealt with by the Fauteux committee which have been in effect for some time, having to do with the rules with respect to considering whether an inmate in an institution should receive parole or not, and apparently one of the restrictions is that inmates who are in penal institutions because of infractions of the drugs act are not eligible for parole. I hope that the minister, when his ideas and plans for a new approach to the problem of drug addiction and the rehabilitation of addicts are in effect, will also give consideration to relaxing the rigidity of this rule which provides that no parole may be
National Parole Board
given to these people. If there is to be some scheme for the rehabilitation of drug addicts they should be allowed the same privileges as other inmates are allowed with respect to parole. Other factors may, of course, affect this situation such as people being habitual criminals or having committed other offences in connection with the offence of possessing drugs.
Another very important part of the parole system is that which follows after the parole is granted, or after a person is released on parole, and that is rehabilitative care-the supervision that has to take place after an inmate is released in order that everything possible may be done to ensure that an individual may take a better place in society and make a better contribution to society and not fall back into the ways he followed before he was placed in prison.
These are two or three thoughts, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the minister will take cognizance of them. Possibly further provision is going to be made in the regulations, and I think that if they are, that will be fine and dandy. I hope that after its passage through here and the other place it will not be long before the bill actually becomes law, and that this new system, this new approach with respect to granting parole, may come speedily into effect.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add just a few words to this discussion as we do not want to prolong it. One of the problems we have come across with regard to parole-and I am happy it is called that now, rather than "ticket of leave" because that may be more in keeping with what we want to accomplish with regard to getting people back into normal society than "ticket of leave" would indicate-one of the problems the federal parliament is going to have to face is the ununiformity of sentences for particular offences.
We probably all know of cases where an armed bank robbery netted the accused 20 years, though in another case very similar, with a different judge and a different court, the same prisoner would have received probably four or five years. I think that one of the considerations which must be taken into consideration is this matter of sentences. There is no uniformity in sentences and that, probably, is as it should be, because we do not recommend that an armed bank robber should have a penalty of 20 years and that one where the accused is not armed should be good for five years or something like that. However, this must be taken into account in granting a parole.

National Parole Board
It has been an almost definite rule in the past that half the sentence has to be served and this is not necessarily in keeping with the nature of the crime. Uniformity must be established with respect to penalties and extenuating circumstances must be taken into consideration. It would be well for the parole board to give more consideration to the record of the individual while in prison, his home environment, the kind of family he has and circumstances of that nature rather than considering only the length of sentence first granted. Grave consideration should also be given to the regional problems that develop with respect to sentencing prisoners. We all know if there are 15 robberies in a locality-*


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I allowed the hon. member to proceed to discuss in general the problem of the inequity of sentences but it does not really arise under this bill and I ask him not to pursue it.


William Arnold Peters: I referred to it, Mr. Speaker, only to indicate that in the past the parole was related to the sentence and the sentences had no degree of uniformity.
There are some archaic provisions attached to tickets of leave to which some consideration should be given. A parolee or person on ticket of leave is told he cannot drink alcoholic beverages, enter public houses or associate with women of easy virtue. A number of conditions they are asked to observe are not really conducive to rehabilitation. I urge that some thought be given to changing the archaic language of the regulations under which these people operate when on ticket of leave.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) a few weeks ago in the house referred to a particular appeal. With respect to parolees or people on tickets of leave there is a tendency to expect nothing good from them and the vilest rumour about them is accepted as a fact. This attitude and malicious gossip frequently results in the reincarceration of the individual and before he is recommitted he should be given the right of an appeal or hearing before a magistrate. I am not convinced that the Minister of Justice would want recommitted prisoners to serve the full length of their original sentences. After all, the purpose of penal institutions should be to equip people to return to a useful, constructive life in society. The present method of recommitting prisoners militates against the accomplishment of that constructive end.


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, as one who when in opposition, in season and perhaps sometimes out of season, used to press for legislation of this kind, I should like to take just a

moment of the time of the house to say what satisfaction I have in seeing it introduced now. I should also like to point out that this is not the first time the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) has been responsible for legislation in aid of our criminal laws. When he had been in opposition for only one year he had the distinction of sponsoring and seeing carried a bill in connection with crime comics. I am sure it is a great satisfaction to the Minister of Justice now to be in a position to be able to give wider effect to the qualities of humanity and constructive capacity which I am sure are embodied in this measure.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their assistance and thoughtful comments made on second reading. With regard to the great majority of the points raised I believe they can be better covered under the appropriate clauses. I have made a note of them and will endeavour to discuss them when we reach the appropriate clauses.
I wish to point out that I am guilty of an omission when I made my remarks on second reading and I wish to take advantage of this opportunity of rectifying it. The omission is that I neglected to say anything about the role of the after care agencies and the prisoners' aid societies. I mentioned the things with which the parole service must concern itself after the bill is passed as the remission service does now, and it was there I should have said that a very great deal of the success of the efforts to rehabilitate and restore, return to a useful life, prisoners who have been sentenced to penitentiaries, will continue to depend, as it has in the past, on the co-operation of these voluntary agencies.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) mentioned the desirability, indeed the necessity, of instilling an understanding and co-operative attitude on the part of the public toward the problems of the welfare of a parolee. I quite agree with him. In this connection the after care agencies and voluntary agencies can play and have played an extremely important part. There is one area in which I know the officials of the parole board will be able to count on the continued support and co-operation of the public, and that is the area served and represented by these men and women who give so much of their time voluntarily to assist in this work.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

On clause 6-Review of cases.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I undertook to answer some of the comments made on second reading and this would be the appropriate moment at which to do so.
The hon. member for Skeena asked a question as to whether the board would review sentences from the point of view of eligibility for parole apart from a rigid formula which requires that half a sentence must be served and the hon. member for Timiskaming also raised a related point. I should direct their attention to clause 6 of the bill which directs the board that it must, at the times prescribed by the regulations, undertake a review of every sentence of imprisonment of two years or more whether or not an application for parole has been made.
It is the thought that in the regulations it will be provided that there will be a preliminary review of every case as soon as possible after sentence for the purpose of what I might describe as classification. As a result of that preliminary review, any outstanding, exceptional or mitigating features in connection with the sentence will, of course, be noted and the case will be classified and noted for parole review accordingly, so that there is flexibility now to be written into the times at which review for parole will be undertaken.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 16-Place of recommitment.
William Arnold Peters: Is any consideration being
given to the matter of appeals from recommittal warrants which I mentioned?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I missed that. Perhaps I should have mentioned it in connection with clause 12. Recommittal will generally take place under one of two circumstances; first, on conviction for an indictable offence, where parole will be automatically revoked and the parolee will then, of course, have to undergo imprisonment in connection with the new sentence as well as being liable to serve the rest of the sentence for which he was on parole. I do not imagine that my hon. friend had that in mind when he spoke of appeal or review. Probably what he had in mind was the second circumstance under which the man will go back to the institution, and that is where there has been a suspension where, by reason of some activity not amounting to the commission of an indictable offence, but perhaps amounting to a breach of the condition on which he was under parole, a report is received and
National Parole Board
recommendation made that parole be forfeited. In that case he may also be recommitted. In every such case, on receipt of a report, the parole will be suspended pending an investigation, and the board will then automatically undertake a review to see whether the suspension is justified and the parole in fact should be forfeited or whether on the other hand the suspension is not justified and the parole should be reinstituted. So that, in that type of case it is provided now that there shall always be a review by the board before there is a recommittal to the penal institution itself.


William Arnold Peters: Take the case of an individual who is on parole after being sentenced to a 5-year term. He is out for say two and one-half years and he is recommitted for the number of things that are in the present ticket of leave requirement, namely that he cannot associate with certain people, he cannot do certain things. Would he still be required to serve the five years that he originally received?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, he would not be liable
in any case to serve more than that portion of the sentence which remained unexpired at the time he was released on parole. One of the objects of recommittal in such a case would be to prevent the man from committing a further crime, or an indictable offence, to give him, as it were, a fresh chance for parole. The theory is that it is preferable to get him back in time to prevent him from actually committing the new offence, back into an institution where the reformation and rehabilitation program and training may be recommenced with a view toward a further release on parole. So the mere fact that he has been recommitted in such a case does not necessarily mean that he has to serve the full remainder of the unexpired portion of his sentence. That is the maximum that he can serve; but it is quite possible, and indeed it would be the desire of the parole authorities and the prison authorities-to recommence the training and rehabilitation program so that he might, if possible, be released on parole again before the expiration of the full sentence.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 24-Repeal.
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether it would be a fair question to ask the minister what will become of the personnel of the Department of Justice who are now employed in the remission service?

Railway Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member will see that under clause 23 there is provision tor the transfer of staff from the Department of Justice to the staff of the new parole board. In actual fact, our present plans contemplate the transfer of virtually all of the staff of the remission service to the staff of the new parole board. There will be some personnel left but since the bulk of the work of this service is now devoted to work under the Ticket of Leave Act it is logical that the majority of them should be transferred to the new service.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: What will happen to the Solicitor General?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Solicitor General is a busy man and I can assure the hon. gentleman he has much more to do than merely administering the Ticket of Leave Act at the present time. His services are valuable and important services and will still be essential to the government and to the Department of Justice in other capacities.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


George Harris Hees: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Railway Act to permit certain grants to be made from the railway grade crossing fund; to credit to the railway grade crossing fund in each fiscal year the sum of $5 million to aid actual construction work for the protection, safety and convenience of the public in respect of crossings; and for certain changes in connection with the administration of the fund.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister make a statement.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that hon. members will wish me to indicate briefly and in a general way what is being proposed in the legislation that will be introduced following the adoption of this resolution.
As hon. members know, there is a fund known as the railway grade crossing fund from which contributions are made to assist work for the protection, safety and convenience of the public in respect of railway-highway crossings. Section 265 of the Railway

Act sets forth the work toward which contributions will be made and the maximum amounts that may be contributed to each project.
One of the purposes of the proposed legislation is to increase, during a period of three years, the maximum contributions that may be made from the fund. The main estimates of the Department of Transport for this fiscal year contain a credit of $10 million to the fund in addition to the normal annual credit of $5 million. It is the intention of the government to provide a similar additional sum of $10 million next year and the following year. These additional credits and the proposed increases in the permissible contributions will, I am confident, serve a double purpose of encouraging the initiation of additional projects to make crossings safer and affording a greater measure of financial assistance than is now available to municipalities and other parties who have to bear the cost of such work.
The present maximum contribution from the fund towards work in respect of a crossing at rail level is 60 per cent of the cost of the work or $300,000, whichever is the lesser. The proposed legislation, and I trust that hon. members will permit me to mention some details, would increase for three years the 60 per cent to 80 per cent and the $300,000 to $500,000. These contributions are available towards automatic protection at level crossings and also, for example, where a grade separation is ordered to eliminate an existing level crossing.
In the case of reconstruction and improvement of existing grade separations, such as a dangerous subway, the present maximum contribution is 30 per cent or $150,000, whichever is the lesser. The amendment will increase the 30 per cent to 50 per cent and the $150,000 to $250,000.
Provision will also be made to permit contributions towards the cost of placing reflective markings on the sides of railways cars. Such markings serve to warn motorists when a train is at a crossing which they are approaching at night.
There is also an amendment to subsection 5 of section 265 to ensure that there will be statutory annual credit of $5 million to the fund. There is a limitation in the present subsection which makes it possible for the annual credit to be less than $5 million if at the start of the fiscal year there happens to be more than $2 million uncommitted in the fund at that time. This limitation is being removed. This, of course, is a statutory annual credit and, as I have already stated, it is being supplemented by an additional $10 million this year and will also be so supplemented in each of the next two years.

Another provision will give the board of transport commissioners power to order that the words "railway crossing" on level crossing signboards be made reflective at crossings where the board so orders. The present section 270 of the Railway Act requires that the words be only painted on the signboards.
The legislation is comparatively brief and I have outlined its principal provisions. I may add that when the bill is given second reading it is my intention to move that it be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the legislation announced by the minister in introducing the resolution is of extreme importance not only to parliament but I am sure to all those who are interested in this problem. At first blush the legislation is not only welcomed by this side of the house but will receive our support as it is discussed in its various stages, subject, of course, to any constructive criticism we may have to make as we go along.
As I read the resolution which the minister has brought before the house it is divided into three parts. The first is that a measure should be introduced to amend the Railway Act to permit certain grants to be made from the railway grade crossing fund. The second is to credit to the railway grade crossing fund in each fiscal year the sum of $5 million to aid actual construction work for protection at crossings. The third is to cover certain changes in connection with the administration of the fund, as the minister has explained in greater detail in his submission to the house.
Before I go on with my main remarks I should like to say that I have some difficulty in understanding the second portion of the resolution, namely, that crediting to the railway grade crossing fund in each fiscal year the sum of $5 million. That has already been done, as I understand it and as I will explain later, by the amendment to the Railway Act passed in 1955 found in 3-4 Elizabeth II, chapter 41. I will come back to that in a moment.
At this stage I should like to say that this problem was of such importance that the former administration determined to ask the board of transport commissioners to make a very careful study and investigation of the whole grade crossing problem. An order in council was passed on January 14, 1953 covering the investigation to which I have referred, an investigation was to be made into all phases of the problem of railway-highway crossings under the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada.
In order not to labour the matter unduly but so that the committee may gather an idea 57071-3-237
Railway Act
of what the then administration had in mind, perhaps I may be allowed to put on the record the governing parts of the order in council. The board was asked to do three things, first, conduct a survey and report upon methods considered by the board to be practicable, under all pertinent circumstances, to eliminate the hazards and improve the public convenience and the protection and safety of the public at such crossings; second, review and report on the adequacy of the railway grade crossing fund to provide for the construction of works for the protection, safety and convenience of the public in respect of railway-highway crossings; and, finally, to make such recommendations as the board might deem advisable in the premises.
I hold in my hand the report made by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada on May 10, 1954 containing a review of the hearings that the board held from one end of the country to the other and a detailed statement of its recommendations. Any one who is interested in the problem of railway grade crossings and the railway grade crossing fund will find in this document interesting reading covering all phases of the problem. The board sat for many months. This investigation was the first of its kind undertaken since the creation of the railway grade crossing fund in 1909 and the board gathered a great volume of data and statistics over a period of 12 months.
I should like to state briefly now what the recommendations were that the board made to the government on May 10, 1954, because they lead up to the discussion now before the house. The recommendations made by the board were eight in number.
The first of these was that an appropriation of $5 million instead of the then $1 million, which was payable into the fund, be made beginning April 1 in any such year. The second was that the contribution provided out of the grade crossing fund be increased from 40 per cent to 60 per cent, with a maximum of $150,000 in respect of any one crossing at rail levels. The third had to do with construction and improvement of grade operations in existence and recommended that the contribution in any one case should not exceed 30 per cent of the cost of reconstruction and improvement, nor exceed $150,000. The fourth, which is interesting and about which I shall have something to say at a later period, states that a contribution should be directed towards the annual cost of maintenance and operation of automatic signals installed at crossings after this amendment recommended goes into force, and that the contribution in respect of any one crossing shall not exceed in any year the actual cost for that year.

Railway Act
should be an advisory committee representing the railways, the provinces, the municipalities and the board of transport commissioners. I believe that such an advisory committee should meet once a year or twice a year, if need be, to consider all the applications across Canada, including all the applications coming from the provinces. To me this would be an excellent thing because here would be construction projects which could be used for all-year employment and particularly for winter employment. The consideration of that proposal is to be found in the report. I believe it is worth studying.
Then I recommend that there be established a sub-committee of the board of transport commissioners to deal with these cases. Here again, I am not suggesting in any way that the board of transport commissioners cannot deal effectively, as it is now constituted, with the applications that come before it. What I am saying is that the board of transport commissioners in this day and age has very many other responsibilities having to do with freight rates, pipe lines, water rates and many other important activities. So it would seem to me that the board would be well advised to set up a subcommittee of itself composed of three members or even fewer to go about the country and deal with the applications as rapidly and effectively as may be.
Finally, it seems to me that there should be greater co-ordination between the parties interested in this problem. After all, instead of three parties concerned getting away from each other it seems to me that they should be brought closer and closer together. This is not exclusively a federal problem. Because of the constitution it falls also within the jurisdiction of the provinces and the municipalities, and since this matter is becoming more and more acute it seems to me that the parties should be co-ordinated and brought closer together by means of consultations once a year, twice a year or even more often so that the problem might be dealt with more efficiently and so that the protection which all of us want can be given to the public faster as the applications develop.
These are the five suggestions which I make to the minister, and I am sure he will realize at once that they are not made in any destructive manner but for the sole purpose of being helpful with reference to this allimportant problem. I do not want to resume my seat without pointing out to the committee that this is not the first time that the problem has received the attention of the government. I cannot remember one occasion during the nine years when I sat on the other side of the house as the minister of transport

when it did not occupy a great deal of the time of hon. members, either by way of discussion on the estimates or by way of discussion under the legislation which was brought down from time to time. The most comprehensive and the best report on this whole question is, as I said, to be found in the report on the railroad-highway crossing problem in Canada which was published on May 10, 1954, pursuant to an order in council.
To the extent that this resolution and the bill which will follow will not only implement the recommendations contained in that report and will go beyond the legislation brought down by my predecessor, it is welcome, and I can assure the minister and the house that it will receive the wholehearted support of the members who sit on this side.


Mr. McGee:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take just a moment before six o'clock to congratulate the minister on this legislation which will be of such obvious advantage to the constituency which I represent.
I should like to refer just for a moment to another aspect of this announced legislation which concerns the marking of the freight cars to which the minister referred in his opening remarks. This is a matter which has come to my attention over the years from a number of sources and from no source better qualified than Bert Long of the Willowdale Enterprise who for some years through his editorial columns has urged some action in this regard.
I wish again to congratulate the minister for the progressive step he has taken in the direction of marking freight cars adequately so as to prevent the recurrence of so many accidents which have occurred at level crossings at night.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, we in this group welcome the proposed amendments to the Railway Act particularly in view of the fact that the increased number of cars on the highways today has made the incidence of accidents much higher. It has been reported that in 1909 there were less than 5,000 automobiles in Canada and in 1958 there are approximately four million motor vehicles on our highways. This indicates something of the scope of the problem concerning grade crossings many of which are in rural areas.

I have a personal interest in the present amendments because it was only four years ago that my uncle, aunt and four of their children met their death when the motor vehicle in which they were travelling struck a diesel engine as they were driving to church one Sunday morning. I am sure all hon. members know of accidents that have occurred at crossings where no accident should have occurred. My aunt and uncle were survived by several children who even today suffer as a result of the untimely death of their parents. My uncle had lived in the area where the accident occurred all his life and had frequently travelled the road and passed the crossing. He knew exactly when the trains came and could anticipate their time of arrival. The visibility was not too good on the day of the accident and my uncle's car and the diesel engine arrived at the crossing simultaneously. Here was a person who knew the area well and was familiar with the schedules of the trains. He was a cautious driver, was always on the lookout for trains and it was reported that he was driving at a speed of 20 miles an hour at the time of the accident. This type of thing leads one to wonder how accidents of this kind can occur.
I am pleased to welcome the amendments to the act which will assist in meeting the problem. The railway with which we are concerned in my area is the Ontario Northland railway. We discussed the accident with the commissioners and made several recommendations to them. It was pointed out that when the railways switched from the use of steam engines to diesel engines the latter had a different sounding whistle. The warning whistle on steam engines could be heard for a considerable distance but it has been borne out by investigations that the warning whistle on diesel engines tends to funnel the sound forward and it is not heard to any extent on either side. We recommended the adoption of whistles like those used on steam engines with which people are familiar and which are loud enough to provide adequate warning of the approaching engine.
Another recommendation that was made was that strips of Scotch light tape be used at the front of engines and cars and along the sides and I am pleased to observe that a provision to this effect is included in the amendments before us.
The solution to the number of motor accidents at grade crossings will not be entirely met by the construction of over-passes and under-passes because many people and particularly young men have been killed on them. These appear to exert a fascination over youths. When going through an underpass in an old car the exhaust makes a lusty noise
Railway Act
which I suppose encourages the young drivers to travel faster. There is also the danger created by snow, ice and sleet conditions particularly in under-passes. I am convinced that no one solution will be arrived at to meet the problem. One measure that would contribute to safety at crossings would be the erection of signs bearing print outlined with Scotch light tape similar to that used on highway signs. It is visible at night and more effective than the cross-arm signs the railways now use. This could be adapted for railway use and I am sure it would result in saving many lives.
We cannot emphasize too strongly the need for improving grade crossings. One night last winter during the election campaign I was travelling in a rural area with which I am not completely familiar. I had taken a shortcut and as I drove along the side road I was startled to see the headlight of an approaching train a few hundred feet down the track. Prior to that moment I had not been aware of a railway crossing because I had seen no signs. Any moneys spent in improving the safety at railway crossings are spent for the benefit of all Canadians and the minister is to be congratulated for the amendments he is now introducing.
It must be borne in mind that it is easier for the federal government to pay its share of projects of this kind than it is for the municipal and provincial governments to pay their shares.
Speaking in this house on April 18, 1955, when the Railway Act was being revised the present Minister of Finance cited some figures which I believe should be placed on the record again. After speaking of the number of accidents that occurred at crossings and outlining the need for increased protection the hon. member said, as reported at page 2905 of Hansard of that date:
What has been the contribution to the solution of this problem by various types of crossing protection? A further glance at these figures indicates that over three-quarters of these accidents which have occurred at public highway crossings on railways have occurred at unprotected crossings.
Later in the same debate he said:
Then in the case of accidents that took the form of motor vehicles running into the side of trains- and there are many of these accidents-last year there were 140 of them, of which 46 occurred in daylight hours and 94 during the night hours.
The provision in the amendments before us for illuminating the fronts and sides of engines and of boxcars with fluorescent tape will eliminate to some extent the large preponderance of accidents that occur after dark. A friend of mine was driving along a road in Porcupine a year or so ago under bad conditions. There was a slight amount of

Railway Act
rain and some fog. Although he knew the area quite well visibility was bad and he was driving at dusk. He drove into the side of a slow-moving freight train and broke his leg and sustained other injuries. In this particular case if there had been any kind of warning on the sides of the box cars this accident would not have happened because he would have been able to see the train long before he did. Further development is necessary to protect the Canadian public on open railway crossings.
I would ask the minister to give some consideration to the matter of changing the type of horns the diesels use because I know myself that it was much easier to hear the old steam whistle than it is to hear the modern diesel whistles. I am also aware of the fact that the government of Ontario has done some development work in this field. They realize the problem but to date they have not seen fit to complete the development so that it can be made available to the industry. I would ask the minister to give some attention to that form of protection.


Mr. Small:: Mr. Chairman, the matter of railway grade level crossings is one in which I have taken an active part for the last four or five years. The question has been before the house continuously. It goes back to the beginning of the century and the cry that we have always heard is that the work was not being accomplished fast enough and sufficient funds were not appropriated to cover the situation. In fact, we have been told that the problem of grade level crossings was getting beyond the power of the board of transport commissioners to cope with because of cost. The last time the figure was given it was in the neighbourhood of 33,000 grade level crossings of one kind or another. In the neighbourhood of 2,000 to 2,500 were classified as grade separations.
During the last three years a request came from all sides of the house, irrespective of party, that the amount of $1 million a year which was appropriated to take care of the situation should be increased. It was also said that the decrease in the percentages that the board of transport commissioners required the municipalities and the railways to pay was even beyond their ability. An appeal was made that the matter be looked into again and that the board of transport commissioners undertake a review of the situation. In 1954 the board brought down a very comprehensive report. They covered the problem very well, but the sum and substance of their report was that the problem was of such magnitude that it was practically beyond the capacity of the government to solve the problem.

At that time we appealed to the government for an increase in the funds and the government increased the contribution to the fund from $1 million to $5 million. They increased the percentage which the board of transport commissioners would pay to 60 per cent, 25 per cent by the municipalities and 15 per cent by the railways. But that was also too low. At that time we asked the government to increase the amount to $15 million and also increase the percentage that the board of transport commissioners should pay to relieve the municipalities and the railways themselves of as much of the burden as possible. As I said, we asked for $15 million. Of course, the government of the day could not see its way clear to appropriate that amount, but this government in its wisdom increased it last year to $15 million for the time being on a make-work basis. I am pleased to hear that they have also increased the maximum amount that the board should pay, but it has not yet been determined what the railways or the municipalities will be asked to contribute. I appeal to the minister to make representations to the government for a larger amount.
If hon. members take the trouble to read the 1954 report of the board they will see that they outlined a hypothetical program that would cost $30 million a year. Spread over 25 years it would amount to $750 million to inaugurate a program from coast to coast which would attempt to do something about this problem which is causing great concern to the people of Canada. But after stating that, the sum and substance of the report was that it would take care of only some 1,400 grade level separations of a major nature. Grade separated crossings generally cost from $1 million to $2,350,000. Inflation has raised that cost to a greater amount. These are the crossings where the most accidents happen.
The hon. member mentioned the rate of accidents. I do not think the percentage has changed to any great extent. Every three days two people are killed somewhere in Canada on grade level crossings. About a year ago the government did inaugurate a program that was started by what was called a national safety council, which is similar to the Ontario safety league. This was to be a national safety league. The president of the Shell Oil Company was the chairman. He succeeded Mr. Claxton, who was at one time minister of national defence. Mr. Claxton took charge in the first year and then he was succeeded by Mr. Ash of the Shell Oil Company. They were to inaugurate a safety system throughout the Dominion of Canada to try to co-ordinate safety regulations from

one end of Canada to the other and endeavour to keep them uniform. Signs at the crossings were to be put far enough from the crossings to give sufficient warning to motorists. The difficulty was that they ran into trouble with the municipalities with respect to the maintenance of those signs and for permission to encroach and the responsibility for enforcement. These are the things that came up in the discussion about grade level crossings the last three or four years.
I would suggest to the government that they give careful consideration to the hypothetical program outlined by the board of transport commissioners and consider it carefully on a make-work basis, particularly when unemployment is prevalent.
The board of transport commissioners have plans for grade separations. They take a long time to construct and they cost plenty but a start should soon be made on them. The sum of $30 million a year would be a great help and it would spark the program to make work in Canada at this time. As the situation is today we are not keeping up with the number of new grade level crossings created throughout the year. This program would not only reduce the hazards of grade level crossings but it would also serve the purpose of making work. I would certainly suggest that the minister take another look at it to see if he cannot increase the amount put into the fund and also go into the situation more thoroughly because the railways are in the position where they cannot pay. The municipalities are finding it almost impossible to meet the burden of cost and they cannot raise any more money by taxes. Probably, in the circumstances, and for an interim period, the government should take on the whole cost of constructing grade level crossings and try to solve the problem and this is the only way it can be done.
I could give details on how many grade level crossings need to be protected, how many wig-wags there are, the number of people being killed, and so on. The fact is that the situation is getting beyond us and the board of transport commissioners admits that is so. They claim that $30 million a year would only begin to scratch the surface. Therefore, if the government would reconsider the percentage basis on which the municipalities and railways have to contribute and allot more money to take care of the problem I know this would be a progressive improvement. Before the resolution carries I should like to ask the minister when the municipalities and railways will be able to take advantage of the new arrangements under this legislation.
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act


George Harris Hees: Any project authorized by the board of transport commissioners after January 31 of this year becomes eligible for the increase in percentages and the increase in grants.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Hees thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-52, to amend the Railway Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the second time? Now, by leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Harris Hees: the second reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


George Harris Hees: that the said bill be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


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


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines has asked me to announce to the house that the committee will meet to discuss the bill at two o'clock tomorrow afternoon in the railway committee room.
Motion agreed to and bill referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, August 11, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Comtois-Mr. Sevigny in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to extend its application to the years 1959 and 1960 and to provide for a 25 per cent increase in the amount of assistance for the years 1958, 1959 and 1960.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, when this resolution was under discussion last Monday I was saying something about the problems some of the mines have and I was pointing out that the subsidization of the Hollinger mine, for instance, amounted to something over half a million dollars and they paid a dividend on a profit of something over a million dollars. The payment of that subsidy has certainly had some effect on the profits that particular mine has been able to make
3740	HOUSE OF
Emergency Gold. Mining Assistance Act in the last few years. While that subsidy has been advantageous for Hollinger, on the other hand the largest gold mine on this continent, Kerr-Addison in the Larder Lake group, has never been able to qualify at any time for emergency gold mining assistance. They still sell their gold on the open market and therefore if any impetus is going to be given to that particular mine it has to be done in a different manner.
This problem has been discussed at great length by numerous people. In the past commissioners have been set up by provincial and federal governments to discuss the problems of the gold mining industry. A number of suggestions have been made and it is accepted that the problem is one concerning which the federal government is going to have to do something. In "A Social Approach to Economics" published in 1939, pages 506 and 507, Professors H. A. Logan and M. K. Inman have pointed out that the economic philosophy of our society has accepted the concept that every commodity should sell for enough to cover all of its legitimate costs in its price.
In the case of gold, if prices are not sufficient to cover the cost of producing the quantities of gold which our country may require, there are two alternative public policies which can be adopted. The first one is to raise the price of gold. This, however, the nation cannot do independently of other nations. I suggest that it can be done if the government will make the necessary changes so that it can buy gold and store it in the same way that the United States does. If we raised the price of gold to $45 or $50 an ounce or even $70 an ounce, as suggested by some in the gold mining industry, this would have a great influence on the amount of money that would be available in Canada and the expansion that could take place because of the gold being held in reserve in this country. It would also be advantageous to mines like Kerr-Addison that have not been able to receive any federal subsidy.
The second policy is for the nation to absorb or reduce some of the production costs of the marginal firms in the industry through various forms of subsidization. This the nation has done through cost-aid grants, taxation concessions and in other ways. Cost-aid grants have gone largely to firms operating at a cost well below the $35 margin. They have resulted in lower employment, wages and output than would have been obtained if the same amount of subsidies had been distributed directly to labour. In the case of the mines in the Porcupine camp, the 1951-52 cost-aid grants were equivalent to about $450 per year per worker. You can see that the increase of 25 per cent now being made will amount to less than $150 and thus it can be seen that


even if all this money were given to these particular mines the situation would not be a great deal different from what it has been.
Looking at the situation on a long term basis, I think that the first thing that will have to be done is to remove the word "emergency" from the federal government's cost-aid program. Conditions have not changed for the better in the years that the legislation has been in force but have worsened. The costs of all requirements of the mines have risen rapidly while at the same time the price of the product has been pegged at the world market price, with the mines at times receiving less than that amount because of the premium on the Canadian dollar. Therefore we are going to have to continue this form of subsidy on a long term basis.
Second and more important, I think we have to give more consideration to the establishment of new secondary industries in northern Ontario. We are going to have to have diversification of industries. In my opinion the federal government has an obligation to see that the towns of Timmins, Kirkland Lake and Larder Lake do not disappear even when there is no more gold. When speaking the other day on the northern affairs estimates I suggested that the problem probably could be solved in part by the establishment of a new trade route through northern Ontario and James bay and Hudson bay as an alternative to the St. Lawrence seaway. Such a long term program will need assistance and I think that the government could quite easily divert a percentage of the assistance it is now giving under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act toward developing this new trade route. Secondly, some of this aid that we are now giving to the gold mines could be advanced to other industries.
There are a number of other things, in addition to the emergency gold mining assistance, which are done for the gold mining industry. When a new mine comes into production, it pays no taxes for the first three years. If we were willing to extend that type of concession to secondary industries it would provide an inducement for them to come into northern Ontario. We also have a railway there, and I am quite sure that consideration could be given to an inducement to secondary industries in the form of lower freight rates on certain commodities that they use.
This problem has become apparent not only to the chambers of commerce, the miners who work in these areas, the citizens of the area, but it has become apparent to the municipalities. I referred to this booklet entitled "The Gold Mining Community", published by the municipalities. I should like, in closing, to read the last paragraph in which reference

is made to this need for secondary industries, as well as the need for a long term program so that development will move forward rather than become stagnant waiting for the mines to die or get a little better price for their products. They point out what it takes to start a secondary industry and the basic requirements needed for the development of secondary industries as well as some of the problems we have in northern Ontario in that regard. They end up with this statement:
The drive for economic diversification is strong in the gold mining communities, whose residents and leaders are well aware of their position. What is required is something more than hard work, optimistic talk, and detailed planning. That something consists essentially of potential markets, for without them productive potential means nothing. The southern front of progress comes to mind first. But if the northland is to rescue the gold mining communities, they will have to survive until northern promise comes to fruition. As in the case of underwriting gold, then, the subsidizing of economic diversification is essentially a play for time.
I would suggest to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys that he could do a great deal for the communities of northern Ontario that are now totally dependent upon gold mining if he would give consideration to some of the requests that these municipalities have made. He, first, should remove the word "emergency" from the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, and make it the gold mining assistance act so the mines would know this assistance would be continued year after year. Secondly, he should have an amendment written into this act that would require the mines, when they receive this subsidy, to turn at least part of it over to the miners in the form of higher wages, a pension plan and better fringe benefits. The municipalities have now realized, for the first time, in the presentation of this brief, that the miners themselves are the people who keep the mining communities alive. If the miner gets more money he will spend it in the community, and that will result in better conditions for everybody. If mines like the Hollinger are to turn this subsidy over to their coupon clippers, many of whom do not even live in Canada, then these mining areas are not going to receive much benefit from this legislation.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr, Comtois thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-53, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a second time? Now, by leave?
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act


Mr. Comtois moved: the second reading of the bill.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to ask the minister if he will give consideration to amending the bill to ensure that some of this gold mining subsidy is put into a form that will directly benefit the miners and the mining communities?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house consent to the second reading of this bill now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
On clause 1-Application of act to years 1955 to 1960.
Mr. Dumas:: Before we pass clause 1, I
should like to ask one question of the minister. Does the minister propose that the amount of aid which will be due to the gold mines will be paid in one lump sum immediately after the act is proclaimed?
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I might address my question to the hon. minister in French. I wonder if, owing to the retroactive nature of the act, the minister could tell us if the government intends to pay in a lump sum, as soon as the legislation is passed, the subsidies that will become due as from January 1, 1958?


Paul Comtois: Mr. Chairman, if the
applications reach us so that we can proceed in this fashion, we shall be pleased to do so. We can pay them in a lump sum up to the date of the application, provided applications have been received from the companies.
(Text):


William Arnold Peters: I would again like to ask if the minister will amend this bill so that part of this subsidy will be returned to the workers in the form of wages. As it is now, in a good many cases this money will be used for the payment of dividends, and none of it will be returned to the municipalities. As I understand it, the reason for this emergency gold mining assistance is that the mines are in desperate straits. This is caused by several factors, one of which is that they are not able to get the proper type of employee because the wages paid are too low. The municipalities have pointed this out very clearly on a number of occasions when they have communicated with the minister.
If the money goes into the form of wages, that money returns to the municipalities and assists those municipalities. Before this resolution passes I think some consideration must be given to the dire need in which the municipalities find themselves and in which

Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act the workers in these municipalities find themselves. I do not think that the minister intended to pay these moneys in the form of dividends to the mines. I think he is interested in seeing the continuation of the communities. If that is so, I think there should be some amendment which would allow this to take place.


Paul Comtois: I think we cannot agree on that matter. This would mean that the government would control the salaries and wages. I do not think that is the purpose of the act or of the amendment to the act. It is a matter of collective bargaining between the employees and the employers. It is also a provincial concern. I am sorry, but we cannot agree on that point. In addition, may I read a letter which I have just received today. It is from the secretary of the Timmins industrial commission. With the permission of the house I will read it.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Comtois: It reads as follows:
Honourable Sir:
On behalf of all gold mining communities of Canada may we at this time extend to you our appreciation and gratitude on the recent announcements pertaining to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
The following is a resolution passed at a recent meeting of the town of Timmins industrial commission and we quote:
Proposed by H. Brunette
Seconded by W. Brewer
"That a letter of thanks and appreciation be sent to the Honourable Donald M. Fleming, Minister of Finance, and that this commission go on record on behalf of all gold mining communities of Canada in supporting the announcement of a 25 per cent increase in the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, and that this commission is vitally interested in the longevity and continued extension of the said act on a longer term basis, so that gold mining communities may have a better opportunity for long range planning."
Carried.
Again, Honourable sir, we thank you and your colleagues, the federal government for your kind interest in alleviating in some way the problem facing the citizens of gold mining communities.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Gordon J. Ogilvie.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I heard the minister's argument and I cannot see how his argument is a valid one. After all, the federal government is paying a great deal of money to Canadian enterprise or to other levels of government and is attaching conditions to such payments. I fail to see why in this case the government cannot, in agreeing to increase the subsidy by 25 per cent, attach a condition to such payment. For example, the federal government will pay a portion of the cost of a bridge on the trans-Canada highway provided the bridge is a toll-free

bridge. There is a condition there which the provincial government is obliged to meet. Even in the payment of the subsidy itself, the mines must meet certain conditions.
I fail to see why one of those conditions could not well be that part of this federal subsidy be payable to the employees; that a company must be able to convince the minister that the employees concerned have shared in the benefits or will share in the benefits; and that unless the company concerned is able to satisfy the minister that the workers actually will share in this subsidy then the subsidy shall not be payable in such cases. I believe that if the government wanted to do so it could easily insert such a condition for the payment of the subsidy.
After all, we are not primarily concerned with the welfare of the companies. We are taking this money from the taxpayers of this country. The taxpayers are paying this money in order to keep the employees employed and they would like to see these employees employed at normal wage rates. The minister knows full well that those wage rates for that type of mining in these gold mining communities are not normal; they are less than normal. The favourite complaint for many long years now-and I have heard the complaint for five years now-has been that these companies have not shared the subsidy with their workers that they have taken the subsidy and have regarded it as their own and that thus the intent of the subsidy has been lost in a goodly number of cases.
The letter read by the minister from the town of Timmins expresses, of course, the attitude that all of us have. We are glad that assistance is being given. However, that letter has nothing whatsoever to do with the request that was made the other day by the hon. member for Timmins and is now being repeated by the hon. member for Timis-kaming. We feel that day is past when we can continue to subsidize the dividends of corporations with taxpayers' money without having some regard for the welfare of those employed in the mining industry.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman,-


An hon. Member:: Oh no; not again.


William Arnold Peters: Oh, yes. Mr. Chairman, some of the concern of the minister I think is quite unfounded when he continues to pay this subsidy only to the mines. I worked in those mines for a number of years. The conditions in those mines are substandard by all considerations. Yes; in those days when the mines were well off, when we heard about the high wages the miners got in depression days, even then the conditions in the mines were substandard. You will have

to understand that there are people working underground today in my area who are getting less than $1.10 an hour. Those men are working underground eight hours. They have no pension plan. Some of the mines are poorly ventilated. The conditions are very poor. They are having to meet a standard of living that costs them more than it costs you and I in the city of Ottawa in regard to groceries and other food commodities. Our transportation costs have raised the price beyond that in many of the southern cities. With regard to medical attention the situation is the same. Their costs of living, with the one exception of housing, are higher than those in any part of southern Ontario. Those people have no pension plan to fall back on. They have very few fringe benefits. They fought very hard to get their conditions reduced to the 44-hour week. They do not get the benefit of the 40-hour week as is the case in other industries. They have not many of the considerations that others get. When they want to establish a union in that area, they go on strike for six or eight months to fight for basic union security and are unable to accomplish even that.
I have not too much sympathy for many of these companies. The minister knows of another problem that has arisen in mining and that is this low grading of the mine. He can hide his head if he wishes through his inspectors or he can admit it if he likes, but I can tell you that there is low grading going on in the mines in the Porcupine area. I know of people who have gone into those stopes that are closed year after year and have taken one carload or two carloads of muck out-four or five tons, ten tons at most -so as to build up their millheads to bring the price of the product up to where they want to keep it. They are operating at the lowest possible amount so that they can get the highest possible subsidy. That is not true of many of the mines that are what are called marginal mines. But it is true of McIntyre, Hollinger and Broulan and Porcupine reef and it is true of Big Dome. These mines have ores which could have been mined a long time ago, but the companies are not mining them because they have been living on this subsidy. If the government continues this type of assistance the moneys are only going into the pockets of the shareholders and are doing very little to keep these communities alive.
I know personally the people who wrote that letter, and none of them are connected with the mining industry, and none of them are connected with the workers. They have
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act a community to look after, and they appreciate another 25 per cent being paid to the gold mining industry, but a lot more good could be done if this money was getting into the pockets of the workers so that they in turn could put some into the pockets of the municipalities, the small businessmen and others who make up the backbone of communities of this type.
The mines have been carrying on practices of bad housekeeping for many years. They would not have done this had the price of gold been high enough. If the price of their commodity had been high, they would have done all they could to get out as much ore as possible before the price fell again. If the government is going to carry on with this system of subsidization I think the minister has an obligation to see that the people who work in this industry have an adequate standard of living, and I should therefore like to move the following amendment:
That the said increase of 25 per cent shall be paid by this government only to companies who agree to extend a substantial part of the increase to their employees by way of increased wages and other benefits.


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Chairman, before you make a ruling on this amendment I wonder if I may have a word to say on it? I suggest that the amendment comes within the scope of the terms of the resolution. The resolution provides for an increase of up to 25 per cent in the subsidy under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. This amendment is merely a detail, though an important detail, which would direct that the subsidy should be paid to those companies on certain conditions being met, and I think that is very definitely within the scope of the resolution. It does not alter the principle of the bill but it merely directs a company to provide certain working conditions if they are to receive a subsidy. I think that at any time when the federal government is making a subsidy of this kind it has the right to lay down certain rules, and this is one rule that we suggest should be made in this bill.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: After reading carefully the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Timiskaming the Chair comes to the conclusion that it cannot accept it because it is contrary to the bill now before the committee. In order to accept such an amendment permission would have to be obtained from the governor general, and it is quite impossible at present to accept this amendment in its present form. Therefore the Chair declares this amendment out of order.
Clause 1 agreed to.
3744	HOUSE OF
Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



MARITIME COAL PRODUCTION ASSISTANCE ACT


Paul Comtois: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize certain amendments to the agreement made under the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act with the Dominion Coal Company Limited, for the purpose of varying the terms of repayment of principal and interest as provided under section four of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.


Mr. Robichaud:: Would the minister give us an explanation of this, please?


Mr. Comiois:: After 30th June, 1950, payments were to be based at 30 cents per net ton on the coal produced from all of the mines. Early in May, 1957 the company requested postponement of further capital repayments until 30th June, 1963, due to the fact that the program of mechanization was several years behind schedule and they still had over $1 million to draw of the $7,500,000 approved loan. To date, of the $6,476,524.92 advanced as loan, $1,278,278.70 has been repaid at an interest of 31 per cent yielding $921,345.62. Of the original loan agreed upon, there remains a balance to be loaned of $1,023,475.08. The new amendment to the agreement would mean that an amount of $6,221,721.30 would have to be paid at an interest of 4 per cent per annum.
No payments on account of principal have been made for 31st December, 1957 and 30th June, 1958, pending negotiations. The amount in default is approximately $750,000. No funds have been advanced to the company since they have been in default of payment of principal.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, we in the C.C.F. support this resolution. I believe the bill which will follow the resolution is necessary because of the peculiar circumstances surrounding the loan that was made some years ago to the Dominion Coal Company. We all realize the very difficult position of the coal industry in this country particularly in the maritime provinces. We are aware the benefits under this act will not restore the coal industry to a healthy state but much like the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act in relation to that industry will merely keep the coal industry in a state of operation.
There seems to have been some dispute as to the method of repayment of the loan made in 1950, the government believing that the Dominion Coal Company should repay the loan by paying 30 cents on each ton of coal that was mined and the company taking the position that it was liable to pay 30 cents per ton only on the output which came as a result of the installation of the new equipment. These amendments will correct this misunderstanding and provide for repayment after June 30, 1963.
One of the most important changes that will be made is the increase in interest rates. This demonstrates once again that the announced policy of this government, as it affects the reconversion of Canadian governments bonds, is having its repercussions in every government action and will be felt throughout the Canadian economy. At this time we are going through a period of rising interest rates brought about by deliberate government policy to increase interest rates. The interest rates in this case will be increased from 3i per cent, as provided in the loan agreement of 1950, to 4 per cent. We feel that increase in interest rates is unnecessary. It will have an adverse effect on the economy generally, but because this government is also raising most of the loan in question, because the company agrees to the terms of this legislation, I take it, and because the coal mining industry is in need of this type of assistance, we intend to support the resolution and the bill which will be based on the resolution.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall the resolution carry?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Just before the resolution carries, can the minister answer the two questions I asked or would he rather wait until we are in committee on the bill?


Joseph-Roland Comtois: I would rather wait until we are in committee because at that time I will have the officials here and will be able to give
3746	HOUSE OF
Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act all the answers. I could answer a part of the question now but to give the complete answers I would rather wait until the bill has second reading.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have one question I should like to ask the minister. In recommending this amendment I assume the minister agrees that the original scheme was a good one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am asking the minister ;he question.


Mr. Cardiff:: It is a childish question.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: I never said it was a bad one.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Comiois thereupon moved for leave to .ntroduce Bill No. C-54, to authorize certain amendments to the agreement made under the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act with the Dominion Coal Company Limited.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time? By leave, now?


Joseph-Roland Comtois: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
On clause 1.
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall clause 1 carry?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Can the minister now answer my question?


Joseph-Roland Comtois: Mr. Chairman, as far as the first part of the question asked by the hon. member for Gloucester is concerned I am informed that the balance of the disbursement of that loan will not be sufficient to complete the whole mechanization program.
As to the other questions, this matter has been dealt with by the standing committee. We gave the whole list of the loans granted up to the present time to the committee. If the hon. member wishes to refer to the proceedings of the standing committee he will find everything there, I can get the information in a few minutes or I can send the information to him. I consider that the loans are all in good standing at the present time, every one of them. I think we have about seven or eight loans on the way or disbursed and recently granted. They are all in good order.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I will accept this information from the minister. Can the minister tell the committee if there are any particular reasons why the Dominion Coal Company 

should not be in a position to meet its regular payments while the other companies, as the minister said, are in good standing?


Paul Comtois: Of course, the trouble is they did not have enough money to proceed with their mechanizing and they could not borrow any money anywhere else.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In other words, will the stock pile of 1,400,000 tons of coal which they have at the present time have any effect on the financial situation of the company? Is it on account of this stock pile that they cannot meet their obligations?


Joseph-Roland Comtois: Certainly.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Has the minister any reports as to the possibility of the company being in a position to meet further payments, or has he any definite reports that this coal will be disposed of in the near future? As I recall it, the minister made certain statements, I think on two occasions, that the stock pile of 1,400,000 tons of coal was sold and awaiting transportation to its destination.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: That much coal was sold but it cannot be shipped right away in a single sale. It takes months before the stock pile is distributed between the purchasers.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What are the present prospects of the stock pile being reduced by December 31? Has the minister any information that it will be reduced substantially, or will it be about the same?


Joseph-Roland Comtois: According to the information we have from the officials of the company we can establish that about a million tons, or a million and a quarter tons, will be on the stock pile at the end of December.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In other words, according to the information given by the minister, this stock pile will be reduced by about 150,000 tons between now and the end of December.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: Obviously, because they are continually extracting coal and adding to the stock pile.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Notwithstanding the five weeks lay-off?


Joseph-Roland Comtois: Yes, of course.


Armand Dumas: I wonder whether the minister can tell us what will be the percentage of efficiency when the mechanization of the mines of the Dominion Coal Company is completed? I understand that two-thirds of the mechanization program has been completed already and of course efficiency has been increased by a certain percentage. With

the completion of the last third of the mechanization program what will be the increase in efficiency?


Paul Comtois: The increase in efficiency
now is about 50 to 60 per cent and when the mechanization project is completed it will be about 90 per cent. That is the best we can say at this time.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: When mechanization is
completed will production be increased to approximately 7 million tons per year and, if so, has the minister any information as to the prospects for the disposal of such a volume of production?


Paul Comtois: We are told that the officials of the company under the new management expect to increase their sales to quite a large extent. That is what we are told.


William Moore Benidickson: I notice that section 4,
subsection 1, of the present act reads as follows:
(1) A loan shall bear interest at a rate fixed by the governor in council based on the average rate of interest return that the Minister of Finance determines is yielded by bonds of the government of Canada of a term comparable with that of the loan, or if there are no such bonds outstanding, that would in the opinion of the Minister of Finance be yielded by such bonds-
I notice that under subclause (b) of clause 1 of the bill the rate of interest is to be 4 per cent. What has been the rate of interest on this loan hitherto?


Paul Comtois: The rate of interest has
been fixed by the Department of Finance and is the rate of interest charged crown corporations.


William Moore Benidickson: What has been the most
recent rate that you have felt obliged to charge under that practice?


Paul Comtois: Four per cent.


William Moore Benidickson: On the last loan was
the rate 4 per cent?


Paul Comtois: It was 3J per cent.


William Moore Benidickson: In other words, there is
an increase of half of one per cent?


Paul Comtois: Yes.


Armand Dumas: Mr. Chairman, when the
agreement was entered into between the government and the Dominion Coal Company I understand that the estimated cost of mechanization of the mines of the company was $13 million. Approximately two-thirds of the mechanization program has been completed and we learn that actual expenditures amount to $9,583,497.92. In the case of some of the items, of course, the cost was more than the amount estimated. In the case of the last item, a wash plant, I notice that the estimated
18, 1958	3747
Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act cost was $3,100,000 and the actual expenditure is only $228,516.65. In the one-third of the mechanization program that remains to be completed does the company intend to spend $3 million on a wash plant?


Paul Comtois: The company has not built
the wash plant yet. The cost will be $6 million.


Armand Dumas: In sessional paper No. 87
tabled on Thursday, June 5, 1958, the different items are listed on which expenditures were supposed to be made by the Dominion Coal Company. There is an estimated amount of $3,100,000 for a wash plant and we see that the actual expenditure on this item has been $228,516.65.


Paul Comtois: Three million dollars was
the amount estimated at that time.


Armand Dumas: But approximately $228,000
has actually been spent.


Paul Comtois: The company ordered some
steel for the erection of the wash plant and had to pay for it.


Armand Dumas: And the estimated cost now
is $6 million?


Paul Comtois: Yes.


Armand Dumas: Has the company submitted an estimate of the cost of mechanizing the last one-third of their mines?


Paul Comtois: No, not yet.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Will the increased interest rate which will be charged the Dominion Coal Company from the time this legislation comes into force also apply to the other companies which have loans under this act?


Paul Comtois: No, Mr. Chairman. The rate is changed only on this loan and exclusive of other loans already in existence. I may add that the rates on the other loans range from 3i to 3| and 4 per cent.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Comtois: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Broadcasting



BROADCASTING


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to establish a board of broadcast governors to regulate broadcasting in Canada; to provide that the expenditure of the board shall be paid out of money appropriated by parliament therefor and also to provide for the continuance of a corporation known as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the purpose of operating a national broadcasting service in Canada; and to provide further for the payment, remuneration, salaries and fees of the officers and employees thereof.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall the resolution carry? Carried. Shall I report the resolution?


George Clyde Nowlan: I would be very happy, Mr. Chairman, if the committee would accept your suggestion that this resolution carry, then I would dispense with any remarks I might make. I shall speak for a few minutes on this since it is one of the most important matters with which the Canadian public and this parliament are concerned. I think perhaps the committee will expect me to say a few words on the resolution itself. I have spoken, as some hon. members recall, in this committee on two occasions this session on the matter of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation itself and broadcasting generally. I certainly do not intend to repeat tonight anything I might have said on those occasions.
I want to refer specifically to the resolution which is before the committee. This party, of which the government is now constituted, in days past has urged that there should be a Canadian regulatory body which would be in control of broadcasting in this country, both privately owned and publicly owned. Hon. members know that up to the present time the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the publicly owned corporation, has exercised this regulatory function over the whole industry as well as acting as operator of the publicly owned system. In order to determine this issue and many others concerning broadcasting, the preceding government in 1955 appointed a royal commission to study and report upon the problems of broadcasting. I think it was December 2, 1955, that the order in council was passed appointing a royal commission. This royal commission reported on March 15, 1957, but because of divers and sundry events, which are well known to all members of this house, interruptions took place and there was no particular time in which this matter could be considered up until now.
[Mr. Comtois.l
This commission was headed by Mr. Robert Fowler of Montreal, and the report, which is well known I think to all hon. members, is popularly called the Fowler report. Other members of the commission were Mr. Edmond Turcotte, who at that time was our ambassador to Colombia, and the third member was Mr. Stewart, who at that time was president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce and is now chairman of the board. The commission spent a great deal of time in studying this matter, travelled across Canada and had many hearings, and although their views in the report may not be acceptable to all, and perhaps the report as a whole could not be accepted by any one person, yet I think whatever may be said about the report itself, it is certainly one of the most interestingly written reports that has ever been written by any royal commission. If hon. members have not read it, I think they will find the reading of it will repay them, both because of the content and because of the style in which the report is written.
I stated the position which some of us had taken in the past with respect to regulation, and I should like for a minute or two to refer to the report to see what it had to say because it deals specifically with the resolution before us. On page 90 of the royal commission report, we find this:
We think there have in fact been two public elements involved in radio and television broadcasting. This factual separation of powers should be more precisely defined in law. One of these elements should be an operating agency, engaged in the operation of publicly owned stations and national networks and in the production and distribution of a national program service throughout Canada.
Then, on page 91, the report says:
The other public agency in the Canadian broadcasting field should be a board created and authorized to act for parliament, and responsible to parliament, for the direction and supervision of the Canadian broadcasting system. This board should have responsibility for all elements in Canadian broadcasting. It should not, we suggest, be part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its members should not, as in the present statute, comprise the corporation.
Then, farther along on that same page we find this:
This board is not part of the C.B.C. and should not be referred to as "the board of governors of C.B.C." We suggest that a new board, differently named, should be created by statute. The name we use in speaking of this agency is "the board of broadcast governors".
If hon. members look at the resolution before them, they will find that the first clause says:
-it is expedient to establish a board of broadcast governors to regulate broadcasting in Canada;

This is the name recommended by the royal commission and the object also was suggested by the royal commission.
The second part of the resolution provides for the continuance of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I am told that in some quarters at some time there were some fears and some doubts expressed as to the attitude that this government might take towards the publicly owned broadcasting system in Canada. If these fears were expressed at any time, Mr. Chairman, I am sure they have been dissipated before this. The other day that distinguished Canadian scholar and historian, Dr. Creighton, headed a very large delegation which appeared before the Prime Minister and myself in connection with this problem of broadcasting. I think some of the words used by him on that occasion could well be reproduced in Hansard. Speaking of broadcasting in Canada, Dr. Creighton said:
Canadian strength and Canadian unity ultimately depend upon Canada's maintenance of her autonomy and spiritual independence on the North American continent. Throughout our history we have persistently followed national policies devised to strengthen our unity from ocean to ocean and to maintain our separateness in North America. Our defences against the "continentalism", which has so often threatened us from the south, have been based on the east-west axis provided by nature, the strong line of the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes and the Saskatchewan. Confederation gave us our transcontinental political union. Sir John Macdonald's national policy provided the framework for an integrated transcontinental economy. A national broadcasting system can do for us, in the realm of the mind and the spirit, precisely what these old and tested national policies have done in the political and economic sphere. A steady flow of live programs along the east-west lifeline will express Canadian ideas and ideals, employ Canadian talent, and help unite our people from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that represents the views of this government with respect to the functions, maintenance and strengthening of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Provision is made for this in the second clause of the resolution which is before you, of course with the concomitant factors of the provision of funds by parliament for this purpose. It is not necessary for me to speak longer on this matter at the moment. Obviously, the removing of the regulatory powers from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and providing a separate board have created certain administrative difficulties and certain problems in connection with the drafting of this legislation which could be dealt with much better when the bill is before the house. I trust, Mr. Chairman, that the committee will see fit to pass this resolution at as early a date as possible, so that the bill can be brought down and the details of the legislation considered by hon. members. Then, on
Broadcasting
second reading, the whole matter can be given careful and full consideration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the minister can be assured, Mr. Chairman, that the hope he has just expressed will be realized, namely, that the committee will pass this resolution as soon as it sees fit. This is a very important resolution, as the minister has pointed out, dealing with a very important subject. I think it does require discussion, although I agree that perhaps that discussion can be focused more directly on the problem of broadcasting when we have the bill before us. Nevertheless, it is such an important matter, as the minister has indicated, that some observations even on the resolution are required.
My first reaction to the introduction of this resolution, Mr. Chairman, is that it is unfortunate-for reasons which the minister perhaps knows more about than I do-whatever the reasons may be, that a resolution dealing with such a fundamental matter as this should be introduced in what we hope are the dying days of this session. Whether or not that expression will prove to be accurate, I am not sure. The house will recall that some weeks ago we moved an amendment, on going into supply which precipitated a discussion of this whole question of broadcasting; and in that amendment we expressed the hope that this matter could be dealt with early in the session. The reason for that, as the minister will understand, is obvious. This is such an important matter that it deserves careful and adequate consideration. There is nothing much more important, as the minister has pointed out on more than one occasion and even tonight, in maintaining and strengthening Canadian nationalism, pride and national identity than maintaining and strengthening a strong Canadian broadcasting system operated in the national interest.
This resolution is no doubt based on the speech from the throne or at least derives from the speech from the throne in which the government, through His Excellency the Governor General, tells us that there would be placed before the house a proposal to establish a new agency to regulate broadcasting in Canada and to ensure that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the privately owned broadcasting stations work effectively together to constitute a national system to provide satisfactory television and radio services to all Canadians within reach. The speech from the throne contains the expression "to constitute a national system", an expression which is not used in this resolution. Then the paragraph in the speech from the throne goes on to say as follows: Related amendments to the Radio Act will also be proposed.

Broadcasting
I do not know what are the intentions of the the government in that regard. The last paragraph in the speech from the throne also bears on this matter because it states categorically:
You will be asked to set up a select committee on broadcasting-
Mr. Chairman, this matter is so important that I hope that the statement of the government in that respect in the speech from the throne will be carried out and that this bill, when it comes before the house, can be given first reading and then be submitted to a select committee on broadcasting for that kind of consideration which it should get, dealing as it does with a matter of such great importance. Surely legislation of this type and of this national significance should not be rushed through the house in the closing days of a session. It should go to a committee where it can get the consideration to which it is entitled.
In this connection perhaps I might be permitted to put on the record a paragraph of an editoral appearing in the Montreal Star of August 16 which expresses this idea very clearly. This paragraph reads as follows:
Granted that everything which has leaked out so far concerning the government's intentions toward broadcasting indicates a much more reasoned approach than party firebrands were hinting a few years ago. It looks as though recommendations of the Fowler commission still provide the guiding line.
We had some confirmation of that this evening. I was glad to get it.
But the select committee, which the government promised, should be allowed to study the bill before it comes up for second and third reading. For the sake of the future of broadcasting, this legislation should also be allowed to stand over.
That is the opinion of the editor of that newspaper and there is a great deal to be said for that careful, constructive course being followed in this matter. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, the Canadian broadcasting system is such a complex and delicately balanced one that any changes to it, even changes which may appear to be minor, might destroy that balance, against the public interest and perhaps in favour of the private element of the system, an element which I agree is indispensable to the working of the system but which from the national point of view cannot be as important in our minds as is the public interest. I therefore suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we in this house have a duty to give this bill the most careful consideration possible, and I do not see how that can be done in the circumstances in which we find ourselves at the present time unless it is sent to a committee where it can be considered without haste, without prejudice and without partiality.

The resolution itself is before us on which a bill will be submitted; and we will have a chance, whatever happens, to examine that bill whether it goes to a committee or not, with the care which it deserves. The resolution says this:
Resolved, that it is expedient to establish a board of broadcast governors to regulate broadcasting in Canada;
In his remarks a few moments ago the minister indicated that the government intends to follow the recommendations of the Fowler commission in this respect because that is the designation given to the body recommended by the Fowler commission. He thought that this might serve to remove any fears and suspicions that we had on this side that some fundamental change with regard to the regulatory system would be introduced. If we had any such fears or anxieties as to the attitude of the government towards the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, perhaps this resolution does help to remove or to minimize those fears. But I would suggest to the minister that if we had them, they were based on statements previously made and views held by hon. members opposite on the treasury benches when they were on this side of the house. We remember some of the statements made at that time. That perhaps will explain to the minister the nature of our suspicions and our fears. That is one reason why we are scrutinizing this resolution very carefully indeed, as we will scrutinize the bill.
In this connection, the first thing that occurs to me is the wording of the first line of the resolution.
Resolved, that it is expedient to establish a board of broadcast governors to regulate broadcasting in Canada.
Normally the phraseology in a resolution of this kind-and I do not know what the significance of the omission is in this case- would be as follows:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a board of broadcast governors to regulate broadcasting in Canada.
Indeed, in the resolution on the order paper immediately preceding the one with which we are dealing, namely item No. 18 on the order paper, that is the phraseology used.


Lionel Chevrier: And in item No. 17 on the order paper.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And in item No. 17 also and others. The one immediately preceding item No. 19 reads as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure-

And so on. Perhaps the minister will explain to us why this resolution dealing with such a very important matter omits those words "to introduce a measure".
Then the resolution goes on:
-to provide that the expenditure of the board shall be paid out of money appropriated by parliament therefor and also to provide for the continuance of a corporation known as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the purpose of operating a national broadcasting service in Canada; and to provide further for the payment, remuneration, salaries and fees of the officers and employees thereof.
Note, this is not to provide for the expenses of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as such; not to provide for the money which will be needed to carry on the work of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but to provide for the payment, remuneration and salaries and fees of the officers and employees thereof. And that is all. No doubt the minister will have something to say about this. And then, of course, as I said earlier, there is nothing said in this resolution as to maintaining and strengthening the Canadian broadcasting system. We have here only a reference to a national broadcasting service, that is, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
One of the most important things in this resolution is the kind of board of broadcast governors to be set up to regulate broadcasting in Canada; how its regulations are to be made effective, and particularly what effect they will have in regard to the control of private broadcasting in this country. There could be various kinds of boards of broadcast governors, some of which we on this side would certainly not be able to support. But the kind of board of broadcast governors recommended by the Fowler commission is something else.
There are other principles in this report to which the minister has referred which we would certainly like to see included in any legislation based on this resolution. While I am not going into this matter in detail at this time I am going to outline in a very general way our position with regard to what we think should be included in any bill based on this resolution. We feel strongly-and we will make our feelings known when this bill is produced-that any legislation based on this resolution should make provision for the following things:
1.	The continued existence, with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as its operating part, as now constituted, of a single system in which both public and private stations are all integral parts and which is regulated and controlled by a single board representing the public interest.
From what the minister has said tonight and from what he has said in this house previously
Broadcasting
this session, I hope he would not quarrel with this principle and that he would perhaps see that it is embodied in the bill.
We think the legislation should also provide:
2.	Regulations to be enforced by any board of broadcast governors to ensure that the services provided by both public and private stations should meet the needs and desires of the people as a whole and not be used primarily as an industry to be exploited for commercial ends.
We accept, of course, the fact that private stations must operate in such a way as to make a profit. If they do not do that, they go out of business. That is a legitimate aim on their part, and I am not minimizing in any way the necessity or importance of commercial ends in a broadcasting system which must include private stations as well as public stations. But the system as a whole must be used not for commerical purposes entirely, but in the national interest.
And then there is a third requirement as far as we are concerned for any legislation which would be satisfactory to us. It is:
3.	That any regulatory board shall be accountable to and report directly to parliament. In our view it should not be a small official board of the nature of the board of transport commissioners. There should not be the kind of control over broadcasting which one sees exercised in Washington; the kind of official board which would be responsible to the government and which would have control over the regulating of both the private and the public elements of the system.
What we think should be in the legislation is a larger board, not composed of full time members. I have gone into this in some detail in debates on this matter previously in the house. The board, we think, should be one which would owe its responsibility directly to parliament and which would not be the agency of the government but an instrument of parliament. Then our fourth principle which we would like to see embodied in the legislation, is this:
4.	The retention of the existing system by which a few publicly-owned radio and television stations distribute through the facilities of a much larger number of private stations at least some of the C.B.C. produced "Canadian" programs. This means, of course, that the C.B.C. must be given power to own and operate at least some national networks and power to control the management of such networks.
Then also-and this is surely an essential principle in legislation of this kind-there must also be control over the private station. Without that control exercised in the public

Broadcasting
interest, because they are private stations operating for a profit-and I do not criticize them for that; they cannot go on without a profit-the temptation for them to affiliate with United States networks would be almost irresistible. If there were not that type of control over their activities exercised by a public board it would not be long before they were carrying exclusively and entirely United States programs. The reason for that is obvious. They could get those programs so much more cheaply than they could get a Canadian program. If it costs, say, $10,000 to produce a Canadian program, it might cost $30,000 or $40,000 to produce a similar type of program in the United States. But whereas a private station in Canada would have to pay a good deal to the C.B.C. for a Canadian program it might get a United States program for a fraction of that cost, because the cost of that program would in any case have been met in the large United States advertising market. Therefore the temptation for a private broadcaster to tie up with a United States network would be almost irresistible and that might represent an almost fatal blow to the Canadian national broadcasting system.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can finish in one minute. The fifth principle, Mr. Chairman, is this:
5.	There must be enforceable regulations by which any private network and any private station affiliated to such a private network shall be required to maintain programming standards which shall not be very different from those of the private stations affiliated to C.B.C. networks. This relates to what I have just been saying.
Then, finally, and this relates to the omission in the resolution to which I have already drawn attention:
6.	The necessary financial support for the C.B.C. should be provided from public moneys on a long term basis so that in addition to its earnings from commercial operations which are essential the C.B.C. shall be assured of the necessary funds with which to provide satisfactory national programming services. And that, of course, must be in addition to its income from commercial operations. Without the assurance of a minimum of income-and perhaps there should also be a maximum placed on the income-it would be difficult to see how they could effectively plan ahead. There is no suggestion in the resolution that this is going to be done.
I leave this thought with the minister in closing my remarks on this matter at the resolution stage. Would it not be better at
[Mr. Pearson.1
this stage to introduce a supplementary estimate covering C.B.C. operations to ensure that the work could be continued in the coming year and then introduce this bill? After first reading it could be submitted to a committee where it could be given the kind of examination to which it is entitled and thus ensure that we do not rush it through without careful consideration and without giving the house an opportunity to fully discuss a measure of such far-reaching importance to national development as this is. I am sure no hon. member of this committee wants to see the matter treated in that way but I am afraid that in the closing days of this session this very important question will not be given the consideration to which it is entitled if we are not extremely careful.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
ON "votes and proceedings"
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave of the house to place on today's Votes and Proceedings those amendments which the government proposes to introduce to Bill No. C-39, an act to amend the Income Tax Act? It is hoped that having these half dozen amendments on Votes and Proceedings will be of assistance to the house in dealing with the bill in committee of the whole when we reach it.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to place these amendments on today's Votes and Proceedings'?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the house leader what the business is for tomorrow and Wednesday?


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall commence with third reading of the measure to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act; then we shall take item No. 19 on today's order paper which is a continuation of the debate on the resolution preceding the introduction of the broadcasting bill; then item No. 6 on today's order paper, the bill to amend the Financial Administration Act; then item No. 9, the bill to amend the Customs Tariff, and then, if the bills amending the Loan Companies Act and the Trust Companies Act are back from the standing committee on banking and commerce, we shall take them at that stage; then item No. 5 on

today's order paper, the act to amend the Income Tax Act; then item No. 14 standing in the name of the Minister of Finance, which is a resolution preceding a bill; then item No. 10, the bill to amend the Customs Act.
On Wednesday it may be necessary to take some of this legislation but if we do take estimates we shall take those of the departments of mines and technical surveys, fisheries and national health and welfare.


Lionel Chevrier: May I remind the minister that we proceeded with dispatch today and perhaps unknown to him we have already given third reading to item No. 15.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Business of the House


Howard Charles Green: I may be wrong, but I think the hon. member for Laurier is wrong. Perhaps His Honour could let us know.


Lionel Chevrier: When we got to it I said, "third reading; agreed".


Hazen Robert Argue: And I said, "Disagreed".


Mr. Speaker:: There was a dissenting voice in the house and it had to stand.


Lionel Chevrier: I apologize to the house leader. I was mistaken.


[Stage Direction]
It being seven minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on August 4.
[Stage Direction]
Question

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


Mr. Carter: 1.	How many loans have been granted to persons, companies or firms, in Newfoundland, from the industrial development bank, each year since 1950?
2.	What is the amount of each loan?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
1.	1950, 1; 1951, 1; 1952, 1; 1953, nil; 1954, 1; 1955, 1; 1956, 1; 1957, 2; 1958, 2.
2.	It is not in the public interest to disclose this information, which is a matter of customer and bank relationship.

Tuesday, August 19, 1958