1960-05-17

Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Last night or some time yesterday while this house was sitting there was issued from the office of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) a press release entitled "A Statement of Hon. E. Davie Fulton, Q.C., M.P., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada concerning narcotic drug addiction". This release starts out by saying:
The government of Canada has approved a comprehensive plan to deal with the problem of narcotic drug addiction in Canada, it was announced today by the Hon. E. Davie Fulton, Minister of Justice and the Hon. J. W. Monteith, Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The question of privilege to which I now address myself is one affecting all members of this house; a privilege which has been violated by the Minister of Justice in particular and, because of association by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
It is the practice and tradition of this house that while the house is sitting all announcements shall be made in the house and not outside it. I would suggest that because of his constant interventions on questions of procedure there is perhaps no one in this chamber who is more aware of this practice than the Minister of Justice.
On March 3 I addressed a question on this matter to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, directing his attention to a statement made in British Columbia by the Minister of Justice that the government proposed to take concrete steps to make an effective attack on the narcotic drug traffic in this country. The Minister of National Health and Welfare replied simply: "No comment".
I addressed a question on this matter to the Minister of Justice himself on March 9, the reply to which certainly did not reveal the government's intentions. Then on March 10 again I directed a question on this matter to the Minister of Justice, who replied to my question in part by saying that he expected shortly to be in a position to lay certain tentative conclusions before his colleagues in 79951-0-249J
the cabinet and that "thereafter it might well be we would have proposals to make to the provinces." I then asked whether that would be this year, and the minister replied:
That I am not able to say, Mr. Speaker. The matter is a difficult and complicated one and it depends upon the rate of progress that we are able to make.
I submit that this important announcement on government policy should have been made in this house. To do otherwise would be a violation if made by any minister in these circumstances, but it is a particular violation when made by an hon. gentleman who holds himself out as a paragon of parliamentary virtue in this house.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I can well understand the concern of the hon. gentleman in view of the past record of himself and his colleagues when they were on this side. Of course they are now prepared to strain at every gnat they can see flying in the air in an attempt to do something to redress the balance in the minds of the people of this country.
But if I may mix my metaphors I should like to point out to the hon. gentleman that he has laboured and brought forth a mouse, because there is really no question of privilege, nor has there been any departure from what I said I would do in answering the questions to which the hon. gentleman has referred. What was stated in the press release of yesterday, if the hon. gentleman would read it in a calm and dispassionate manner, is that the government has now approved in principle a certain new approach to the narcotic drug problem and has authorized the Minister of National Health and Welfare and myself to approach the provinces to enter into discussions with them with respect to these proposals.
That is exactly what I said would be done, in answer to the questions by the hon. member for Essex East which he himself has read. To that extent, therefore, the press release of yesterday indicated nothing new and took us no further than the point I had already indicated I hoped the government would be able to reach in the course of this year.
As the press release makes clear, until there are discussions and until the discussions with the provinces have been terminated and we are in a position to know the extent of

Question of Privilege
the provincial co-operation that may be forthcoming, we will not be in a position to determine our policy finally and state it to this house. At that time, when the discussions with the provinces have concluded so that we can put forward a definitive and comprehensive policy, this house will be informed, whether or not the hon. member for Essex East is in it.


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps I should be allowed to finish. May I say briefly to the Minister of Justice that not only do hon. members-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has something to say about whether a question of privilege of the house is involved, he may proceed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was just going to say that not only do hon. gentlemen opposite sanction this violation of the privileges of this house but they wish to deny the hon. gentleman who raises this question of privilege the opportunity of answering the Minister of Justice.
Whether or not this is a new policy is not the point. Any announcement of policy must be made in this house while the house is sitting. That is my question of privilege. On that very point all I have to do is read the first sentence of the third paragraph:
Mr. Fulton pointed out that while the plan embodies a new approach on the part of the federal authorities-


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is the rest of that sentence?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Once again the government-


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is the rest of that sentence?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -in the person of the Minister of Justice has been found wanting.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the press release with me so I cannot complete the sentence exactly but I think the fact that the hon. gentleman stopped where he did indicates that he himself knows that had he read the rest of the sentence it would have established the accuracy of what I have said.
What I said in that press release of yesterday indicates clearly that while the federal government has arrived at a certain point in its thinking on the matter, it has come to the conclusion that it would not be proper to proceed until the matter has been discussed with the provinces exactly as I told the hon. gentleman on March 9 that it would do. The

uncompleted portion of the sentence made that clear. To that extent this press release represents nothing new. There is no definite policy to put before the house, and as I have said-because we on this side of the house over here are aware of the proper relations between the federal government and the House of Commons-when we have a new policy to announce we will inform the House of Commons if the house should be in session at that time. If the hon. gentleman feels affronted because I did not take him into my confidence, then-


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is the rights of parliament that are involved.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -I am terribly sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot be responsible for the sensitivities of a particular hon. gentleman opposite.


Mr. Chevrier:: Why not announce it in the house?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The point is that the hon. gentleman asked a question on March 9. He had his answer, and the press release does not take the matter any further forward than that except that the forecast then made with respect to our own thinking on the matter and our own consideration has been realized to the point where we can now go to the provinces for discussions with them as we forecast in this house that we would.
I must say that I fail to see a question of privilege; but if there be any, while I do not admit for a moment that there has been any departure from the usual and proper relations between the government and the house, if my hon. friend wants the government to do what hon. members of the opposition do and continue to make repetitious statements, I shall be prepared, even though it involves repetition, to make such statements in this house.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member circumvented parliament.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, the Minister of Justice as usual has been clever but not convincing. If the hon. gentleman would read the very first sentence of his own press release he would find these words:
The government of Canada has approved a comprehensive plan to deal with the problem of narcotic drug addiction in Canada

I repeat, "has approved a comprehensive plan."


Edmund Davie Fulton: Put the whole thing on Hansard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: These words are perfectly clear. If this announcement made outside

the house adds nothing to the statement that was made in the house by my hon. friend in March last, it is a queer thing indeed that it took the minister over three months to issue the press release.



MR. ARGUE    ALLEGED INACCURATE STATEMENTS IN RETURN TABLED

Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A starred question in my name, No. 104, was passed as an order for return on April 6. The return was brought down on April 27. The questions were as follows:
1.	Is toxic nerve gas produced in Canada?
2. If so, (a) where; (b) since when; (c) for what purpose; (d) under what authority; (e) under whose jurisdiction; (f) to whom is it supplied; (g) on what scale?
The answers were:
1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.
On May 3, some six days later, the Toronto Star carried a press report which reads in part as follows, under the heading: "Canada Makes Nerve Gas":
Nerve gases and germ warfare agents are prepared from time to time by Canadian defence technicians in Canada in minute amounts, a defence research board spokesman said today. Neither type of warfare-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I tell the hon. member that in raising a question of privilege based on a press report he is adopting the press as a statement of fact.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, if you will wait for one minute I will provide the answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will provide it from the department of the Minister of National Defence, and this is my question of privilege. I feel I have to quote this in order to establish the question of privilege.
Neither type of warfare agent is produced or manufactured anywhere in Canada in quantities beyond laboratory amounts of a few ounces at a time the spokesman emphasized.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my office got in touch with the office of the Department of National Defence; a letter was sent to my office over the signature of the minister's executive assistant which said in part that the public relations officer of the Department of National Defence had made a press release available to the Toronto Star from which this report was taken. I have in my hand the enclosed copy of the press release, and on this pertinent point it reads as follows:
Nerve gases are not produced or manufactured in Canada but are prepared in very small research quantities-that is. in quantities involving a matter of ounces only. They are necessary in order to conduct research aimed at evaluating potential chemical warfare hazards and in improving defensive measures against them.
Question oj Privilege
My question of privilege is that the house was not given a full answer to this question that asked whether nerve gases were produced in Canada and on what scale. I feel that if the Department of National Defence, or the ministry, had wished to give parliament an adequate answer they could have given to this house-they should have given to this house-all the information that has been given to the press in this press release. My question of privilege, therefore, is that the House of Commons, that parliament itself, is entitled to full and frank answers and that members of parliament should not have to get replies to their questions supplemented by releases which subsequently appear in the press.



MR. DESCHATELETS    REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IN MONTREAL &quot;LA PRESSE&quot;

Mr. J. P. Deschafeleis (Maisonneuve-Rosemonl):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege affecting all hon. members. Citation 111 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, indicates that speeches and writings which reflect upon the conduct of the chairman of committees or the chairman of ways and means have been held to constitute breaches of privilege. I have in my hand a newspaper which came to my knowledge only yesterday. It is La Presse of Montreal, dated April 9, and it contains a letter to the editor signed by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Brassard), from which I wish to read the following extract. May I say at this point, Mr. Speaker, that I sent the hon. member for Chicoutimi notice today that I intended to raise this matter.
(Translation) :
You will admit that this does not provide much of a chance to rise very often, and even less to improvise a reply at such times as one would like to. I may add that when the house is in committee, it is quite obvious that Quebec members find it difficult to catch the eye of a certain deputy chairman, who is probably in secret agreement with Mr. Fisher's views.
(Text):
Now, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with paragraph 113 of Beauchesne's fourth edition I am laying on the table a copy of the newspaper in question, and I leave it to Your Honour to determine, in the light of this article, whether there has been a breach of privilege. If there has, I am prepared to move that the matter be referred to the committee on privileges and elections. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Meunier):
That the copy of La Presse, Montreal, April 9, 1960, containing a report of a letter addressed to

Question of Privilege
the editor by Mr. Brassard, the member for Chicoutimi, be referred to the committee on privileges and elections for investigation and report to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member please indicate in what portion of the newspaper the letter can be found?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: On the editorial page, Mr. Speaker.
And the Clerk proceeded to read the article in question as follows:
(Translation):
The Editor.
La Presse,
Montreal. Que.
Dear Sir.
I wish to congratulate you on your leader entitled "Mr. Fisher's Speech", published on April 4 instant. While I agree in a general way with the views expressed, I note a slight misrepresentation. It is the apparently innocuous sentence:	"Above all, it is the fact that no
minister from Quebec or elsewhere, nor any Conservative member from our province, told him off right then and there, as did Messrs. Augustin Brassard, John Pickersgill, Joseph Habel, a French-speaking member from Ontario, and L. A. Begnier, a Conservative-from Manitoba".
Your editor knows, or at least should know, that no member may rise in the House of Commons before he has been recognized by the Chair, that the Speaker always has on hand a list of members who are scheduled to address the house in a given order and that no one can change that predetermined order. It must be pointed out, moreover, that the present Speaker has ruled that speeches must follow one another in the sequence: 1 Conservative, 1 Liberal, 1 C.C.F. Since there are only 8 C.C.F. members in the house, and 51 Liberals, every C.C.F. member has the opportunity to speak 20 times, and each Liberal 4 times, to one for the Conservatives, who are 208 in number.
You will admit that this does not provide much of a chance to rise very often, and even less to improvise a reply at such times as one would like to. I may add that when the house is in committee, it is quite obvious that Quebec members find it difficult to catch the eye of a certain deputy chairman, who is probably in secret agreement with Mr. Fisher's views.
As for the rest, you may be assured that present Conservative members compare very favourably with previous Liberal members in the matter of spunk and diligence and that they will get even with Mr. Fisher yet.
I believe those few comments were necessary to clarify the situation for those who, from a distance, would be inclined to pass judgment without knowing the facts.
Vincent Brassard, M.P., Chicoutimi.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Chicoutimi, whose conduct is in question along with that of the newspaper which has been read, is not here today. It does not seem to me it would be proper to proceed with this matter in his absence. Before accepting and putting this motion I think the hon. member should be here and should

be heard, and I should like also to hear some comment from other members before the motion is accepted or put. In view of the fact that the matter is not one of great urgency, having stood since April 9, I would suggest that it be deferred until the hon. member for Chicoutimi is in the house.



MR. HERRIDGE    ALLEGED IMPROPER USE OF HOUSE OF COMMONS STATIONERY

['I emphasize the words used by the hon. gentleman, namely that this is a time for moderation and good sense. If that principle is adopted I think the answer is given to his question. There is no course that we can take at this time which can have any influence over the intransigence displayed by Mr. Khrushchev. That is where the difficulty is. If there were any course that could be taken that could achieve any change in his attitude, it would be taken. It is not because of the stand taken by the other three representatives that the prospective summit meeting is in the position in which it is today.']
Mr. Speaker:: I have a question of privilege to deal with myself; this seems to be the day. Yesterday the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) brought before the house, quite properly I thought, the case of an apparent misuse of the stationery of the house, raised it as a question of privilege and presented a motion.
I have examined all precedents I could find in order to determine whether or not this amounted to a breach of the privileges of the house, without finding any precedent for it. It appears to me that it is not in that category and does not raise a prima facie question of privilege. I should just like to read from May one paragraph which outlines generally the privileges which have been established by precedent as those of the house. It will be found at page 109 of May's sixteenth edition. In it Campion states as follows:
It would be vain to attempt an enumeration of every act which might be construed into a contempt, the power to punish for contempt being in its nature discretionary. Certain principles may, however, be collected from the journals which will serve as general declarations of the law of parliament. It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such house in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
This appears to be rather an administrative problem under the jurisdiction of the house through its Speaker and its officers and undoubtedly can be dealt with in that category rather than by straining the law of parliament to cover this particular incident.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of state for External Affairs whether a statement could or should be made on recent events in Paris which have caused so much discouragement and anxiety.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The situation in Paris in regard to the summit meeting is still delicate and uncertain. Premier Khrushchev failed to attend a meeting with the western three this afternoon which had been designed to get the summit meeting started. The prospects are therefore not bright; but so long as the four heads of government are still in Paris there would be no value in my attempting to speculate on the possible turn of events. I have made known to our NATO colleagues our desire that this situation should be discussed in the council at the earliest opportunity, and we shall be able tomorrow to examine the situation with our NATO allies in the council, possibly together with one or more of the three western foreign ministers.
Whatever the outcome of today's meeting the Canadian government remains determined to do everything possible to make progress in the field of disarmament where we are particularly engaged, as hon. members know, and where the United Nations has a special responsibility.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question in view of the situation in Paris. Of course we know only what is in the press and what has been given us this afternoon by the minister. In view of the concern of all countries, but in particular of Canada, I should like to ask whether, even if only on an advisory basis, the Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada should not go to Paris to talk to those there and perhaps exercise some influence.


Howard Charles Green: I am extremely grateful to the hon. member for Vancouver East for his very flattering words. However, at the moment I think there is more to be done here in the house as far as I am concerned. Every effort is being made in Paris to bring about a resumption of the talks. Canada, of course, will do whatever she can to bring about such action.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask a further supplementary question. In view of the situation may I ask-and I believe on a commonwealth basis it is a matter of consultation- who is representing Canada there and speaking on behalf of our country?


Howard Charles Green: We have a permanent representative at NATO in the person of Jules Leger. He will be representing Canada at the meeting of the council tomorrow morning. He is in close touch with what is going on. We are getting dispatches all the time reporting on proceedings.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hazen Robert Argue: My question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the prayerful desire of all mankind that the summit conference will proceed and may be successful in easing world tension, and the desire of all Canadians that our influence be used in the interests of moderation and good sense, can the Prime Minister inform the house what channels Canada is using to keep in touch with the summit proceedings and whether the Prime Minister has been in communication with western leaders at the summit?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I emphasize the words used by the hon. gentleman, namely that this is a time for moderation and good sense. If that principle is adopted I think the answer is given to his question. There is no course that we can take at this time which can have any influence over the intransigence displayed by Mr. Khrushchev. That is where the difficulty is. If there were any course that could be taken that could achieve any change in his attitude, it would be taken. It is not because of the stand taken by the other three representatives that the prospective summit meeting is in the position in which it is today.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister inform the house whether the Canadian section of NORAD was excluded from the reported alert and, if so, whether that was done at the instigation of the NORAD commander or the Canadian government?
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National
Defence): An exercise was held in the early hours of Monday morning initiated by the joint chiefs of staff of the United States in connection with communication alerts. The NORAD command was not exercised. No Canadian unit was exercised, nor were any United States units stationed on Canada soil exercised.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. According to newspaper reports the director of the French network of the C.B.C.

Inquiries of the Ministry has rejected the complaint of Canadians of Ukrainian origin against the television program dealing with the assassination of the Ukrainian national hero Simon Petlura.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member dealing with the same question he raised yesterday?


Hubert Badanai: I have a new question.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member put his new question?


Hubert Badanai: The minister informed the house yesterday that a statement would be forthcoming on the matter. Is the minister in possession of any decision made by the executive board of the C.B.C.?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I said yesterday that the C.B.C. was considering the matter and would issue a statement yesterday. I understand that they did so and that consultations were held with the various parties. There is nothing more I have to add than that which was said by myself in the house on this matter yesterday.



STATEMENT ON POLICY RESPECTING EMPLOYEES NOMINATED IN PROVINCIAL ELECTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 13 the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate asked me a question and a supplementary question with respect to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the political activities of its members.
I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that section 8, subsection 3 of the bylaws of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation states:
No officer or employee of the corporation employed on a full time basis shall be a candidate for any public elective office or actively support any candidate for any public elective office, but an officer or employee of the corporation may, subject to the permission of the president, be or actively support a candidate for a municipal or civic office, provided that the acceptance of or the support of the candidature for such office does not interfere with the proper and regular performance of his duties with the corporation.
In reply to the supplementary question relating to the one particular individual mentioned, I am advised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that this supplementary question, which related to British Columbia, refers to the case of a commentator on the program "Neighbourly News" who was not a member of the staff but a free lance artist and who announced his candidacy in the next British Columbia election. In accordance with the corporation's practice in this regard


and the principle enunciated in the regulation which I read a moment ago, he was given two weeks' notice of termination of employment, and arrangements are now being made and discussions are taking place with him and others as to a replacement commentator.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Adrien Meunier (Papineau):: I would
like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the government consider introducing special legislation to permit the banks to lend on insured mortgages under the housing act at the same rate of interest that other financial institutions are permitted to charge?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as an experienced parliamentarian the hon. member should know that government policy is not announced in answer to questions.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY WELLAND CANAL  INQUIRY AS TO SHIPPING HOLD-UPS AND TONNAGE HANDLED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has there been any significant hold-up of shipping passing through the Welland canal this current season? How does this year's tonnage compare with last year?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The answer to the first question is in the negative; the Welland canal has been functioning satisfactorily and no significant delays have occurred.
As to the second question, cargo tonnage figures are not yet available. Up to and including May 15 of this year there were 1,049 vessels which went through the canal. At the same date last year the number was 806, an increase of 30 per cent.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Justice whether in recent days he has participated in any discussions with the British Columbia government on power

development in that province. If so, has he any report to make to the house on those discussions?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the federal members of the Canada-British Columbia policy liaison committee went to Victoria on Friday, met with the British Columbia members of that committee on Saturday and came back here on Sunday. I attended as chairman of the Canadian negotiating team.
The discussions concerned the negotiations with the United States on an agreement for the development of the Columbia river, but I am bound by the agreement which has been made and the principle which has been followed to the effect that until negotiations have advanced to the point where something positive can be said and reported to the respective legislatures, they should not be discussed in detail. Therefore I am not at liberty at this stage to disclose any detail of the discussions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I appreciate the difficulty in making a report at this time on international discussions, but may I ask the minister whether he shares the hopes of his colleague the Minister of Finance, as expressed in Vancouver on May 16, that before very long the physical development of the Canadian portion of this river can begin in earnest?


Mr. Fulion:: Yes, indeed. The Minister of Finance was kind enough to show me what he was going to say, and we were at one about it.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay Wesi):: A
supplementary question. Can the minister inform the house whether he has high expectations of a treaty being signed in 1960?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is
that that will depend on the course of negotiations, and as far as the Canadian government is concerned we are doing everything we can to bring these negotiations to a speedy and satisfactory conclusion.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold Hicks (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, and ask whether he has had an official request from the British Columbia minister of agriculture to proceed with the work of making the Fraser valley a brucellosis free area. If the request has come forward, when will testing commence?
79951-0-250
Railway Act


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, a request has been received from the minister of agriculture of British Columbia to have the Fraser valley constituted a federal brucellosis control area. I signed the authorizing order today. As soon as the order is presented the department will be able to start having the cattle in the area tested. The speed with which this can be done will depend in large measure on the assistance provided by local veterinary practitioners in the area, who are engaged on a part time basis to assist in the testing.



RAILWAY ACT


George Harris Hees: the second reading of Bill No. C-61, to amend an act to amend the Railway Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to learn during the resolution stage that all hon. members who spoke considered this to be good legislation. There were suggestions that more assistance should be provided from the railway grade crossing fund, particularly to the municipalities. I think the facts prove that the increase in the measure of assistance to municipalities from the fund in the past two years has been very important indeed.
The crossing problem is the concern of the federal authorities, the provincial and municipal highway authorities, and the railways. The provinces and municipalities require highways and railways and benefit from both, notwithstanding that crossing dangers accompany the benefits. Crossings are not the responsibility solely of the federal authorities. Nevertheless, it is my desire that federal assistance be provided in as generous a measure as is reasonable in the circumstances as they may be from time to time. Consequently I shall keep in mind the suggestions that have been made when considering what further measures may be appropriate in dealing with the crossing problem. It is a problem that will have my continuing and sympathetic interest at all times, and I welcome all suggestions made to deal with it.
There was expressed a very understandable desire to have railway cars painted or made reflective so they will be more easily seen at crossings in the night time, and there were requests for information as to what is being done to place reflective markings on the sides of railway cars, for which parliament has made money available from the railway grade crossing fund.
The board of transport commissioners issued a judgment and order on May 1, 1959

Railway Act
requiring the Canadian railways to place reflective markings on all new box cars received by them between that date and the end of 1960, and on an equivalent number of old box cars. Last year the Canadian Pacific Railway marked approximately 3,000 box cars with reflective "scotchlite" discs four inches in diameter. The larger cars have nine discs on each side, smaller cars have seven. The Canadian National Railways did not mark as many as the Canadian Pacific Railway, because they bought fewer new box cars than did the C.P.R. Canadian National Railways are using two different types of reflective discs. The board has been advised that the C.N.R. marked 696 cars in 1959.
The board expects that by the end of this year there will be approximately 10,000 cars marked. The board feels it is necessary to have experience with the markings under actual operating conditions before determining a longer range program.
As regards United States cars, I am informed that several bills were introduced in the United States congress with the object of requiring United States railway vehicles to be equipped with reflective or luminous material. One of them was suggested by the interstate commerce commission. Several such bills were considered in 1957 by a subcommittee of the House of Representatives, but to date none has become law. The interstate commerce commission has been informed of our legislation and the board of transport commissioners' order.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont (Mr. Deschatelets) and the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) raised matters concerning the Canadian National particularly, and I have drawn their representations to the attention of the management.
One or two members suggested that crossing signs be made to stand out more prominently. The board has started a program of putting reflectors on railway crossing signs, and has designated some 2,141 priority crossings to be so marked in 1959 and will designate other crossings as progress is made. Grants of 80 per cent of the cost are made for this work from the grade crossing fund. Advance warning signs some distance from crossings have been erected by provincial authorities in a great many cases. Efforts are being made to have them uniform throughout Canada, and the joint committee on uniform traffic control devices has recommended that these advance warning signs be of uniform design of yellow and black reflector material.
There was also a suggestion that the investigation should be made to see whether the diesel whistle cannot be made more like

the steam whistle. The technical officers of the board, the railways, and the national research council engaged in studies of this problem, and tests were conducted with a view to having a diesel horn that will simulate the sound of the old steam whistle. Following this study the board issued an order which directed the railways to equip road service units with horns having certain tonal characteristics. It is, of course, difficult to simulate exactly the sound of the conventional steam whistle, and the present types of horns now in use are the closest to that aim it has been possible to produce up to the present time.
Last night the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters) and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) asked certain questions, and I have requested that answers be prepared by the board of transport commissioners. I will give the answers to the two hon. members as soon as they are received.
As I have said before, I am very much interested in the crossing situation and welcome all suggestions that are made for remedial measures. In conclusion I wish to express my thanks for the support which has been indicated for this measure.


Lionel Chevrier: My remarks in connection with this matter will be brief, because the house already knows the position which we on this side take. We support this measure as forward-looking legislation.
I believe when this act was amended some two years ago I had the opportunity of speaking at length on the whole question of grade crossing accidents in this country and the measures taken by previous governments, and this government as well, to put an end, so far as possible, to such accidents. We welcome this legislation because it continues for a further period of three years the amendments which have already been made affecting the grade crossing fund, and because it also deals with the reflective markings on the sides of railway cars.
I think everything possible should be done by the parties involved-by this government, by the board of transport commissioners, by the municipalities and by the provinces-to avoid these terrible and catastrophic accidents which take place at grade crossings. To the extent that we in this house can assist, I am sure all members of parliament will wish to co-operate in the fullest measure.
There is one point only that I desire to bring to the attention of this house, and it is that this whole problem was studied at great length by the board of transport commissioners several years ago. I do not have the report of the board before me, but it went into this matter exhaustively. At that time



I960

[Stage Direction]
the board travelled from one end of the country to the other, and finally made many excellent recommendations. Many of those recommendations were put into effect by the former administration. Some of them have been put into effect by the present Minister of Transport. I am not able to say at this time whether or not all the recommendations have been put into effect.
However, for what it is worth I draw this to the attention of the minister; that it might be well, in view of the numerous accidents Which are still taking place on our highways where a railway meets a roadway, to ask the board of transport commissioners, in the interests of all of us, to bring that report up to date and see whether, having regard to the great increase in the number of motor cars and other circumstances which may have arisen since the report was brought down, a revision is not now imperative.
That is all I intend to say in support of this resolution, which all of us on this side think is good legislation.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The
members of this group support the principle and purpose of this bill because it continues the very excellent and very necessary work which was begun some years ago in providing protection for persons crossing railway tracks.
I intend to be brief. I spoke at some length at the resolution stage. I must say I was interested to hear that the marking of these cars is apparently proceeding satisfactorily. I was also interested to hear of the experiments in connection with the whistle tone, which I consider to be important.
Before I sit down I want to re-emphasize some of the remarks I made at the resolution stage about the necessity for striking signs at railroad crossings. I think a great deal more protection could be provided, particularly in rural areas, if more striking signs were used. I do not think it is sufficient just to have a white cross with black lettering saying "railroad crossing". If we could have something much more striking we would get a great deal more protection at relatively small expense, particularly for the benefit of strangers using our highways, and I hope practical consideration will be given to this aspect of the problem.
In addition, may I say that I agree with the very good suggestion made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) that in view of the increase in vehicular traffic and the rapidly changing conditions affecting roads and highways in Canada, it might be wise if the board of transport commissioners were directed to give some further study to this question, and report to this house.
79951-0-250^
Northwest Territories Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-60, to amend the Northwest Territories Act-The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Mr. Speaker:: I am informed that this bill is not available to hon. members in the French language, but by leave it could be proceeded with.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, do you not think we ought to give consideration to whether that is a wise move to adopt? It is the usual practice to have bills available in both languages; and while some reports may sometimes present extenuating circumstances when they are not available in the French language, it could hardly be justified in the case of a bill.


Mr. Speaker:: The rules require that the bill be in both languages but by unanimous consent it could be proceeded with. Shall the bill stand?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I telephoned about the bill this morning to see whether copies were available in the French language. I have had no reply as to the stage at which the French copy is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the minister have it available later today?


Gordon Minto Churchill: If it would be, perhaps we could allow it to stand for the time being.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That would be agreeable.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree that this bill should stand and be considered later if the French text arrives?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



YUKON ACT


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minisler of Northern Affairs and National Resources) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-59, to amend the Yukon Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Yukon Act
On clause 4-Game ordinances in respect of Indians and Eskimos.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could let clause 4 stand for a minute or two until we come to the end of our consideration of the other clauses. I should like to make a statement on this clause. Can that be done?


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 4 stand with the unanimous consent of the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
Clauses 5 to 11 agreed to.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall we revert to the consideration of clause 4?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 4-Game ordinances in respect of Indians and Eskimos.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, clause 4 deals with the game ordinances in the Yukon. This brings up a particular problem which I think I should bring to the attention of the committee so there will be no misunderstanding in the passing of this clause.
In the Northwest Territories a resolution was passed last year asking the federal government to make clear the legality behind their right to pass ordinances on game matters. This we have done in the bill which we allowed to stand just a few minutes ago. The comments I was going to make on the Northwest Territories legislation I will now have to make on the Yukon legislation.
In the Northwest territorial council resolution the difficulty of the Indians and Eskimos in the territory was considered. I should like to explain the background of this difficulty, which is a matter of great importance to hon. members of this committee, because under treaty and under statute we are required to protect the livelihood of the native people who lived in Canada before the white man came. In most parts of Canada including the Northwest Territories there are treaties that protect the rights of the Indians, but there are no treaties to protect the rights of Indians in the Yukon. Therefore in considering this problem we had to keep in mind what protection could be given to the Indians in the Yukon.
This matter only arose because last year a judicial decision was handed down in the Northwest Territories which pointed out that in the opinion of the presiding judge the territorial council had no power to make game

ordinances in so far as they affected Eskimos. This put the game legislation in question. We had turned over the management of the game to the Northwest Territories in 1948. The territorial government had passed ordinances dealing with game, and now a judicial decision had put this jurisdiction in doubt.
As a result they met and passed a resolution calling on the federal government to amend the Northwest Territories legislation in such a way as to make clear without any doubt that they had power to deal with game matters. Then to make certain that they recognized that the interests of the Indian and Eskimo were protected, the last section of their resolution was framed in these words, which I wish to put on the record and to which I ask all hon. members to give their undivided attention because they have the traditional duty of protecting the Indian in Canada:
And further that the council undertakes that in all cases and at all times the basic rights of Eskimos and Indians to hunt and trap on unoccupied crown land shall be preserved and shall be abridged only to ensure the conservation of game animals as a continuing resource to such extent as is necessary for their livelihood.
This means that even though the federal government is amending the Northwest Territories legislation to give to the territorial government the right beyond all question to deal with matters concerning game, the territorial council gave this undertaking that the traditional rights of the Indians and Eskimos in the Northwest Territories would be preserved. If the amendment to the Yukon Act which is now before us is read carefully, the matter of the protection of Indians and Eskimos could be brought into question. Clause 2 reads:
Notwithstanding subsection (1), the commissioner in council may make ordinances for the government of the territory, in relation to the preservation of game in the territory, that are applicable to and in respect of Indians and Eskimos, and ordinances made by the commissioner in council in relation to the preservation of game in the territory, unless the contrary intention appears therein, are applicable to and in respect of Indians and Eskimos.
I am not a lawyer, but this simply means that you give to the Yukon council the right without question to make ordinances in relation to hunting by Indians and Eskimos, and the only exception to it is that clause where it says "unless the contrary intention appears therein".
Therefore in the Yukon, under this amendment to the act, the rights of the Indians and the Eskimos are exactly the same as those of the white man unless especially arranged for in their ordinances or in the regulations. The question that arises is this. Since there

is no treaty that usually guarantees to Indians the traditional right of hunting, are we doing anything, by giving to the territorial government this right to pass ordinances, that lessens the traditional right of the Indian to hunt for his livelihood? I raise this with the committee, because I would be prepared to entertain an amendment in the form of an additional clause which would make this right absolutely equal.
Here I might point out that there are other protections for the Indian and Eskimo. First, the legislative body, the territorial council, has the right to pass legislation, and the commissioner who is appointed by the federal government has the right to not sign that legislation. That is one control to make certain that the rights of the Indian and Eskimo are protected.
The second protection is the fact that all ordinances of the territorial governments must have the approval of the governor general in council, and this means the approval of the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. If these two protections are not sufficient, then the committee should seriously consider adding an amendment to clause 4 to make clear that the traditional right is not in any way abrogated.


Mr. Roberge:: Does the minister have on hand the amendment he is talking about?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, I have not; but one of the suggestions made to me is that the words in this last paragraph could be included as a separate clause, although my department is busy now drafting a shorter one, which would be more concise.


Gabriel Roberge: Can the committee be advised as to whether the Eskimos and Indians were told that there might be a change in the law with regard to their game rights?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: When the
amendment to the Northwest Territories Act was produced the head of the Indian affairs branch sat in on the committee, and of course he is a member of the Northwest Territories council.


Mr. Peters:: Are arrangements made for someone in the council to decide what limitations are placed on Indians or Eskimos in that area because of those restrictions? For instance, if the game ordinances are followed closely they will probably eliminate food surpluses being built up at any particular time, which has been the habit of the Eskimos in the past. They have accumulated and carried over food surpluses, and this ordinance would probably prohibit that. Are the officers in a position to decide how much of a limitation
Yukon Act
should be placed on the food stores? How would that be made up if there were a limitation?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Under my department there is the wildlife service of Canada which operates in co-operation with all the provinces, and of course it is responsible for the territories as well, even though the administration of game in the territories is now under the jurisdiction of the two territorial councils. The wildlife service of Canada periodically makes surveys of the amounts of various game in each part of the territories, and on the basis of that information the territorial government changes the regulations that look after the management of game in that area.
I might point out to the hon. member that in the north, owing to the climate and the lack of vegetation, in many parts game is not plentiful; it is a very scarce commodity. In the interests of the Indian and the Eskimo it certainly has to be regulated to give him any protection whatsoever. As the hon. member has probably heard, in the Northwest Territories, for example, the regulations for hunting and trapping severely limit the rights of the white man. The rights of the non-resident are for a very limited amount of game bird shooting; the rights of the resident white man are equally limited, and only under certain conditions is he allowed to take off big game.
In the Yukon game is more plentiful; therefore the regulations work equally for all, white man, Eskimo and Indian. But the power to regulate has to be in their hands, and it has been in the hands of the Yukon territorial council since about 1900. Therefore they have this right traditionally, like any other province, and they have had it for about 60 years.


William Arnold Peters: The problem I am thinking of is that there are a great number of white men going into the north on development work. This may apply more to the Northwest Territories than to the Yukon, but it seems to me that if all the people in that area had equal rights it would probably give the white man an advantage, because he would be hunting for a purpose different from that of the Indian and Eskimo. If the white man were given equal right to kill game there we would be taking away from the Indian and Eskimo his means of livelihood. Certainly we want to conserve the game. It may be necessary to limit the numbers taken, but if this is done we have a responsibility to ascertain what the loss will be to the native population; we should be willing to

Yukon Act
make up to the native population something in kind, and obviously it would have to be something very definite in its application.
I am not sure whether the minister has said that the ordinance will apply to all people within the area in the same way. That would mean, would it not, that the white man would probably get an advantage under the regulations and the native population would suffer a disadvantage? I should like to see the native population protected by ascertaining what they would receive in kind, if this ordinance was passed, to make up for their losses, and how we would administer it and see that they receive this extra amount.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The territorial council have administered game in the Yukon since the turn of the century. They have been very conscious always of the necessity of protecting their game, and they have done a good job. All this amendment does fundamentally is to make sure that there is no question about their right to pass these ordinances. They have had these ordinances in effect in the Yukon since 1900. However, as the result of decisions last year a doubt was created about this right, so this provision was inserted to give them this right beyond the shadow of a doubt. This provision makes the ordinances passed in previous years legal.


William Arnold Peters: The point to which I am referring-I have not seen the ordinances-is that the ordinances may say every male over the age of 21 has the right to hunt and kill, say, one caribou, one moose or whatever it happens to be. Some of the native population are dependent on shooting not only one of these animals but perhaps half a dozen. It seems to me that the Eskimo would be put in a position of hardship by being given equality with the white man. In the past I presume that the Eskimos have been able to kill as much as they needed for food, and then the department made up the balance. By putting the Eskimo under this regulation it would seem to me he would be subject to the same kind of game limitation as the white man, and this would interfere with his ability to live off the land. In many cases the natives have to kill far more than any conservationist would allow in that area.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think I have the point which the hon. member is making. Considerable work has been done by wildlife surveys in outlining what they call the sustaining yield which is possible for this type of animal and that type of animal. The ordinances simply set out the trapping areas to protect the individual person in the area

who has a trapping licence. Nearly all the trapping and hunting is done by Indians. There is only a handful of Eskimos in the Yukon. These provisions have worked well for 60 years, and game is reasonably plentiful. The difficulty of the trapper and the hunter in the Yukon is not that he cannot get game, but the fact that fur prices have declined so drastically he cannot sell his furs.
I think the answer to the hon. member's question is that the territorial government have managed this game very successfully for 60 years, and they have looked after the interests of the Indians under these ordinances. The government has carefully watched the white hunter, who is usually a professional hunter bringing in sportsmen to hunt the big game animals of the Yukon. Whenever a person in the Yukon, whether he is white, Eskimo or Indian, wants to hunt for food, these ordinances do not limit what he can do unless he wilfully slaughters animals beyond the capacity of the area to carry. Generally speaking, if a man wants food there is no limit on what he can do. However, when he is hunting or trapping to sell the furs, whether he is a white sportsman or a trapper, then he does come under these regulations and the trapping areas are registered with the game department in the Yukon territory.


Gabriel Roberge: I should like to go back to the possible amendment which the minister mentioned a moment ago. Is it the intention of the government to introduce such an amendment? If so, is it the intention of the government and the minister to ask the committee to allow this clause to stand until the amendment is drafted?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This amendment will be ready in two or three minutes. It will be a better one than I was going to propose, and I would be hopeful that we could get through this without delaying the committee, yet making sure that we have done our duty to protect the rights of Indians who hunt.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In order that we do not delay the proceedings of the house, why does the committee not ask for leave to report progress and sit later this day?


An hon. Member:: We have some other questions to ask.


William Hector McMillan: We went through these clauses in rather a hurry, and may I be permitted to ask a question on clause 7?


Charles Edward Rea: Will the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member to ask a question on clause 7?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Hector McMillan: This clause has to do with deputy judges and sets out who might be a deputy judge. My question is, for how long is the appointment made? Is his appointment just for a session of the court, or is it for a year, or is it a permanent appointment?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I want to thank the hon. member for requesting an explanation of this clause, because some of these clauses are vital. They have been suggested by individuals over a period of two or three decades, and radical changes in the Yukon Act are suggested.
In answer to this question, I may say that deputy judges are appointed for an indefinite period. You have a judge in the Yukon and a judge in the Northwest Territories. In the past what has happened has been that one judge was invariably made the deputy of the other judge. This was done through a cumbersome order in council procedure. This provision simply puts in statutory form the fact that you can appoint a judge by governor in council. The passage of this provision will mean that, more and more, we will be moving into a period when all decisions will be handed down by judges who know the north country. It does not prevent the appointment of deputy judges from the provinces to the south, that is British Columbia in the case of the Yukon and Alberta in the case of the Northwest Territories. This can still be done by the governor in council; but this provision gives the legal right, in statutory form, to appoint by governor in council rather than through the cumbersome procedure we have used in the past for appointing a deputy judge from either one of the territories or from the provinces. The intention is to appoint them from the alternative territory.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I might take just a moment to say a word about the clauses following 8 and 9 which are concerned with the judicial system. May I have permission to revert to those for a moment?


Charles Edward Rea: Will the committee give unanimous agreement to this suggestion by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will be very brief because the amendment is ready now. The big thing we have done here has been to give the Northwest Territories and the Yukon their own court of appeal. The court of appeal is made up of the two territorial judges, plus Alberta judges to make up the number for the Northwest Territories and British Columbia judges for the court of appeal in the Yukon. As you read these clauses you find that this court of appeal can sit
Yukon Act
right in the territories. This means that at long last the people of the territories have the right to justice in their own area without the expense of going south to Edmonton or Vancouver. The offices in Whitehorse and Yellowknife will be branch offices of the court of record which the appeal court needs.
I could go on speaking at great length about the advantage of this to the administration of justice in the territory. I simply want to conclude this portion of my remarks by emphasizing that, for the first time, this provision gives the territories their own courts of appeal. I imagine that some of you might ask why it is that the court of appeal is to be composed of the two territorial judges, since one of them must have heard the case in the first instance. The answer is clear; the judge who heard the case in the first instance will not be sitting on the court of appeal. I should like to go on and describe at some length the advantages of this type of amendment to the territories, but I think every lawyer in the house will appreciate what we have done.


William Hector McMillan: Referring to clause 7 again, I may say that I believe parliament fixes the salaries of judges. Does parliament fix the salaries of these deputy judges? It says here that their remuneration and allowances are fixed by the governor in council.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: I believe the answer to that question is yes. The governor in council does fix the remuneration, as the new section states.


Mr. Godin:: Can the parliamentary secretary explain to the committee why there is this great departure from the practice in Canada under which in the administration of justice appointments are made by parliament itself? I realize that we are now treating of the problem of the administration of justice in a territory. It would seem to me that the same reasons apply that brought about the section in the British North America Act and that the appointments should be made by someone away above the local and interested parties and that they should especially do the fixing of the salaries of those who are judging the people of those localities. It seems to me that that matter should be given some consideration. It is with some consternation that I find that such serious appointments are made locally and that the determination of their salaries is also made locally.


Thomas Miller Bell: This is a step toward the independence of the courts. It was cumbersome to have the order in council procedure which existed previously. This new change merely puts the matter on a basis

Yukon Act
similar to that on which exchequer court appointments are made. They are exactly similar in that regard.


Osias.-J. Godin: I admit the great advantage. As I listened to the minister a moment ago I recalled the discussion we had last year on this matter. I appreciated the fact that last night the minister made reference to the investigation that followed the remarks made in this House of Commons over a year ago by the hon. member for Mackenzie River and the remarks, as the minister was kind enough to say, which I had occasion to make at that time on that score. We are therefore much interested in the matter and are pleased that this government, after some study, has done something which in some way is following the opinions announced in this house by the hon. member for Mackenzie River and myself, as stated by the minister last night.
We agree that it gives to these territories some local control in the administration of justice. But the matter of salary and appointment is in a different category than the administration of justice. I may state that I fully appreciate the previous method whereby an appeal of a case heard in the Northwest Territories which would have been heard at Chesterfield inlet, for instance the appeal would be heard possibly in Newfoundland by the application of a person who could ask the appeal to be heard where he applied to have it heard.
We are fully in accord that this local appeal court brings about a measure of satisfaction in the local aspect of the administration of justice. There is no doubt that an appeal court which is located in the area where the trial or the appeal is heard by persons who are conversant with the traditions of the way of living of these people is an important matter. But I see some danger in the method indicated there where it is not for the purpose of the better administration of justice but for the purpose only of deciding the remuneration which these people will receive and from whom they will receive their appointments. This is a full departure. This decision is made practically locally by the governor in council of that territory which in a sense is not as important possibly as the government of a province, which government is not entitled to appoint and set the salaries of its judges.


Thomas Miller Bell: I understand that the representation made by the hon. member and also by the hon. member for Mackenzie River and the hon. member for Yukon were a help in the formation of the new amendments here. I can only repeat what I said a moment ago, namely that the deputy judges will be set up under this new section in a way similar to that in which

they are appointed under the Exchequer Court Act. They will be appointed only from time to time. It is because of the cumbersome old order in council method that this is being done. As I say, it is a step in the direction toward the independence of the courts in the Yukon.


Osias.-J. Godin: In agreeing to all this in many ways, I do not agree that the new law states that these appointments are made from time to time. That was the query from the hon. member who spoke a moment ago. You have taken those particular words out of the act or out of former section 29. This is simply an appointment which could be an appointment for life at a salary to be fixed from time to time by the local administrative body. If the parliamentary secretary to the minister will read the former section he will find that the words "from time to time" are expressly taken out. He just said so and said that this is for the purpose of appointments from time to time. That cannot be so because those are the very words which are taken out. We had those words in the previous section but they are now taken out.


Thomas Miller Bell: I understand that the present legislation provides for the appointment of deputy judges under certain circumstances by the governor in council. It is frequently done as a convenience to appoint a judge from the Northwest Territories to serve in the Yukon in that capacity. This amendment will make it unnecessary to use this relatively cumbersome order in council procedure every time this need arises. As I said before, this is a step toward the independence of the courts and its deals with a situation where in the past trial judges from British Columbia and Alberta have been appointed to take trials in the territories. With this amendment such an appointment would normally occur only when neither territorial judge was able to sit. The point the hon. member is making may have some validity but I fail to see how it could exist and still give them the independence that is desired by all.


William Arnold Peters: In speaking of the salaries of these judges the parliamentary secretary has mentioned following the practice of the exchequer court with regard to appointments. Will they follow the practice of the exchequer court with regard to salary?


Thomas Miller Bell: I assume that the sections of the Exchequer Court Act which deal with these appointments of temporary judges will apply here. That perhaps would not deal with the salary aspect because that is mentioned specifically in the bill here as

being fixed by the governor in council. There will be special circumstances undoubtedly in the Yukon.
The Depuiy Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Seconded by my colleague, I wish to move-


Gordon Minto Churchill: No; ask one of your colleagues to move.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: The minister cannot move it. Let him ask one of his colleagues to do so.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That subclause (1) of clause 4 of Bill C-59 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
(1) Section 17 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsections:
"(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) but subject to subsection (3), the commissioner in council may make ordinances for the government of the territory, in relation to the preservation of game in the territory, that are applicable to and in respect of Indians and Eskimos, and ordinances made by the commissioner in council in relation to the preservation of game in the territory, unless the contrary intention appears therein, are applicable to and in respect of Indians and Eskimos."
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) shall be construed as authorizing the commissioner in council to make ordinances restricting or prohibiting Indians from hunting for food, on unoccupied crown lands, game other than game declared by the governor in council to be game in danger of becoming extinct.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could make it very clear to hon. members in the committee that all that has been done here is this. If they will look at their copy of the bill in front of them they will see that subsection (4) of clause I now reads "Notwithstanding subsection (1)" and there is an insert of these five words: "but subject to subsection (3)". Then under subsection (3) you have this declaration which protects the traditional rights of the Indians and Eskimos to hunt.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I was not able to follow the reading of the amendment too carefully, but in subsection (3) I understood the reference to be to Indians only, so far as hunting for game is concerned?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, that is right.


Charles Benjamin Howard: What would be the application of this in principle to Eskimos, who are in the same class as Indians, who desire to hunt for food?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the hon. member has a point here. It is true that the Indians do compose the great majority of the population in the Yukon and there are only half a dozen or so Eskimos. They rarely go into that area because it is a bush area. However, I think we could meet that by
Export and Import Permits Act adding, if the committee gives unanimous consent, the words "or Eskimos". As at present the Indians are protected in the Northwest Territories by treaty but there are no treaties in the Yukon and we put this clause in to make certain that the territorial government does not abrogate their right. I think if the house accepts that amendment unanimously I could insert the words "or Eskimos".
The Depuiy Chairman: Subsection (3) as amended would read as follows:
Nothing in subsection (2) shall be construed as authorizing the commissioner in council to make ordinances restricting or prohibiting Indians or Eskimos from hunting for food, on unoccupied crown lands, game other than game declared by the governor in council to be game in danger of becoming extinct.
Is the house ready for the question on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting of the house.



EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS ACT


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (for Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-4, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.
Mr. John Pallet! (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce:) Mr. Speaker, this bill merely extends the life of the Export and Import Permits Act for a further three years to July 31, 1963 and recognizes the replacement of the Agricultural Prices Support Act by the Agricultural Stabilization Act, 1957-58.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary certainly has been brief in moving the amending bill. I am very anxious to commend him for that, but I am not sure that he may not have overdone it a little on this occasion. However, I do believe that this is the first occasion on which he has had the honour of presenting a bill in his new capacity of parliamentary secretary and I certainly want to extend my good wishes to him on this occasion.

Export and Import Permits Act
This legislation became necessary by reason of the last war. It was first brought forward under the authority of the War Measures Act and the emergency powers legislation, and some 13 years ago, in 1947, was brought forward under an act of this house directly related to the subject matter of the Export and Import Permits Act. That legislation, in the light of changed world circumstances and experience in operating the act, was amended and the amending legislation took the form in 1954 of a wholly new act. The 1954 act is the act with which we are presently concerned and it was first enacted for a limited period of time. In 1957 a three-year extension was provided, and this bill now before us provides a further three-year extension.
I think all hon. members will agree that this type of legislation is not the type of legislation which is desirable in our parliamentary system and that, were it not necessary, it should not be brought forward. I think hon. members will also have to agree that world circumstances being what they are today there is not much alternative left but to grant an extension of this arbitrary power given to the government to control exports for certain purposes and to control imports for certain limited purposes set out in the act. However distasteful that grant of arbitrary power to the government may be- and I think it is distasteful to all hon. members in the house-it regrettably is necessary, and I think if any evidence of that were needed it is provided by the events of these last few days.
The legislation itself provides for export control of certain commodities to all areas in the world and of all the commodities to certain areas in the world. There are two types of control, commodity control and area control. The real problem, of course, is the preservation of the security of our country and the control of exports for that purpose. I hope the parliamentary secretary will say what he considers the prospects are for any change in the export controls as they are presently applied by the orders in council authorized under the act and what, if any, recent changes have been made.
I understand from the annual report covering the period up to December 31, 1959 that there were no substantial changes in that year. However, I would ask the hon. gentleman to say when he is replying in this debate whether or not there have been any changes in the export controls during the period since December 31, 1959 and, if so, the nature of those changes and the reasons for them.
In the act, the extension of which is being sought, provision is made under the terms of section 5 as follows:
[Mr. Mcllralth.l

The governor in council may establish a list of goods, to be called an import control list, including therein any article the import of which he deems it necessary to control for any of the following purposes, namely,
(a)	to ensure, in accordance with the needs of Canada, the best possible supply and distribution of an article that is scarce in world markets or is subject to governmental controls in the countries of origin or to allocation by intergovernmental arrangement;
(b)	to implement any action taken under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, the Fisheries Prices Support Act, the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act or the Agricultural Products Board Act, to support the price of the article or that has the effect of supporting the price of the article; or
(c)	to implement an intergovernmental arrangement or commitment;
The section further provides:
Where any goods are included in the list for the purpose of ensuring supply or distribution of goods subject to allocation by intergovernmental arrangement or for the purpose of implementing an intergovernmental arrangement or commitment, a statement of the effect of a summary of the arrangement or commitment, if it has not previously been laid before parliament, shall be laid before parliament at the time the order of the governor in council including those goods in the list is laid before parliament pursuant to the Regulations Act.
It will be seen that the circumstances requiring the control of imports have changed materially since this legislation was first brought forward in 1947. At that time the major problem was the problem of the sorting of goods. There was the necessity of distributing those goods which were in short supply so as to provide an equitable sharing of the limited quantities entering the country. That problem has largely, if not entirely disappeared. I point out that this represents the granting of a power, and that the authority to establish import controls has not been restricted in the amending bill. Indeed, I am wondering if there is still any need for the power granted in section 5 (a) of the act and whether or not there are any goods on the import control list under the provisions of that subsection.
Subsection (b), of course, has to do with the control of the import of articles in order to make the government's price support legislation, in one form or another, workable. The need for that power has probably increased during the years. For my part I should like to have the opportunity to examine this question to find out just how extensive a use has been made of the powers granted under subsection (b) of section 5 and I hope the parliamentary secretary will give us all the information he has on that point when he replies.
Section (c) has to do with intergovernmental arrangements or commitments. Again, I wish the parliamentary secretary would



I960

[Stage Direction]
explain what intergovernmental arrangements or commitments are still in existence at this date.
That brings me to a suggestion. The bill which is now before us is a very short and simple bill. It simply changes the expiry date of the act from July 31, 1960 to July 31, 1963, and it will be seen that according to a reasonably strict interpretation of the rules it would be impossible, or very difficult, for us to get the statistical and factual information which would be desirable during consideration of this measure by the committee of the whole. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary would consider referring this measure to the banking and commerce committee in order that we might obtain statistical information on the points I have mentioned as well as other related points. I believe the whole matter would only require one sitting of the committee-I venture that opinion-during which time the information I have in mind could be made available. I think it is important that this should be done, because this is one of those pieces of legislation which are altogether unsound theoretically but which are, unfortunately, necessary. It is, therefore, the type of legislation which should be subject to detailed examination with a view to determining precisely what use is being made of it, and what present need exists for the powers granted. It is clear there is a need for the export control authority, but it is not so clear that the legislation is needed in respect of the import control authority.
I therefore conclude my remarks with a request that the parliamentary secretary give all the information he can, and that he consider referring the bill to the banking and commerce committee for consideration.
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: I listened with a good deal of interest to the comments of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith). I had expected the parliamentary secretary in introducing the bill at this stage to give us a report on the operations of the Export and Import Permits Act, especially as it has been applied in more recent days, in order that we might more adequately be able to decide whether we ought to support the amendment to extend the operation of the act. However, our group intends to support the extension.
I endorse the recommendation made by the hon. member for Ottawa West that this bill be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce in order that we may undertake, possibly for the first time in the history of the act, a review of the operations of this legislation. I cannot agree with the hon. member when he expresses regret
Export and Import Permits Act for the necessity of the existence of the legislation. I am not too afraid of the government in announcing the intentions of the act. I am more afraid of the influence on the Canadian economy and security of the activities of individuals who operate primarily with a profit motive in mind than I am of arbitrary decisions by the minister who is admittedly granted much authority in the operation of this act.
We in this group regard this type of legislation as most desirable. It could be very useful as a method of regulating international trade, a method far in advance of the present method by means of tariffs. We believe that under this act, especially if it were expanded, the government could do a lot to protect not only the security interests of the nation but the economic interests of Canadian enterprise and the interests of producers and workers.
Under the act export licenses may be issued on arms and ammunitions provided they will not be potentially used against Canadians in any possible area of conflict. I wish the parliamentary secretary would report on what permits were granted within the last year for the export of arms and munitions and whether any have been issued to Central America, other Latin American countries and the Union of South Africa. I believe that report would interest all Canadians. This provision is useful in ensuring that there will be an adequate supply in Canada of items that may be desired elsewhere but that might otherwise be exported out of Canada leaving Canadians without the necessary supply.
According to the minister's annual report the export permit section is used extensively. In 1958 there were 8,199 export permits issued and 5,767 in 1959. In 1958 there were 700 applications refused, cancelled or withdrawn. Would the minister give an explanation as to what commodities the government decided against permitting to be exported under license.
The hon. member for Ottawa West placed on the record reasons for which the minister may refuse to grant import licenses, mentioning commodities in scarce world supply, refusal in order to protect agriculture in Canada and the intent of the Agricultural Stabilization Act and refusal because of arrangements existing with other governments.
I notice that the act is used for a wide range of commodities such as butter, cheddar cheese, butter fat, dry skim milk powder, turkeys and, until recently, tin. An import permit was needed if tin came from certain specified areas of the world. I believe this to be an indication of relaxing tariff barriers which
3966	HOUSE OF
Export and Import Permits Act should be welcome only where an absence of export or import permits is a handicap to the development of international trade. We would like to see the act used more extensively than at present for the protection of Canadian enterprise. We hope the government will decide it is a more useful up to date system of regulating exports and imports than is our present outmoded tariff arrangement.
If the Canadian economy must import certain commodities I see no reason why the consumer should pay a tariff of any kind on the imported commodities. By wise use of this act in expanded form we could eventually abolish the tariff structure which presently controls exports and imports. The hon. member for Ottawa West is afraid of arrogance on the part of the bureaucracy or unwise decisions on the part of the government. I would recommend that the act be amended to allow an appeal by any individual or concern that feels that some civil servant or the minister has misused his authority and is not living up to the intent of the act. If there were an appeal procedure I believe the objection raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West concerning the need for the existence of the act would lose its entire validity.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should inform the house that if the parliamentary secretary speaks now he will close the debate. I do so with a comment, however, because standing order 37 refers in express terms only to the hon. member who has moved a substantive motion. The parliamentary secretary did not move the motion. It was moved by the minister and the minister spoke as the first speaker but I believe that one of my predecessors has assumed that a parliamentary secretary taking part in debate in the place of his minister does so to all intents as though he were the mover and would be considered as such for the purpose of closing the debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is to be regarded as the embodiment of soul and body.


Mr. Speaker:: Some kind of transubstan-tiation.
Mr. John Pallet! (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):
That is rather ethereal language for a somewhat material matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The theological reference was Mr. Speaker's, not mine.
Mr. Pallet!: I appreciate very much the suggestions made by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) and the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). Some of the questions they asked were rather detailed, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure we can


provide answers in committee. The officials of the department are here and the answers to the technical questions that have been asked may be available in committee.
As to the suggestion of the hon. member for Ottawa West that the matter be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce, this is a fairly minor amendment to the act rather than a substantial one. It extends the term of the operation of the act; it is not a general amendment reviewing the whole Export and Import Permits Act. It asks for an extension for three years of the work that has been going on under the act so far. I would suggest to the hon. member and to the house that the answers to the questions that he has may be obtained in committee of the whole house, and for that reason it really does not require a reference of this bill to the standing committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1.
George James McIlraith: What changes, if any, have been made in the export control regulations since the end of December, 1959; that is, have any countries been added to the area of control, and have any commodities been added to the list of prohibited goods, or goods for which a permit is required?


Mr. Palleil:: Since December 31?


George James McIlraith: Yes, since the annual report required under the act was presented?
Mr. Pallet!: In answer to the hon. member's question, I would refer him to P.C.-1960/35, January 12, 1960, which has the essence of adding to the export control list pork and pork products, all destinations including the United States. That is the only regulation that has been passed since December 31, 1959.


George James McIlraith: What was the reason for adding that export control?
Mr. Pallet!: I am advised it is an intergovernmental arrangement between Canada and the United States with respect to those products.


Erhart Regier: Is an export permit necessary for the export of arms or munitions to, say, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Paraguay, the United Arab Republic or the Union of South Africa?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is it for all
countries outside of the commonwealth?


John Cameron Pallett: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, an

export permit is required for exports of arms to all countries except the United States.


Paul Joseph James Martin: For the commonwealth, too?
Mr. Pallet!: Yes.


Erhart Regier: Does this also include the Union of South Africa?
Mr. Pallet!: Yes, that is correct.


Erhart Regier: How does the government undertake to ensure that arms exported to the United States will not be immediately taken out of the United States and sent to the Dominican Republic, or to Cuba, or to other areas of the world?


John Cameron Pallett: There are working arrangements between governments of friendly countries that before arms may be transshipped they obtain the permission of the country of origin of the arms, and this has apparently worked satisfactorily in the past.


Erhart Regier: To what countries have we issued permits within the past year or, in this year 1960, for the export of arms or munitions?
Mr. Pallet!: We did not anticipate a question of that nature. This amendment implements action taken under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, and so forth.


Mr. Robichaud:: Did you anticipate any questions at all?
Mr. Pallet!: If the hon. member will bear with me I will endeavour to see that the answer is given when the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce are up for discussion, but it will take some time to obtain it.


Erhart Regier: Can the sponsor of the bill supply us with the reason why most of the refusals of export permits were given last year? There were 167 of them. What did most of those goods consist of?


John Cameron Pallett: I can tell the hon. member that most of them were strategic goods, without particularizing as to the product or the country to which they were going. They were of that general nature.


Erhart Regier: I notice that under imports there is no listing of the number of import permit applications that were turned down, not granted by the government. Was there not a single case in 1959 or 1958 where an import permit was turned down by the government?
Mr. Pallet!: My recollection, Mr. Chairman, is that there were no import applications made in 1959 which fell into the categories requiring them to be turned down.
Export and Import Permits Act However, if I find that my recollection is incorrect I will certainly have it clarified when the estimates of the department are under consideration.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a question here. The hon. member spoke about the export of strategic goods. May I ask whether there is any limitation on the export from Canada of almost any kind of goods, military or otherwise, to the state of Israel?


John Cameron Pallett: The answer I gave to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam concerning exports to other countries applies to the export of arms to Israel. The only country to which exports may be made without a permit is the United States.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask whether there is a differentiation in the export of strategic goods to the state of Israel? Are there any limitations on requests from Israel concerning things of a military nature?
Mr. Pallet!: An application for an export permit for military goods is always considered in the light of the whole world picture existing at the time the application is made. There can be no offhand answer with respect to any one country at any one particular time because the decision is made after consideration of the world situation prevailing at the time the application is made.


Harold Edward Winch: Did I understand the minister / to state that the only place there is no restriction applied to exports from Canada is to the United States, otherwise there is?


John Cameron Pallett: That is right, Mr. Chairman.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask why the United States? Did I understand you to say that it is only between Canada and the United States that there is nothing with regard to the export of strategic goods? Does that mean that the United Kingdom and the commonwealth-you said the United States?
Mr. Pallet!: The hon. member was talking about arms. You mentioned strategic materials, and I am talking about arms.


Harold Edward Winch: All right, arms; are you saying now that the only place to which we can export strategic goods, without a permit is the United States? I thought we were a member of the commonwealth? I am talking now about arms and ammunition. Your statement was, only to the United States, and do you mean that you cannot export to any part of the commonwealth?
Mr. Pallet!:	No, we can export, Mr. Chairman, but we cannot export without a permit.


Harold Edward Winch: Except to the United States.

Export and Import Permits Act


John Cameron Pallett: In the matter of arms, that is correct; there are certain countries that are excepted on other materials but as to arms, your supposition is correct.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry, but I want to get this quite correct. You say without a permit we can export to the United States but without a permit we cannot export to any part of the commonwealth, is that correct?


John Cameron Pallett: Your information is correct.


Harold Edward Winch: What is the basis of this policy whereby Canada can export arms and ammunition without a permit to the United States but cannot do so to parts of the commonwealth, the United Kingdom and Australia? We can export without a permit to the United States, but we have to have a permit to export arms and ammunition to the members of the commonwealth. This is my understanding and, if so, why? It is a most extraordinary situation.


John Cameron Pallett: It is a question of effective control, Mr. Chairman. The control of the ultimate destination of the arms is much easier on shipments to the United States because there is no offshore loading. The material is not going on a boat and then being re-routed somewhere else. To prevent the arms setting out for one destination and then turning up in another. This is a question of effective control, and this is the reason the only exception made is on goods destined to the United States.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry, but do I still understand that as a means of effective control in Canada, arms and ammunition can only be exported to the United States without a permit and not to the United Kingdom and other commonwealth countries?


John Cameron Pallett: Private exporters cannot export arms and ammunition to countries other than the United States without a permit.


George James McIlraith: Is the situation not a little different? The export control is worked in two different ways. It is control of the export of certain commodities from Canada to any destination and the export of any commodity to certain destinations; that is the way it was explained on a previous occasion, and I think it is accurate. The export of arms to the United States without a permit is related to the fact that they are not loaded on ships and, therefore, are not so easily diverted en route. Then there is export control in the United States of strategic material and, under authority granted in the act for intergovernmental arrangement, there is a kind of arrangement which prevents the strategic goods which went from Canada to the United States from going from the United States to an

ultimate destination that is unsatisfactory to us. I think that is more the nature of the situation. Would the parliamentary secretary clarify that?


John Cameron Pallett: I believe the hon. member for Ottawa West has said exactly what I said, only much better.


George James McIlraith: It is not quite as simple as that. This is a simple amending bill, but it is very important. It extends the term of a piece of legislation which, by itself, expires on July 31, 1960 and that legislation, I think all hon. members agree, is not legislation that is desirable, as a matter of theory, because it does give the government arbitrary powers.
Now, the information that we would like to get-


The Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it being five o'clock it is my duty, according to section 3 of standing order 15, to leave the chair in order to permit the house to proceed with the consideration of private and public bills.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS

Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen who compose the team would prefer that we continue with the measure we were discussing?


Charles Benjamin Howard: Perhaps the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) should direct his question to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave). Certainly he will find us in complete agreement with his suggestion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do so. I shall ask a second time if we could not continue with the bill we were discussing. It was suggested I ask the hon. member for Halifax.


Mr. McCleave:: I have been under
tremendous pressures here, Mr. Chairman. If there is only one person here who is going to stand up for these people, it will have to be me. I cannot agree.



ANNA MARGARET LAURIE CANNON STEVENSON

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-45, for the relief of Anna Margaret Laurie Cannon Stevenson-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall we take these 50 divorce bills in one item?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I should like to make some comment on Bill No. SD-45.


Charles Edward Rea: 
Charles Benjamin Howard: In preparing for the discussion of this particular bill I have been comparing it with other particular bills and I find a marked difference in the material and evidence presented before the committee of the other place. I think the difference is sufficient to allow for a rather exhaustive examination of some of the points mentioned in that evidence and perhaps some inquiry on the part of the committee here as to the facts or some of the things which I intend to relate. But first, perhaps, before we get into that phase of it, I should properly establish some of the things which are mentioned in the petition itself. One is that the marriage took place on September 6, 1949 between the petitioner and the respondent and that it took place in the city of Montreal. The petition also indicates that there is a judgment of the superior court of the province of Quebec given on December 10, 1952 with respect to separation as to bed and board but that there was no provision for alimentary allowance to the wife and also that there are no children born of this particular marriage. The petition indicates that adultery is alleged to have taken place on December 31, 1953 and on January 1 and January 2, 1954, some six years or seven years ago.
In attempting to relate the evidence in the order in which it appears to these particular parts in the petition perhaps we could deal first with the question of the marriage. The petitioner was called and sworn and was asked a number of questions by the clerk of the committee as to her name, age, occupation, place of residence, and so on. Then following these preliminary matters these questions were asked:
Q. Are you married? And if so, to whom?
A. I am married to-
Here she gives the name of her husband or the respondent.
Q. When were you married?
A. On September 6, 1949.
Q. Where?
A. In Montreal.
Then she is asked by whom and to what church her husband belongs and then we find the following questions:
Q. I show you a document. Do you recognize it?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What is it?
A. My marriage certificate.
Q. Are the names and dates correct?
A. Yes.
Then the marriage certificate is filed and marked as exhibit No. 1. She is then shown a photograph which was taken on their wedding day or which she indicates was taken on their wedding day. This photograph is identified and filed as exhibit No. 2.
Private Bills-Divorce
The references to separation may be of some interest to the committee because in the evidence at the point where separation is referred to-that is separation as to bed and board-there is also testimony as to the attitude of the husband toward his wife during the period of time they lived together or cohabited as man and wife. Incidentally, I may say, this was only a period of about two months. Questions then are asked.
Unfortunately, while Mr. Lieff, Q.C. of the city of Ottawa appeared as counsel for the petitioner, I do not find in the direct examination of the petitioner any reference or any passage where Mr. Lieff undertakes any questioning. It is recorded in the evidence that the clerk of the committee asked all these questions about where the husband was born and his occupation, about separation and so on, which normally, I understand, fall to the lot of the counsel who appears for the petitioner. I would therefore assume that this item has inadvertently been left out of the evidence and that Mr. Lieff does enter the picture in the questioning here at some stage, probably right after the identification of the photograph, although this fact is not indicated in the minutes.
The questioning then proceeded, as found on page 10. As I say, I think it would have been by Mr. Lieff, counsel for the petitioner, although the record does not show it.
Q. Did you live with him as man and wife?
A. Yes.
Q. Are there any children born of the marriage?
A. No.
Q. Until when did you live with him?
A. The end of October, 1949.
This is the reference as to the fact that they lived together or cohabited as man and wife for a very short period of time, namely from September 6, 1949 to the end of October, 1959 or a period somewhat less than two months. Then the questioning continues:
Q. Did you go to the superior court of the province of Quebec to get a separation?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you get a separation?
A. Yes.
Q. What sort of life did you have with him prior to that?
A. It was an impossible life because he changed after we were married. He had been a gentle, kind person, but he suddenly became very argumentative and it turned into physical abuse and he hit me several times. I was a widow with children and they were frightened of him. He abused them.
Q. In your action in the superior court did you complain about this physical violence?
A. Yes.
Then there is some questioning about the judgment of the court, alimony and so on. Questions are also asked about collusion, condonation and whether the petitioner entered into any of these arrangements to allow

Private Bills-Divorce
for this divorce to be granted or to allow for the evidence to be presented, or whether she condoned the adultery complained of. These again are questions which, according to the evidence, were asked by the clerk of the committee but which I rather expect Mr. Lieff would be asking. The following questions were asked:
Q. Is there any agreement or understanding between you and him to get this divorce?
A. No.
Q. Have you schemed about the adultery or connived at it or arranged to bring it about?
A. No.
Q. Do you know-
Here he gives the name of the corespondent and the answers is no. The questioning continues:
Q. Were you with your husband on December 31, 1953 and on January 1, and January 2, 1954?
A. No.
Q. Have you lived with your husband as man and wife since the separation?
A. No.
Q. Has he supported you since the separation?
A. No.
Q. Are you working?
She says that she is. Then there are questions about having sufficient for her needs and general questions of that nature. Then we find the following:
Q. Is there any possibility or hope of reconciliation between you?
A. No, that is impossible.
Q. Have you forgiven him for the adultery you complain about in paragraph 7 of the petition?
A. No.
Q. Would you take him back under any circumstances?
A. No.
Q. Did you do what you could to make a success of the marriage?
A. Yes.
Q. How long had you known him prior to the marriage?
A. A year.
Then the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Cameron, asks:
Q. Does this mean you lived with him less than three months?
A. Yes.
There is one thought I might express here. As I understand the law as it applies, if a wife is deserted and the desertion continues for a period of more than two years then she may sue for divorce stating as her domicile the place where she lives rather than the place where her husband lives. In this particular instance the petition is signed at Islington, Ontario, dated October 6, 1959. She indicates that she is living in the province of Ontario and that they have been separated since the end of October 1949, and that there has been a so-called legal separation, a separation from bed and board, from the superior court of the province of Quebec which was granted on December 10, 1952.

It would appear that perhaps those responsible for developing any alterations to our divorce law, if any course is taken with respect to these particular divorce cases arising from Quebec, might well consider-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is now clearly in the realm of hypothetical and most unlikely developments. He is not arguing the case in issue.


Charles Benjamin Howard: If I might speak to the point of order, I would agree at first hand that it is not relevant to the case; but I do not agree that I am talking of hypothetical and most unlikely developments. I am merely suggesting that this would be a course of action for those who draft our laws to take in order that a woman in these circumstances might sue for divorce under her own domicile, in this case Ontario, instead of coming here with a petition. That concludes my comments on the point of order.


Charles Edward Rea: I think the hon. member mentioned that his remarks were not relevant to the bill. Therefore I would ask him to come back to Bill No. SD-45.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In fact, when the hon. member for Halifax rose I was within a few words of completing my comments in that regard.
Testimony is given with respect to the allegation of adultery. It is not given by those who are classified as investigators and who make a practice of earning their living in this way because of unfortunate arrangements or strained difficulties between two people. It is testimony given by a man and woman who are man and wife, and who give in evidence that they witnessed certain things which occurred some six or seven years ago, on New Year's Eve, December 31, 1953 and on January 1 and 2, 1954.
Before we launch into considering this particular evidence I would like to express this thought, and perhaps the members of the committee can think about this and we might be able to come back to it and have some expression of opinion about it. Before I get into the evidence I may say in a general way that nowhere in the evidence, at least that I can find, is there any indication as to how the petitioner, how the lawyer, Mr. Lieff, if he did, or how anybody else in 1959-the petition is signed on October 6, 1959-had the knowledge that adultery existed some six or seven years before. Nowhere in the evidence, and I think this is a failure in it, can we find any indication as to why it took six or seven years for this particular circumstance, which it is alleged took place on New

Private Bills-Divorce
Year's Eve of 1953 and on January 1 and 2 of 1954, to come to light.
I think this should have been inquired into before the bill reached this particular stage. I think it should have been properly gone into in the committee of the other place in order that this unknown quantity be cleared up. There certainly is the question of delay in presenting this petition. If the petitioner knew some six or seven years ago that this incident took place, there appears to be a six or seven-year delay before filing her petition for divorce. If she did not know, then I think one is entitled to clear that question up and inquire as to when and under what circumstances it came to light.
As I say, I mention that because it is a point which we can go into later in order to clear up the question in my mind as well as perhaps in the minds of other members of this committee.
In any event, a gentleman who is not classed as an investigator, who describes himself as a salesman, is called to give evidence. His wife also appears to have the sedentary occupation of housewife. This gentleman, Mr. McDonough, is called and sworn and questioned by Mr. Lieff. Starting at page 11 the following questions by Mr. Lieff are recorded:
Q. Did you receive a subpoena to attend this hearing?
A. I did.
Q. Did you receive expense money-conduct money?
A. I did.
Q. I show you a photograph, which is exhibit 2. Can you identify the person of whom that is a likeness?
A. Yes, that is-
Then he gives the name of the respondent.
Q. Do you remember New Year's Eve, December 31, 1953, and January 1 and January 2, 1954?
A. I do.
I would think he has an exceptionally good memory, Mr. Chairman, unless there were a sufficient amount of memory searching to come up with these particular facts and be so positive about them. I continue:
Q. Do you remember where you were on those days?
A. Yes, we were at Rustic motel, in the province of Quebec.
Q. When you say "We", whom do you mean?
A. My wife and I and a few other couples were there over the January week end.
Q. You and your wife and a few other couples spent the holiday week end there?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know where-
-giving the surname of the respondent-
-was during the same week end?
A. Yes, he was with us.
Q. Was he alone?
A. No.
Q. Do you know who accompanied him?
A. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. A girl by the name of-
Then he gives the name of the corespondent. I would point out that up to this time at no place in the evidence is there any identification of this particular girl, the corespondent. Nobody says they know her, and in subsequent questioning no one asks the question: how do you know this was the name of the girl? Nowhere is it stated in the evidence that Mr. McDonough knew the girl, or asked her her name in order to find out what it was. It is just given as a statement of fact. This is a strange situation. I am not suggesting that Mr. McDonough did not know what her name was. I am only suggesting it is strange that it does not appear in the evidence how he came to know what her name was. In every case I can recall of this nature the investigators ask the name of the woman involved. Invariably they ask: what is your name? They have to know the name in order to serve the person concerned with papers, and so they can give the assurance that everything is aboveboard and that no skulduggery has taken place. In this particular instance, however, the name is given as a bald statement of fact and no elucidation follows. This, to my mind, represents a failing in the method which was used to obtain evidence before the committee of the other place.
The questions by the clerk of the committee continued:
Q. How many nights did you sleep there?
A. Three.
Q. Do you know where-slept on those nights?
A. I sure do.
Q. Where?
A. Right next door to us.
Q. What was the situation in that room?
A. Well, he was with this-
Then he gives the name-the name of the corespondent-as a bald statement of fact without any indication how he knew what her name was. That, I think, represents a failure in presenting the evidence in the proper fashion so that it can be properly assessed by the committee of the whole house here. This, coupled with a memory of six or seven years ago as proof of adultery, makes the situation even more strange. The questioning continues as follows:
Q. Were you in the room-that room?
A. Yes, we were.
Q. At what hour?
A. We were there in the morning.
Q. Each morning? Which morning.
A. New Year's morning.
Q. What did you see there?
A. Freddie.
Q. Freddie who?
A. Freddie

and this girl Ginette.
Q. How were they disposed?
A. They were dressed in pyjamas.
Q. Both of them?
A. Yes.
3972	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce
Q. How many beds were in the room?
A. Just one.
Q. Is there any doubt in your mind that they slept together those three nights?
A. None whatsoever.
Q. Please look at the petitioner. Is she the woman you described as Ginette

?
A. No, she is not.
I do not think the use of the name Freddie and the name Ginette here in these circumstances would amount to identification. I should say that Mr. McDonough does point out later that he knows the corespondent, that she is an acquaintance of his, but in no case does he indicate how close an acquaintance. Then in an incidental way he explains how he remembers those particular dates six or seven years ago:
Q. By the way, how do you remember those dates so well?
A. Well, because of what went on. Actually it was a bit of a surprise and actually that was the last week end we spent there.
I am not going to read any assumption into that answer, although a number of assumptions might be made concerning how he remembered that date so well. The questioning continues:
By Senator Bradley:
Q. And it was New Year's Eve?
A. Yes.
By the Chairman (Senator Cameron):
Q. Was he a friend of yours?
A. No, not using the word "friend", no.
By Senator Bradley:
Q. An acquaintance?
A. Yes.
Having run through Mr. McDonough's evidence, I will point out that, of course, he is not a professional investigator who knows exactly what sort of questions to ask. He does not give a complete blow by blow account of the things he noticed; the colour of the pyjamas they were dressed in, whether they were wearing black or brown shoes and so on. He simply gives an account of what happened in answer to questions asked by Mr. Lieff. Mr. Lieff is certainly no stranger to proceedings of this kind. He has had a considerable amount of experience in appearing before the committee of the other place.
I think it was Mr. Lieff's duty and responsibility to have made more specific inquiries about how Mr. McDonough remembers so well those dates some six or seven years ago, and how he knew the name of the corespondent. I think Mr. Lieff was somewhat lax in failing to elicit all the information which it is desirable to have before this committee and the committee of the other place. He should have examined carefully the reasons why this person knew what this girl's name was. If it had come out in evidence that the respondent and the corespondent had stayed at this Rustic motel for three days and made it known publicly


that they were not man and wife then, perhaps, there would have been sufficient evidence for Mr. McDonough to have known that the name of the girl was not the same as the name of the petitioner.
Because he was acquainted with the respondent he must have known he had a wife. He must have known the woman with him at the party was not his wife. He may have been introduced to her as Ginette-. Perhaps this occurred, I have no idea. Mr. Lieff should have cleared that up unless he has become used to presenting evidence in a certain way.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I am obliged to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I intend to intervene briefly in this debate because, as I pointed out before and must point out again, when cases are under discussion in this committee the parties involved will have one defender at least, and possibly other defenders, against remarks made against them. I will refer only to the hon. member's remarks about Mr. Lieff. If there has been any question about the way Mr. Lieff carried out his duties in this case I know that the hon. members of the committee of the other place would have been very quick to find such fault with him and to bring him rapidly to judicial heel.
In reading this case any fair-minded man would, I think, agree with me that it was properly handled by Mr. Lieff and that no aspersion can be cast upon this always eminent counsel.


Mr. Crestohl:: I wish to join with the hon. member for Halifax in his expression of protest. The business of character assassination in some quarters by some men is taken altogether too lightly.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Why not name names?


Leon David Crestohl: Yes, I intend to. I simply do not remember the constituency which the hon. gentleman who interrupts represents. That is the only reason I have not referred to him.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Skeena.


Leon David Crestohl: Thank you. The member for Skeena too lightly attempts to assassinate characters which is a despicable course of action especially when the person about whom he is talking is not present in the house to defend himself. The hon. member has now cast an aspersion on one of the most reputable members of the bar who has practised his profession for some 35 years and has considerable experience in appearing before the

committee of the other place. There has never been the slightest question about the character of Mr. Lieff nor has there been any suggestion about his having been lax. No fair-minded person could possibly think that. One is led to wonder what the hon. member could possibly have meant when he said that Mr. Lieff was lax in his duties. This distinguished counsel has always performed his duties in an outstanding manner. He is an eminent counsel. If there was any question about laxity or about not bringing out all the facts the committee of the other place the membership of which includes many eminent lawyers who are familiar with what should and should not be brought out in these cases, would have hastened to make sure that all the facts were adduced. Counsel sometimes will unintentionally overlook bringing out the full facts in a hearing but the bench, the court or the members of the committee of the other place always take the trouble to bring out anything which counsel may have inadvertently overlooked.
I rise in protest against the light way in which attempts are being made to reflect upon the characters of honourable men who over the years have earned the reputation of being honourable. I do not object to the hon. member for Skeena dealing with the matter in hand but in order to support the position he has taken he should not find it necessary to indulge in specious character assassinations.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I do not raise a point of order but I suppose one could refer to other character assassinations that have taken place. Both hon. members who have spoken have been guilty of an assassination of my character, the latter hon. gentleman in more drastic terms. I have never taken advantage of being in parliament to say anything about anyone. Anything I have said about Mr. Lieff I am prepared to say not only inside the house where he cannot defend himself but outside the house as well where we meet on equal terms. I say again I think Mr. Lieff was lax and I will go further and say if he was not then the hon. members of the committee of the other place were lax and I know I will be called to order for casting aspersions on them.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member cannot reflect on the conduct of hon. members of the other place.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Perhaps I may be permitted to do so outside this chamber.


Leon David Crestohl: Yes, try it.


Charles Benjamin Howard: My hon. friend says, "Try it."


Charles Edward Rea: Order.
Private Bills-Divorce


Charles Benjamin Howard: In all these cases where witnesses are called to prove allegations of adultery invariably evidence is given by the witness concerning as to how he came to know the name of the corespondent. There was evidence of a detective rifling through a woman's purse to find out what her name was.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I think the hon. member should address the case in particular and not make general references.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member raised other problems.


Leon David Crestohl: No, I referred to this particular case.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member for Skeena must surely know that he is required to stick to Bill No. SD-45 and not discuss general procedures.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Thank you for your kind reference to my knowledge although I think you exaggerate. I am referring to the procedure in other cases to compare it to this case. If it is not necessary to have an indication as to how an individual came to know what the name of the corespondent was I am entitled to assume that Mr. Lieff was lax in not drawing that point to its full conclusion. It is not a question of character assassination of Mr. Lieff or any other counsel who appear before the committee of the other place in these cases. Because of the frustration of other hon. members they are venting their spleen in angry words directed at me and the hon. member for Timiskaming. The allegations made by the hon. member for Halifax and the hon. member for Cartier in this instance are not true.


Robert Jardine McCleave: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, since I have been brought into this again-


Charles Benjamin Howard: You brought yourself into it.


Robert Jardine McCleave: My remarks in the past have always been that I will protect people from unfair remarks made against them when they are not here to defend themselves. It will be my purpose in this debate to see that no hon. member shields himself behind privilege to defame people outside this chamber and I will continue to follow that course.


Charles Benjamin Howard: That is a commendable attitude. I believe no person outside this house has been wronged. I do not think I have wronged Mr. Lieff in any way. I have not and never will use the curtain of privilege of this parliament in speaking about him or anyone. I will say to him outside the house anything that I have said in this chamber. If the hon. member for Halifax feels that

Private Bills-Divorce
anyone has been wronged he is adopting a commendable attitude in standing on his feet and making comments in their defence. I do not think he should use words like "character assassin" or cast aspersions on other hon. members, as the hon. member for Halifax has done on a number of occasions.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. This matter has been carried far enough. I am going to ask the hon. member to come back to Bill No. SD-45.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Perhaps at this stage the hon. member for Halifax with his vast knowledge, understanding and experience before the bar as a lawyer and his experience as chairman of this committee for a number of years in dealing with these cases, could clear up for me what might be a difficulty or a problem. Does he not think that it would be necessary to give in evidence the manner in which the person came to know the name of another person? For instance, in this case, does he not think it is desirous to have in evidence something which would indicate how the witness came to know the name of the corespondent?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I would be glad to answer that question, Mr. Chairman. Up to that point in the argument where my hon. friend was reading from the evidence I thought he made a fair case one way, that such a question should be asked. In looking it up I can see where a person might take a different interpretation from the evidence. For instance, on page 11, the husband, the witness, is asked this question:
Q. I show you a photograph, which is exhibit 2. Can you identify the person of whom that is a likeness?
A. Yes, that is Freddie-
And so forth. It seemed to me, in reading that, instead of giving the more proper name of Frederick, the witness, Mr. McDonough, indicated that he knew this Freddie quite well, and that was the explanation. A few lines further down Mr. McDonough says:
My wife and I and a few other couples were there over the January week end.
I think an inference can be drawn from that. My hon. friend has drawn an inference, but there is another inference possible, namely that they attended a sort of joint venture. These were the thoughts that came to my mind and they undoubtedly came to the minds of the people who heard the case in the other place, and therefore they did not go into the matters that my hon. friend has brought out.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am glad the hon. member has elucidated it in that way. These are the thoughts that went through my mind, and

the inference could also be drawn that the witness indicated that this chap was an acquaintance of his, and that is how he came to know this person's name. This is an inference that can be drawn from the evidence; but we can infer other things, if this were a joint venture and the couples went up there for the week end. One could very well draw an unkind inference, perhaps, which I would not want to do, as to the relationship between any two of the other couples, and so on. But I still pose this question to the hon. member for Halifax, which I hope he will be able to clear up. Does he not think it would be better to have direct evidence, instead of having to draw an inference, as to how this individual, the husband, who appears as a witness, came to know this particular person's name?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, one is always faced with a difficulty when one examines a printed record rather than seeing the temper of the witness. As far as the printed record is concerned, I think my hon. friend is right. If the witness gave a good appearance before the Senate and even were he to pick up the photograph and identify it, whether it was done in an offhand manner or in a studied manner, the atmosphere at a trial does have its effect in determining whether you have an honest witness before you or one whom you have to check pretty closely. I think that on reading the evidence here of both Mr. and Mrs. McDonough one has to come to the conclusion that obviously the people who heard the case were satisfied they had two honest and reliable witnesses before them.


Charles Benjamin Howard: If I may deal with the apparent honesty of the witnesses, I have no way of questioning it whatsoever; I merely inquired of the hon. member, and he has answered in the affirmative, whether, in reading the evidence, it would be better to have this cleared up, and the hon. member for Halifax has agreed. I appreciate very much that he has agreed with me that Mr. Lieff was a bit lax in his duties in questioning-


Robert Jardine McCleave: I did not say that.


Charles Benjamin Howard: No; I did, and this is precisely where these questions and answers lead us. This is exactly what I was getting at in the first place. I say it now, and I will say it outside the house, Mr. Lieff was a bit lax. I used that word before; I use it now, and this is precisely what I was getting at. If this stirs up the blood pressure of the hon. member for Cartier and Sir Galahad from Halifax, I still say that Mr. Lieff was lax in his responsibility in not drawing this out

in the discussion so that this information will be brought out in a direct way in future cases.
May I carry on with the evidence? Following the evidence of Mr. McDonough, a witness on behalf of the petitioner is recalled and asked some questions by Senator Cameron as follows:
Q. Is Mr. McDonough, the witness who has just testified, related to you?
A. No.
Q. Is he related to Mr.-?
A. No.
This is a new venture in evidence in these matters as far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, but I assume this may have been done to clear up any doubt in the minds of the members of the committee of the other place as to the weight they should give to the evidence of Mr. McDonough. Perhaps the hon. member for Halifax will clear this up for me if I relate the assumption and ask him whether it is correct or not. I would assume that if the witness, Mr. McDonough, was related to the petitioner or to the respondent it would affect matters. Would this, not because of the inference that might be drawn by a favourable witness, if such a relationship did exist between Mr. McDonough and either the petitioner or the respondent, affect in any way the evidence? Is it possible for a relative to appear as a witness?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think the answer to that is not as great weight is attached. If there was any doubt as to Mr. McDonough's evidence there might have been more cross-examination of him or more cross-examination of his wife. This is quite normal judicial practice to help determine how much weight should be given to a particular witness. The witness in this case answered that he was not a relative and the court did not proceed with any further cross-examination of Mr. McDonough.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Following that, with respect to the evidence in support of the petitioner, Mrs. McDonough, the wife of the person who was the last witness, appeared. On page 12 she gives evidence with respect to the circumstances. Mr. Lieff asks these questions:
Q. Do you know Mr. John McDonough, the last witness?
A. He is my husband.
Q. Please look at this picture, exhibit 2. Can you identify the person there?
A. Yes.
Q. Who is it?
A. Freddie.
Then she gives the name of the respondent. The next question is:
Q. Would that be-
Then, Mr. Lieff gives the full and correct name of the respondent, and her answer is
Private Bills-Divorce
in the affirmative, giving the same name. Then, these questions are asked:
Q. Do you remember New Year's eve, December 31, 1953?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And January 1st and 2nd, 1954?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you happen to remember these dates?
A. It was the New Year's week end. There were five couples up north on that week end.
Q. Where did you stay?
A. At the Rustic inn.
Q. Do you know where the others stayed?
A. They all stayed at the Rustic inn.
Q. Where was-
Then, he gives the name of the respondent.
A. He had the room next to ours.
Q. Were you in that room?
A. Yes.
Q. How many beds were in that room?
A. One.
Q. Do you know where he slept?
A. In the bed.
She is assuming he did, I am quite sure of that, in view of the circumstances and the evidence she gives later. It is rather a direct statement to say that he did sleep in the bed.
Q. In that room?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he sleep alone?
A. No, someone was with him.
Again we come to the same point we dealt with earlier, Mr. Chairman.
Q. Who was that?
Then she gives the name of the corespondent. I have the same remarks to make with respect to Mr. Lieff's laxity in questioning this witness as I did in connection with the preceding witness, a laxity incidentally, with which I believe the hon. member for Halifax, agrees.


Robert Jardine McCleave: No, I would not like that to go unchallenged on the record. I definitely disagree.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I have not been in attendance at one of these divorce proceedings in the other place, but I assume that all the witnesses are excluded from the hearing, and each new witness is brought in as he is needed. This is the normal procedure in a court of law. I think Mr. Lieff, in his initial questioning of Mr. McDonough, brought out how Mr. McDonough happened to know the corespondent's name. Mrs. McDonough, who had not heard the evidence given previously by her husband, should have clarified that point and explained how she knew this particular girl's name. Then, there is further questioning:
Q. Were you in that room more than once?
A. Yes, every morning.
It is a very slight point, but there is some difference between her evidence and that of her husband. When Mr. Lieff asked Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Private Bills-Divorce
McDonough if he had been in that room he said, yes, we were there New Year's morning. His wife says that they were there every morning. It is a very slight point. Undoubtedly, they could both be correct because one could be there every morning and the other could be there just one morning.
Q. During the mornings when you were there, what did you see?
A. I saw-
She gives the name of the respondent and corespondent, and says they were in pyjamas.
Q. What was the condition of the bed?
A. It had been slept in.
Q. Please look at the petitioner. Is she the woman who gave her name, as so-and-so?
A. No.
There is the question of remembering events of some six or seven years ago. One might infer that these five couples were all good friends and knew each other very well, and this was some sort of a surprise. Mr. McDonough said it was. Perhaps this is the reason they remember that particular day so well.
There is one thing which I mentioned earlier, and that is the question of the time lag between the date of the allegation when adultery took place, that is December 31, 1953 and January 1st and 2nd, 1954, and the time when the petition was filed, which was in the latter part of last year. I feel that this question of the time lag should have been cleared up before the committee of the other place, but perhaps it could be cleared up in some way before we finally pass this particular bill. We know, for instance, if there is any undue delay in a court procedure between the time when the adultery took place and the time when the suit for divorce is entered, the court looks somewhat askance at the request and wants to know why there has been this undue delay. In so far as the evidence is concerned, this fact is not only unclear but there is no evidence as to when the petitioner gained knowledge of the adultery which took place some six or seven years ago. There is no evidence as to whether she had knowledge of this shortly thereafter-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. It being six o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-4, to amend the Export

and Import Permits Act-Mr. Churchill-Mr. Rea in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
On clause 1.
George James McIlraith: I wanted to ask the parliamentary secretary whether or not the order in council to which he referred earlier concerning the export of pork under date of January 12, 1960 has been tabled in the house and, if so, when? Perhaps if the information is not available at the moment the parliamentary secretary could make it available.
Mr. Pallet!: I shall be very happy to do that.


George James McIlraith: I want to ask a further question. I presume that the order in council would be passed under the authority of section 3(b) of the act. I wonder whether he would mind explaining to the committee what the intergovernmental arrangement is concerning this item.
Mr. Pallet!: If the hon. member will wait just a minute or two I will get that information.


George James McIlraith: In the meantime while the hon. member is getting that information perhaps I could ask one or two other questions. The export controls under section 3(a) of the act and the requirements are quite apparent. But under section 3 (b) are there many items under export control and what is the nature of the items?
Mr. Pallet!: I believe the hon. member wants to know what is the number of goods.


George James McIlraith: Yes. What is the nature of the articles under export control because of the necessity of implementing intergovernmental arrangements?
Mr. Pallet!: These are the ones that are listed as the export control list. There is a very extensive list, Mr. Chairman. I do not know whether or not the hon. member wishes me to read it out.


George James McIlraith: We know the nature of the intergovernmental arrangements with regard to this list under section 3(a). But with regard to section 3(b), I was rather surprised to find that pork was under export control under legislation that was enacted by parliament at a time when there was an acute shortage of goods and it was necessary to establish export control for military reasons

in order to protect the security of the country. I want to find out to what extent, if any, section 3(b) has been used for commodities other than commodities of a strategic or military nature.
Mr. Pallet!: To refer to the specific item the hon. member has mentioned, it was an arrangement worked out with the United States arising out of the pork support-if that is the correct word-prices that had been worked out and this is an arrangement resulting from that.


George James McIlraith: Yes. But the original legislation provided for import controls for that reason. As far as I am aware there was no suggestion that export control would have to be used for that purpose. I am somewhat uncertain as to why we required export control on pork at a time when farmers were complaining of the lack of markets for pork and the government itself had huge surpluses of pork on the market. It is just that narrow point to which I make reference and I should be glad if we could have it clarified.
Mr. Pallet!: There is no suggestion, except in what the hon. member has said, that this limits the market in any sense of the word. Quite often intergovernmental arrangements can expand the market by moving into the market on conditions that are well known and by co-operating with them can sometimes enlarge the market to a large extent. We therefore cannot accept the inference contained in the hon. member's remarks to the effect that the market is contracted. I suggest that this arrangement enlarges it. It is certainly within the purview of this act, section 3(b) to which the hon. member has referred, to have such an arrangement as has been worked out.


George James McIlraith: Are there many of these intergovernmental arrangements outstanding and what agricultural products do they cover?
Mr. Pallet!: The list, a combination of section 3(a) and section 3(b), is very extensive. Rather than give this answer in extensive detail, I would refer the hon. member to the Canada Gazette.


George James McIlraith: Is the list separate as between sections 3(a) and 3(b)?
Mr. Pallet!: No, it is not.


George James McIlraith: That is precisely my point, Mr. Chairman. This was obviously created under this legislation to control the export of strategic materials and to ensure that arms, ammunition, etc. having a strategic nature might not be available to any destination where its use might be detrimental to the security of Canada. That was the original purpose of the legislation. I seem to have
Export and Import Permits Act stumbled on the fact that this arbitrary authority given to governments may be used for the purpose of controlling a somewhat doubtful agricultural policy of the government relating to farm commodities. What I am seeking to find out is to what, if any, extent beyond the one item this is the case. I have no means of telling from the limited information I have been able to get.


John Cameron Pallett: Perhaps this will allay any fear the hon. member has. These are the steps the government has taken to implement a very excellent agricultural program. I would refer to the Canada Gazette to which I have referred, to an item marked "Group 2. Animals and animal products". In that group are such things as butter, pancreas glands of cattle, calves and swine, to all destinations including the United States. So the hon. member will see that this is not particularly new this year.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the parliamentary
secretary tell us if any exporter of these agricultural products has applied for a permit to export them to a foreign market and has been refused that permit?
Mr. Pallet!: As far as my recollection goes, none which has applied has been refused. If my recollection is not correct I would be glad to have the information brought forward on the estimates of the department.


Erhart Regier: I wonder if over the dinner hour the officials who are assisting the hon. member have been able to find the answer as to what countries we have exported arms and munitions during this last year?
Mr. Pallet!:	Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member's question, as I heard it before supper, did not include all countries. I was able to obtain information with respect to certain countries but not all of them. If the hon. member wants all countries, I will be able to get that information if he would wait a little longer.


Erhart Regier: May we have the information that is available now?


John Cameron Pallett: With respect to South Africa, which was one of the countries, there were ten permits issued with respect to aircraft parts and spares and six permits with respect to tank spares. With respect to Central America, about which another question was asked, there were no permits issued; and with respect to South America there were ten permits for aircraft parts and spares, three permits for tank spares and one for trucks.


George James McIlraith: With regard to the parliamentary secretary's suggestion about further information on the exports at the time of

Export and Import Permits Act the estimates, as far as I am concerned that is quite satisfactory; but I wonder if I might ask him one or two questions concerning section 5 of the act. First of all, I would like to know what, if any, commodities have been brought under import controls since the end of 1959; that is, items which are not disclosed in the annual report under the act. Second, what, if any, items are under import control by reason of section 5 (a) because of their scarcity in world markets?


John Cameron Pallett: Mr. Chairman, so far as I am advised there are none which have been added to the items under import control because of world scarcity at the moment.


George James McIlraith: That brings me to the question as to why the government is retaining the power originally designated in the legislation of import control over goods that are required to be controlled because of their scarcity in world markets. It seems to me that this is one clause of the bill which could have been deleted. I think there should have been an examination made of the existing legislation prior to bringing the amending bill into the house.


John Cameron Pallett: I think the hon. member's point is well taken. I am sure that when the act comes before the house for revision, as it must do within three years, this will certainly be one of the points to be looked at very carefully.


George James McIlraith: But the point now is that the act is before the house for re-enactment. The effect of the amending bill is to re-enact the act as it is, and as I say this is the sort of thing which should have been looked into before the new bill was brought in. It is the sort of thing which could very well have been looked at in committee had it gone to a standing committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, may I ask if there are particular groups of civil servants charged with the administration of this act? If so, what is their number?


John Cameron Pallett: I am advised that with respect to the administration of the export-import sections there are approximately 12. Of course, the prime responsibility lies with the minister.


George James McIlraith: Just one more question. If I may deal further with section 5(a) of the act, am I right in the assumption that import control was required to control tin by reason of its scarcity in the world market as recently as 1959? Tin was deleted from the import control list in 1959. What was the reason for the deletion?


John Cameron Pallett: As regards the trading disposition of world markets with respect to the commodity known as tin, there would appear to have been deliberate action taken by non-member countries. That could have a very serious effect on the international tin agreement and therefore on tin in this country. Arising from the situation, tin was put on the list. When that situation no longer existed, it was taken off.


George James McIlraith: That would be under section 5(a); it is the last entry on the list under 5(a)?


John Cameron Pallett: It was the last commodity on the import control list to be removed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Has the parliamentary secretary any information about permits being issued to persons entitling them to export commodities, then the branch finding out later that those commodities did not go to the designated destination, but that there was some irregularity about the export?


John Cameron Pallett: There is no indication that
there have been any recent violations of the terms of our export permits in the manner which the hon. gentleman has indicated.


Erhart Regier: The annual reports for 1958 and 1959 do not indicate that there were any import licence applications refused. If this is the case, I wonder if the minister would explain how the act was used to implement any action taken under either the Agricultural Stabilization Act or, as it used to be called, the agricultural prices support act? I would imagine that if this machinery is supposed to aid the efforts of the government to implement the intent of either of those acts there would have been a refusal of applications to import agricultural commodities in a large number of instances. Yet, as I have said, the annual reports do not indicate any refusal to issue import licences, though there is record of refusal to allow export licences.


John Cameron Pallett: On that particular matter, I know of none. I think probably the people who are importing the products know the situation here and know what they would be facing. I personally recollect no refusal, and that would seem to follow from the fact that there were no applications, the situation being known to the people who are importing.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I should like to have an answer by the parliamentary secretary on the following point. I understand that this act affects the Fisheries Prices Support Act. Can the hon. gentleman inform the committee as to what particular fisheries commodities have been affected by the application of this act, say in the last two years?

Mr. Pallet!: That is a question beyond the purview of this amendment or this act. The hon. member asks the effect on the whole fishing industry of its mention in this act. That is very difficult, as the member knows, to ascertain. If the hon. member wishes to know if there have been any fisheries commodities put on the import control list, that is a different matter.


Mr. Hobichaud:: That was not the purpose of my question. I wanted to find out what particular fisheries commodities have been affected by this act, or included in the list which has been drawn up in connection with the application of this act. This act has been in operation for years, and we are being asked only to extend it.


John Cameron Pallett: I would refer the hon. member as I did the hon. member for Ottawa West, to the issue of the Canada Gazette in which the complete list will be found.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It might have been easier if the parliamentary secretary had admitted he did not know.
Mr. Pallet!:	That would have been inaccurate.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave.
J Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) moved the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: the second reading of Bill No. C-60 to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
He said: These amendments to the Northwest Territories Act are similar in almost every detail to the amendments approved this afternoon in connection with the Yukon Act.
The first concerns what might be called the major judicial changes arising from the visit of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), his deputy and the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. to the north last year. Requests for changes in the judicial system have been 79951-0-251
Northwest Territories Act made in this house from time to time in the past. Last night I mentioned the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie) and the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Godin). I should also have mentioned the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) in this connection.
When the Minister of Justice made his trip through the north he consulted members both of the bench and of the bar in addition to others who have the task of administering justice in the north, and these recommendations for changes are the result.
These amendments do not affect changes in the form of the government as did those in the previous bill with respect to the Yukon which set up interesting and new techniques for a transition from a territorial government to a provincial government. However, I may inform the house that there are some changes going on in the administration of the Northwest Territories which this act does not cover, and I will mention these on another occasion. These concern the decentralization of government administration in connection with the treasury and purchasing offices.
The amendment dealing with game management in the territories is the same as the one we dealt with this afternoon in connection with the Yukon Act and merely seeks to end the uncertainty about the constitutional position and the right of the territorial government to deal with questions concerning game.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the many improvements which this legislation will undoubtedly bring to the
citizens of the Northwest Territories. As hon. members on this side of the house had occasion to mention this afternoon, the benefits that will flow from some of the new regulations applying in the Yukon Territory will apply also in the Northwest Territories. There were some aspects in the legislation affecting the Yukon which were not readily understood by hon. members and it is hoped that when the present bill is studied in committee the minister will answer our questions in clarification of these problems.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Speaker, when the minister speaks will he tell us if it is his intention to insert in this bill a provision similar to that inserted in Bill No. C-59 with respect to the protection and conservation of animal life and the rights of Indians and Eskimos?


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


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question asked by the hon.
3980	HOUSE OF
Northwest Territories Act member of Skeena (Mr. Howard) I would say this is a matter for the preference of the house. Actually the amendment referred to is not necessary in the case of the Northwest Territories Act because the Indians in the Northwest Territories are protected by treaties. All this would be is a repetition of a statement already made by the Northwest Territories council in their ordinance passed last year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Game ordinances in respect of Indians and Eskimos.
Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I note that clause 1 is similar to clause 4 of Bill No. C-59. Does the government intend to present an amendment similar to that moved with respect to the other bill concerning the rights of Indians and Eskimos?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, in my closing remarks on second reading I told the hon. member for Skeena that this was up to the committee, that I was open to suggestions. I pointed out that putting in the words of the amendment used this afternoon in relation to the other bill would be quite proper in respect of this legislation. The only question in my mind is this. It duplicates the ordinance already passed by the Northwest Territories council. If the committee wishes to have this amendment inserted it would be quite in order to do so.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am in favour of having it inserted so there would be a degree of uniformity. Did I understand the minister to say on second reading its insertion would not be necessary because a treaty exists with the Indians?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, in the provinces they have power over the management of game. The treaty which the federal government has with the Indians in those provinces has an overriding power in so far as those provincial government regulations deal with Indians.
That same situation holds in connection with the Northwest Territories. The Indians there are covered by treaties. The Indians in the Yukon are not covered by treaties. That is why I pointed out to the house this afternoon the possibility of considering an amendment to guarantee that protection to the Indians in the Yukon even though the territorial government has not throughout the last 60 years in any way abused the right of the Indians to hunt. The house accepted that amendment. If the committee wants it included in this bill it could be done. It will


add nothing to the protection of the Indians but it will serve to ensure the protection of their rights.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I would be pleased to move such an amendment, but perhaps the wording should be the same. There are Eskimos involved and I do not know if they have a treaty with the federal government. It would be well to include an amendment to this bill similar to the one to Bill No. C-59 which would no doubt be acceptable to everyone.


Gabriel Roberge: If the minister moves such an amendment we will support it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: When we come to clause 4 I will ask my colleague the Minister of Transport to move the same amendment we had this afternoon which will satisfy the hon. members for Megantic and Skeena.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister explain for the information of the committee the exact difference between a statute and ordinance.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not know of any nor do my advisers. I imagine it is something like this. The word "by law" is used to describe a legislative enactment of a municipal council, the word "ordinance" is used with reference to a territorial government and the word "statute" is used with reference to the federal government. There is no difference in what they accomplish. They are all legislative enactments.
I must correct myself, Mr. Chairman. Instead of referring to clause 4 I should have referred to clause 1. It would now be in order for the Minister of Transport to move the amendment to clause 1.


George Harris Hees: I move:
That subclause (1) of clause 1 of Bill No. C-60 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
(1) Section 14 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsections:
"(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) but subject to subsection (3), the commissioner in council may make ordinances for the government of the territories, in relation to the preservation of game in the territories, that are applicable to and in respect of Indians and Eskimos, and ordinances made by the commissioner in council in relation to the preservation of game in the territories, unless the contrary intention appears therein, are applicable to and in respect of Indians and Eskimos.
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) shall be construed as authorizing the commissioner in council to make ordinances restricting or prohibiting Indians or Eskimos from hunting for food, on unoccupied crown lands, game other than game declared by the governor in council to be game in danger of becoming extinct."


Gabriel Roberge: The Minister of Transport, in moving the amendment, referred to section 17 of the said act. Clause 1 in the bill refers to section 14.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is correct.


Jacques Flynn: The correction has been made. Is the committee ready for the question?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Arnold Peters: Are there reservations in the Northwest Territories that treaties apply to, and does this affect the inhabitants, including Eskimos, in the same way as treaty Indians on reservations are affected in other parts of Canada?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Neither in the Northwest Territories nor in the Yukon are there any reservations whatsoever. To all intents and purposes the Indians are treated the same way as others in matters of voting, business, drinking liquor, education, and everything else.
Clause 1 as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 6-Court of appeal established.


William Arnold Peters: Last night, on the resolution stage, I inquired of the minister whether divorce proceedings in the Northwest Territories were going to be handled by the courts of the Northwest Territories or whether they would go elsewhere. Under the old section, former clause (g) of section 28, we find the following:
The action is for divorce or judicial separation.
It was limited. It was one of the things that you had to appeal to other courts in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland. As I read it, it is not separated in the new section and I am wondering which proceeding applies? I am very concerned about whether they have the machinery for handling their own divorce proceedings in the Northwest Territories because I do not wish them to further aggravate a situation already bad.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My memory last night turned out to be correct, but I have confirmed it by checking with the officials, and the courts in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories are superior courts. Both do handle divorce cases and will finish them there unless there is an appeal.


William Arnold Peters: Will the appeal still be on the same basis as previously under the old section?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The appeals will be on the same basis but the difference is now both territories have their own courts 79951-0-2514
Northwest Territories Act of appeal which sit right in the territories rather than going to the province to the south.


William Arnold Peters: Is the minister familiar with the type of procedure that is used there for divorces? Is it a dominion statute that is used?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am informed that the courts in the Yukon use the same rules and practices as are used by the province of British Columbia. The courts of the Northwest Territories, Mackenzie River part, follow the same rules and procedure as do the Alberta courts.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
On clause 8-Remuneration and allowances.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Clause 8 reads as follows:
The governor in council may, in special circumstances. authorize payment to a justice of the peace of remuneration and travelling and other expenses incurred by him in the performance of his duties and, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, such remuneration and expenses may be paid to a justice of the peace who is employed in the civil service in addition to his salary.
My question is this: Under this section would it be possible for a senior civil servant, receiving a good remuneration, because he happens to be absent from his regular duties for a few days, to receive additional remuneration as a justice of the peace and additional expenses? Can the minister give us some idea of the circumstances this clause is intended to cover?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: At this time I should like to thank the Minister of Justice for lending me his very learned parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, who will answer these questions.


Thomas Miller Bell: The extra money that the civil servant might get in this instance would not be a large sum; it would be out-of-pocket expenses, or something of that nature, for this justice of the peace work.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There would be no question of double remuneration; that is, while on the payroll as a civil servant receiving salary for the same period in question or for a fraction thereof and an additional salary or remuneration as a justice of the peace?


Thomas Miller Bell: The governor in council would not provide for this extra money. Theoretically there could be double remuneration, but it would not happen in practice to any great degree.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My question is, why, under any circumstances, is it necessary to pay a



WINDSOR HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Northwest Territories Act man twice? If I have someone working for me doing a certain job and I have to take him off that job to do another one, I do not pay him twice for the job. If he is paid as a civil servant and he is required to act as a justice of the peace under this act, why should he be paid twice? This is a question I should like answered.
Thomas Miller Bell: This is additional work that the civil servant would be doing in most cases. It would be perhaps extra work in the evening or on week ends, and in every case there would not be double remuneration. He is getting nothing now for doing this type of work. Sometimes it takes extra hours.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This is the point I was making. The remuneration mentioned in this bill is for work after his regular hours as a civil servant or on week ends; is that correct?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Erhart Regier: Before the bill carries, I wonder if the minister might amend an answer which he gave yesterday. I have looked at the election returns for the year 1958, and I noticed that the people of Frobisher Bay were not able to exercise their franchise. I wonder if the minister has additional information?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In answer to the question asked by the hon. member last night, Mr. Chairman, I indicated that there was nothing against the people voting in the Northwest Territories. I spoke, too, of the difficulties of getting around, and this is actually true. The fact is that for federal elections the boundaries of the Mackenzie River riding do not extend over as far as Baffin island, and in the territorial arrangements they, too, find that the constituency boundaries do not go that far. I would be glad, therefore, to pass on the suggestion of the hon. member. We have been considering it ourselves and wondering what could be done to give some representation to the scattered people in the eastern part of the Arctic. I would be glad to take the representations under consideration.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time, now?


An hon. Member:: By leave.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



AMENDMENT RESPECTING BOUNDARIES OF HARBOUR

George Harris Hees: the second reading of Bill No. S-4, to amend the Windsor Harbour Commissioners Act.
He said: My department has been requested by the Windsor harbour commissioners to extend the limits of the harbour as established by the commissioners act, chapter 38 of 1957. There is extensive waterfront property and contiguous land available fronting on the town of Ojibway adjacent to Windsor, and it would be advantageous to the orderly development of the harbour area to include these properties. The municipal corporation of Ojibway has supported the proposal.
The bill is minor in character, requiring a small amendment to section 4 of the Windsor Harbour Commissioners Act to extend the south boundary of the harbour from the southern limit of the city of Windsor to the southerly limit of the municipality of Ojibway, extended to the international boundary. No other change in the commissioners act is contemplated at this time.
I might add that if the bill receives second reading I propose to move that it be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, along with the other two bills incorporating harbour commissioners at Oshawa and Nanaimo.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not often rise to support measures introduced in this house by the minister who has just taken his seat, but I do rise tonight to support this amendment. However, I can hardly agree that the amendment is minor in character. I think a more precise way of stating the situation would be to say that the bill is minor in form but involving major consequences for the city of Windsor.
The purpose of this bill, as the minister said, is to extend the boundaries of the harbour of Windsor, as they were established in 1957, on the angle of that part of the Detroit river extending to the international boundary and fronting on the municipality of Ojibway. As the minister has mentioned, the corporation of Ojibway has concurred in the amendment that is now being considered by us. The house will recall that this bill, of which this is an amendment, received royal assent on April 17, 1957, having been introduced in this house by the former minister of transport, Mr. Marler.
I am sure the house will recall that on that occasion the then member for Essex West, the late Don Brown, spoke on the measure.

I should like to recall to the house the distinguished and constructive public service of that honourable and deceased man. Mr. Brown, on one occasion addressed himself to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) with regard to certain questions that were then under consideration in connection with a bill concerning the development of the Hamilton harbour. At that time, referring to the Windsor situation, Mr. Brown stated that he had understood there would be an investigation, for which he wished to thank the government, into the economic possibilities of the situation at Windsor. He understood that the survey would probably reveal that bulk storage facilities would be required in the area. He pointed out that as 85 per cent of the corn grown in Canada was grown in the counties of Kent and Essex box storage facilities would be required. He expressed the hope that if the local harbour commission, made up of three well-known and estimable gentlemen of the city of Windsor, made a recommendation to the government for the erection of box storage facilities at Windsor harbour the minister would give favourable consideration to such a suggestion. The minister, however, does not appear to have made any reply to these observations at the time. It may be that, when he speaks to the constructive observations to be made by the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Spencer) and myself, he will see fit to make some reply.
I note in looking through the main estimates for 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 that the government does not propose to advance any moneys to the harbour commission for this purpose. I would hope that after I have finished my modest contribution tonight the minister would possibly recognize that this is a responsibility that does not rest only on the local harbour commissioners or on the citizens of my community, but it is one that should engage the active interest and attention of his department. Shortly before the harbour commission took over its responsibilities, the Canada Steamship Lines vacated the public wharf property which they held. This was in March of 1958. I refer to this because it meant the loss of considerable revenue to the harbour commission. One wonders whether or not if persuasion had been employed at the time the former lessee, Canada Steamship Lines, might have continued their occupancy of this property.
In any event there was, as I say, as a result of that vacation of this wharf property, a considerable loss of revenue. I find that the wharfage revenue in 1956-57-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) not think he is going beyond the purpose of this bill and
17, 1960	3983
Windsor Harbour Commissioners Act that he might more properly advance his proposition when the estimates are being considered?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a
problem to which I gave consideration, Mr. Speaker. However, I would doubt that I would make as great progress in persuading the minister on his estimates later on in the session as I would tonight while enjoying the quietude that prevails in this house and the obvious attention which the minister is giving to my remarks at this moment. In any event, if I may speak to the point of order,-


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member will not take undue advantage of the opportunities which present themselves. Strictly speaking, he is going beyond the scope of this bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would not want to do anything that transgresses the rules. However, I was going to argue the point of order. In a bill which seeks to extend the jurisdiction of the harbour commission, I think one is in order in giving some justification for the request that is made in the application for an extension of the powers by the harbour commissioners and the way in which to do that is to point out the advantages that lie potentially in the development of the harbour at the city of Windsor. It was in the process of achieving that simple but important objective that I was engaged when Your Honour intervened.
However, I will not trespass except to say that there is, as a result, a considerable loss of revenue, something in the neighbourhood of $18,000. This revenue would be of great assistance to the harbour commission in the development of its functions and in the development of the harbour. We have seen currently some evidence in the community of private groups interested in waterfront property seeking to develop pier and bonded warehouses. One project has been reported as involving some 42 acres of property costing up to $12 million.
This project would be of great value to the community and would supplement the work of the harbour commission. This matter has a bearing on the responsibility of the department. While this project involves private enterprise, it is one which will require the co-operation not only of the harbour commission but of federal departments. Private enterprise, of course, should be encouraged in the long range development of Windsor and elsewhere but it seems to me that government assistance will also be required. At this time there is a considerable amount of activity all along the great lakes.

Windsor Harbour Commissioners Act In Detroit, in Cleveland and in Chicago everyone is getting ready to take advantage-


Mr. Fisher:: And Port Arthur.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Someone says Port Arthur. Yes, I would mention Port Arthur although that city was given a harbour commission long after the city of Windsor was given one. I would point out that fact to the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) who quite properly intervenes at this moment. All of this activity involving the expenditure of many millions of dollars is taking place in anticipation of the results that will flow from the great concept and achievement of the St. Lawrence waterway scheme.
Now that the St. Lawrence waterway scheme is a reality it seems to me that we must see to it that all of the communities on the waters involved in the St. Lawrence scheme are given the fullest opportunity to share in the benefits of that development. It is with regard to that matter that it seems to me the government has a responsibility much greater than that which at the present time seems to be exercised by the department toward the city of Windsor and, I believe, toward some other particular harbour development schemes.
I was looking at the report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines of 1958. In their conclusions, which are found at page 150 of their report, we find an observation which I think has relevancy to the matter before us. The committee goes on to point out as follows:
The continued close co-operation between the Department, the St. Lawrence seaway authority and the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission toward the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project was noted with satisfaction.


Mr. Smith (Simcoe North):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) has not dealt with anything remotely concerned with the immediate bill for the last five minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: I myself have intimated
something along the lines of the point of order raised by the hon. member, namely that the hon. member for Essex East is going beyond the scope of the bill. It is true he can do it only by leave of the house. If a point of order is taken, as it has been, I must ask the hon. member for Essex East to apply himself to the precise principle which is the extension of the boundaries of the harbour of Windsor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am doing that very thing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen who do not have the same interest I have in this matter possibly find this to be a laughing matter but I assure them that such is not the case. We are asking for power to extend the jurisdiction of the harbour commissioners. I am seeking to establish reasons why that should be done. One of the arguments that I am making is that this particular harbour as well as others should be given the opportunity of taking the fullest advantage of the achievement of the St. Lawrence seaway. If that is not a valid argument, then one could easily argue: Why should the powers of this commission be extended? They should be extended, Mr. Speaker, in my view, because the harbour in Windsor, its commissioners and the people of that community want to take full advantage of the development of the St. Lawrence seaway, an opportunity that is now afforded to that city as to other communities on the great lakes.
I was pointing out that this was the view of a committee of this house unanimously expressed in 1958. I was referring to the St. Lawrence seaway in that context. The final sentence in that paragraph certainly indicates what I am seeking to do when it states as follows:
The committee recommends for the consideration of the department the establishment of an economic survey to consider the effects of the St. Lawrence seaway project upon all regions of Canada.
My argument is that it is not sufficient to treat this particular harbour commission as a commission of a particular category, there being three which are concerned, and that the department itself must take more than a casual interest in the development of something that obviously has a local interest. That is the argument I am seeking to make. I would think that no one would question the argument that in seeking to add to the jurisdiction of the harbour commission, one is justified in showing why that should be done.


George Harris Hees: On the point of order, may I say that this bill does not deal with the extension of the powers of the Windsor harbour commission. This bill simply deals with the extension of the limits of the jurisdiction of the Windsor harbour commission.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


George Harris Hees: It is not extending the powers at all. I think the hon. member should confine his remarks to whether or not the extension of these limits is justified. It has nothing to do with the powers of the Windsor harbour commission.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Obviously if you extend the limits of the area over which the harbour commission will have jurisdiction you extend its powers as well as extend the limits of the harbour facilities. I am sure the minister will find that is so. If the minister is patient, he will hear me out, and this will not take very long. I think it is a valid and useful argument to make. Are we to take the position that a commission like this must depend only upon its own resources?


Mr. Speaker:: I must tell the hon. member for Essex East that I fully agree with the point of order that has been taken. This bill has nothing to do with the setting up of a commission to inquire into the operation of the seaway. The bill under discussion only extends the area of the harbour under the control of the Windsor harbour commissioners; therefore I must ask the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) to reserve this discussion on other subjects to another time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, if you insist on that ruling I obviously have no other course, but I would submit to you with confidence that there is a strong and justifiable position procedurally to take against the position Your Honour has taken. But I will not press the point except to say that I have suggested in the few words I have addressed thus far to the minister what is in my mind, and before his estimates are reached perhaps he will find ways and means of dealing with the matter.
Of course this is a valid amendment. We want to develop the harbour facilities at Windsor on the Detroit river, the most heavily travelled river of any country in the world, more than the Suez and Panama canals together. We want to strengthen the hand of the harbour commission which will mean a great deal to the city of Windsor. It is not only a question whether or not there is enough business now. The suggestion is that we ought to be able to create enough business, and to do that the commission must be afforded assistance from the department of the federal government as well as being able to get whatever assistance it can from other sources.
I think that when facilities have to be developed in the seaway system itself they should be developed in accordance with a policy which will apply to the entire system and we in Windsor should not be any different from Hamilton, Toronto or New Westminster. New Westminster has received two or three loans from the federal government, and that kind of assistance should be open to a harbour like this. If the minister does that and takes the active interest in this matter that I know
17,	1960	3985
Windsor Harbour Commissioners Act he will and 1 know he wants to, he will find that he will have accomplished for the city of Windsor perhaps the most useful service he can render to a community which I think has great potential in this regard.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if I could have gone on and developed my carefully prepared argument I would have received from the member for Essex West the fullest support which I know every citizen in Windsor will accord to what I have said tonight.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, there is not much we have to say on this bill. We know the hon. members for Essex West (Mr. Spencer) and Essex South (Mr. Thrasher) are vigilant in Windsor's interest and after they have expressed themselves I am sure everything will be in order in this bill.
I think the few remarks I have to make will be in order since they deal with the principle involved here whether another municipality is taken within an authority that is already constituted. I understand that there have been difficulties in British Columbia with one of the harbour commissioners in so far as an extension similar in scope to the property that the Windsor harbour commissioners control. This extension took in several other municipalities, and under the representational set-up already in the act these communities had no representation on the board.
We know very little about this municipality of Ojibway mentioned here. I looked forward to hearing something about it from the previous speaker, some detail which would have aroused our interest and satisfied our curiosity. We would appreciate hearing from the minister how populous this municipality is and whether there is any demand in that particular municipality for an extension such as this. I would also like to know whether they are going to have any representation on the commission as a result of this extension of the Windsor harbour commissioners' authority into other municipalities. No one needs to tell the minister with his experience of the lakehead harbour commissioners how delicate the whole question of municipal pride is and how easy it is to whip up harsh feelings on a matter such as this. I think he is aware of our particular situation. We have had a great deal of bitterness since he became minister on the part of the lakehead harbour commission, much of which turned on the conflict between the municipalities and the question of municipal representation.
1 think this is a matter upon which we should have a rather complete explanation
3986	HOUSE OF
Windsor Harbour Commissioners Act from the minister or some of the hon. members from the Essex area so that we can be absolutely clear there will not be at a later date any bad feelings over this extension of territory. I myself would like to have known into whose constituency the extension has been taken-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Both Essex East and Essex West.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It appears to involve two members, including the hon. member who has just spoken. I am surprised he did not have this information because I would have thought it was the sort of thing the representative of a constituency would be proud of.
The final matter which comes into question on second reading of the bill, so far as the principle of it is concerned, is this. Since it is only such a relatively short time since this board was set up, why was not consideration given to this at the time? I know the minister will probably answer it was because the previous government which brought in this legislation did not take a proper look at the thing. The original bill was given royal assent on April 12, 1957. That is only three years ago and already an extension is being asked for. It almost indicates that the previous government was short of good advice from the Windsor area when it drew up this bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It indicates the progressive character of the community.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member says it indicates the progressive character of the community. It is very hard to follow that remark when we have heard so much cry havoc from the hon. member who was speaking before me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do you deny there is unemployment in Windsor?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate receiving answers from the minister to these two questions. First of all with regard to the municipal situation and representation for this other municipality on the harbour commission; second, the matter I touched on a moment ago.


Mr. N. L. Spencer (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I think my first words should be to assure you that I will not be as verbose as was my colleague from Essex East (Mr. Martin), and I will try and confine my remarks as closely to this bill as I can in the circumstances.
It is not often that I find the hon. member for Essex East and I are in agreement on legislation which comes before this house. I


am happy to find that he is supporting this legislation and I hope that that is a good omen for the future.
I think it might be well if I were to say just a word or two about the location involved in this bill. The hon. member for Essex East has indicated, as is quite true, that the city of Windsor is located on the Detroit river which is the busiest waterway in the world. During the navigational season a cargo ship passes every 20 minutes on the average, and in excess of 130 million tons of cargo is carried along that waterway during the season. Geographically we are, of course, in a unique situation. We lie south of the entire state of Michigan, and the territorial limits of the county of Essex include Pelee island which is the most southern territory in Canada. In this area of Essex county we find a great agricultural development and in the city of Windsor we have great industrial production. Because of both the agricultural production and the industrial production in the area there is great need for harbour facilities.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Norman Leonard Spencer: Of course, I join the hon. member for Essex East in complimenting the former government on bringing in the bill which incorporated the Windsor harbour commission and I pay my due respects to the former member for Essex West who was a prime mover in the sponsorship of that legislation. When that measure was enacted the limits of the harbour commission were restricted to the limits of the city of Windsor. I believe the reason for that was that it was desired that there should be a commission formed as quickly as possible, with the idea in mind of taking full advantage of the development of the St. Lawrence waterway. I wish to compliment the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and the officials of his department as well as the officials of the Department of Public Works with whom they cooperated closely, and express my appreciation to them for having gone to Windsor on many occasions to look into the potentialities as far as harbour development is concerned. As a matter of fact tenders are now being called for the renovation of the present government wharf and warehouse in the harbour.
I think the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) raised a very good point, but may I say to him that we in the city of Windsor and in the metropolitan area of Windsor do not have these local jealousies to which the hon. member referred. I think it is significant that while the Windsor harbour commission is at present restricted, as I say, in its territorial limits to the harbour area opposite the city of Windsor, none of the

three present appointees to the harbour commission actually lives in the city of Windsor. They live in the metropolitan area, but we in the city of Windsor do not pay much attention to the particular locality in which public spirited men may reside. While these gentlemen reside outside the city of Windsor they have their business interest in Windsor, and their whole thinking and ambition is to promote what is best for the whole community of metropolitan Windsor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Norman Leonard Spencer: Thus we do not think that any difficulty whatever will arise as far as the composition of the harbour commission is concerned.
As the minister has said, the corporation of the town of Ojibway which, incidentally, is entirely within the constituency of Essex West, has approved this extension of the jurisdiction of the present Windsor harbour commission, and there is no suggestion that there is going to be any conflict of ideas as far as the composition of the commission is concerned. It is still going to be the Windsor harbour commission, and no difficulty in that respect need even be contemplated.
The actual need for the extension lies in the fact that Windsor is an old community and we have there natural harbour facilities in that there is a deep waterway running along the border of our municipality. As a result of this natural harbour we have found that industries which require water transportation have located themselves along that waterway, though primarily within the corporate limits of the city of Windsor. We believe that for the future development of the whole harbour area it will be essential to utilize some of the additional harbour facilities which lie further down stream.
There are at the present time in the town of Ob jib way, however, facilities for shipping. I may say to the hon. member for Port Arthur that we had a very good vision. It did not materialize, but we had in mind that in Objibway there would arise one of the larger steel plants of this country. As I said, that vision did not materialize, but considerable work was done. Cuts were constructed and docks built with the result that there are facilities at the present time in the town of Objibway for ships. Between that portion of the town of Objibway where these facilities exist and the boundaries of the city of Windsor lies an area which is readily adaptable for harbour development and we believe that this harbour development should be undertaken in an orderly manner and under 79951-0-252
Windsor Harbour Commissioners Act direction; and that for this reason the territorial limits of the present harbour commission should be extended further down stream to include this additional area.
The minister has indicated that when and if this bill receives second reading it be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I wonder if I would be presumptuous in suggesting that instead of referring this bill to that committee it be considered in committee of the whole at this time with the consent of the minister and of the house. Although the implications of the amendment may be quite extensive in that it increases the area over which the harbour commission has jurisdiction no other amendment is being made to the provisions of the act. I see no need for referring this bill to the standing committee and think it could well be dealt with in committee of the whole house this evening and perhaps receive third reading.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) is our shining lighthouse and harbour master, I want to make a few points. I wish to support the comments of the previous speaker and urge the minister to give full answers to the questions raised particularly with respect to representation of persons included in this greater area.
I wish also to compliment the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) for his short talk on this bill which is of great importance to his constituency. I noticed that the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Spencer) said when he got up that he was not as verbose as the hon. member for Essex East but both spoke for approximately 15 minutes and I could not see much difference.
I think the hon. member for Essex East made a good point when he was questioned about being out of order and said that you cannot extend the area of jurisdiction of any board without extending its powers. That is a valid argument and he made an excellent case.
This is another illustration under the stresses of changing conditions and circumstances of extending the area of public planning and control. Anyone who has read the debates of this house of many years ago with respect to harbour commissioners and developments of that kind will remember that the Tory element in the community resisted that kind of development. This is a demonstration in a local sphere of a segment of C.C.F. policy.


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few points to make and I can assure the hon. member for Kootenay West
3988	HOUSE OF
Windsor Harbour Commissioners Act (Mr. Herridge) that I will not speak for 14 or 15 minutes. I should like to remind the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) that although the jurisdiction of this commission does not come within the electoral district of Essex South, certainly any developments in the harbour there will be of great benefit to people residing in the electoral district of Essex South. I am sure the hon. member would not want to overlook that fact.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear. We are a very united community.


Richard Devere Thrasher: In reply to the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) may I say that Ojibway is short of residents. It has no schoolhouse that I know of but it has a large industrial assessment and therefore is a plum that is coveted by other municipalities.
Speaking on this bill gives me an opportunity of paying tribute to the groundwork laid by the former hon. member for Essex West, Mr. Don Brown. As was indicated by the hon. members for Essex East and Essex West, Mr. Brown was the sponsor and prime mover of this particular bill. I am sure his untimely death was a shock to his many friends in this house. The amendments to the bill at this time give those of us who were close to him and his good friends-even though some of us were his political adversaries-an opportunity of paying our respects to him.
I also wish to pay tribute to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and his department and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) and his department for the wonderful co-operation and assistance they have given to the present harbour commissioners. In doing so I should also like to pay tribute to the present harbour commissioners who are doing an able job enthusiastically. If they continue in the direction in which they are going I am sure it will not be too long before we have a very large development in that area.


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


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased indeed, quite naturally, that all those hon. members who have spoken on the bill have supported it with such enthusiasm.
The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) asked if the residents of Ojibway would be represented on the harbour commission. The answer, as the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Spencer) has pointed out-he is the member of parliament who represents this community-is that they are 

very happy to have their area included under the jurisdiction of the Windsor harbour commission.
As the hon. member for Essex West and the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Thrasher) have pointed out, the members of the Windsor harbour commission are obviously doing a very good, workmanlike and satisfactory job and the people of the municipality of Ojibway are happy to be represented by these commissioners. I think that is an answer to the hon. member's question.
The hon. member for Essex West suggested that perhaps this is not a complicated matter and that it might save time if it were dealt with in committee of the whole house now instead of referring the bill to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines as I originally intended. Perhaps if the house agrees with the suggestion of the hon. member for Essex West the bill might be dealt with in committee stage of the house now and receive more rapid passage in that way. That, of course, is up to the members of the house. If it is their wish to carry on with the committee stage now I am agreeable. Otherwise, I am content to have the bill referred to the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, it was always the practice I believe in our time in office to send all these bills to the committee and I think in this instance we should follow that practice.


George Harris Hees: I am perfectly happy to do that, Mr. Speaker. That was my original suggestion. However, as it is the practice of this government to listen to all suggestions made by hon. members and particularly those who speak with the knowledge and authority of the hon. member for Essex West on a matter of this kind, I was willing to consider the hon. gentleman's suggestion, if it was the wish of the house to follow that suggestion. As the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has suggested we would like to see the bill go to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and I will move, seconded by my colleague the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley) that that procedure be followed.


Norman Leonard Spencer: May I intervene at this
moment to point out that it has not been the custom always followed. When the bill was passed in 1957 it did not go to a standing committee of the house; it was dealt with in committee of the whole house and received consideration in that committee and third reading was given on the day it was introduced for second reading.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: May I say one
thing. I was inclined to think that there was merit in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Essex West, but after listening to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) it just occurred to me-I think the hon. member for Essex West will perhaps agree-that a possible great advantage may ensue to our community if we go to the committee in that we might be able to put to the officials of the department, and possibly to the minister, some of the arguments that would perhaps influence the minister to do more for the harbour than is now being done by the government.


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


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


George Harris Hees: the second reading of Bill No. S-5, to incorporate the Oshawa harbour commissioners.
He said: An interdepartmental committee comprising engineers and economists from the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works investigated the development of Oshawa harbour that might result from the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway. It was found that although there might not be an immediate requirement for harbour works outside of dredging, the harbour being located only 17 miles from Toronto would be likely to develop by the establishment of industries requiring marine transport.
The city of Oshawa made formal application recommending the incorporation of harbour commissioners and would provide harbour front property, owned by the city, for management and development by the commissioners.
My department operates the government wharf that is used in the handling of coal, fuel oil and gravel from which a gross annual income of $18,000 is derived. The wharf would be placed under the management of the commission and the revenue would accrue to it.
The purpose of the bill is to set up a harbour commission to operate the harbour. There will be three commissioners, two appointed by the governor in council and one by the city of Oshawa. The bill is similar 79951-0-252J
Oshawa Harbour Commissioners in every detail to the one passed in April, 1957, to incorporate the harbour commissioners for Windsor, Ontario.
As already indicated, I propose to move after second reading that the bill be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, this is the second such bill that has been brought to the attention of the house tonight and I see that there are others on the order paper, I rise to support the bill of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and in so doing may I say there are one or two points that I should like to bring to his attention as well as to the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) because, unless I mistake the position of the two ministers, the Minister of Transport is responsible for the harbour commission that will be established under this bill and the Minister of Public Works is responsible for harbour facilities that may be erected by this harbour commission.
I think the House of Commons should know what plans are in the minds of the ministers, but more particularly in the mind of the Minister of Public Works in so far as the development of these harbours is concerned, arising out of the St. Lawrence seaway. It has been said repeatedly by this administration, as well as by the former administration, that the St. Lawrence seaway was going to have the effect of opening up many harbours. This statement is certainly confirmed by port facilities that are being built on the United States side of the great lakes and of the St. Lawrence. Before this bill is passed we would have some intimation, some inkling, from the government as to what its policy is with reference to this.
This brings me to a matter which I raised in the house and in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines two years ago when I submitted to the Minister of Transport and to the members of that committee that an economic survey should be made by the officers of the Department of Transport with reference to the impact which the St. Lawrence seaway would have upon the various regions of Canada. I repeated that in the house on two or three occasions and very little attention was paid by the Minister of Transport.
I say to the minister that of course he listened very carefully to what was said but absolutely nothing was done with respect to the recommendation. I understand that my colleague, the member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), has put on the record the recommendation which was made by the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines in its

Oshawa Harbour Commissioners report in 1958, and I should like to put it on the record at this time. It is to be found at page 150 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of that committee of 1958:
The continued close co-operation between the department, the St. Lawrence seaway authority and the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission toward the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project was noted with satisfaction. The importance of the seaway and its beneficial effect on Canadian inland ports was recognized by your committee, and a recommendation that municipalities which expect to enjoy maximum benefits from the project should survey existing port facilities and endeavour to determine necessary additional requirements, received the general support of members. The committee recommends for the consideration of the department the establishment of an economic survey to consider the effects of the St. Lawrence seaway project upon all regions of Canada.
If that had been done either by the St. Lawrence seaway authority or by the economics branch of the Department of Transport a great deal of misgiving would have been spared the various regions of this country. I can think of the Atlantic region; I can think of the region which is on the south shore of the gulf of St. Lawrence, in the Gaspe area; I can think of the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, in the province of Quebec, where there is a tremendous amount of industrial development going on; and I can think particularly of the whole upper St. Lawrence from the international section right up to the foot of lake Ontario which, of course, includes the city of Oshawa.
Before a bill of this nature is passed it is essential that the city of Oshawa should have some idea of what the economic effect of the seaway is going to be on that port as well as on the other ports of the great lakes. It is known in the United States; it is known by a number of surveys that have been made there, as I will indicate on another occasion, not this one, what the effect of the seaway is and, because it has been known, large sums of money have been spent, for instance, in Milwaukee, in Duluth, in Chicago, in Buffalo, tremendous sums of money for port facilities, awaiting the movement of foreign-going vessels up the great lakes. But what have we done?
I made a motion in the House of Commons the other day for the production of a report from the Minister of Public Works as to what had transpired between the international section and the foot of lake Ontario. The minister opposed the motion and would not produce the report so that the house could know, so that Canada could know, what the officers of this department were doing about the development, industrial or otherwise, arising out of this new seaway and what effect it would have upon the various areas.

I could point to two such surveys which were made in the United States. I have one in mind now which is directly opposite the shore which extends from the international section at St. Regis right up to the foot of lake Ontario. On the Canadian side we have absolutely nothing, but on the United States side every port extending from Rooseveltown right up to Oswego has been surveyed and publicized with all sorts of information and data to give to the public to encourage industry to go there, as well as to encourage the state in case they should be interested in developing port facilities in that area.
It is a good thing to set up this commission. I am sure it will be a good thing for the city of Oshawa. I am sure that Oshawa wants it. But to what extent do we, in this country, know what the effect of the seaway will be on the Canadian side of the line? I believe that before very long this government will have to come to the conclusion it will have to spend large sums of money in order to assist industry to establish itself in these areas.


George Harris Hees: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


George Harris Hees: May I ask him what the previous government did in the way of providing the Windsor harbour commissioners with this information before they set up the Windsor harbour commissioners in 1957 at a time when the St. Lawrence seaway was approaching completion and at a time, if what he says is correct, they should have had some information on what the St. Lawrence seaway would do.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister has asked a question, and I think he is entitled to a reply. The reply is this, that the problem did not arse at that time.


George Harris Hees: Well, why?


Lionel Chevrier: At that time there was one problem with which the house was charged and with which the Department of Transport was charged, and it was the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway. Surely the house will not think that it was illogical to complete the seaway first, then having built it, to give some consideration afterwards to the port facilities that are required along the waterway, both on the St. Lawrence and on the great lakes.


George Harris Hees: May I ask the hon. member
another question, then?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


George Harris Hees: Is it not, then, equally logical to first set up the Oshawa harbour commission, and then proceed with the kind

of studies that will be beneficial to that harbour commission, as you have suggested?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I do not think so. I think the first thing the minister should have done was to establish the economic survey for which I asked two years ago.


George Harris Hees: Like you did in 1957 when you set up the Windsor harbour commissioners.


Lionel Chevrier: If he had established the economic survey then he, and his colleague the Minister of Public Works, would be in a position to tell the city of Oshawa to what extent port facilities could be built there. As it is now-


Mr. Starr:: I rise on a question of privilege; I have listened intently to what the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has said. I am getting a little worried because we have enjoyed a good economic situation in Oshawa.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the question of privilege?


Michael Starr: The question of privilege is this, that the hon. member is insisting upon an economic survey. I want to inform him that a team-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Michael Starr: An economic survey has been made by a team composed of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. member has not indicated any question of privilege. If he-


Michael Starr: I think he is trying to ruin our economy in Oshawa.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; if the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) finds that the hon. member for Laurier, who has the floor, is making any statement which he feels he must contradict, he will have an opportunity of doing so at the end of the hon. member's remarks.


Lionel Chevrier: I want to show how
ridiculous the interruption of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has been because if the suggestion which I made several years ago had been followed, then it would not have been necessary to make economic surveys for each and every port. An over-all economic survey of the whole position would have been made, and what is more that economic survey was done in part and I am sure that if the Minister of Transport had been left alone he would have completed the economic survey. If he had, then we would know whether it is necessary to spend $100 million to develop port facilities along our waterways or $500 million. As it is now, we do not know.
17, 1980
Oshawa Harbour Commissioners


George Harris Hees: I rise on a question of privilege. I have been accused of not doing something. Of course, if such a survey were needed, then it should have been done by the St. Lawrence seaway authority when the hon. member was president of it and before the seaway was completed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the minister will have his opportunity to speak later.


Lionel Chevrier: Apparently the Minister of Transport does not like this.


George Harris Hees: I do not like nonsense as you are talking about it.


Lionel Chevrier: If it is nonsense, then here is the committee on railways, canals and telegraphs lines, in vast majority composed of members from the other side of the house, who accepted this recommendation but the minister would not put it into effect. If the minister had followed the recommendation made by the committee, the majority of whose members were from his own party, then he would have conducted an economic survey, as he should have.
So far as his colleague is concerned, the Minister of Public Works, the arrogant Minister of Public Works, who is not here at this time but who attacks other members of this house when absent.


Thomas Miller Bell: You only say it because he is not here.


Lionel Chevrier: I will say it in his presence. What I am saying now is that he attacks other members of the house when they are not here. I say that the arrogant Minister of Public Works has refused-


Mr. Graffley:: Thin skinned prima donna.


Lionel Chevrier: I say that the arrogant-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Lionel Chevrier: No, it is not ten o'clock yet. I still have a minute. I think that if the Minister of Public Works were only to follow the example given on the other side of the international border by other groups who are making very serious surveys of every part, as I will have an occasion of showing at a later date, from the international section at St. Regis right through to the foot of lake Ontario, then he will see how important it is for these areas to obtain the facilities to which they are entitled. In so far as the city of Oshawa is concerned, if only that survey had been made, then the city would

Business of the House
be in a far better position than it is today to ascertain what the future needs of the community will be.


An hon. Member:: Are you opposed to the bill?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I am not opposed to the bill.


Mr. Ricard:: But you talk against it.


Lionel Chevrier: No, I do not speak against it. I said, on the contrary, we would support the bill. I think it is an excellent idea that all the ports on our side of the line should set themselves up with commissions such as this, provided and on condition that they have some idea from the government in office what the industrial possibilities are in the future. In so far as the communities extending all the way down from the city of Toronto to St. Regis are concerned, there are very few of them that know what the future holds for them.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business is for tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will continue with the items that I called yesterday, but I will name
them again. The first will be Bill No. S-5, an act to incorporate the Oshawa harbour commissioners, followed by Bill No. S-10 with regard to the Nanaimo harbour commissioners; Bill No. S-2, the Canada-Netherlands Income Tax Agreement Act; Bill No. S-7, an act to repeal certain fisheries laws of Newfoundland; the next item would be the resolution in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare pertaining to the Old Age Security Act.


Lionel Chevrier: What number is that?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is No. 15 on today's order paper. The sixth item would be No. 8 on today's order paper, namely Bill No. S-27, an act to control and regulate the sale of feeds. The seventh item would be Bill No. S-28, an act respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and Australia. That is for Wednesday. On Thursday there will be interim supply followed by the estimates of the departments of agriculture, fisheries and post office. That is for Thursday and Friday.
It being two minutes after ten o'clock the nouse adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Wednesday, May 18, I960