1960-03-14

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (2), 1959-60

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1960, was presented by Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough) presented the third report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and moved that the report be concurred in.
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a word in connection with this. While normally we would object to that part of the report which provides for sitting while the house is sitting, in view of the fair attitude taken by the chairman of the committee to the effect that he did not intend to call witnesses while the house was sitting unless it was absolutely necessary, I feel that under these circumstances we should not object.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 66-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the Saskatchewan government since January 28, 1959, dealing with the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam.
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minisler of Agriculture):: This is agreeable, subject to the usual limitations.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitations expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 68-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, exchanged between the federal
government, and (a) officers of any dominion or provincial farm organization; (b) each provincial government, since June 1, 1957, regarding trade with Japan.
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: This motion is acceptable, subject to the usual reservations concerning consent of the provincial governments.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. A practice seems to be growing up of ministers getting up and saying that these motions are being passed subject to the usual reservations, and the consequence is that the motions pass and in too many cases nothing whatever happens. It seems to me, sir, it would be much preferable if these motions were held up until consent had been secured beforehand. No one has ever objected to having a motion stand for a reasonable time for that purpose, and I should like to object to this motion passing with this qualification.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: You would not wait the other day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman is entirely wrong in saying that this is a practice that is growing up. This practice took very firm root in the time of the former government. As a matter of fact it goes back to the time of the late Mr. Mackenzie King. I well recall Mr. King taking the position quite firmly in the house with respect to such motions, that they should not pass unless there was a reservation making all iwance for the necessity of obtaining the consmt of the provincial government, if one were c mcerned, or, when it was something affecting external affairs, the consent of the government of the other country concerned. He stated the reason very clearly, namely that there could not be frank exchanges between governments unless there were some such reservation concerning the tabling of correspondence. So in proposing such reservations on the adoption of motions of this kind the ministers of the present government are simply following a practice that has been long established and was firmly recognized before we ever came into office.
The hon. gentleman raises a second point. He says it would be better practice if these motions were allowed to stand until the consent of the government concerned had been obtained. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit that would be a wrong

Motions for Papers
practice. There should not be any direction given to ministers to seek the consent of some other government to the tabling of correspondence between them and ministers of the crown in right of the dominion until the house has passed the motion and decided that such correspondence ought to be produced if the other government is content to have it produced. Otherwise we would simply be putting the cart before the horse. Therefore I say that the present practice is firmly established and is the correct practice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may say a word about both points raised by the Minister of Finance, I do not contest that when we were in office it was quite frequently said that the consent of the provincial government would have to be obtained. The phrase that is now being used is somewhat different, but I am not quarrelling about that. I thought the practice was a bad practice when we were in office, and I think it is a bad practice still.
What I do want to contest is the practice of having the house make a conditional kind of order which there is then no way whatever of having controlled. It does seem to me that the proper practice, and that provided in the rules, is that the government should either agree to the motion or oppose it. If the government is not prepared to agree to a motion until the consent of a provincial government is obtained, it would be preferable in order to maintain the rights of the opposition and private members generally, for the government to find out from the other government in advance whether or not this would be agreeable. If it would not be agreeable then, of course, they could oppose the motion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I say one
further word. The hon. gentleman says that nothing happens if these motions are passed subject to these reservations. With respect, Mr. Speaker, he is quite wrong. In these cases what the government does is communicate with the other government that was a party to the correspondence and ask the permission of that government for the tabling of the correspondence. Usually permission is forthcoming. Sometimes a minister of the other government will say that such and such a letter was personal and is not to be included, but it is a great mistake to say that nothing happens. The government, because of this reservation, seeks to comply with the conditions.
The other point is this. If the hon. gentleman seeks to render unnecessary a discussion of this kind, may I say that the way to meet that desire, if it is a desirable objective, is to provide in the terms of the motion itself for the production of the correspond-

ence with some other government that the correspondence be produced if the other government agrees.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: May I just say a word on the point of order? With great respect to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I think he is wrong in his premise today, namely that if the motion for the production of papers were allowed to stand it would not be a method of stalling the motion, but rather that the stalling could be brought about mainly by passing this motion. So far as I am concerned, and this motion happens to be in my name, I think the motion is in a much stronger position if it is passed by the house and the government is under instruction to produce this correspondence, subject to the usual reservation.
I have had experience, Mr. Speaker, with the other way of doing things. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has taken the attitude that until certain agreements can be completed the information sought by this motion should not be produced. We had the standing procedure on that motion, and that was a stalling procedure. I think the best method is for the house to deal as expeditiously as possible with the motions when they are initially moved.


Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: I should like to say a word on the point.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have heard enough to enable me to deal with the matter unless the hon. member has another approach, in which case I shall be glad to hear him.


Augustin Brassard: Yes, I have. (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to say that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) seems deliberately to overlook that the Conservative government got into power by promising the people of Canada to restore the glory of parliament.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order did not concern the practice of governments but the practice of the house. I think there is some difficulty raised by this point of order, because in effect what is being asked by the minister who suggests the limitation is that this motion be amended before it is put. I believe this can be done, with the consent of the mover, without any difficulty. This is what we have been doing. I understand that the mover of this motion is quite agreeable to the reservation being incorporated in the motion before it is put to the house; is that correct?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: In order to overcome in the future in so far as the general practice is concerned, the technical difficulty which has

been raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I see no solution other than to deal with each motion as it comes along, unless the house is willing to make an order that in all cases where provincial governments or other public bodies whose consent would be appropriate as a condition to the order being passed, such a reservation be considered a part of the motion.
As it stands at the moment the hon. member for Assiniboia is quite content to have the motion put subject to the reservation requested by the minister. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether there is anything he can report to the house about the discussions he is reported to have had with the premiers of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia last Saturday on the Chignecto canal project.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I had discussions with the premier of New Brunswick and the premier of Nova Scotia with regard to various matters, among which was the question of the Chignecto canal. The premier of New Brunswick made somewhat lengthy representations in connection with this matter. Discussion followed, and that is as far as I can go at this time.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister report on the position Canada has taken at the economic conference of nine allied countries held in Washington, dealing with the question of the development of economic assistance? Has Canada put forward before this nine nation meeting a particular proposal for economic assistance to underdeveloped countries?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: I have no report as yet on this conference.
Inquiries of the Ministry


DISARMAMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I apologize for not having sent notice, which was occasioned by my being called upon to deal with unexpected events by unanticipated and unusual activities. In view of the appeal for disarmament of the minister of science of the United Kingdom in this morning's paper, would the minister care to comment on this heartwarming announcement?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I read the report of that speech and thought it an excellent one. Further than that I would not care to comment at the present time. I hope to get unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions at six o'clock in order to table the initial western proposals for the meeting of the 10-member disarmament committee which takes place in Geneva tomorrow.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
this question of the Minister of Finance, who may or may not have had discussions with the two premiers of the Atlantic provinces. In view of the fact that obviously the discussions with the Prime Minister did not cover a wide range, can the Minister of Finance say whether or not he had discussions on the suggestion made, notably by the premier of New Brunswick, that the government's tight money policy ought to be liberalized so far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned, particularly New Brunswick?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I had discussions on Saturday with the premier of Nova Scotia and the premier of New Brunswick. Those discussions touched on matters of mutual interest, including economic and financial questions. Certainly there could not be any such discussion as that of which the hon. member speaks. I think the house is well aware that economic conditions in the country, as a result of the great expansion in the economy of 1959, having regard to seasonal and other factors,, are such as to give confidence in the outlook for all parts of Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: Does that account for the increase in unemployment?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the Minister of Finance does not want to answer my question, of course that is his ministerial privilege. However, I asked him a simple question, and it was this. Did he discuss the suggestion of the premier of New Brunswick that the government's tight money policy should not apply to that province?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let me say at once that the hon. member for Essex East is not going to put words in my mouth. I made it quite clear on other occasions that I reject any talk being put in my mouth about a tight money policy.


Lionel Chevrier: You admit that there is one, though?


Donald Methuen Fleming: What occurred in 1959 was a situation under which, as the result of an almost unprecedently rapid expansion of the Canadian economy the banks, having expanded commercial credit by something like 25 per cent in a period of a little over a year, were unable to go on expanding it.


Lionel Chevrier: You admit there is a tight money policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I point out to the minister that he is going beyond the question asked. I think it would be inadvisable to enter into a discussion of whether there is or is not in respect of money a policy that is sometimes called a tight money policy. The question was limited to what was discussed or whether a question was raised by the premier of New Brunswick in his discussion with the minister. I should not like to see any attempt made to debate the question of the financial policy of the government on questions on the orders of the day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I think I was properly pointing out to the hon. gentleman that I do not accept any such misnomer as he is trying to place upon what is, having regard to all conditions in Canada today, a situation which gives everyone reason for confidence in the future.


Lionel Chevrier: The Speaker did not think so.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Has he any comment to make on the statement on monetary policy reported to have been made by the premier of New Brunswick after the talks last Saturday, to the effect that a policy which is suitable for the rest of Canada is not necessarily suitable for the maritimes?
[Mr. Chevrier.l


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Leader of the Opposition puts a question of that kind I would like him to satisfy me that he is within our practice in asking the Minister of Finance to comment upon a statement of a provincial premier, unless he can draw from that statement a question within the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Finance.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I was asking the minister; namely, to comment upon a statement made by a provincial premier on a matter which comes directly within his administrative responsibility after talks between the premier and the minister on the question of monetary policy.


Mr. Speaker:: With due respect to the Leader of the Opposition, his question ought to be more specific than asking for general comment on a matter of that kind. If the Leader of the Opposition has some specific question I will hear it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the Minister of Finance should not engage in a general discussion about monetary policy, but we are entitled to ask this government what is its concept of the public business, surely. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether during his tete-a-tete with the premier of New Brunswick there was any discussion about New Brunswick's request for a different application of the principle or policy of tight money?


An hon. Member:: You mean lack of policy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Or, as my hon. friend suggests, lack of policy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I much prefer the question of the Leader of the Opposition, because it does not introduce a lot of misnomers and empty Liberal shibboleths.
May I say that I have not seen the newspaper report from which the Leader of the Opposition purported to be quoting, but I may say that this question was raised whether the application of a monetary policy in the maritime area different from that applied in the rest of Canada was possible, and I pointed out that monetary policy has been confided by the parliament of Canada not to the government but to the Bank of Canada. That is clearly set forth in the statute law of this country.
However, as to the possibility of introducing, either through the Bank of Canada or by statutory enactment, a monetary policy for some particular region of the country different from that prevailing in the rest of Canada, I pointed out that such a thing would be quite impracticable in a country like this

because we have one central bank for the whole country. We have one currency for the country, and the issuance of all the currency is under one control. Our chartered banking system is national, and for these reasons a separate monetary policy for a section of the country would be quite impracticable.
However, the conversation did give me an opportunity to point out that special fiscal policies for a particular part of the country are quite possible, and this government has done more by means of fiscal measures to assist the Atlantic area of this country than any previous government has ever done.


CURLING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and also the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Are they aware that the Canadian curling championship has again been won by Saskatchewan, represented by the Ernie Richardson family rink of Regina, for the second successive year, and that they are leaving tomorrow for Scotland to compete in international matches where, I am sure, we all wish them further success?


Mr. Speaker:: I was not quite sure to which minister the question was directed, but I dare say it has been noted.


FREIGHT RATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, has the minister received a telegram from the maritime transportation commission requesting that the rollback of the last 17 per cent freight rate increase be extended beyond its present deadline of July 31? If so, can the minister advise the house what action is contemplated by the government in this regard?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont inquired
Inquiries of the Ministry whether I would comment on a reported statement by the premier of Quebec respecting federal co-operation in the building of a bridge in the east end of Montreal.
To my knowledge no formal communication has been received from the province, but if an application is received under the Navigable Waters Protection Act it will, of course, be given every consideration.


Mr. J. P. Deschalelels (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the answer just given by the Minister of Transport with respect to the construction of a bridge at the east end of Montreal, may I ask this question. Since the door has been opened by the premier of Quebec through his offer of assistance, is there any good reason why the minister should not get in touch with the premier of Quebec immediately?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I said that
when formal communications of this kind are received by this government we always give them the very best and most thorough consideration.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is there any good reason why the Minister of Transport should not immediately get in touch with the premier of Quebec?


George Harris Hees: Yes, I see quite a lot of reasons, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether he is in a position to report to the house on the tests of the Lacrosse missile recently held in Fort Churchill.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, from the information I have received to date the tests were generally considered satisfactory, though the degree of accuracy at the very short ranges left something to be desired.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the answer given a moment ago by the Minister of National Defence. Is the purport of his answer to the effect that the missile is a good one but that it will not hit what it is aimed at?

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker. It is very accurate at long ranges, but it leaves something to be desired in accuracy when firing at short ranges.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Did the minister receive a protest from any railway union group in connection with the decision of the C.N.R. to run crews through two divisions on the western line, and specifically between Transcona and Sioux Lookout, to take effect at the next change of time cards?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, I have received no such communication.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for Nipissing asked me a question with respect to the application of sales tax to the printing of snapshots, and I advised him at that time that I thought this was a highly technical question which I would take under consideration.
I now find that my preliminary judgment is more than confirmed. This is indeed a highly technical matter, and is now under review between my department and the officers of the Department of Justice and the industry concerning the interpretation of the statute. I will report upon the matter in due course.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether since the order of the house was passed on February 24 he has sought the approval of the government of Manitoba for the tabling of the correspondence regarding flood control in the Red river valley.


Hon. Alvin Hamillon (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with representatives of the government of Manitoba on this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister give us any indication when we might expect this return to be made?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I have no information as to just when the return may be made, but I will inquire and advise the hon. member.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources arising out of a report in the Winnipeg Free Press of March 9 to the effect that an epidemic of influenza has been raging among the Eskimos in Boothia peninsula, causing a near panic. Would the minister say what steps have been taken to bring the epidemic under control, and what has been the success of these efforts?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, approximately five weeks ago there was an outbreak of what was then considered measles among Eskimos on the west side of Boothia peninsula. The Indian and northern health services dispatched a doctor and nurse, and our department sent up one of our northern service officers. We sent 11 people to the hospital at Cambridge and another 11 to the hospital at Churchill.
I heard this morning that the patients at both hospitals are now well and are waiting for an aircraft to take them back to their homes. Since the original outbreak the disease has been further diagnosed as a combination of measles and influenza with complications.
I think I should point out to the house that owing to the fact that the house last session voted to have an aircraft available in the north, we were able to handle these cases much more expeditiously than we would have been in previous years.



POLYMER CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Defence

Production a question arising out of a reply he made the other day, when he said there had been an offer made to purchase the Polymer corporation. Will the minister say whether the offer to purchase that corporation had been approved by the board of directors of Polymer?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, the offer to which I referred had never been approved by the board of directors of Polymer.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Saskatoon asked me a question relating to the use of gas-fired domestic incinerators for garbage disposal. Although jurisdiction over the health question here properly rests with the municipality, subject to provincial legislation, the resources of my department's occupational health division are available on request. If a province considers that research in this area is needed and develops an acceptable project, then consideration could be given assistance to it under the national health grants program.
As far as the potential health hazard is concerned, certain studies have already been carried out. They indicate that domestic incinerators, if widely used in an urban area, must be very carefully designed and operated or an air pollution problem could result.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. gentleman who is leading the house and ask him whether, particularly over the week end, there has been any discussion regarding the resumption of the debate on capital punishment. If so, what was the result of the discussion?


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I do not think there is anything further to report, Mr. Speaker.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether-
Private Bills-Divorce


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; the order of the day "house again in committee of the whole on divorce bills" has been read.


Murray Douglas Morton: I assume that the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and probably the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) want to discuss each divorce bill separately. There are a number of bills that we would like to expedite. With the consent of the house we would like to suggest that Bill No. S-12, which is item No. 2 on today's order paper, and which is also in committee, be discussed, and then items 45, 46, 47 and 48, being Bills S-20, S-16, S-21 and S-15. If these bills could be discussed before the divorce bills, in accordance with the order paper, it would be very much appreciated by the sponsors.


Mr. Speaker:: The first item is No. 2 on today's order paper, under private bills?


Murray Douglas Morton: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: That is, "house in committee on Bill No. S-12", and then items 45, 46, 47 and 48. These last four are second readings.


Murray Douglas Morton: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous consent the house can vary the order in which it is proceeding today, if it is so disposed.


Mr. McCleave:: I regret that I cannot give unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it there is not unanimous consent.



JACQUELINE JOLY MAZURETTE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-20, for the relief of Jacqueline Joly Mazurette- Mr. McCleave-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
The Chairman:: Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, we are discussing a petition for divorce and we find, as in many of these cases, that the evidence presented to support the petition has been gathered by private investigators. The private investigators in this particular case have been before us on a number of previous occasions. I would suggest that they did not do enough investigating to prove that adultery had been committed and therefore that the divorce should be granted at this time.
In this particular case, Mr. Chairman, we find that very little consideration has been given to the support of the children. The indication is that the husband now makes a contribution of $15 a week. The wife, who has the two children with her, pays for their clothing, education and other considerations.

Private Bills-Divorce
I suggest that $15 is not sufficient to maintain two young girls and pay tor their education and raise them.
Mr. Chairman, this is one of the problems in these particular divorces. Here we are granting a divorce without being able to decide what is going to happen to the children and what maintenance is to be provided for the wife. This is a problem that concerns us very greatly. With respect to a married couple, obviously the maintenance of one of the partners in a marriage is implicit in the marriage; and when we dissolve the marriage, by our action we take away from one of the partners the right of maintenance that the individual has been used to.
The Senate committee which heard the evidence in this case consisted of 13 senators. The senators asked the usual questions. I think there was more questioning in this particular case by the senators than in some of the other cases. Senator Burchill made inquiries about the children. He asked first where the children were; who was living with them. He was interested in the family maintenance. In this case I would suggest that the answers he got, Mr. Chairman, would indicate that the children are not being looked after satisfactorily. If we granted this divorce without amendment, then there would be no maintenance for the children. I am interested in the children of this particular marriage. Senator Cameron asked some questions. First of all the chairman asked these questions:
Q. But you were not able to hold the family together?
A. No. Well at first they lived with my sister in law, the same one who takes care of mine. They all lived there.
By Senator Cameron:
Q. She looked after seven?
A. Yes.
Q. Did she not have any of her own?
A. No. But she is mentally and physically paralysed so she was very happy to be able to take care of my children.
I do not know why the senator left the questioning there, but it seems rather surprising to me that seven children would be left with a woman who was mentally and physically paralysed. It must make us wonder whether she was capable of looking after these children. I am surprised at this type of questioning, where the questions are asked only to establish this shocking situation and no further consideration is given to the matter of the maintenance of the children. I am sure this is sufficient to warrant the House of Commons, in its deliberations, in turning down the request for divorce.
It has been suggested, Mr. Chairman, that we have not the right to decide maintenance in these cases; that these matters should be referred to the courts in the province of

Quebec so that maintenance can be decided on, and then some further consideration be given to this particular case.
I see you shaking your head, Mr. Chairman. I presume you mean that is not possible. I am in agreement that it may not be possible; therefore I suggest that this divorce should not be granted at the present time. If it is granted, it would appear from the evidence that the children are going to be left to the care of another lady. The wife has to go to work, and she has not been able to earn enough money to keep them together. The $15 her husband pays her is not enough to keep the children together, so she has to go to work and leave the children in the care of a lady who, through no fault of her own, is neither mentally nor physically capable of looking after them. In this case Senator Burchill asked the following questions:
Q. When did you break up? Did he leave you or did you leave him?
A. He left me, just after the second child was born.
Q. He left you and went to another place to live?
A. I don't know where he went.
Q. Did he walk out of the house, or tell you where he was going?
A. He just didn't come back, and I thought he was going for the night, and as usual to gamble, but when I saw he didn't come back, what could X do? I had no money, no food, and I couldn't go on like that.
Q. Was he a drinking man?
A. X wouldn't say he was drinking much; it was more gambling; that was enough; after he gambled I don't think he had money enough left for drinks.
I am not sure what all this is supposed to indicate, Mr. Chairman, but it would seem to me that in this case no consideration was given to reconciliation. I would think many serious matters were involved here, including the problem of gambling, which possibly could have been corrected by sending this couple to a competent family court with all the facilities that are available to such a court. It does not seem that anything in particular happened when the husband left, but that certain developments took place over a period of time and when he finally walked out she did not know whether he was just going out for the evening or was leaving her. I think some help could have been given to this couple during the period of the break-up if they had been sent to the proper authorities.
I am not sure whether it is too late, Mr. Chairman, but I think we in the House of Commons should have the right to ask these people to appear before a competent welfare agency or family counsellor. We should not be restricted just to asking whether they would be able to get along, as was done in the Senate, but should be able to suggest that they do something positive to make a success of this marriage if it is at all possible.



I960

[Stage Direction]
This young lady has been working for an insurance company. I do not know how much she is paid, but if we say she gets $50 a week I am surprised that she has had enough money to pay for a divorce. I presume she has been separated from her husband since 1951, although it does not say exactly when, but I am surprised that she has been able to save enough money to take action for divorce when she has had to look after two children and feed and clothe them, on the salary she has earned in the last three years while she has been working for the insurance company. It would seem to me that it might well be that some further assistance is being given her to enable her to secure a divorce, and that that assistance may be in the form of a settlement from her husband, though that does not appear in the evidence. The youngest child must be eight years old, and it would seem to me that she would need additional help before she could raise the $2,500 that it is reported most of these divorces cost. I would suggest that in this case there was some arrangement or agreement.
As to the actual adultery charged, one of the investigators was Kal Wiseman, age 32, of Montreal. He and his partner followed the gentleman for some time from his place of employment, Dominion Oilcloth Company on St. Catherine street. With relation to the particular day in question there is the following in the evidence of Mr. Wiseman:
Q. Have you ever met the petitioner?
A. Yes.
Q. Where?
A. In your office.
Q. When?
A. It was August of last year.
Q. Where did you go with the petitioner?
A. Went down to a place of employment of her husband, Dominion Oilcloth, on St. Catherine street east.
Q. Do you know the cross street?
A. I believe it is DeLorimier.
Q. Could you tell us what time that was?
A. It was late afternoon.
Q. Did you see the person-
A. She pointed out this one to me.
Q. And she gave you that photograph?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened on September 16?
A. On September 16, through previous investigation I knew that the respondent, Mr. Mazurette, was living with a woman other than his wife as a common law marriage, at St. Christophe street. My associate, Mr. O'Neil, and myself, went into their apartment-call it that, on St. Christophe street, on September 16 in the evening, knocked on the door: it was answered by Mr. Mazurette. Explained to him who we were, and what we were there for. He was most co-operative, was most secretive, as far as he was concerned.
Stopping there, it would seem to me very surprising that a person could be secretive and co-operative at the same time. If you rap on somebody's door and they are co-operative
Private Bills-Divorce
I do not think they would be very secretive. If they were very secretive I think they would shut the door again.
This, Mr. Chairman, is the type of evidence we receive continually from private investigators. In the main I would suggest that they have no education and no training for this type of work at all. I suggest that most of them give a picture that is given to them in the first	place by	the lawyer who	has beenhired in	the	case.	I think the lawyer not
only briefs the person applying for the divorce as to how to answer questions, but also briefs the investigators as to what they are going to see, what they want them to find. In any event, Mr. Chairman, this witness said:
He was most co-operative, was most secretive, as far as he was concerned. He took us into this apartment, and there was the co-respondent, who was using	the	name	Mazurette, but we	found outher name	was	Marie Leclerc. It was,	you could
call it, a two and a half or three room apartment, bedroom, living room, but the only thing separating the bedroom and living room was a thin drape, I would say a flowered drape, over an archway.
He can call it a flowered drape if he wants to. He is giving the evidence. He remembers everything else, but I would suggest that his evidence is not direct evidence. It is not evidence to which you would give much credit if it were any other type of case, but in these divorce cases it seems that not too much particular evidence is needed. I continue:
Q. What kind of an area would you say this is in Montreal?
A. I would consider it is a very poor area.
Q. What time of the night did you enter?
A. It was after eleven.
Q. Did you go right into the apartment?
A. Oh, yes; he admitted us through.
Q. How many people lived in the apartment?
A. Just the two, as man and wife. She was sitting on the edge of the bed, with a white slip underneath a pinkish bathrobe; I imagine that was the colour in its original state.
Senator Burchill asked these questions:
Q. How many rooms were in the apartment?
A. It is just a bedroom and living room and kitchenette.
By Mr. Cohen:
Q. Describe to the committee what the respondent looks like.
A. Well, I remember one outstanding thing, the way his lips are pursed, as if he had no teeth, but he did have his teeth. He is a middle aged man about 45, slender.
Mr. Chairman, when questions are answered with this type of answer I wonder whether the investigators or whatever they call themselves are half-grade morons or even lower in the scale of mentality; because the answers given by these investigators would indicate, in my opinion, they did not have all their marbles. I continue to quote from the evidence:
Q. Did you stay around very long?
A. We were in the apartment some five or ten minutes but did not stay around because they
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce admitted they were living there as man and wife. There was no reason to try to obtain further evidence beyond that point.
Q. Did you look at the bed?
A. Yes, it had definitely been used.
It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that in this particular case the grounds established are that a common law marriage eliminates the need for proving adultery. I think people could live together at common law without any adultery being committed. Certainly they could live in the same house or in the same apartment, and this fact in itself would not establish that adultery had been committed. I would suggest that in this case the Senate committee has been quite willing to accept the fact that, because they claim to be living as common law man and wife, the condition precedent to this divorce had been fulfilled.
Further questioning by the committee revealed that the woman could only speak French, but the detective could speak French and she also said that this was her husband. He said, "This is my new wife". Again, Mr. Chairman, this couple claim to be living together as common law man and wife. On the other hand we have the young lady trying to raise two children while working as a secretary or clerk in an insurance company, yet she appears to have enough money to hire a lawyer, hire detectives to embark on an investigation, and apply for a divorce through parliament which is going to cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2,500. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there has been some arrangement made by the husband for obtaining this divorce, because otherwise I think it is financially impossible for the lady to raise these children and, out of $40 or $50 a week, be able to save enough to pay for this divorce.
If this is true, Mr. Chairman-and recalling that when the investigators went into this second apartment Mr. Mazurette said to the detective, Mr. Wiseman, in French "Well, the house is yours; come on in"-then I think this is an indication that should raise some question in the minds of hon. gentlemen as to whether there was collusion in this particular case. There would seem to be some indication of an arrangement by the husband for obtaining this divorce, and the money must have been forthcoming from him to pay the lawyer and the detective.
If this is true, is it not time the committee gave some consideration to the passing of these divorce bills because people set themselves up to live at common law as man and wife? This should be the grounds for the divorce, rather than asking people to fake or to indicate that adultery has been committed. This should be a second ground for divorce, and we should consider it so. If

people are going to admit that they live at common law, then this itself should be grounds for divorce without any other consideration.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I think this divorce should have been granted by reason of the fact the husband had left the wife for a period of seven years. I suggest that in this particular case this could have been grounds for divorce, after the husband had deserted her for seven years and made only a small contribution to the maintenance of the children. This divorce should have been granted automatically because of the desertion over a period of seven years.
I am not sure whether any other hon. member wants to say anything about this bill. I would think all this is an indication that we are granting a divorce for one reason when we should be granting this particular divorce for causes completely dissociated from those established by the Senate committee. I say this because of the co-operation that was given by the husband in establishing the fact that he lived at common law, and on the supposition that he must have contributed toward obtaining this divorce; otherwise I think it would have been financially impossible for the wife to raise the money. I suggest, therefore, that in this particular case we should give some consideration to granting this measure of relief on the grounds that the husband has publicly and openly declared himself to be living at common law with somebody else, and is not the least bit interested in a reconciliation, even if that were contemplated.
Robert Jardine McCleave: I will attempt to deal with some of the more down to earth statements of my hon. friend, but I shall not attempt to follow him on his periodic jumps beyond cloud nine. The fact is that nine years ago this man deserted his wife. She had the care of two children in the intervening time. We should not be surprised that she is able to finance this divorce through parliament when we think that undoubtedly she has been saving for about nine years so she could obtain justice and the right to start a new life, after scrimping and saving while looking after these children for nine years with very little help from her husband.
However, when her petition comes before parliament requesting help this hon. member of the C.C.F. party says the request should be turned down. He said that half-way through his speech, but I realize at the end of his speech he was saying that the divorce should be granted for some other reason than that set forth in the petition. I was not able to follow his reasoning there. It seemed to me he did so many figure eights, twists

and turns, that it was difficult to follow him except that he wanted to see a certain amount of time pass before we could pass this bill and get on to another one.
Now, what are the points to which a reply should be given? It should be pointed out to the hon. member that this system of divorce does carry a disability in so far as maintenance actions and elementary actions are concerned, in that they must be considered in provincial courts, whereas the dissolution of the marriage is to be considered in parliament. The advantage when a provincial supreme court can proceed with divorce jurisdiction is, of course, that you may deal with all the matters under one roof or before one judge rather than, as in this case, having to go before a provincial court and then having to go before parliament. It is, however, true that the woman apparently has made no effort to go into a provincial court in order to extract payment from her husband on behalf of herself or on behalf of the children, but that does not debar her from exercising that right at some future time if she desires to do so. The man's obligation toward his children would exist even though we granted the divorce.
My hon. friend has also made some suggestion that there could have been collusion here, that the husband was rather willing to open the door to allow the detectives in. I suppose after several months of liaison with this other woman and after nine years less two weeks or four weeks of being away from his own lawful wedded wife, he had no particular feelings on the matter. There is not a jot or tittle of evidence, apart from far-stretched inference from what the evidence says, that there was any arrangement between the couple for her to sue him at this particular time. As I say, the desertion happened nine years ago. We have many similar cases in which wives have been deserted or husbands have had a right of action, but because they are poor they have had to save for years and years before they can come here. I hope we do not hear too many suggestions that when the unfortunate people of the world, the really downtrodden people of the world, find themselves in this situation after having saved and spent a considerable amount of money, and their hopes having been raised, we tell them there is hope for reconciliation, that they may yet be able to save a marriage that broke down nine or ten years ago.


Frank Howard: I did not intend to make any comments about this matter myself, but inasmuch as my friend the hon. member for Halifax has engaged in this realm of fantasy and has gone further into it than my
Private Bills-Divorce
friend the hon. member for Timiskaming could possibly go, I think it is worthy of comment.
The sponsor of the bill made some reference to saving, scrimping and penny-pinching on behalf of the petitioner in this case in order to finance this particular divorce action through the Senate and through this house. Unless the hon. member for Halifax has some private information which is not available to the rest of us, I would point out that there is not one thread of evidence before the committee to that effect. There is no evidence as to how this is to be financed, where the money is to come from, how the young lady got it or how she is to get it.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Does the hon. member want an answer to that question now?


Frank Howard: This is not a question of scrimping and saving; it is a question of interpreting what might be done within the evidence. Even if this is a fact, then it is all the more reason, I suggest, why we should take steps to disengage ourselves in the House of Commons from the consideration of this particular case with which we are dealing and all other cases of this nature. Certainly if the House of Commons were to relinquish what is presently its function in considering this particular case which is before it and others like it, I am sure the cost would be much less. If jurisdiction were altered so that neither section of the parliament of Canada had anything to do with the matter of divorce, the cost would be that much less.


Robert Jardine McCleave: If I may I should like to answer the point raised by the hon. member for Skeena. He says I made my remark without a jot or tittle of evidence to support it. I would refer to page 10, at the bottom of the page. There he will find this question:
Q. Did you ever discuss divorce with your husband?
A. No.
Unless he is going to say that she is telling a lie under oath, I think he will have to admit that the further inference from this is that no arrangement was reached between husband and wife. Another question and answer read as follows:
Q. Who is paying for this divorce?
A. I am.


Frank Howard: With respect, may I say to my hon. friend that this proves absolutely nothing. The question and answer are there, certainly:
Q. Did you ever discuss divorce with your husband?
A. No.

Private Bills-Divorce
And when she is asked who is paying for the divorce, she says that she is. It is not a question of drawing from that question and answer that she herself has been saving, scrimping and penny-pinching for nine years in order to finance the cost of this particular divorce. The situation is merely as I suggested, namely that my hon. friend is in the realm of fantasy if anyone is, and is reading into this evidence something which it is not possible to read into it.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 carry?


Robert Jardine McCleave: No, Mr. Chairman. Obviously I am making an inference from what is said and not making the inference my hon. friend draws. He would put the word "not" in brackets after everything that is said in this unfortunate case.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall I report the bill?


Mr. Ricard:: On division.
Bill reported, on division, read the third time and passed.



SHIRLEY EVELYN ELLIS BERTRAM

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-21 for the relief of Shirley Evelyn Ellis Bertram-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Frank Howard: In discussing this particular bill I hope my friend the hon. member for Halifax and I do not get engaged in too many differences of opinion in interpreting what the evidence says or misconstruing what the evidence says. There is some indication in the evidence given here in connection with Bill SD-21 in which professional type investigators are involved. I use the word "professional" in so far as their activities in this case are concerned and because they also, from reading other evidence, have participated in other instances involving other people. I hope you will allow me to make reference to this matter even though it is outside the scope of this bill.
There is one serious situation existing here which I think should make us wonder, in our consideration of these particular bills, just whether we are doing the right thing in granting a divorce when from the evidence submitted to a committee of the other house we find that the evidence presented by the investigators was obtained by illegal means or by illegal entry, and by what I consider to be an infringement upon the rights of

citizens of this nation. It is true that some of the individuals concerned in this particular case may have a cause of action of their own for infringement of these rights, but I suggest it is well worth our while to consider this particular question of the invasion of the rights of individual citizens, or the infringement of those rights by these investigators who investigate these particular cases and who investigated this one which is now before us. I suggest that some civil or criminal charges can be laid against these people for the things they did in this particular case in order to gain the evidence to prove what they desired to prove.
In this case I should like to make reference to a few of the questions and answers in the evidence. At page 11 thereof Mr. Kal Wiseman appeared and testified as a witness on behalf of the petitioner. He was asked certain questions by Mr. Cohen, who was counsel for the petitioner. I do not intend to read all the questions and answers but just the relevant part. It is about two thirds of the way down the page. Questions were asked by Mr. Cohen as follows:
Q. Can you tell us what happened on the 28th March, 1959?
A. On that date I had followed Mr, Bertram to the residence of Miss Foreman at 3600 Ridgewood and seen him enter the apartment, I waited out there for several hours and he did not come out. I then called my associate, Mr. Wiseman, at home, about 1.30 a.m., it was a Saturday morning, and asked him to join me at the apartment. He came down and we then went up to the apartment once again, knocked on the door and after several minutes it was answered by Miss Lorna Foreman.
Q. How was she dressed?
Then an answer is given as to the type of clothing this young lady was wearing, and this is the relevant part, Mr. Chairman:
Q. Was there anybody else in the apartment?
A. We asked her if Mr. Bertram was there and she denied that he was and we pushed our way into the apartment.
Then the chairman of the committee, Senator Burchill, inquired further about this, as reported at the top of page 12. Without casting any reflections upon the hon. gentlemen in the other place, I wonder why they did not pursue this particular phase of it. Senator Burchill asked:
Q. Was she surprised when you pushed your way in the door at 1.30 in the morning?
A. It was very close to 2 o'clock. She was surprised, yes, when she did answer the door, and we asked her if Mr. Bertram was inside, and she was rather surprised then.
Then he reiterates what he did:
We then pushed our way in the apartment and it is so situated as you enter the hallway there is a bedroom right to the left and another one adjacent to it, the living room is right ahead and the kitchen back of it, and we could clearly see the respondent attempting to dress himself as we entered-

Then again he says:
We pushed our way in and identified ourselves-
Throughout the report of the activities of these two gentlemen, the Messrs. Wiseman, the investigators, there are three distinct references to having pushed their way into a private citizen's dwelling. We all know that generally there are two ways of gaining access to someone else's home in a legal manner; one is to have a search warrant and the other is to be invited. In this instance there is no reference to invitation, and certainly no reference to a search warrant being obtained; there is only a reference to force, of pushing their way into the apartment.
Then Mr. Cohen asks another question on page 12:
Q. Did you have any other conversation?
A. No, except to tell him our reason for our being there, and the young lady was a little bit frightened throughout this whole thing.
That is quite an understatement, I am sure. Remember that these are the words of the individual investigator himself, not the words of the young lady to whom he referred as being "a little bit frightened". I imagine she would be if in the middle of the morning two gentlemen pushed their way in through the door, barging in in an illegal manner, contrary to our concept of the rights of individual citizens. I am sure she would be quite upset about the whole process.
I wonder very much, Mr. Chairman, whether we are justified in giving proper credence to the evidence of witnesses who, out of their own mouths and by their own testimony, certified by official reporters of the Senate of Canada, have broken the law in order to gain whatever evidence they needed to prove their case. I do not place too much credence on that evidence. In one way perhaps the circumstances in this particular case were such that they were justified in granting the divorce, but I am terribly upset that such things are allowed to take place and that illegal means of entry are used.
There was no subterfuge. They did not say they had a telegram to deliver, or had to check the water pipes, or use any other spurious excuse in order to gain admittance. They merely knocked at the door and pushed their way in, and beyond shadow of doubt they used force to gain illegal entry to the premises in order to enable them to gain evidence to support the petition of the client these investigators were representing.
In fairness to what I have said I would point out that additional evidence was given by Mr. Hyman Wiseman, the partner of the other investigator to whom I have just referred. He gave evidence substantially the same as that given before about the apartment
Private Bills-Divorce
number, the time they knocked on the door, and so on. He is not quite so definite in his attitude toward pushing. Perhaps this is because the other investigator was in the fore of things and did the pushing while the second investigator just followed, but that is pure speculation. Toward the bottom of page 12 Mr. Hyman Wiseman, having been sworn on behalf of the petitioner, was asked questions by Mr. Cohen as follows:
Q. On what occasion did you see John Bertram?
That is the respondent.
A. On March 28, 1959, at one in the morning I got a call from my associate at home telling me to meet him in front of 3600 Ridgewood, that he thought he had seen the respondent enter the apartment. I went down there and he told me he had just gone in about 9.30 or so. We waited until a quarter to two or 2 o'clock and then we went up and knocked at the door, which was opened by the co-respondent, and we asked for John Bertram and she said there was no John Bertram here. She let us in the apartment I suppose because she was afraid of the noise waking up the neighbours.
I do not know offhand what he supposed or what her reasons were for letting him in the apartment, but I suggest it was because of the approach of the person who was giving evidence and the question of pushing their way into the apartment. I suggest with all respect, Mr. Chairman, that regardless of the merits of the evidence in this case meeting the rules as established by the other house, which rules must be met in order that a divorce may be granted, and especially because in this case I understand there are no children involved-an overriding factor which I think we should bear in mind-we should very seriously consider whether we should allow private investigators to use illegal means to contravene the law and people's rights. By our passage of this type of bill without too much discussion about it, or even after a considerable amount of discussion, we are condoning this sort of thing, and I suggest we really cannot allow a continuation and worsening of this state of affairs with the consequent disdainful attitude of investigators who, being professionals, know all the tricks of the trade and what they can and cannot do.
In this instance I think we should discuss quite thoroughly what I consider to be the illegal means of gaining entry-the lawbreaking activities-of people of this nature in order to gain evidence to support a petition for divorce. I for one would think that in this instance this committee might well ask for a review of this case. By this I do not mean that they should inquire whether any facts have been proven or disproven as far as meeting the test of adultery is concerned- as it was explained to me I think that test

Private Bills-Divorce
is met in this case-but this committee should ask our miscellaneous private bills committee to review this particular case.
I am not casting any reflections on the members of this committee, because I know they are very seriously overworked with the volume of business they have to do. We should ask the committee to review this case. The investigators should be called before the committee to explain why they find it necessary to use illegal means to gain entry and should be reprimanded for doing so. Unless the committee does this we will have a repetition of this practice. We know that illegal entry is gained in many of these cases.
A young lady would be reluctant to open her door to a stranger at two o'clock in the morning and would only open it a crack. Presumably, then, the door is pushed in her face and someone forces his way into the apartment in order to gain evidence for use in a divorce case. Unless steps are taken to prevent this practice we will in effect be condoning the use of illegal means to gain entry to premises. If this becomes public knowledge what is to stop a criminal or potential criminal from posing as an investigator and using the same means to gain entry into premises wherein he might steal or commit other crimes?
We should refer this back to the committee in order to reprimand the investigators who are openly breaking the law in gaining entry illegally and who feel they can go without punishment for doing so. The divorce mills in Quebec and Newfoundland have been in existence for so long that these investigators think they can get away with murder.
This would be a good time to adopt this approach. I do not intend to move a formal motion in this regard at this time. In the first place I do not know if it would be in order and in the second place I do not think it should be done in that way until we have had an opinion from other hon. members concerning referring this back to the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall I report the bill?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: On division.
Bill reported, on division, read the third time and passed.



SALLY EMDEN ROHR

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-22, for the relief of Sally Emden Rohr-Mr. Mc-Cleave-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
IMr. Howard.]
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: Private Bills-Divorce
that I can say about it is that inferences are being drawn for which there does not seem to be any basis in fact.
Then, the following questions were asked:
Q. Did you have any conversation in the apartment?
A. The conversation was. I explained the reason of our intrusion, and this girl asked him what was the trouble. He said it was his wife again causing trouble for him again.
This would indicate to me that the detectives had been there before and that they had some conversation before. The detective points out the girl said that his wife was causing trouble again. This could mean one of two things. It could mean that the wife had been around to visit this gentleman when he had the girl with him or that the detective had been around to visit the gentleman when the girl was with him or, at least, he was around some time in the near past. I would suggest that if the wife was there and had been around raising a fuss, she would not have been able to give the answer that there was no opportunity, as she said on page 10, for reconciliation. If she were around raising the dickens with the husband, then she must have considered that reconciliation was possible.
I am just wondering, Mr. Chairman, how many times can they make this type of entry? How many times do they just keep hounding a guy over a period of time until they find him in a situation that they feel will be acceptable as evidence to the Senate and the House of Commons? How do they operate? How do they know that at this particular time they will get the evidence and exactly how much evidence they need? If they were in the process of moving-he does not say they were in the process of painting or doing other jobs-I think there could be some justification for the conditions that Mr. Etheridge reported he found on entering this particular room and I think it would be stretching everyone's imagination to ask them to consider that adultery had been committed or that it even seemed to have been.
Turning to the next page, it would seem to me that the detective is drawing on his imagination and is not saying what he saw. He was not warned by the lawyer that he could not make this type of statement. The evidence reads:
Q. What was his reaction to this information?
A. He didn't seem to care.
Then he goes on to say:
They were both definitely setting up dual accommodation in this apartment. It is a new section of the city, two and a half, three room bachelor apartments that couples occupy.
It would seem to me that he is drawing quite an inference. Because two people are

in the apartment and the furniture appears to be in the process of being moved in he comes to the conclusion, not from anything he is told, not from anything he sees, that these people are moving into this apartment and are going to establish a common law relationship there. It would seem that he bases this conclusion on the fact that this is a new section of the town in which young married couples live and therefore if someone moves into a bachelor apartment they must be moving into it for the purpose of setting up housekeeping.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Certainly.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would the fact that the detective found the man and woman in pajamas perhaps not help him to arrive at that inference?


William Arnold Peters: It would certainly help. In reading the evidence I had not noticed that the man was wearing pajamas.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The middle of page 11.


William Arnold Peters: It is true that both of them were in pyjamas which would certainly give some credence to the evidence. I was of the opinion that the man was in a pair of grey flannel pants as was indicated a few minutes before. Even so, the evidence would indicate to me that certain conclusions were drawn by this experienced detective that are not necessarily in keeping with what he knew or what he saw or with what would be admissible as evidence. In other words, he is drawing his own conclusions rather than basing his evidence on something he was told or something he saw or something he knew. The other detective in this case gave his version and it was not quite the same. In the evidence there is the following:
Q. About what time did you see him there?
A. At 11.20 when I went to the apartment in company of Mr. Etheridge, when Mr. Etheridge rang the bell, and we heard a woman's voice, Mr. Etheridge told her he wanted to see Mr. Rohr regarding his car, his Plymouth.
We did not get this the first time. Mr. Etheridge said, and I give him full credit for saying it, that he was from the Reliable Detective Agency. But his partner said that he asked something about a car. I continue:
So she said, "Just a minute", and a minute after Mr. Rohr answered the door, and we identified ourselves. We went into the apartment, and inside we found out that there was another woman there, Marlene Fleming.
In reading the evidence, Mr. Chairman, I am not too sure whether he means that there was a third party there but in following along it does not appear to be that way. He

obviously knew there was one woman there because she said, "Just a minute", and a minute afterwards Mr. Rohr opened the door. Anyway, if there was another woman she must have stayed in the background because she does not enter into the picture again.
It would almost seem to me, that in these divorce proceedings a pattern is established that the divorces are by agreement, by collusion. In most cases it would seem that there is a certain amount of agreement between the two parties. I think that in many cases, particularly this one, if the people want a divorce they should be granted a divorce. But I think we in this committee should have the right to point up and highlight the evidence given by these detectives. If a detective has proper evidence I think that should be indicated and if he has not I think that also should be indicated.
We should also have the right to decide what payment will be made to the injured party in these cases. If you are a woman, property rights are very difficult to maintain in the province of Quebec and I think we should ask for the right to award damages and allowances to the injured party so that they will not be left destitute when we grant relief. I do not necessarily mean that the damages would be paid to the party who applied for divorce but that in some cases they would be paid to the party who appears to be paying for the divorce, and in most cases this must be the man.
I should like to ask the sponsor of the bill if the miscellaneous private bills committee gave full consideration to this divorce and if by a majority decision they came to the conclusion that the facts as disclosed by the evidence heard before the Senate committee were acceptable to them.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I will answer yes although 1 do not know if one is permitted to deal with any divisions that may occur in the committee. However, the answer is yes. The decision was unanimous. My friend made two points with which I should like to deal. I think one of them was an unintentional slip of the tongue. I know he would be the last ane to want anything unfortunate to appear an Hansard which would point to the reputation of a person, especially when such a remark is not deserved. He talked about the petitioning wife committing adultery. The reference was not clear and I am sure it was a slip of the tongue on his part. There *vas, of course, no evidence of that before ;he committee or in the report. The wife's rharacter appears to be quite blameless.
The other point I wish to draw to his ittention is that the woman herself is work-ng for an insurance company.
Private Bills-Divorce


William Arnold Peters: I would agree with the sponsor of the bill that what he says is quite true. The petitioner in this case is blameless. She has a good job and appears to be fulfilling her obligations. She is now gainfully employed by an insurance company.
I should like to ask if the sponsor of this bill would indicate to the committee what the relationship will be between the son and this $40 in the future as a result of this action. At the present time the wife is receiving $40 a week on behalf of the son, Peter Michael. I think the committee would like to know, and certainly I should like to know, what the arrangement is going to be as a result of the passage of this particular bill in so far as this $40 is concerned. This money is necessary so that the boy can continue his education.


Robert Jardine McCleave: In this case, I believe the petition was filed before the new rules went into effect in the other place. These rules were drawn up and adopted by the other place as the result of a joint private meeting with this committee and the committee of the other place in an attempt to bring the practice of parliament more in line with the practice in the courts. Unfortunately, when this petition was filed it was not a rule that all the arrangements between the parties which may have been formalized in the courts had to be set out in the evidence. Unfortunately, therefore, I cannot answer my friend's question. I have just as much evidence as he has that the $40 is being paid toward the support of the child. This might have been done by agreement or by a court order, but that does not appear on the record.
From now on, that is any cases launched after September of last year, the practice I have mentioned will be followed. Unfortunately, this happens to be one of those cases in the in-between period.


William Arnold Peters: Before this bill carries I should like to thank the sponsor for indicating that this problem which we have faced for so many years, that is of not knowing when we pass these bills what the results of our action will be in so far as the dependent children are concerned, has been solved. I should like to congratulate him also upon the arrangements he has made in establishing a much more humane and advantageous method of dealing with this problem of the maintenance of the wife, if she is the injured party, and the children.
I am wondering whether or not it would be a good idea for us to refer this bill back to the committee. The husband has a fairly good job, and I think could well afford to contribute toward the maintenance of the child. It is surprising that in the United

Private Bills-Divorce
States, even in those states in which divorce is easy to obtain, they are always more concerned with these matters connected with the maintenance of the wife and children than they are with anything else. Here, where we are making the grounds for divorce so difficult, we should be very cautious about these matters pertaining to the rights of children. I am not so sure, that it would not be advantageous to refer this back to the committee and have the committee call the parties together to ascertain whether or not there could be some definite understanding that this $40, which I consider to be acceptable for the maintenance of the child, could be included as a part of the agreement.
I should like to have the committee give some consideration to whether or not I could move an amendment to include the maintenance of the wife and any children of this particular marriage as a part of the bill.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I do not quite understand my hon. friend's question. As I said, the difficulty is that we do not have jurisdiction over the support which may be accorded to the wife or children; that is one of the problems connected with bringing divorce actions before parliament. The parties do have full rights in provincial courts, and they can seek remedies there.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-23, for the relief of Barbara Steinberg Shapiro- Mr. McCleave-Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Frank Howard: I had intended, initially, to pose a question or two for the hon. member for Halifax, the sponsor of this bill. However, I shall leave that until later. This is an instance in which there was a child born of the marriage which we are asked to dissolve. Naturally, inasmuch as there is a child involved, this is one of those cases to which I believe we should give more thought, and consider more carefully what we are doing, than we might possibly do if there were no children involved. Certainly, when two adults, because of the actions of one or both of them, feel that there are grounds for divorce, then there are only two adults involved and, presumably each is in a position to look after himself or herself after the divorce takes place.

However, when there are children involved they are the innocent victims of difficult marital relationships. In these cases I feel we should review, as carefully as we can, just what we are being asked to do, and not act hastily because certainly the children should not be subjected to having to grow up in a broken home if some other arrangement can be made. As I have said, according to the evidence submitted, there was one child born of this marriage and arrangements have been made for contributions toward the support of the child in the amount of $10 per week. No indication, so far as I could find, has been given of any arrangement for financial support of the wife who, at the time this evidence was heard by the Senate committee, was not working, even though she is a stenographer. She indicates that she lives now in the home of her parents and is receiving some support from her father. This undoubtedly is indicated in the support that the petitioner's father would wish to give to the grandchild.
In the evidence submitted by Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Paquette, both of whom are investigators, there is an indication of some difference of opinion between them as to what they saw in the particular place they visited. I suggest also that there is evidence of possible collusion in this case between counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. Whether or not the petitioner has knowledge of this collusion is not determined. In fact, she herself in plain evidence, asked by counsel appearing on her behalf, Mr. A. H. Lieff, Q.C., indicates that she knows nothing whatever about the co-respondent or about the adultery or any part in it. In fact, to put this matter more clearly, I should like to refer to the evidence at page 10 where we find the following:
Q. Do you know anything about the adultery to your own knowledge?
A. No, I do not.
Q. I see. Do you know Collette Vigeant?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Is there any agreement or understanding between you and your husband to get this divorce?
A. No, there is not.
Q. Did you scheme about the adultery or plan it?
A. No.
Q. Did anybody plan it for you?
A. No.
Then they go into the question of reconciliation, forgiving the husband and so on, which is not germane to this question of whether or not there is any arrangement or collusion in which the petitioner herself was involved. But I suggest that later on evidence is given which indicates that one of the investigators, namely a Mr. Etheridge, did have knowledge of what was about to occur. As the evidence will show, and as I intend



I960

[Stage Direction]
to relate thereon, the respondent whose name is Abraham Jacob Shapiro was also a party to this arrangement of providing a condition whereby they could prove that if adultery did not take place, at least the condition to such that it could have taken place. If collusion was entered into-as I submit it was- then I am quite sure that adultery did not take place, if the normal course of events is followed in these instances.
Let me indicate from page 11 of the evidence what is the situation. Mr. Ernest Gordon Etheridge appeared as a witness on behalf of the petitioner and, having been duly sworn, testified as follows. Then he was asked questions by Mr. Lieff, Q.C. To lay a background, Mr. Lieff asked some preliminary questions:
Q. Mr. Etheridge, I would like you to take a look at a photograph which has been filed as Exhibit 2. Can you identify that person?
A. That is Joseph Abraham Shapiro.
Q. Did you investigate his behaviour?
A. We did. Our services were retained by Mr. David Notkin, a Montreal attorney, during the month of October, 1959.
Q. What did you learn?
A. As a result of the investigation-we had followed him on previous occasions. He had been living at 3945 Plamondon street.
Q. In what city?
A. Montreal. He was working at the Aldor Door and Window Company at 1111 D'Argenson street in Montreal. He was driving a 1955 Pontiac, licence 151422, Quebec, 1959 licence. On Tuesday, November 3, 1959 we, Paquette and myself-
Incidentally, Paquette is the other investigator.
-took up surveillance at about 5 o'clock when we found his car was parked alongside the company.
That would be the company for which he worked.
He came out and drove uptown. He left his car at a parking lot across from the Chez Paree on Stanley street. He and the woman I had seen him with on one previous occasion left at about 20 after 8. They drove out on Upper Lachine road with the intention of-
Then he was stopped. Mr. Lieff is a fairly sharp lawyer and I am sure he would not want this witness to go on and indicate what was the intention of the respondent.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Would my hon. friend permit a question?


Frank Howard: Certainly.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Might not the lawyer have been preventing him from giving hearsay evidence or evidence that was not admissible? You are not allowed to give evidence of intentions or beliefs.


Frank Howard: It may well be that is what Mr. Lieff wanted to do. But it is quite apparent what Mr. Lieff wanted to do. The witness said:
79951-0-128
Private Bills-Divorce
They drove out on Upper Lachine road with the intention of-
He did not say "possibly with the intention of" or "what I think might have been the intention" or "what someone later on told me was their intention" or "what, as a result of our investigation subsequent to that time we came to the conclusion was their intention". Oh, no. He said:
They drove out on Upper Lachine road with the intention of-
We find there clear evidence without any question at all that Mr. Etheridge knew at that time what they were going to do because, I suggest, he was a party to it. He was quickly interrupted, as is shown by the next question:
Q. No, no; let us not talk about intention. What did they do?
That is the question by Mr. Lieff. We all look with suspicion upon cases such as this which involve hotels, motels or places where one can stay for one evening only. Where a person has a permanent domicile, such as is the instance in other cases, where a person -man or woman-is there and someone of the opposite sex visits there and stays overnight, you can assume that the arrangements are probably more down to earth and that there is more stability to the arrangement between the particular couple than there is where a motel or hotel is involved or some other equally suspect place.
In all the discussions or things that have been written with respect to collusion in divorce-and it is involved not only in one province but, I submit, all across the country -any indication that is given as to the collusive ways in which divorce can be arranged, they invariably involve hotel rooms, motel rooms and things of that nature and they generally follow the pattern that exists here. One of the parties meets the other of the parties and they drive to an hotel or take a taxi to an hotel or motel and check in. They sign as Mr. and Mrs. So and So, whoever it happens to be. The young lady, whoever she might be, does not disrobe but carries along with her a slip which she puts on over her other clothes in order to make it look as though she has disrobed. The gentleman takes his coat off, loosens his tie and they sit down and wait. After 15 or 20 minutes there is a knock on the door, they let them in, and there is the evidence. Then the so-called husband puts his coat back on. The girl takes off her slip which she has had on over her other clothes and puts it in her purse and they leave the hotel.
That is the pattern that is followed where motels and hotels are involved-as I have been informed by those who have studied

Private Bills-Divorce
the matter and know more about it than do I-where one registers, these are the cases where collusion is more likely to exist than in others, especially when one of the investigators involved in the case, before they get to what motel is used, starts to tell the court what the intention was. I submit that what he was going to say was this: they drove out on Upper Lachine road with the intention of checking into a motel, and so on. How far he would have gone into that matter, I do not know. In any event, he says what they did do which I submit is what Mr. Etheridge knew they were going to do. He said:
A. They drove into the Belvedere motel where there was a No Vacancy sign, and they came out of there and went back to the West End motel, 6700 Upper Lachine road. At about 10.45 we noted that a tray of food was delivered to unit No. 11, and at 11.20 the motel was in complete darkness. Shortly before midnight we went to the door of motel unit No. 11, knocked on the door several times, and he finally opened the door.
Q. Who did?
A. Mr. Shapiro. Once we were inside we identified ourselves to him.
Now comes some dispute as to what existed in the room between Mr. Etheridge and his partner, Mr. Paquette. They are questioned by Mr. Lieff as reported on page 12 as follows:
Q. How many beds were in the room?
A. There was one bed in the room. There was a little cot at the side with a green spread on it which was not used-
This would indicate that there were two beds in the room apparently, although he answered that there was one and then there was a little cot at the side with a green spread on it which was not used. We do not know from that whether none of the beds was used or whether the one bed he talked about was used or the little cot which he said was not used. We do not know what he was talking about; but in previous evidence he said there was a double bed being used. Mr. Etheridge's partner said there was just one double bed and there was not this additional cot, although I suppose it is easy to make that error. Certainly if they made a sketch plan, which is what they said they did, they would have known. He is asked, as reported on page 13:
Q. Did you make a sketch?
A. We made a sketch of the place, and he told them-
I suppose the "he" is the partner, Mr. Etheridge.
-that Mrs. Shapiro was taking a divorce against him and we left.
Q. At what time did you leave?
A. It was around midnight because we went in there at 11.50.

If they made a sketch of the place I am sure they knew whether there was one bed or two.
There is an indication, I submit, of what could very well be collusion between Mr. Etheridge, the investigator and the respondent. In addition to that there is the question again of the rights of citizens. It indicates how the professional divorce mill operators over the years have completely disregarded the rights of individual citizens. In this case they attempted to find out the name of the co-respondent. She was in bed pretty well covered up over the head, and he was asked to proceed in his own words. He went on:
Mr. Etheridge asked her her name, and she said- no, she refused to say her name so he said: "We will find out", and he-
"He" meaning Mr. Etheridge again.
-started to go through her purse

I submit this is another invasion of the rights of people by this kind of investigator who lives off the misfortunes and difficulties of people who cannot because of the existing divorce law take proper and decent steps to have certain conditions recognized. He wanders in in the middle of the night and goes through somebody's purse to find out who she is. I submit that is a gross violation of the rights of the individual, to have one's belongings checked through by one of these types of people I am talking about. If it were a policeman with a search warrant properly authorized by a court to make this sort of investigation, then he might be within his rights, but not when he is in fact just another citizen walking in and proceeding to go through somebody's purse in an attempt to discover just who that particular person is.
This is another instance where we should not take this sort of action lightly, on the part of Mr. Etheridge or anybody else of his kind who are willing to do almost anything to obtain their evidence, including breaking and entering and rifling people's purses. I am sure you, Mr. Chairman, as well as I, know that many married couples consider it a most inviolate thing for the husband to look through his wife's purse or for the wife to look through her husband's wallet. What she puts in her purse is her business and is sacred, and in many cases the husband will not look at it. But this chap here thinks a woman's purse is something he can paw through, and on this occasion he said he was going to look for her address.
There is an inclination, as I related before, for people who have studied this question more thoroughly than I to say that where hotels, motels and so on, are involved a

certain practice is followed, and that when adultery does not take place there is no intention on the part of either party that it should take place. The appearance of the two parties here coincides pretty well with what those who study the problem say traditionally occurs. I again read from the evidence of Mr. Etheridge, on examination by Mr. Lieff, his counsel:
The woman, when I told her the reason for our intrusion, took the sheet from off the top of her head when she heard the words that his wife was going to sue him for divorce. We could see she was lying on the far side of the bed, and she' had the straps of a slip on, and we could see that the near side of the double bed' had been previously occupied. He had come to the door wearing his shoes and grey pants only.
This is the traditional situation. The corespondent in these cases wears a slip. If she wears a sweater it may be removed but she wears a slip and that indicates she is in a more advanced stage of undress. She is covered up to the neck so that the investigators who arrive on the scene can say that they saw certain conditions existing, which is supposed to be the evidence. The man is dressed in trousers, boots or shoes, sometimes with his shirt on and sometimes not, indicating that he is close to the stage of undress and that adultery could have taken place. All they desire is to prove, because they have to prove it, that a condition exists which might well lead us to reasonably assume that adultery had taken place when in fact there may be no desire-or there may be desire but no intention-that adultery should take place. That is especially so on the part of the co-respondent, because generally this is some means of adding to her income and she is not concerned with extracurricular activities of that kind but is solely concerned with having the evidence found and proven by eye witnesses, with someone to collaborate the eye witness, and then they leave and everyone checks out of the motel and they are all happy thereafter.
I suggest that this is precisely the condition which exists in this particular case, especially when Mr. Etheridge leads into it very easily by saying that they "drove out on the Upper Lachine road with the intention of-". I submit it was with the intention of doing what he himself, in conjunction with the respondent in this case, were able to arrange in order that the rules of adultery may have been met to the fullest extent possible so that this house, in considering the case, could say that it met the rules and looked like adultery could have taken place. We are not concerned with whether it did or did not. We are not concerned about whether in fact collusion did take place. All we are 79951-0-1281
Private Bills-Divorce
concerned about is that the proper evidence is submitted showing that adultery might have taken place, but instead we are asked to pass divorces in this fashion. If we are to be asked to do this continuously, we must consider very carefully what we are doing. We must ensure that we are attaching the proper weight to the evidence submitted.
This is the second case in which there has been evidence of the invasion of the rights of individuals. In a previous instance someone made an illegal entry into a place of residence. In the present case there was an attempt or threat to rifle through a purse. We cannot look lightly upon this evidence of gross violation of the rights of individual citizens. These professional investigators who make a living on the unfortunate difficulties of married couples callously forget the fact that people have rights and go to almost any length to gain the evidence they seek.
This case should be sent back to the committee on miscellaneous private bills. I do not cast a reflection on the committee of the whole or on the committee of the other place because with 500 or 600 divorce bills to be rammed through it is difficult for them to thoroughly examine each case.
On the face of it there appears to have been collusion and the rights of an individual were violated in the unholy rush on the part of the investigators to get evidence. The miscellaneous private bills committee should welcome the opportunity of clearing up this question. If it is left hanging fire a reflection is cast on the inspector which suggests that he did something illegal. His name would be cleared if additional evidence were given. Perhaps he made an unfortunate choice of words in giving evidence, although I think it goes further than that.
We should take steps to make it known that this type of conduct will not be tolerated by this committee. Our action would serve as a warning to other investigators to be careful in the future about the manner in which they gather evidence.
I should like to hear the comments of the hon. member for Halifax who has a vast knowledge of the functions of the committee, of the rules as they apply to these cases and a vast concern, shared by me, not only for the welfare of the individuals concerned but for the rights of others.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, these matters may be taken up and it may be decided to send for the detectives to deal with the encroachments upon human privacy.
I should like to know if the hon. member was suggesting that Mr. Lieff might be a party to collusion, not that he was but that

Private Bills-Divorce he might have been? If the hon. member replies in the affirmative I would go on to make a very brief statement on that point. I do not care what the hon. member says about the detectives. He can tear them inside out and I will not attempt to defend them no matter what statements are made. However, Mr. Lieff is a very respected lawyer. He would not enter the case until very late, that is after it had gone through all the documented stages and had come to Ottawa. Mr. Lieff comes from Ottawa, not Montreal, and could not possibly have been a party to any collusive scheme.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the only
reference I made to Mr. Lieff was that he was defence counsel for the petitioner and very sharp on the uptake. When the detective began to testify as to his intention, Mr. Lieff interrupted immediately and told him to testify as to facts.
The only reference I made to collusion was between the investigator, Mr. Etheridge, and the respondent, Mr. Shapiro. I had no intention of suggesting that Mr. Lieff was involved in any capacity other than counsel. I did not intend to convey the impression that he was involved in a collusive action and if I did so I constructed my sentence incorrectly.
I raised the question about the committee reviewing this case and if my hon. friend replied I did not hear him. We must have a specific instance for discussion and here we have one. I am not so much concerned about the question of recalling the investigators to inquire about their rifling through a purse. I am more concerned about reviewing the general question of the over-zealous-ness and enthusiasm of these investigators in their attempt to get evidence. I am concerned about the previous case in which they said on three occasions they pushed into the premises.
I would suggest that in the Senate committee, in the committee of the whole, or in the miscellaneous private bills committee of this house, because of its compactness and because of the informality with which it conducts itself and the appearance of witnesses before it, which cannot take place in the committee of the whole, steps should be taken to express our distaste for this sort of attitude or action on the part of investigators. Their actions in this case indicate to me that they have absolutely no concern for the rights of individuals; they have no concern for the law as it applies to the rights of individuals; they will bend, twist or even break the law, which I suggest has been done in this case, in order to gain evidence.


This is what I want to get at. If this is a case upon which we can start such an investigation, upon which we can express our regret, our distaste or our abhorrence for the use of this sort of illegality in gaining evidence, then we should do it. I submit it will do relatively little good to have either here, or in the committee on miscellaneous private bills, individual members express themselves and say, "Well, here is a case where the law relating to private property has been violated by investigators" and let it go at that. Unless we are willing to indicate that we are going to do something concrete about it, I submit that these investigators, because they have been getting away with this sort of illegal action, will look upon it as another voice crying in the wilderness, somebody else in the House of Commons raising this sort of thing. They will say, it will pass over and we will be able to get back to our old practices or malpractices again.
I ask the hon. member for Halifax this question, because of his competence in dealing with these matters by reason of his chairmanship of the committee. Because of his understanding of the problem, will he offer a suggestion as to how we can cope with it and prevent the invasion of the rights of individuals from taking place in the future? I am not concerned about any one particular group of investigators. It may be Mr. Etheridge in this case and somebody else in another case. What I am concerned with is the trend and practice of disregarding the property rights of an individual, the individual citizen's right to privacy and so on, which have been invaded, perhaps even forgotten about or disregarded by the investigators. It is the practice itself I am concerned about.


Robert Jardine McCleave: That can be arranged. There are a number of other cases that will be coming before the committee later on in the session and we can have a discussion on the matter.


Frank Howard: May I ask a question? Did I understand the hon. member for Halifax to say that there are other cases which will be coming before the committee? I take it from his remarks he knows, from having read the evidence, which incidentally I have not done yet, that in these particular cases which are to come before the committee there are references to private rights having been invaded, similar to those in this case we are now discussing?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Frank Howard: That is fine; I will take up the hon. member's offer.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say something on this point. When you read the beginning of the petition you are surprised to note that in this particular case the couple were married in 1956. They had a child in 1957. In January, 1959, they broke up living together. The sponsor can tell us when they applied for the divorce with which we are dealing today. It would seem to me they did not waste any time in making the application. They agreed to disagree and that was about the size of it. As the hon. member for Skeena so ably pointed out, collusion could very easily have taken place, particularly when it is remembered that this couple probably applied for the divorce six months after they ceased living together.
I mentioned Mr. Etheridge in an earlier case, Mr. Chairman. I said that he was a competent investigator and I still think he is. However, I also think he is a ruthless investigator, and we should give very little consideration to evidence gained in this way. I have been shocked to find that detectives will go to a hotel door or to any other door and try to break it open. They knock on the door; they put their feet in the door; they do whatever they can to gain admittance. They will lie and say that they are the police or they are the desk clerk, or whatever they happen to think of, to gain admittance. I do not think we should accept this type of evidence from that type of person as being legitimate evidence. I am of the opinion that in court a judge or jury would not accept evidence coming from people whom they considered to be of ill repute or had no respect for the law itself. The fact is they asked this lady her name. She did not tell them her name, and I suggest her name was none of their business. Then one of them grabbed her purse and started rifling through it. I agree with the hon. member for Skeena that it is a disgrace. If that is the way they handle investigations in the province of Quebec, then it is about time we put our foot down and said that the rest of us in the other parts of Canada do not like this method of obtaining evidence. We should say we do not have any respect for that kind of thing; we do not believe in evidence obtained in that manner. It is evidence that it not acceptable to us. Those who disagree with us and think it is an acceptable method of obtaining evidence are going to be few and far between. What we are asked to do is to listen to evidence, to admissions made in the manner in which they were made in this particular case.
I think there is good reason to believe that this young couple decided in January, when
Private Bills-Divorce
they did not get along, to get a divorce. They made application for this divorce, I would suggest, before September. It may have been made even earlier than that. I understand that applications for divorce are cut off now. We are working on the new year and one cannot now make application for a divorce to go through this session. Probably this divorce application was made early in the year; it might have been made in March or April. It is certainly true that these people went down to the lawyer connected with this business who put his name on the bill and proceeded to process the divorce. Certainly, the investigator could tell you what the intention of the parties was going to be before he followed them. That is a very good indication that there was a great deal of agreement in this case. When you think that only one or two months could have gone by between the time of the disagreement of the young people and this alleged offence, then you would be justified in thinking that the disagreement constituted collusion, which should have eliminated the possibility of the divorce going through the Senate if they had given very much attention to this aspect of it. This proves that the divorce evidence in this case was not handled properly.
Therefore there would be a period of close to ten months in which some type of assistance could have been given to the couple to warrant reconciliation if the matter had been handled as it would have been in other provinces. If the application for divorce had been made in Ontario the couple would very likely have been sent to a family court to see if the conditions that had caused their separation were not trivial and perhaps the marriage could have been saved with the competent advice of the family court officials.
This is not a case with a long history of disagreement as in other cases we have considered today. A relatively short period of time elapsed in this case before divorce was sought. After the presentation of this evidence I suggest it would be very difficult for Barbara Shapiro to agree to take Abraham Jacob Shapiro back again as her lawful husband. If she believed this evidence then I think that when the senators asked her if there was any chance for reconciliation she would have to say no. But if the divorce had been processed in the proper manner, if divorces were dealt with by the exchequer court as we have suggested on many occasions rather than by parliament-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I think the hon. member is again discussing the system generally and I do not think his remarks are particularly relevant to the case with which we are dealing.

Private Bills-Divorce


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I was just trying to point out that this particular case is one in which the two parties were separated for a very short time before action was taken for a divorce. It would seem that we either have to come to the conclusion that the woman was not a party to the divorce or she was a party to it. I think there are some grounds for saying that she was a party to getting a divorce. If she was not a party to getting a divorce the fact that the evidence was presented in the manner in which it was would make it very difficult to bring about reconciliation. But if she was a party to this divorce, and it has been suggested that she was, then obviously the conduct that took place in obtaining the evidence would not be sufficient to prevent a reconciliation of the parties even at this late date. It has to be one way or the other. She either knows about the method of getting the evidence and therefore knows that adultery does not necessarily have to take place but only has to be indicated or she believes that there was adultery, and this would indicate that another method should be used for handling these divorces.
I do not know what the decision is with respect to the child in this case. From the names of the people I would assume there is probably money available to maintain the child, but again we are faced with the problem of not knowing what the legal disposition of the child is going to be once the divorce is granted. I think we should have a clear indication in this case by counsel or by someone closely connected with the case before the divorce is granted as to what the intention is with respect to maintenance of the child. If we do not have that then every member of the House of Commons is going to have to bear equally upon his shoulders the moral responsibility, although not the financial responsibility necessarily, to see that this child is looked after in the manner which he would have been if this marriage were not dissolved. This is an obligation that we must all share and I think we must also work toward finding a more acceptable solution so that we will not have to bear this moral responsibility but will know in actual fact what the disposition is going to be.
I agree with the hon. member for Skeena that in this case two of the major faults of these detective agencies are evident. One is the rifling through somebody's private belongings and the second is gaining entry under false pretences, in this case using bodily force. I think that you, Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the committee should give instructions that this case be sent back to the standing committee so that these matters can
[The Chairman.!
be given full consideration. In your office as chairman I think you will agree that enough doubt has been cast on the veracity of the evidence given by these detectives to warrant further investigation of their conduct from the point of view of the rights of citizens and undue invasion of their privacy, and I suggest that you should intervene to send this case back to the committee for further study.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall I report the bill?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: On division.
Bill reported, on division, read the third time and passed.



OLGA MAY HOSPADARUK EDWARDS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-24, for the relief of Olga May Hospadaruk Edwards-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, as a general rule I do not pay any attention to divorce bills. Very rarely do I read the evidence. However, I find this bill somewhat intriguing on several grounds. First, it is a divorce bill from the province of Quebec which does not have any divorce courts. The Senate and the House of Commons have to deal with divorces from Quebec. Second, both the husband and wife declare that they are Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholic church frowns on divorce and does not allow it so it has to be done by the House of Commons because it cannot be done in the province of Quebec. Third, the Christian names of the husband are Harold Edward, and I was rather interested to see what somebody with the same Christian names as myself was up to. I find that his wife is charging him with adultery.
I have read the evidence, Mr. Chairman, and I should like to have some clarification as to what the law is in Canada. Is adultery ground for divorce or is intent to commit adultery ground for divorce? After reading the evidence given before the Senate committee I can find no evidence of adultery although the wife maintained in the committee in answer to a question that she was asking for a divorce on the ground of adultery on a certain date.
You will understand in a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, why I am asking whether the House of Commons grants a divorce on the

ground of intent to commit adultery or on the ground of adultery because if this man committed adultery he is a mighty fast worker. What do we find from the evidence on which the Senate has based its recommendation? We find that at 11 o'clock-oh, no, before that we find that the investigator is asked this:
Q. Do you remember the night of January 9, 1959?
A. Yes.
Mr. Chairman, do you remember the night of January 9, 1959, and what happened that night? There is no evidence before the committee-and this happened over 12 months ago-of any reference to notes. This is a transcript of the evidence, and it says-
I	want to read this very carefully.


Mr. Cardiff:: Are you speaking to the committee or talking to yourself?


Harold Edward Winch: I want to check the exact citation. Here it is:
Q. Do you remember the night of January 9, 1959?
A. Yes.
Q. What if anything happened on that occasion?
Then away he goes. Can anybody remember what happened last week, even, without reference to any notes? There is no reference here to indicate how he remembers what happened that night. Then this investigator says that this man, Harold Edward Edwards was in the York hotel lounge room at 11 o'clock at night. After 11 this investigator saw him leave the lounge room, go to the desk clerk and apparently arrange for a room. He came back into the lounge room, and he and his girl friend finished their drinks. Then they went up to room 311 in the York hotel. The investigator then says he went down into the lobby and "called my man". This investigator and his man then break into room 311 at 11.30 and find the man in shorts and the woman in bed. On this evidence they find the man guilty of adultery.
I say if a man was finishing his drink after
II	o'clock, and with his girl friend goes up to the room which was broken into at 11.30, then he has been found guilty of intent to commit adultery but not adultery-otherwise, he is a mighty fast worker. This is not grounds for divorce, as I understand the law in Canada, otherwise there would be a lot more divorces than there are now.
In addition to that, although the wife says she is asking for this divorce because of adultery on this date, you will also note that the investigator forced his way into the room, and on page 11 of the evidence the investigator says:
I followed them; they went into room 311. I went downstairs to the lobby and called my man.
Private Bills-Divorce
I imagine that "my man" is the one who later gave evidence, a man by the name of Joseph Spevack. These questions were put to him:
Q. What is your name?
A. Joseph Spevack.
Q. What is your age?

Q. Where do you live?
A. Montreal, Quebec.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Salesman.
Since when does an investigator have a salesman as a man on tap in the lobby, but apparently this one did. What did his man say when he was under questioning? You will find that on page 13 of the evidence, as follows:
Q. Please tell the committee what happened when you got into that room?
A. We didn't get into the room.
That is his answer; we did not get into the room. After telling the committee that he did not get into the room, he then goes on to tell how they forced their way into the room after giving a lot of lies as to who they were and Mr. Rosen, the investigator, using a flashlight. They did not find Harold Edwards in bed. As a matter of fact, he was not completely undressed. The woman was in bed, but whether she was dressed or undressed they do not know because the blanket was up to her neck. Then they said that the bed was disarranged. Just look at that claptrap which is supposed to be evidence upon which adultery is proven and the Senate and the House of Commons are asked to break this marriage asunder. Just how stupid can it get?
I say there can be only one answer to this case. There may have been, and undoubtedly was, an intent to commit adultery but for this evidence to be presented to us as proof of adultery is absolute nonsense. Perjury was committed by both investigators in giving evidence because, in answer to the first question, one investigator said, "We did not get into the room", and two seconds later is telling how they forced themselves into the room. They found the man still had his shorts on and they do not know whether or not the woman was undressed because the blanket was up. This is twenty minutes after the couple had finished their drinks down in the lounge of the hotel. When parliament is asked to take up its time with this stuff and to accept this kind of evidence, then surely not only is it time for a change but surely this is the kind of case which should be referred back to our committee so that witnesses could be recalled to give their evidence and some way found of charging them with perjury unless they change their story a little.

Private Bills-Divorce


Robert Jardine McCleave: I listened with great interest to my friend's foray into this field. It was very dramatic and very interesting. In order to assist him in making up his mind about this particular case, I would point out that the couple were alone in the room for at least half an hour-


Harold Edward Winch: Will you find that in the evidence, as to the time?


Robert Jardine McCleave: It is not clear as to the amount of time that elapsed between their entry into the room and the subsequent entry of the detectives, although I believe my hon. friend is putting it pretty well when he says about half an hour.


Harold Edward Winch: That being the case, I am going to read into the record here the evidence as to time, exactly as it was given, I presume under oath. The evidence of the investigator is as follows:
Q. I suppose they came out of the restaurant and went somewhere?
A. They came out of approximately nine o'clock, took a taxi to the York hotel on Notre Dame street and went into the coffee lounge and sat until close to 11 o'clock. I notice Mr. Edwards leave the table and go to the desk clerk and come back a few minutes later. They finished their drinks and Mr. Edwards and the young lady went upstairs.
This is a few minutes after 11 o'clock.
I followed them; they went into room 311. I went downstairs to the lobby and called my man.
Q. Did your man join you?
A. Yes, he joined me at about 11.30 that night.
Q. When he joined you what did you both do, if anything?
A. We went to room 311.
Q. What time did you get there?
A. Shortly after 11.30.
They were in the lounge a few minutes after 11, and they were up there at 11.30; that is still very fast work.


William Arnold Peters: I would think that the hon. member for Vancouver East has pointed out the fault in this case, as in so many other cases, that there is no proof of adultery. The only proof is intent to commit adultery, but there is no intention of committing adultery with the party with whom he is at the hotel. There are other arrangements. This is only a commercial method of establishing grounds for divorce in Canada.
Again in this case, as in other cases, it would seem to me that this collusion also has been proved by another fact, namely the fact that the wife could not possibly afford a $2,500 divorce in the House of Commons. As I read the evidence, they have one daughter in this family. The assistance that is paid to the daughter is $10 a week. The wife gets no money at all. I am also aware of the fact that she works and that she earns $50 a week from her employment. If she does this

and if she saves pennies and if she pinches and scrapes by she has $60 a week with which to keep herself and her child. She lives in a place where food is not too cheap, where board also is quite expensive, and where welfare for one person is calculated at something about $40 a week. In these circumstances I would strongly suggest that it is an impossibility for us to consider that this woman has paid the money necessary to hire the lawyers and the detectives and to pay the Senate costs, the House of Commons costs and the cost of producing this bill for the dissolution of her marriage.
The situation certainly fits in with what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver East, namely that in this particular case, as appears from the evidence, no time was allowed for the committing of this adultery. This is a fact that we have seen established in almost every case we have discussed this afternoon, where collusion must have taken place on at least two or three different counts. I do not know where this woman thinks she got her money or where the detectives or the lawyers think she got this money. But if lawyers are as honest as the sponsor of these bills seems to imply, I think he is going to have to ask himself this question: where did the money come from that is going to pay my bill; where did the money come from that is going to pay the Senate bill. In this case, where we see the opportunity for collusion-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would my hon. friend permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Did he suggest that I was getting any money for handling these cases? Surely not.


William Arnold Peters: No. I did not suggest that at all. I should be quite happy if the hon. member could make some money out of them because they certainly involve a great deal of work on his part. No, Mr. Chairman; I am not suggesting that he gets any money. I did not even refer to the fact that he is a lawyer himself. But because he is a lawyer I would think he would know that even lawyers, if they were to ask where the money was going to come from would get some very surprising answers that would not be acceptable in the evidence we have before us. No, Mr. Chairman; by no means do I suggest that the hon. member is getting any money from discharging this responsibility.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Headaches, yes; but money, no.


William Arnold Peters: Experience maybe; but money

no. In this particular case, we again have a problem that has been brought to your attention this afternoon in every other case, outside of this matter of collusion, namely the matter of entry. These detectives do not get into an hotel by the normal manner of coming up and knocking on the door. Without any doubt, you would not get into an hotel room if you went up and rapped at the door. I think every hon. member here should find out for himself whether or not this can be done. All that it is necessary to do is to walk down to the hotel in which you are staying. The next time you go there, rap on three or four doors and you will find out how many of the occupants will open the door when you say you are the desk clerk or something else. I should be greatly surprised if you do not get thrown out a couple of times before you ever get your foot in one of these doors. If you wake somebody up at one or two o'clock in the morning you do not get your foot in the door; you do not get readily admitted.
Mr. Chairman, these people are getting fairly well admitted. In this particular case the detective carried a flashlight which would constitute a fairly good weapon and that would aid in the opening up of that door. They forced their way inside the room. They obtained evidence that is the bare minimum requirement of admissible evidence. In doing this I would suggest they are not operating even within the confines of the law as we know it.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I should like to have your assurance that if we are to pass this bill this afternoon, the daughter by this marriage will be given some assurance that she will be taken care of. It would seem to me that because of the marriage vows people take, they have this built-in maintenance clause for the children of that marriage. By our destroying that marriage contract we are taking away from this child the right it has to maintenance, its right to a good education and its right to the things that either must be provided by law through a separation arrangement or can be given by the marriage contract itself. When we pass this bill this afternoon and there is then no marriage, I think we must assume responsibility, as I have suggested previously, and that we must take upon ourselves the moral obligation to see that financial support is provided to this child until such time as it can look after itself. I think we should do this through the very fact of granting this particular divorce.
You have listened very attentively this afternoon to a number of these cases where these faults are appearing: no maintenance of the children; in some cases no maintenance of the wife; improper action by the detectives 79951-0-129
Private Bills-Divorce
as in this case and evidence that would lead only to the conclusion that collusion has been participated in. I would think it would be an obligation on your part, Mr. Chairman, to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that these things are taking place with respect to the bills that are coming before us and that these bills should all be re-committed to the miscellaneous private bills committee for further study. I think the committee has an obligation to see that these bills get the further study they deserve.


Robert Jardine McCleave: In a moment I am going to add a new proverb to the English language. But first, with regard to the point raised by my hon. friend, may I say that I am not the master of the committee or anything like that. Everybody is equal there. Those who have these points to make can come there and make them, and they should be brought out.
So far as looking after the child is concerned, there is a legal separation and the judgment of the superior court of Quebec ordering the husband to pay $40 a week to the wife. He does not pay it but he does pay $10 a week toward the child. Apparently they cannot make this man pay the judgment of the court, although there are methods by means of which he can be dealt with, for instance, if he were in contempt of court. But legally the situation would be not very much different under a divorce. There is always the opportunity to go back to the court to protect the child. The proverb I was going to make is this: you cannot get blood from a rolling stone.


William Arnold Peters: You do not want to divorce a rolling stone, either. These are human beings. We are dissolving a marriage. While it is true that further action can be taken in this particular case in the courts of Quebec for maintenance, it cannot be taken by the child. By our destroying this marriage, we are going to be obliged to assume responsibility for this situation, not the court. We are not even sure that the mother is going to accept the responsibility. Normally under the marriage vows these children would be protected. When we have eliminated and made null and void this marriage, as a result of a petition to the House of Commons, we have that obligation. I suggest that until we can function in the manner of a court and make these decisions, we will have to assume the full moral responsibility of the maintenance of these children, and of the wife if necessary. It will be quite a burden on some people if they give some consideration to this fact.
Mr. Chairman, too long have we been able to discuss Bill No. SD-24 and only consider it along with another large group of bills.

Private Bills-Divorce
Now when we do discuss it the remarks oi the sponsor of the bill and the remarks of everyone who speaks in committee are much more to the point because everyone knows what is in the particular bill. I think it is safe to say that these bills came before the committee en bloc, and no reference was made to a particular bill having been a case where forced entry was obtained by the investigator. I do not remember when discussing this bill-I do not remember even if I attended that particular day-what consideration had been given in the Senate to making arrangements for maintenance with the province of Quebec, and discussing whether the courts in that province considered that the case involved a very juvenile ward who would be a ward of the court, and whether because this divorce is granted in the House of Commons it becomes a ward of the House of Commons. It will be surprising how many wards will accumulate if we pass 500 bills. The House of Commons will have to give some consideration not only to this case but to all cases before it where children are left without parents owing to the action taken by this chamber. I am sure no one here will want to shirk their duty in assuming responsibility for this child, or of deciding when the father at least will make payments for this particular child.
These are matters which, it seems to me, we are not considering. We are raising these matters, but a divorce bill is not like a government bill where the minister can stand up and say what he is going to do about it. We are raising these problems of collusion, of improper evidence, of crooked investigators, improper advice from lawyers and many things of that nature, but no consideration is being given to them. The sponsor of the bill is certainly not responsible for all these conditions which exist. He has inherited the conditions over the years.
I think we should sit down and discuss these problems and see if we cannot arrive at some decision before we have to meet a lot of these problems. It would be easier in my opinion to discuss the welfare of this one child of this broken home than to discuss all the children of all the broken homes resulting from all these divorces. With this in view, Mr. Chairman, I would like you to give some direction to the committee, if you so see fit, in order that these matters could be solved in a much more courtly manner than they are at present.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I am providing certain information which will be available to the committee on the exact number of children and wives in the province of Quebec. I think it will be of some assistance.


Mr. Marlin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the miscellaneous private bills committee mentioned in this particular case the figure of $40 per week, I think it was, maintenance for the child. I wonder if that order-a court order I presume it is-is to be affected in any way by the dissolution of this marriage?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think the court order was for alimentary allowance for the wife and child. I do not know the terms of the court order. It might be affected; but the child's right to look to its parent for maintenance, even if there were a divorce, would not be affected by the divorce.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: I understand the minister of external affairs intends to ask the house to revert to motions in order to make a statement. Under those circumstances shall I rise and report certain bills and request leave to sit again later this day?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, may I indicate one other matter with respect to the business of the house following on eight o'clock. You will recall earlier today a request was made to proceed with certain other items on the order paper, namely items 2, 45, 46, 47 and 48 in that order, and then item No. 1 again. I understand it is the unanimous desire of the committee, because of an earlier misunderstanding, to proceed in this fashion commencing at eight o'clock. Perhaps if that could be indicated now we will have an idea just where we are going at eight o'clock.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is the understanding, if it is possible to bring the pages back in after the type of debate we have been exposed to here this afternoon.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
10-MEMBER COMMITTEE
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could have unanimous consent to revert to motions in order to make a statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow the ten-nation committee on disarmament will start its important work in Geneva. The people of Canada, like those in most parts of the world, have been waiting in hopeful expectation for these discussions to get under way. The house will,

I am sure, expect a few remarks from me about the circumstances in which the talks are to begin.
This evening the five western powers represented on the committee are releasing a paper which sets forth the opening negotiating position of the west. With the consent of the house, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table this paper setting out the initial western negotiating position. Perhaps it could be printed as an annex to today's Hansard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house agreeable to having this document printed as an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Editor's note: For disarmament plan referred to above, see appendix).


Howard Charles Green: It takes the form of a three stage plan for comprehensive disarmament.
During some six weeks in Washington the western five evolved this plan, last week it was put in final form in Paris and was considered and approved by the NATO council. Hon. members will understand that what has been formulated and announced is an initial negotiating position. This means that it may undergo modification as the negotiations develop, for there could be no negotiating if one side or the other were to stand on a fixed and inflexible position. Canada will urge that the western negotiators continue to seek improvements in an effort to reach agreement with the Soviet side.
While both the western powers and the Soviet union have put forward blueprints for a three-stage program, the proposals of the west do not constitute a package. They call for study leading to agreement on specific measures of disarmament. However, as soon as required studies on many items are completed, the appropriate agreements can be concluded and implemented, whether or not other items in the same stage are ready for agreement. Therefore in areas where it proves possible to move forward to agreement, progress will be rapid and there can quickly be partial measures of disarmament within the scope of the general plan.
I have said that there is agreement among the western powers on the broad lines of the program presented. There have been, and remain, differences of approach and emphasis, just as there are differences of interest and judgment. For example, under instructions, General Burns has pressed to have urgent attention given to measures of nuclear disarmament and he has had some success in this respect, though not as much as I should have liked, in this approach we shared to a degree the views of the French government, whose proposals dealing with the control of 79951-0-129J
Western Proposals for Disarmament the means of delivering nuclear warheads seemed to meet one of the major causes of anxiety in the world today.
Similarly, in our view the items concerning the cut-off in the production of fissionable material for weapons purposes and the conversion of existing stocks to peaceful uses deserve higher priority and should be closely linked with the reduction of armed forces and armaments to the levels proposed.
While these views have found some expression in the western plan, we continue to believe that there is room for improvement. In line with this attitude we welcome the inclusion, early in the western program, of studies and measures designed to prohibit, under effective control, the placing in outer space of weapons of mass destruction.
As it stands, the western position is realistic, negotiable, and offers no threat to the security of any state, it looks forward to an ultimate goal of general disarmament, applicable to all countries with a significant military capability, and effectively controlled through an international disarmament organization. It envisages too, the establishment in stages of international machinery for keeping the peace and for enforcing a rule of law. Appropriate links with the United Nations are contemplated and in the view of the Canadian government this is of great importance.
It would be neither profitable nor desirable to enter the ten-power negotiations, which will be exclusively concerned with disarmament, in the belief that no significant progress can be made until political issues have been resolved. On the contrary, we believe that agreement on disarmament measures can and will help to improve the chances for political agreements. Accordingly, it is our intention to pursue vigorously the objectives of disarmament as such, and to work assiduously for the early implementation of agreements in as broad an area as may be possible.
I believe that it is incumbent on all concerned to view the forthcoming negotiations with hope and optimism. For years the people of the world have been yearning for peace with security and for freedom from anxiety about war. During the past decade and a half we have seen an unprecedented preparation for defence, in a period of great scientific advance, but there has been no increase in security and no decrease in anxiety. If anything, international insecurity has grown and with it an appalling risk of war through mistake or miscalculation. Moreover, nations everywhere have had to bear the crushing burdens of defence with no prospect of relief in sight and with a depressing effect on many economies.

Western Proposals for Disarmament
The time has come to concentrate on steps to be taken towards meaningful disarmament. The political atmosphere of today is as favourable to such action as at any time since the second world war. Canada is participating in the disarmament negotiations believing there is hope for success. We are encouraged by the degree of harmony within the western team and by their serious approach to the subject. They have a determination to achieve results and we hope that this will find response from the soviet side. We will do all we can to assist in this most important endeavour.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps in the circumstances the house would permit me to make a short comment now on the statement we have just heard from the minister.
In the first place, may I thank the minister for his courtesy in sending me, an hour or so ago, a copy of the proposed plan which he has mentioned in his statement and therefore I have had an opportunity to give it at least very cursory consideration.
I agree with the minister that it is encouraging to learn that the western five have an agreed plan for controlled and supervised disarmament. Even cursory consideration indicates that it is one of detailed and far-reaching importance based largely, it would seem, although not entirely upon British and French proposals which have already been made public in essentials.
On the face of it this plan seems to me to provide a good starting point for progress. I am glad that the minister emphasized that it is only a negotiating position which is embodied in this plan but it does provide a good starting point for progress in this vitally important field at the disarmament meeting which is about to open in Geneva. Any such progress at this conference will, I know, receive the support of all Canadians.
It is easy to grow discouraged, even cynical, about the possibility of achieving disarmament in a divided and fearful world. So many attempts have been made in the last 30 years and so many have failed. It is possible, however, to be realistic about this without yielding either to defeatism or despair because that would be fatal, as the minister pointed out, to any chance for success. There is, moreover, a far greater incentive to success now than ever before because the penalty for failure would be so much greater than ever it was.
All history shows that the piling up of armaments has always ended in their use. In the past that has meant devastation and destruction. In the future it could mean global annihilation. Those are the stakes

that face the conference that opens at Geneva as well as the international political discussions between great powers which are now taking place and which will have a bearing on the Geneva conference.
It would be folly, of course, to expect quick and spectacular success. It would be fatal not to work, all of us, with devotion and wisdom and energy to the ultimate achievement of such success. I am certain, as I know all hon. members are, that the Canadian delegation at Geneva will do just that under the instructions they receive from the Canadian government.
The achievement of peace in a world which will have abolished the machinery for its own nuclear destruction is bound to be a slow process but it must be a sure one if man is to survive.
Therefore we all join the minister in praying for the success of the Geneva conference and we wish the Canadian delegation well in the contribution that I know it will make to whatever success can be achieved. The disarmament plan which has been submitted by the five members of that conference provides, it seems to me, a good foundation on which to build toward that success.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, although it is after the normal hour of adjournment for dinner, I trust the house will bear with me for four or five minutes while I comment on behalf of this party on this most important question. First of all, I thank the minister for his statement just given to the house, and I also wish to thank him on behalf of this party for his kindness in supplying us with a copy of the text of the disarmament plan, I think about an hour ago.
I am not one who likes to make extemporaneous remarks on these very important questions. I like some times to mull them over. However, I had an opportunity to read through this text and I do wish to make a few comments on behalf of the party for whom I am speaking.
We are glad to know that the conference is going to function in accordance with United Nations principles and action is being taken toward that end. We are glad to know it is going to work out measures leading to general disarmament, we hope, first, as a result of studies of various proposals placed before that conference and, second, as a result of action to implement the measures after those studies.
In that respect we are of the opinion that is a very logical approach. However, we have a few suggestions to make. I want to let the minister know that I make those suggestions

in no sense in a partisan way. I make them in an effort to make our small contribution toward the approach to this most important question.
First of all, let me say that our group regrets that China is not participating at the present time in this conference, or is expected to participate in the near future in the conference mentioned in the text. We urge that every avenue be explored in every way to bring representatives of the mainland Chinese government into consultation with the members of this conference because we believe that without the participation of the government of China, without its inclusion in consultations, and things of that sort, there can be no satisfactory general disarmament plan, and I say that, period.
This party also believes-although I understand that action is being taken by other groups to give some effect to our hopes in that direction-that the question of cessation of nuclear tests is a part and parcel of disarmament. We would like to see some consideration given to that in this text just given to us by the minister. We believe that should be on the agenda of the conference in the future.


Howard Charles Green: This is being handled by another conference in which the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet union are participating.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We are very pleased to know that. We have had some information in that respect, but does it mean that these two committees will be working together, or dovetailing their efforts so that the cessation of nuclear tests will be given consideration? I presume that is what the minister means.


Howard Charles Green: Only the one committee; it is the responsibility of the three nations conference.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then we also ask, is Canada not weakening her position in the discussions and in the discussions on the banning of nuclear tests by making provision at this time for nuclear weapons on Canadian soil? This party is of the opinion it would be wise at the present time, and a worth-while contribution to the morale of the conference and the committee, for us to delay any final decision in that respect.
May I make one or two other comments. I notice that paragraph b of part II has this to say:
Prior notification to the international disarmament organization of proposed launchings of missiles according to predetermined and mutually
Western Proposals for Disarmament agreed criteria, and declarations of locations of launching sites, and places of manufacture of such missiles-
And so on.
We suggest, that this first inclusion, shall I say, of locations of launching sites can be somewhat of a temptation until we have other matters settled, and the balance of terror could, as a result of that order of procedure measures outlined in section 2, create something of a highly unstable condition. We suggest-and we offer this to the minister for his consideration-that paragraph e should precede paragraph b in these proposals. Paragraph e reads as follows:
Establishment of appropriate measures to give participating states greater protection against surprise attack, including aerial inspection, ground observers at agreed points, mobile ground teams, overlapping radar, notification of aircraft flights, and appropriate communications.
We think this paragraph should be placed where paragraph b is at the present time. In particular, we think that to do otherwise is, in ordinary language, to some extent to place the cart before the horse.
These are the few comments I wish to make on behalf of this party, after a very brief and hurried review of this text of the disarmament proposal; but I join with the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Pearson) in wishing the minister every success in all he undertakes in this very important question.
On some occasions the minister has been accused somewhat of being a bit over-optimistic, rather over-hopeful, I think. I am glad to say that the Gazette of today gives us some reason for some optimism and hope. It carries a headline:
Total A-Test Ban Bid By Democrats Scientific Body Offers Police Plan
In the United States there are proposals for a total ban on A-bomb tests, and then there is the appeal for total disarmament made by the minister of science in the government of Great Britain yesterday. These are all very hopeful signs. I support the minister in the hopeful attitude because unless we have faith, conviction and hope our efforts will largely end up in sterility. We must have conviction. I know the minister's conviction; I know his sincerity about this question and on behalf of this party I wish him every success.
In conclusion, let me say that the C.C.F. party hopes and prays that this conference and all those that work together in it will blaze a trail, a pathway to peace for mankind in the days to come.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
2046	HOUSE OF
Private Bills AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 8 p.m.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-12, respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company-Mr. Morton-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Meetings of shareholders.
Murray Douglas Morton: Mr. Chairman, one or two questions were asked in the standing committee and in the house on second reading of the bill. One was in respect of the alternate directors which is brought up under section 4, of course. It is a practice that has been developed in England and in some of the provinces. The hon. member for Greenwood raised a question as to how these alternate directors are appointed. Apparently they are designated by a director and approved by the board of directors, and they shall only act, of course, in the absence of the director. It would appear, although it is not stated, that if that director is also appointed to the executive committee the alternate director could act.
Perhaps for the record I should also answer the question as to the shareholders of the company. They are divided as follows: There are 485 shareholders in Canada holding 226,232 shares; there are 118 shareholders in the United States holding 40,586 shares; there are 846 shareholders in the United Kingdom holding 142,081 shares; there are 656 shareholders in France holding 10,107 shares; in other countries there are 52 shareholders holding 2,427 shares. The total number of shares outstanding is 421,433, and in all there are 2,157 shareholders.
It is to be noted that the majority of shares are held by Canadians now and that has happened since 1958. On July 4, 1958 the greatest number of shares were held by Canadians. No group had a majority but at that time there were 181,641 shares held in the United Kingdom. Since that time the company has now become a Canadian company in that the majority of shareholders are Canadian.
A question was asked by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River with respect to whether the Algoma Steel Company owned a substantial number of shares or controlled the company and the answer is definitely no. As far as is shown on the records, the Algoma Steel Company owns no shares in the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.


I think that answers some of the main questions asked in the debate on second reading and in the committee and the answers may be of assistance to hon. members in considering the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. Douglas Jung (Vancouver Centre) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-20, respecting British Columbia Telephone Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) speaks, I should like to make a few remarks on the bill. The legislation encompassed by the bill purports to amend the provisions of the constitution of the British Columbia Telephone Company. The company was incorporated by a private act of parliament, namely chapter 66 of the statutes of Canada, 1916. At that time the name of the company was Western Canada Telephone Company but this name was later changed to British Columbia Telephone Company.
This company operates over 90 per cent of the telephones in the province of British Columbia and it is the second largest telephone company in Canada. The scope of the activities of the company is indicated by the fact that at the end of 1959 the company served 505,432 telephones and had a gross investment in telephone plant of over $243 million.
Section 9 of the incorporating act gives to the present company the power to purchase the property and assets of any company having similar objects and the sole purpose of this amending bill is to empower the British Columbia Telephone Company to acquire the shares and to become a shareholder of any company or companies having objects in whole or in part similar to the objects of the British Columbia Telephone Company.
The directors of the company were advised by counsel that section 9 as it now stands does not authorize the company to acquire another company by the purchase of its shares, and hon. members will appreciate that in the acquisition of companies today it is usually much more convenient to purchase the shares of any such company and then to amalgamate its operations with those of the purchasing company.

The company decided to enact a new section rather than to amend section 9 of the incorporating act. Section 10 of the incorporating act provides that sections 153, 154 and 155 of the Railway Act shall apply to the company and to any company which it may acquire under section 9. These provisions are rather cumbersome because these sections of the Railway Act require the approval of the governor in council to any sale, lease or amalgamation, and further require that once any agreement of amalgamation has been approved by the governor in council the companies shall be deemed to be amalgamated and shall form one company.
The proposed amendment is purely technical, Mr. Speaker, because it facilitates the final purchase of the assets of another company by first making it a subsidiary through an exchange of shares. Hon. members can therefore see that this is a facilitating power and it is requested to implement the powers which the company already had under section 9. I might say that the Bell Telephone Company presently enjoys the power which this bill will give to the British Columbia Telephone Company.
I believe the most important consideration of this bill is that the amendment provides for the issue and allotment of shares of the British Columbia Telephone Company in payment of or in exchange for the shares of the company it proposes to acquire. This will permit the company to effect a saving of cash funds which are badly needed to carry on the program of expansion and improvement in its own system. During the coming year British Columbia Telephone Company will acquire $32 million for this purpose of expansion, and the allotment of shares in payment rather than the use of actual cash will, therefore, save the company from having to provide additional cash funds during a period of high interest rates such as exist at the present time.
The proposed amendment provides that no purchase of the shares of another company can take effect until it has been submitted to and approved by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. Hon. members might be interested to know that the immediate object of this bill is to acquire the shares of the North-West Telephone Company, which was formed in 1928 to develop telephone communications by radio to the more inaccessible communities along the coast of British Columbia. The North-West Telephone Company represented the first commercial application of the use of radio to provide telephone services in British Columbia's mountainous terrain where it was not economically possible to build or maintain wire lines. Subsequently,
Private Bills
the British Columbia Telephone Company acquired a charter power to provide telephone service by radio, and it is now operating radiotelephone communication in British Columbia on an expanding scale.
For example, the British Columbia Telephone Company, in 1958, completed the British Columbia portion of the trans-Canada microwave radio relay system which means that there is now a microwave system of transmission from Vancouver to Montreal. The North-West Telephone Company is faced with heavy commitments for expansion and improvement in the area served by the company in central a British Columbia. The communities of that area, although widely separated, have experienced phenomenal growth. The necessity to provide telephone facilities to meet this growth has created, and will continue to create, a financial burden which is most difficult and costly for a small company to carry. Increasing interest and dividend rates have contributed substantially to the rising cost of providing and maintaining telephone service, and experience has shown that the issue of securities in large amounts, and the ability to provide a somewhat higher security rating makes it possible for larger companies, such as British Columbia Telephone Company, to attract capital at rates considerably lower than a comparatively small company such as North-West Telephone Company.
As a further source of information, I may say, that during the last 10 years the British Columbia Telephone Company has acquired the Mission Telephone Company Limited; the Chilliwack Telephone Company; the Kootenay Telephone Company Limited, and a large part of the dominion government telegraph and telephone system, and in each case improvements in the service and equipment have been immediately evident. Many thousands of dollars, which the smaller companies could not provide, have been spent in expansion and modernization. These considerations have an important bearing on telephone rates and indicate that the cost of providing service for a small company serving communities in rural areas will rise more rapidly and reach higher levels than those of a large communication system such as British Columbia Telephone Company.
The immediate object of this amending bill, Mr. Speaker, is the acquisition of North-West Telephone Company by the British Columbia Telephone Company, which appears to me to be in the best interests of the subscribers and the public. I know that some hon. members will have some technical questions which they would like to ask about the operations of the company, and in moving second reading of this bill I give my undertaking that

Private Bills
when this bill is referred to the appropriate committee the officials of British Columbia Telephone Company will be on hand to answer questions.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: rise to speak on this bill, in the first instance as the member for Kootenay West. The British Columbia Telephone Company is the largest telephone company in British Columbia, as the hon. member has said, and is the second largest in Canada. I not only speak as the member for Kootenay West but as the president of the smallest telephone company in British Columbia, operating 35 miles of telephone line for five customers to whom we provide service without any charge, operating purely on the basis of service, in the spirit of socialism for the benefit of the community. Here, I can truthfully say, is a clear illustration of the unusual in the president of an enterprise with a socialist philosophy getting up to have his say on a United States-controlled monopoly in British Columbia.
This company has on three occasions, I think, since I have been in this house brought amending bills before the house. In 1951 there was a bill to provide for an increase in the capital from $25 million to $75 million. On that occasion a number of us from British Columbia, including at that time the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), and the member for Kootenay West, presented to the company officers who appeared before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines the requirements for a telephone service in British Columbia, and the deficiencies of their company's service. The present Secretary of State for External Affairs and the present Minister of Justice gave the bill a most microscopic examination. They asked a lot of questions with respect to the interlocking companies that rest behind, shall I say, the facade of the British Columbia Telephone Company.
At that time we dealt with the poor service and the present Minister of Justice, also the member for Kamloops, brought to the attention of the committee the requirements of his district. I had the opportunity of dealing with the requirements of Kootenay West, naturally. I always try to represent the people, although we have one or two corporations in the district who would like this government to believe that I do not represent the people of Kootenay West on some questions. However, I think I am fairly safe in saying that I do.
I have had to make a few hurried notes on this bill because I have on my desk over 250 unanswered letters from people, including a good many Conservatives, who are

opposed to the building of the high Arrow dam on the Columbia river. One Conservative wrote recently to say, "Thank God Herridge represents us in Kootenay West and is giving us democratic leadership in the preservation of our natural resources".
Anyway, at that time in 1951 we went around the constituency dealing with the lack of dial telephones in Trail; enquiring into the service in Rossland; dealing with the complaints of the Castlegar chamber of commerce; the complaints of the Nelson chamber of commerce; the Slocan valley chamber of commerce; the Nakusp chamber of commerce; other chambers of commerce throughout the district. The need for the extension of services was brought to the attention of the committee and the company officials and the fact that we have a little community seven miles to the south of Trail with 35 potential customers, namely Casino.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am speaking on the
principle of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member does not seem to have come very close to this bill which has only one clause; and the principle of which is whether the company shall be authorized to acquire the shares of other telephone companies.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am trying to give evidence as to the question that there are doubts in my mind whether this company, in view of failure to keep its promises, should have its influence extended over a greater portion of British Columbia. That is my approach. This little community with 35 potential subscribers, seven miles south of Trail, served by a road that provides easy construction, has been denied telephone service up to this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again but the bill has nothing to do with providing telephone service for a community that has not one. It has to do with the purchase by this company of shares of other existing telephone companies. With all due respect to the hon. member for Kootenay West, I think the conduct of the petitioning company is only generally relevant to the clause.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: With all deference to your opinion, Mr. Speaker-and I say this with respect-this is the only opportunity that members of parliament have to speak on behalf of their constituents with regard to a company of this sort. The only opportunity we have is when a bill is brought to this house amending legislation. It is a particular situation because it is a federally incorporated

company and we have been to the British Columbia legislature and to the British Columbia utilities commission, and they have told us that it has nothing to do with them, that we must make our complaints in Ottawa. It is rather unusual. I have had a good number of organizations write to me and ask me to bring to the attention of the house the fact that there is still required a certain improvement in service. I am doing that. As I said before, my argument is this. In view of the failure to keep their promises in some respects, I am doubtful if we should agree to this company extending its influence over a further area of British Columbia? Should we agree to its being enlarged?
When the bill was before the house in 1957 they asked for another increase in capital from $75 million to $250 million. There again the operations of the company were examined in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. There again we brought to the attention of the company officials and the committee the shortcomings of the company and the requests and requirements of our constituents. That was done not only by the hon. member for Kootenay West but by other members from British Columbia. Certain consideration was given to those requirements by the officials at the meetings.
It is interesting to indicate what this company is. Members were interested in its structure. So during the committee meetings I asked, I think it was Mr. Farrell, the president of the company at that time, some questions and I should like to put on the record a short exchange that occurred between us. I am quoting from the House of Commons standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines report of 1957, page 33. I said this to Mr. Farrell who was president then, a very nice gentleman indeed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would like to ask Mr. Farrell two questions. Did you say that your company, in the area in which it offers services, has a virtual monopoly in respect of telephone service?


Mr. Farrell:: I think it is agreed by everybody that a telephone company must have a monopoly.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You say it is a monopoly. When you say it is a monopoly operated in British Columbia, it is controlled indirectly by an American corporation?


Edward Matthew Farrell: Substantially controlled, yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Thank you.


Edward Matthew Farrell: I would like to mention, though, that our complete operating staff are all Canadians.
It is very kind of these United States companies. They make their money over here but they employ Canadians in doing so. I will say this in fairness to the British Columbia Telephone Company. Their relations with their employees are excellent. I understand they treat their employees very well indeed. Of course, there has been a great
Private Bills
improvement in recent years, particularly since the second world war. At that time the company was indicating the need for this extra capital for expansion and for improvements, I asked the president of the company to give us a resume of their profits. This is what we find at page 27 of the committee report:
Mr. Herridge requested to know the total dividends paid by the company during the past seven years. They are as follows:
	Common and	Common
	Preferred	Dividend
Year	Combined	Only1950	$1,031,883	$ 520,0001951	1,547,711	880,0001952	1,646,250	960,0001953	1,923,594	1,200,0001954	2,262,500	1,520,0001955	2,708,125	1,600,0001956	3,466,718	2,100,0001957 (estimated) 3,930,000	2,400,000
I note from the balance sheet this year that the profits are over $6 million. These figures show a constant rise in the scale of profits. We all admit that under this system a company must make a profit, but the point is this. This company went before the board of transport commissioners-I think it was last year or quite recently-and honestly, Mr. Speaker, I am told they went before the board of transport commissioners like a lot of poverty stricken beggars in tears. They said they had to have an increase in their rates if they were going to provide service in British Columbia and if they were going to do even a little better than break even, in giving that service.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is still a long way from the bill. The purpose of this bill is simply to give enabling power to the company to buy shares in other companies. It does not authorize any purchase. It does not have anything to do with the company's operations, as far as I can see. It is simply a question of whether or not it should have a power, which most companies have under the Companies Act. I cannot see that the operations of the company or the dividends it pays or anything of that nature has any relevance to the question before the house, which is whether or not this company shall be given the enabling power which permits it to buy shares in other telephone companies.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to express an opinion on this point of order. I am not supporting the views of my hon. friend in his criticism of this company I know little of, but I do say that he has a perfect right to do what he is doing now. Otherwise there would be no opportunity for him to bring before the committee the objections he has.

Private Bills
I have a very clear recollection of what happened when I held a position similar to that which the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) holds when a similar bill came before the house on an occasion similar to that on which the hon. member brings it forward. I was assailed to no end because of the fact that this company was unpopular in the province of British Columbia, and there were several hon. members sitting on this side of the house who maintained and insisted that they had a right to complain about the manner in which the operations of this company were carried on. I think that when this company is asking for extended powers from parliament surely an hon. member has the right to protest against what it is doing in his constituency or in other parts of the province. Otherwise there would be no way whatsoever of bringing forward the expressions of opinion and the objections which an hon. member from that province wishes to make, which I think is all the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) is attempting to do at this stage.


Mr. Speaker:: I have, of course, very high regard for the view of the hon. member who has just spoken as well as those of the hon. member who has the floor, but whether or not this power is given by the house has nothing to do with its operations. All this bill would do is to give it the power. It does not necessarily mean that it would ever buy shares, but it gives it the power to buy shares in other companies.
To debate the whole conduct of this company in considering a very narrow provision of this kind would seem to me to be an abuse of the time of the house. It may be that this is the only opportunity it can be done, but that is not an argument in favour of its relevancy. If it is irrelevant, the fact that it is the only opportunity does not appear to me to be a very good argument. However, I do not want to be unduly restrictive, and if hon. members feel that they should be allowed more latitude than appears to me to be justified, I will not press the point.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I might add that while you were speaking I also thought of the fact that this company last year made some $6 million profit, and I would rather see it use some of that profit to make these improvements which have been promised throughout the years than buy another company. I think I am very much in order in that respect.
I would like to mention that for all these years we have made these same representations and same complaints, yet when they make the largest profits in history these improvements are still not done in certain

localities. There has been improvement in certain places, but there is no service yet to Casino. In other places we have as many as six, eight, nine and ten people on a local line, and you know what it is when some women get on the line. I had a telephone message from the Prime Minister's office come to our telephone circuit and I was told it was delayed for over two hours because of some ladies chatting on a party line one with the other. That is one lady after the other using the phone. There are eight or nine people on one party line, and because of that a very important message was delayed for over an hour.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will go before the committee whose members will have every opportunity to question the officials again; but let me warn them that the hon. members on the committee from British Columbia will really give them a good scrubbing.
Another trouble with this company is this. It is a federally incorporated company and the board of transport commissioners has control of the rates. At one meeting of the railways, canals and telegraph lines committee, I think in 1951, the officials of the company indicated that they had to pay attention to what the board said with respect to services. However I found as a matter of fact the company does not have to bat an eye to anyone with respect to services. The board has no jurisdiction whatsoever. On this matter I went to Victoria and saw the public utilities commissioners, who said they had no jurisdiction over the company at all. As a result there is a vacuum of responsibility. The rates of the company are controlled by the board of transport commissioners, but no one can say to this United States controlled monopoly that it must construct this line or that line or bring their services up to a certain standard and so on. There is no control whatsoever.
This situation is felt to such an extent in British Columbia that recently Mr. Robert Strachan, M. L. A. felt impelled to move a resolution in the British Columbia house to the following effect:
That this house is of the opinion that the provincial government should apply to the federal government of Canada to have the control of the British Columbia Telephone Company Limited and its subsidiaries within the province of British Columbia revert to provincial jurisdiction in order that the rates and services of the said telephone company can be controlled on behalf of the people of the province by the public utilities commission of British Columbia.
This matter has been brought to the attention of the government of British Columbia, and to the attention of this house since 1951.
Mr. Speaker, these are the circumstances. There is no control over this company so far

as services are concerned. They either give you a phone if they want to or they refuse you a phone if they do not. That is not good enough, when a company has a monopoly over services in a province as large as British Columbia, and I am sure from the expression on the faces of quite a number of members sitting on the government benches that they are sympathetic to our approach to this question.
As I have said before there is this gap in responsibility which we want closed. We cannot do it under these circumstances. This is an amendment to the bill for another purpose, but it is also a situation which should be remedied. If the board of transport commissioners is not going to accept the authority for directing the services and instructing this company as to the services it should provide, then it is about time that action was taken by the government of British Columbia to bring its services under the jurisdiction of the public utilities commission, even if there has to be some discussion of this matter between the appropriate officials of this government and the government of British Columbia.
In conclusion, let me say that it is simply unjust in this age to give a large corporation like this a monopoly in British Columbia and leave it with the right to say that people can only have a telephone if they say so. "You can have this service if we say so, but if we don't want to give you it, you don't get it." In other words, they are milking the more profitable areas of the province and leaving the pioneers in the isolated districts without in some cases any service or with poor service.
On behalf of this group let me say that we will continue to do our best in this house and in the provincial house to oppose this injustice, this imposition and this unfairness which has been perpetrated on the people of British Columbia throughout the years to date. Once again I say that we should do something to close this gap in responsibility. The situation should be remedied, and I trust that when the bill goes before the committee the members of the committee will take every opportunity to bring this situation to the attention of the officials again and let those officials know that while our efforts to date have not met with success we are going to continue our efforts until they do.


Mr. A. D. McPhillips (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I realize that the amendment sought in the bill is not of a lengthy nature. It is one to give the company power to acquire stocks
Private Bills
in the capital structure of another company in whole or in part, similar to its own, and further to pay for the stock by issue of stock in its own capital structure.
I am going to deal with this in a somewhat different way from the last hon. gentleman. My view is that in essence this is simply a waste of the time of this parliament because the company already enjoys both those powers. I hasten to say that I do not in any sense attribute any blame to my friend the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Jung) because that is not his responsibility in connection with this bill. I have felt for some time that this particular company in recent years has not had very profound legal advice and I propose to show this evening that the company already has this power.
My friend the hon. member for Vancouver Centre referred to this company as a creature of the federal parliament by act of incorporation in 1916. It was not exactly a complete creature of this parliament because at the time it was already a big creature. I shall refer to the statute of 1916 later. It specifically recognized the fact that this creature might amalgamate or absorb the other large creature that already existed and have its powers, and therefore I feel I must deal briefly with the history of the first creature.
This company had its beginnings in the province of British Columbia under a very old act of incorporation of the legislature of British Columbia. In fact, it was the first incorporated telephone company in all of Canada. I refer to the Victoria and Esquimalt Telephone Company incorporated by chapter 27 of the statutes of British Columbia of 1880. I know that some of my hon. colleagues may say that was the same year the Bell Telephone Company was incorporated. They will ask how I could claim that this company was the first to be incorporated. In answer I would point out that this bill received royal assent on May 8, 1880. The Bell Telephone Company was incorporated later the same year. Therefore the Victoria and Esquimalt Telephone Company was the first incorporated telephone company in British Columbia and covered the southern tip of Vancouver island.
In 1884 another company was incorporated. Under chapter 31 of the statutes of British Columbia of 1884 the New Westminster and Port Moody Telephone Company came into being. It afterwards changed its name to the New Westminster and Burrard Inlet Telephone Company and took over the area that subsequently became the city of Vancouver. The city of Vancouver did not exist when the Victoria and Esquimalt Telephone Company was incorporated. These two companies operated in their areas and then in 1890 under

Private Bills
chapter 66 ol the statutes of British Columbia for that year the Nanaimo Telephone Company was incorporated which operated principally in the central portion of Vancouver island.
Now we come to the real gravamen of the matter. In 1891 another telephone company was incorporated in British Columbia under a very strange name which possibly the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) would remember. Under chapter 67 of the statutes of British Columbia of 1891 the Vernon and Nelson Telephone Company was incorporated. We are now going into the interior of British Columbia. I believe I have shown that the southwestern portion of the mainland was covered by two telephone companies and Vancouver island was covered by two, and now we are in the interior.
I should like to refer to section 8 of that charter. This becomes very important, Mr. Speaker. Section 8 of chapter 67 of the statutes of British Columbia of 1891, being an act to incorporate the Vernon and Nelson Telephone Company, reads as follows:
8. The company may, for the purposes of this act, purchase, acquire, or lease and hold, and may sell, dispose of, or surrender lands, buildings, or tenements within the limits aforesaid, and may purchase or lease, for any term of years, any telephone line established or to be established in British Columbia, connecting or to be connected with the lines which the company is authorized to construct, or may purchase, or lease for any term of years, the right of any company to construct and maintain any such telephone line, and may amalgamate with or lease its line or lines, or any portion or portions thereof, to any company possessing as proprietor any line of telegraphic or telephonic communication, connecting or to be connected with the company's line or lines; and the company may enter into an arrangement with any company possessing as proprietor any line of telegraph or telephone communication, or any power or right to use such communication, upon such terms and in such manner as the board of directors from time to time deems expedient or advisable, or may become a shareholder in any such company.
Up to that time this company was operating in the interior. There was an amendment to that company's act of incorporation in 1903. Section 5, subsection 1 of chapter 43 of the statutes of British Columbia of 1903, an act to amend the Vernon and Nelson Telephone Company act of 1891 reads, in part, as follows:
5. (1) -The company may construct, erect, operate and maintain a line or lines of telephone along the sides of, and across, or under any highway, streets, public bridges, or any such places in and throughout the province of British Columbia as the company from time to time determines-
The legislature of British Columbia as a result of this amendment gave the Vernon and Nelson Telephone Company the right to operate anywhere in British Columbia.
[Mr. McPhillips.l


Mr. Montgomery:: That would include the Kootenays, would it not?


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Oh yes. Section 8 of the same act is one of those innocuous sections which members of the legal profession put in. These sections do not mean very much unless you understand the references. Section 8 simply states:
8. The provisions of sections 82 and 83 of the Companies Act, chapter 44, Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1897, shall apply to the company.
Those sections were the sections that provided that the company could change its name. That is exactly what the Vernon and Nelson Telephone Company did. It changed its name to British Columbia Telephone Company Limited. There we had the creature and it was under provincial jurisdiction.
That creature then proceeded to gobble up all the other telephone companies I have mentioned and, as the hon. member for Kootenay West has already indicated, it did not become very popular in the process. There was a great deal of outcry in British Columbia and as a result the directors decided they would hasten to get under federal jurisdiction if they could.
Again we have an act of incorporation in 1916 as referred to by my friend the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. If I may say so without giving any offence, here again the company adopted what I might say was a phony name. The company was incorporated under the name of Western Canada Telephone Company. Section 11 of this statute reads:
11. Notwithstanding anything in this act contained, should the British Columbia Telephone Company Limited be amalgamated with the company and all the undertaking, property and assets-
And so forth. It goes on to say that the company incorporated be substituted in all the contracts. At this point I think I am going to clear up a little mystery for the hon. member for Kootenay West. I refer again to the statute. Subsection (3) of section 11 reads:
(3) When the works and undertaking of the British Columbia Telephone Company Limited are acquired or leased by the company such works and undertaking shall be deemed to be and are hereby declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.
And so the creature, which has become extremely unpopular as a monopoly in British Columbia, had safely slipped off the hook and under the jurisdiction of the board, as it then was, of railway commissioners for Canada, where 1 think they thought they would be safer.
Now, so far as the continuing power is concerned, section 9-and the hon. member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Jung) referred to it-provides as follows:
The company shall have power to purchase, take over, lease, amalgamate with or otherwise acquire from any other company or companies having objects in whole or in part similar to the objects of the company all or any part of the property, real or personal, undertaking, business, powers, contracts, privileges and rights of any such company or companies that may have been conferred upon any such company or companies by charter, acts of incorporation-
Or otherwise; so that by the enactment of the parliament of Canada this company, which is now before us, by the expressed words of the parliament of Canada, was given all the powers of the company with which it amalgamated and, as I have shown, Mr. Speaker, one of those powers was the acquisition of shares in any other company, and the right to issue its own stock in payment thereof.
Why does this company come to the parliament of Canada? I made some reference to the legal advice. But suppose they had received legal advice that they had this power, why are they here? I think they are here for one reason, as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has indicated, and it certainly was indicated in the debate in the other house. The primary object of this amendment is so that the British Columbia Telephone Company may acquire the stock in North-West Telephone Company. The North-West Telephone Company is not a very well known company. It is a creature of the legislature of British Columbia of 1928. It has radio powers, radiotelephone powers, and it has a licence from the government of Canada to carry on those powers. It is in no sense a subsidiary of British Columbia Telephone Company, as some people think. It was incorporated by the representatives of United States owners of the British Columbia Telephone Company, and their holding company, the Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company of Montreal is a majority shareholder and that in turn is owned by the Associate Telephone and Telegraph Corporation of Chicago.
I think this is just a question of wanting to have your cake and eating it. I think this legislation is somewhat in terrorem of the existing shareholders of British Columbia Telephone Company because, Mr. Speaker, if this plan is put through, the control of North-West Telephone Company is assured to the same United States owners because the stock will be owned by the British Columbia Telephone Company, and, possibly, with those huge earnings that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), has mentioned, the United States owners of the stock in the North-West Telephone Company can get cash or they can get shares in the
Private Bills
British Columbia Telephone Company, which has a market ability which the shares of the North-West Telephone Company do not enjoy, so that in effect they can have their cake and eat it.
I think I have demonstrated the fact that in essence this company is wasting the time of parliament in coming here and asking for powers they already enjoy in this country, asking it for a purpose, to be able to say to its own shareholders, "the parliament of Canada has just given us this power"; in other words, in terrorem, "you dare not say we cannot buy the shares of that company, the parliament of Canada has given us this power". I think that is the whole proposition and I am very much against it; I am very much against this bill being given second reading.


Mr. Erharf Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in the bill, and I was particularly interested in the comments made by the hon. member for Victoria, British Columbia.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am a native of one of the three prairie provinces where the people do not have the worry and the concern over their telephones that the people of Ontario or British Columbia have, in that in each of the three prairie provinces the telephone systems are owned by the people as a whole and they have rates which are lower than the rates in either Ontario or British Columbia.
The explanatory note of the bill says that:
The sole purpose of this bill is to empower British Columbia Telephone Company-
And so on. I always look askance at any announcement reading that the sole purpose of the bill is this or that, or whatever the case may be. I am saying this now because we are asked to grant greater authority to the British Columbia Telephone Company. I am unwilling at this time to express an opinion as to whether or not on third reading we ought to vote for this bill. I think it will depend on the information we get, and on the manner in which we get it, when this bill reaches the committee stage. It is on this that I would like to say a word or two, because my experiences with this company in that regard have not been exactly pleasant. I can remember how approximately 12, 13 or 14 years ago the people of British Columbia wanted to find out what this company really was, and the public utilities commission of the day held extended hearings in an attempt to get into all the ramifications surrounding the British Columbia Telephone Company, and they finally had to conclude their hearing; they were unable to reach any conclusion

Private Bills
because they found' themselves involved in telephone and in telegraph lines, in cities as far away as Honolulu.
We had a clash with this company a number of years ago when it was asking for legislation for its welfare from the parliament of Canada. At that time the company asked for permission to increase its capital stock. It pleaded that this authorization was essential if it was to continue to have the capital resources necessary to meet the growing needs for modern telephone services of the people of British Columbia. I can remember the difficulty we had with the officials of the company at the committee stage, in that it took them a very long time before they came clean, before they honestly admitted who were the effective owners of the British Columbia Telephone Company. They did their utmost, despite the intense questioning of the then member for Nanaimo, Mr. Colin Cameron, to hide the identity of those who controlled this company. After many long hours they finally had to admit that they were a United States-controlled company.


Mr. Broome:: I should like to ask the hon. member if he would not reconsider his words. I was a member of the same committee and my recollection is not the same as his. I do not think we should be unfair to the company in this matter and I think he is being unfair.


Erhart Regier: May I say that I believe this happened before the hon. member was a member of the house.


Ernest James Broome: 1957.


Erhart Regier: The hon. member only came here in the middle of the year.


Ernest James Broome: November, 1957 was when they appeared before the committee.


Erhart Regier: They appeared again before the committee at that time. I do not think the hon. member has in mind the same committee meeting to which I have reference. Be that as it may, at that time they were granted the authority to expand their capital structure on their plea that this was absolutely essential if they were to meet the ever-growing needs of the people of British Columbia for a modern telephone system. However, what did they do? Hardly had the parliament of Canada agreed to their plea than they turned right around and greatly raised the rates for service to the people of British Columbia, at the same time using the identical argument that had been used here. They obtained the authority here to increase their capitalization and then turned to the telephone users of British Columbia and said that they regretted that

they had to increase their rates in order to meet interest charges and the earnings necessary because of the increased capitalization.
In order that hon. members may know that we know what we are complaining about, may I say that I have here my latest British Columbia Telephone Company bill. I have only one extension in my house and the bill amounts to $7.88. In my opinion this is unduly excessive and is in part caused by our not having complete authority over our own public utility within the confines of our province. I heartily endorse the attempts of the leader of our party in the legislature of British Columbia to return the telephone company to the jurisdiction of the legislature of the province of British Columbia.
We have been misled on other occasions by this company and when the company asks us at this time for authority to acquire the shares and become a shareholder of any company or companies having objects in whole or in part similar to the objects of the British Columbia Telephone Company we have very great reservations whether or not this move, if it succeeds, will not help to raise our rates higher still. I have very great reservations in that I feel that the existing users of the North-West Telephone Company are not going to receive any blessings by way of a break if this proposed legislation receives the endorsation of the house.
It is for these reasons that we will eagerly await the consideration of this matter by the standing committee. I hope that we will receive immediate, clear-cut and more honest answers from the officials of this company than we have had on other occasions when they have appeared before us.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up very much of the time of the house in talking about this bill. It has already been pointed out that this is a power usually conferred on companies and it has also been pointed out that the operation of a telephone system must necessarily be a monopoly. The hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. McPhillips) has argued with a great deal of legal skill that the company already enjoys this power.
I was rather interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) who feared that this company would become a monopoly owning all the telephone companies in British Columbia which would lead me to believe that the hon. member for Kootenay West must be considering selling his telephone company to the British Columbia Telephone Company because in his introductory remarks he said that he was the president of the smallest telephone company operating in British


I960
[Stage Direction]
Columbia. As long as the hon. member for Kootenay West sticks to his rugged, conservative individualism the British Columbia Telephone Company will not have a monopoly.
The hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) had a lot to say about the operation of telephones on the prairies. This may not be strictly germane to the subject, but I think I should say that I have had some experience with the Alberta telephone system and God save us from the sort of service and type of operation provided by that government system.
Mr. Brunsden:: On a point of order, would the hon. member explain what he means by that last statement?


Ernest James Broome: You will get more wrong numbers in five minutes from the Alberta telephone system than you will from the British Columbia telephone system in a year.


Edwin William Brunsden: You have to know your numbers to start with.


Ernest James Broome: The British Columbia telephone system has gone through a period of fantastic growth as exemplified by the number of times the company has come to parliament to ask for additions to its capital. Its capital has increased by successive stages from $11 million in 1940 to $25 million in 1947, $75 million in 1951 and $250 million in November of 1957. These figures indicate the growth of British Columbia and the job which has been faced by this company in meeting the needs of that growth. I defy any member from British Columbia, and I am not talking about rates now, to say that the British Columbia Telephone Company has not done a first-class job in keeping up to the service requirements of perhaps the fastest growing area of Canada. We have had a smaller backlog of unfilled telephone orders than any other place in Canada. As far as I can make out, the company did a better job in British Columbia than the Bell Telephone Company did in this part of the country.
I have no quarrel with the purpose of the bill. I know a bit about the interior of British Columbia. I can think of many places where the operations of the British Columbia Telephone Company if extended to these areas would add something to the telephone service already being provided in the interior. To my knowledge the company has been a good company. If the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam will read the report of the proceedings of the committee of November, 1957 I believe he will find that the company officials were absolutely honest, open and aboveboard and absolutely direct in their replies to members of the committee. When the bill
Private Bills
goes to the committee perhaps the company officials will be given somewhat of a rough time but they are very capable people who will know how to handle themselves and I am quite sure that the committee members will receive answers to all the questions they may wish to ask.


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

Mr. Gordon Chown (Winnipeg South) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-16, to incorporate Matador Pipe Line Company, Ltd.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to incorporate Matador Pipe Line Company. Section 1 of the bill which we have before us sets out the applicants. There are two residents of the United States and, as is customary, there are a number of partners in a Calgary law firm, so it follows that Calgary will be the location of the head office of the company if this house sees fit to authorize this incorporation.
The reason or the object in incorporating this company is to transport crude oil, manufactured and refined in North Dakota, 60 miles north to Cromer, Manitoba, thence east to Duluth and Superior and then south into the markets of Wisconsin and Minnesota. Up to the present this crude oil has been transported by tank cars at an uneconomical or what has become an uneconomical price, for a distance of some 200 to 300 miles directly from North Dakota into Wisconsin and Minnesota. It is for the purpose of making an economical delivery from the source of supply to the markets that these applicants are seeking incorporation.
The line will run north, as I said, from a point about eight miles east of the Sas-katchewan-Manitoba border, some 60 miles to Cromer, and then east from Cromer to Duluth and Superior, but at Cromer, Manitoba, it will be linked up with a pumping station which is part of the Interprovincial Pipe Line. As most hon. members know, the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company starts in the province of Alberta and moves east through to Duluth-Superior and then from there to Sarnia and Toronto. It is the connection at Cromer and from there east to Duluth-Superior that this company seeks to set up.
The company is going to raise capital, but I do not think by public subscription. It will have a share capital of 100,000 common shares, without nominal or par value, and
18,000	preferred shares of a par value of

Private Bills
$50 per share, as set out in section 3 of the bill. One of the things that concerned those members who were interrogating the sponsoring senator in the other place was the fact that this oil might be sold in Canada. However, it was made quite clear that the sole purpose was transporting the oil from the United States source in North Dakota to another United States market in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Following up that line of thought, it is also made quite clear in section 5 of the bill that the company, if incorporated, will be subject to the national energy board, which will license the sale of oil by any company anywhere in Canada.
What this company is going to do, therefore, at a cost of $4 million is to build this 10-inch pipe line and, apart from providing jobs in my native province, it will be using the most economic way of transporting their oil by means of an existing pipe line, namely the interprovincial pipe line, and using that common carrier, which will make money for this Canadian company, to transport the oil to markets in Wisconsin and Minnesota. So, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the standing order, I should like to move that this bill be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and there hon. members will be able to ask questions on any points that come to mind, section by section.


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

Mr. R. S. MacLellan (Inverness-Richmond) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-21, respecting Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak for a few moments to explain the purpose of this bill to you and to the house. The bill is simply to increase the capitalization of Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company from $5 million to $10 million. Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company was formed in 1917 by an act of this parliament with a capitalization of $10 million. Across the years it became dormant and I believe its assets were transferred to another telephone company in Nova Scotia. In the late twenties, when American Telephone and Telepraph Company and British interests intended to lay a submarine telephone cable across the Atlantic to link up the United States and Canada with Britain, this company, Eastern Telephone and Telegraph, was taken over by American Telephone and Telegraph to hold title to the properties in Canada of the telephone cable system.
A portion of the cable, since it would lie in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, as well as in

Newfoundland, would belong to Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company. However, it became necessary to shelve the program for the laying of the telephone cable, and since Eastern Telephone and Telegraph was lying dormant there was no need for it to carry the heavy capitalization. In 1929, by act of parliament, the capital of the company was reduced to $75,000.
From 1931 onwards the people in the United States and in Europe who were interested in laying a telephone cable across the Atlantic continued to work to develop a satisfactory cable, and to watch for an opportunity to go ahead with their plans. All during those years the only contact between this continent and Europe by voice was by means of radio, which was always unsatisfactory inasmuch as it depended upon favourable atmospheric conditions and also on the extent of magnetic disturbances.
Then, in the 1950's, discussions were begun again on the matter of laying a telephone cable which would provide a much better link than radio could between this continent and Europe. Finally, in 1953 an agreement was completed between the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation, and Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company, with the postmaster general in the United Kingdom under whose jurisdiction and authority the matter of telecommunication lies in Britain, to build the submarine cable as a joint enterprise.
Under the agreement the cable was to be owned 50 per cent by American Telephone and Telegraph Company, 9 per cent by Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation and 41 per cent by the British postmaster general. The cable was to run for 2,200 miles from Clarenville in Newfoundland to Oban in Scotland and was to be built at a cost of $35 million. Of course, since the contract for construction would require a large expenditure by Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company, it was necessary in 1954 to increase its capitalization so that it could participate in the contract. Therefore in 1954 application was made to this parliament, and the capital of Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company was increasd from $75,000 to $5 million. Chapter 77 of the statutes of 1953-54 authorized the increase in capital.
A cable was thereupon constructed from Sydney Mines in Nova Scotia to Terrence-ville in Newfoundland and thence across New Newfoundland some 60 miles to Clarenville and thence across the Atlantic to Oban in Scotland. This was the first trans-Atlantic telephone cable and the longest submarine cable of its kind in the world. Incidentally,

as a by-product of the laying of this cable to Europe, we enjoyed much better telephone communication with Newfoundland, since the cable gave us better and extra circuits and indeed a substantial saving was made by us in that Canada was not obliged to provide a new cable to Newfoundland.
This present bill asks for further increase because the company now proposes to lay a second cable to Europe. A contract has been entered into between the French republic, and the Federal Republic of Germany in Europe and the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company on this continent to provide a second telephone link, this time with continental Europe, construction of which is now under way. About $3 million has already been spent and I understand that the work in Canada has now been completed. To date the financing has been handled by American Telephone and Telegraph Company by means of a loan to Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company. The purpose of this increase in capitalization is so that shares can be issued to American Telephone and Telegraph Company to take up the amount of its loan to Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company.
The head office of the company is at Halifax in Nova Scotia. These two cables, the one laid in 1954 and the one that is being constructed now, in providing a direct telephone link to Europe increase greatly the facility of communication we have with the European continent. As a joint enterprise between Canada and the United States on one hand, and the United Kingdom, France and Germany on the other, it is an example of what can be accomplished by international cooperation. This cable lying under the ocean for some 2,200 miles could probably never have been laid profitably or economically by any one country. Of the business handled to Europe I understand that about 80 per cent is American and 20 per cent is Canadian.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: As seconder of this bill moved by my colleague the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacLellan), I should like to take this opportunity of saying a few words not only because I approve the bill but because of the fact that the North American terminal of this company is located in my home town of Sydney Mines in the constituency of Cape Breton North and Victoria.
To give you a brief background on the history of the company-and I probably may repeat some of what has already been said but I am sure the house will bear with me- may I say that the Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company was incorporated by an
Private Bills
act which was passed in 1917. As indicated in Bill No. S-21, the authorized capital stock at the date of incorporation was $10 million divided into shares of $100 each. In 1929 all of the stock was acquired by American Telephone and Telegraph Company; therefore this company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company.
At that time it was the intention of the United States company to construct a single panel telephone cable but in 1931 this proposed project was suspended and from then until 1953 Eastern Telephone and Telegraph were inactive.
In 1931 the company's act of incorporation was amended by a special act of parliament whereby the company was authorized to reduce its capital to $75,000 in shares of $100 each. In 1954 a bill was passed in this house to increase the capital to the amount of $5 million, which increase was necessary on account of a contract which had been entered into for the laying of a submarine cable from Clarenville, Newfoundland to Oban, Scotland.
This arrangement consisted of a four-party agreement which brought Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company back into operation. On November 27, 1953 an agreement was effected between Her Majesty's postmaster general in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation and Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company. The agreement provided for the construction, at a cost of approximately $35 million, of a cable extending to the points I have mentioned, then to Sydney Mines, Nova Scotia and by radio relay from Sydney Mines to Portland and New York in the United States of America.
This has been a very highly successful venture and consisted originally of 36 circuits, which number was later increased to 48, plus another 24 inter-Canadian circuits from Newfoundland. As I have already mentioned, because of the venture being so successful the circuits have become greatly overloaded, thus necessitating increased facilities.
The new project will add an additional 36 circuits direct to France and I understand that this number will be increased at a later date. The distance covered between Nova Scotia and Scotland is approximately 2,200 miles. The request for this further increase in capital is made necessary because of a contract somewhat similar in nature to the previous one and entered into in 1957 by the French republic, the Federal Republic

Private Bills
of Germany, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and the Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company. Under this contract there have been constructed or at present there are being constructed telegraph communications and submarine cables from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland and from Newfoundland to Britain.
I understand the amount already spent on this project is approximately $3 million and the cost of materials and equipment used in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland amounts to roughly another $1 million.
The head office of this company is located at Halifax, and I might mention that all the employees are Canadians. With reference to the employees, I speak from personal knowledge as to their working conditions, salaries and relations with the company which are of a high calibre. There are 44 employed, with 13 of these positions located in Cape Breton. They are highly skilled technical personnel, a number of whom have been taken directly from the high schools in the Cape Breton area and, because of the excellent training provided by this company in the matter of courses in Montreal and in the United States, plus their natural aptitudes, are extremely well qualified for their positions. I feel that their relations with their employees could be an excellent example for other companies who come from south of the border to pattern themselves after.
The Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company has a board consisting of nine directors. Five of these are Canadians, and included among them is a representative from the Maritime Telephone and Telegraph Company in Nova Scotia and one from the New Brunswick Telephone Company.
It is most appropriate that this company should have selected for their main terminal and highly technical installations the Pond road area in Sydney Mines as their base for the North American continent. Because not too many miles away, still in my constituency of Cape Breton North and Victoria, the great Alexander Graham Bell conducted many of his experiments at Bienn Breagh in Baddeck in the field of communications, and not only in the field of communications but also his many other varied interests, such as the famous hydrofoil H.D.4, and the lighter than air craft, which were numerous, among which of course is the famous Silver Dart.
For the benefit of the C.B.C. I would at this time advise that Alexander Graham Bell was born in Scotland, my own birthplace, and not in Brantford, Ontario, as was stated on the C.B.C. a couple of Sundays ago.

With these few remarks, in closing may I wish the Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company every success in the future, and trust that their operations on Cape Breton Island will continue to grow rapidly.


Mr. R. C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I join my colleagues, the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacLellan) and the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir), in giving my support to Bill No. S-21, respecting Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company. The bill before us requests an authorization for an increase in capital from $5 million to $10 million in order that the second trans-Atlantic telephone cable might be completed. This is the second transAtlantic telephone cable, the first having been completed by the same company in 1956. The work on this cable is already under way and approximately $3 million has been spent to date on its construction, as well as a further $1 million on materials and equipment which were used at Sydney, Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland.
The materials and equipment used in the construction of this trans-Atlantic telephone cable were purchased in the United Kingdom. A good deal of construction work has been carried out in Newfoundland to date, especially with regard to the construction of a tunnel from Clarenville to Terrenceville in that province. I am sure that all hon. members from Newfoundland will be more than happy to support the authorization requested by this company.
In 1954 an act similar to the one presently before us allowed this company to increase its capital stock from the capitalization of $75,000 to its present capital stock of $5 million. As a result of this act they completed the construction of the first trans-Atlantic telephone cable from Oban in Scotland to Clarenville, Newfoundland; thence to Sydney Mines, Nova Scotia, and from there by radio relay to Portland and New York. This turned out to be a very successful venture and this company is to be complimented on its achievement in the field of communications.
There is a long history associated with the laying of submarine cables which dates back to 1851. The first real significant success in this field occurred in 1866 with the laying of a cable from Ireland to Newfoundland. This came about after many failures, and it is a tribute to the engineers of the world that they never lost faith and succeeded in what we today accept as an indispensable convenience and one of strategic importance in time of war. Today we find cables stretching out from Canada across the Atlantic and Pacific to England, Ireland, Bermuda, Australia and New Zealand.

The particular cable that will be constructed it we allow this company to increase its capital stock to $10 million will stretch a distance of approximately 2,200 miles and will provide for the carrying on of 36 conversations at the same time, with a view to having the number of conversations increased, and will eliminate the defects inherent in telephonic communications through radio facilities which are dependent on prevailing atmospheric conditions.
The trans-Atlantic telephone cable which was completed in 1956 is owned by the American Telegraph and Telephone Company, Her Majesty's postmaster general in the United Kingdom and the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation, a crown company of the Canadian government. The breakdown in ownership is: 50 per cent by the American Telegraph and Telephone Company; 41 per cent by the United Kingdom and 9 per cent by the Canadian government.
The trans-Atlantic cable now under construction comes about as the result of an agreement entered into in 1957 by the French republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the American Telegraph and Telephone Company and the Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company. This cable will stretch from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland and from Newfoundland to the United Kingdom.
As I stated previously, $3 million has already been spent on this project, with a further $1 million spent on materials and equipment. The reason this bill is now before the house is to provide the company with the additional funds that will be necessary to complete the project.
It will be of interest to hon. members to know that this company, although a wholly owned subsidiary of a United States company, has its head office at Halifax in Nova Scotia, that all the employees of the company are Canadians; and I need only refer you to the remarks of my good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, as to the policy the company has adopted in its employment of personnel and of the benefits that have accrued to his constituents as a result of these policies. We as hon. members of this house should not be short in our praise of a company that adopts the attitude this company has in the selection of its personnel. They must, indeed, stand out as an example of the type of company we in Canada are very anxious to attract.
Another point, and a very significant one, is that although this is a wholly owned subsidiary of a United States company, five of this company's directors from a board of directors of nine are Canadians. Often we
Private Bills
note anxieties expressed by individuals in this country over the control of wholly owned subsidiaries. This certainly cannot apply to this company, and it may be that if this attitude were adopted by more companies in a similar position in Canada, many of the present anxieties that find expression would disappear.
It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the operations of this company are of significance; that it has indicated very clearly its ability to carry out ventures of this nature; that the project it has presently undertaken is a very necessary one not only to Canada but to our allies in France and Germany, as well; and that we should support the construction and maintenance of a second transAtlantic telephone cable system by allowing this company to increase its capital stock to $10 million, which will be divided into shares of $100 each.


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

Mr. J. E. Bissonnette (Quebec West) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-15, from the Senate, to incorporate the College of General Practice of Canada.
(Translation) :
He said: Mr. Speaker, as a physician member of this house, I am very pleased of the honour being afforded to me of submitting this bill to the approval of the house, in accordance with the expressed wish of my colleagues, the directors of the Medical College of General Practice of Canada an as yet unincorporated medical association which recruits its members among family doctors.
Mr. Speaker, as you may see in section 1 of this bill, a rather impressive number of medical petitioners, from all provinces of Canada, as well as the members of the unincorporated association all of them general practitioners, have asked me to introduce this bill to incorporate them under the name of "The Medical College of General Practice of Canada." I should like to point out that there is an error of translation in the English version, where the word "College" is used instead of "Medical College."
Section 2 indicates that the head office of the association has no permanent character. It is now in Toronto, and it may be located elsewhere, if need be.
Section 3 deserves a bit of attention and a few remarks, since it deals with the very purpose of that college.

Private Bills
According to paragraph a, the purpose of this college is to improve the professional qualifications of its members, and when we speak of professional qualifications, we mean, above all, moral and scientific ones.
The moral qualifications of the medical body, in general, including specialists and general practitioners or family doctors, have always been of a high standard.
In requesting incorporation of their association, the general practitioners therefore seek to sustain and even improve the moral and professional standards of their members, inspiring and urging them to always carry out their mission with a high sense of charity and duty. Their purpose is also to enlighten and direct public opinion in Canada on the importance of their association. They are anxious, moreover, to promote higher scientific standards through post-graduate studies, conferences, medical journals, and publications especially on matters relating to general practice.
To sum up all other paragraphs from b to h of clause 3, I may add that, without disregarding the merits of specialists, this association wishes to attain such scientific standards that the patient will feel even more secure and less inclined to count exclusively, often for minor ailments, on the more expensive care of the specialist.
Representations will be made by the association to schools of medicine in order that medical students who may engage in general practice may follow special courses.
That association was formed under the patronage of the Canadian Medical Association and there is a chapter in each province. The bill does not ask for any legislative powers with regard to the medical profession, nor in respect of teaching and discipline. Indeed, the association does not wish to encroach upon the authority of provincial medical colleges. It only asks for general administrative powers for internal control.
Thus, in section 9, the bill provides among other general powers, the right to acquire, possess, dispose of or mortgage chattels and real estate, to collect contributions from its members for the purpose of setting up an administrative fund, to borrow, negotiate, invest its funds, and participate in charitable activities. In brief, the association asks for all ordinary privileges enjoyed by every well-run corporation of the same type.
(Text):


Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words as seconder

of this bill. We in the medical profession have a responsibility to provide to the people of Canada medical care at the highest level at a reasonable cost. The best way this can be done is through the well-educated, well-trained and properly informed general practitioner. This has been the driving force behind the creation of the College of General Practice and I am sure indicates to the country as a whole that the medical profession has accepted that responsibility.
Recently a survey by a medical economist has revealed the rule that the proportion of the gross national product of a nation devoted to medical care tends to remain constant. This seems not to have too much relationship to whether or not the schemes are socialistic or otherwise.
As my colleague the hon. member from Quebec West (Mr. Bissonnette) has pointed out, the objectives of this association are clearly set out in clause 3 of the bill. They have as their prime objective improving the professional qualifications of the members of the college of general practice. Subclause a is a general subclause which covers all qualifications. Certainly subclause c is an important one, its purpose being to help enlighten and direct public opinion in Canada in relation to general practice. Subclauses d, e and f provide for more extensive information and teaching of the general practitioner in a post-graduate manner.
As I said, this bill relates to the general practitioner and is an indication that the medical profession is assuming in a free society its responsibility to promote the aims and objectives of the profession in which its members are engaged, I commend it to the house for its study.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, not being a member of that profession of which the two previous speakers are distinguished members it may be presumptuous on my part to speak to the bill before us.
One objective of the college is to enlighten public opinion in Canada in relation to the general practice of medicine. I know that in the past when suggestions have been made for what we could call state medicine, socialized medicine, national health insurance, or something of that nature, there have been objections from members of the medical profession-I will not say from the profession in its entirety-objections to the idea of public health or public hospital insurance coverage, and things of that nature. I hope that one of the things this college will not engage itself

in after it is established, in its efforts to enlighten and direct public opinion, is an antihealth plans approach, as some members of the medical profession have done in years gone by. I do not say this of the majority, but I hope this college will not do this, and I am sure it will not, because public opinion generally and opinion amongst the medical profession have altered toward the question of government-sponsored health and hospital insurance plans.
Another thing to which it might direct its energies in its enlightenment and direction of public opinion-and incidentally, I might say this as an aside, the phrase "direct public opinion" is a bit strong, but nevertheless it is there-to a greater degree is an explanation to the general public of the use to which pharmaceuticals, especially the newer ones on the market, can be put, bringing to the attention of the general public more so than it has in the past some of the detrimental effects which can arise from the indiscriminate use of those newer so-called antibiotics, in so far as the individual and society are concerned. There certainly appears to be a great deal of the witch doctor type of mumbo-jumbo involved in the development of pharmaceuticals and in the nomenclature surrounding them, and also surrounding what they are designed to do. I think this college, along with the provincial colleges of physicians and surgeons, could do a great service to society by going more fully into the field of the pharmaceuticals manufactured by the drug companies and what they mean to the individual and how they can be helpful or, in some cases, injurious to the individual himself.
Another thing which I would like very much to see this college consider doing and engage itself in-probably as an unincorporated society it is doing it now; I think they could expand a great deal in that regard -is to encourage, support, promote or engage itself in research concerning cancer. This is one field in which cancer research foundations and other organizations, universities, and so forth, have been engaged in for many years, and it is one of the important physical ailments for which an answer has not been found. I should like to see some of the large drug manufacturing concerns here and in the United States engage themselves in cancer research. Unfortunately, they do not do so, or if they do it is only to an extremely limited degree by grants to foundations or to universities. Here I believe the college on a national basis or national level could do a great deal toward promoting, encouraging and fostering research in cancer and in ways and means to overcome it.
Private Bills
There is one thing that perhaps the hon. member who sponsored the bill could clear up when he closes the debate. I am sure we would all like to see this bill receive second reading this evening. I wonder whether he would indicate to the house the relationship that there will be between this college and the various provincial colleges of physicians and surgeons which exist because I note that one of the objects of the college is to promote high standards in the general practice of medicine in the provinces through the medium of provincial chapters of the college. I wonder whether it is the intention to establish provincial chapters of this college or whether, for instance, the present British Columbia college of physicians and surgeons is already a part of the unincorporated college which exists at the moment.
In the few moments that are left could the hon. member explain to the house what is the relationship at the moment and what will be the relationship between those colleges when the bill is passed?


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the house that if the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.
(Translation):


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: In answering the questions of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I should say that I have given precisely those explanations when introducing the bill; I said that the college has no legislative powers and does not ask for such powers. Consequently, it may not exercise any authority with regard to medical colleges in the other provinces, which have been conferred legislative as well as administrative powers. The college only wants administrative authority in respect of internal control, in order to operate efficiently. It has no authority whatsoever with regard to education, nor the discipline of its members from a legal point of view. Therefore, if you will read the bill closely, you will see that there it asks for nothing but administrative powers. There is no question of legislative powers.
(Text):


Frank Howard: I wonder whether my hon. friend would permit me to put a question? His explanation was not clear to me. Perhaps the translation which got through to me was not precisely what the hon. member wanted me to hear or to understand. May I make a brief reference to the bill. Paragraph b of clause 3 refers to provincial chapters of the college. I was wondering what was meant by provincial chapters of the college? Are they something that will exist in the future, or do they exist now?

Business of the House (Translation):


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: Those provincial chapters mean that there will be a special administrative council for each province, but its character will be purely administrative, to the exclusion of any legislative authority in respect of medical teaching or the discipline of physicians coming under the various provincial medical colleges. But, in each province, there will be a chapter subordinate to the central association, which now has its head office in Toronto.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: It is ten o'clock. Is it the wish of the house that the question be put, notwithstanding it is ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

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


Mr. Churchill:: For Tuesday, Mr. Speaker, the first item will be the motion in the name
of the Prime Minister, referring the report of the Canada Council to the public accounts committee; No. 2 will be the motion in the name of the Minister of Finance, referring volumes 1 and 2 of the public accounts and other matters to the standing committee on public accounts. As I mentioned on Friday, these are routine matters; they should not take more than just a few minutes. Item No. 3 would be the second reading of Bill No. C-53 to amend the National Housing Act. On completion of that we would then take item 4, the motion in the name of the Minister of National Defence to set up a special committee on defence expenditures. If that should be completed on Tuesday we would then take the resolution in the name of the Minister of Public Works dealing with amendments to the Trans-Canada Highway Act. If the house works with great speed, the next item would be the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport concerning amendments to the Railway Act.


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