1960-06-27

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization-Mr. Stanton.
Twelfth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McCleave.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Howard C. Green (for the Prime
Minisier) moved:
That commencing on Monday. July 4, 1960, the hours of sitting will be from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.; 2 to 6 p.m. and 8 to 11 p.m. on each sitting day until the end of this session, and that the provisions of standing orders 2(1) and 6(3) be suspended in relation thereto.
He said: In view of what has happened today, Monday, June 27, I am a little diffident about speaking on this resolution. However
I	am sure hon. members of the house will realize that this was one occurrence for which the government had absolutely no responsibility.
The proposed motion will provide for several additional hours of sitting, in the first place by cutting the luncheon hour time from one and a half hours to one hour. I do not suppose anyone will quarrel very seriously with that particular change.
Then it is proposed to add one extra hour after 10 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. It will be recalled that frequently at this stage of the session the house sits beyond ten o'clock in the evening in any event, and I suggest that there would be no serious inconvenience to hon. members if we could make it a rule that until the end of the session the hour of adjournment should be
II	p.m. instead of 10 p.m.
Then the motion adds Wednesday and Friday evenings. Wednesday evening, throughout most of the session, is reserved for meetings of one kind or another, and there seems little reason why these could not be dispensed with in order that we may reach the end of the session that much earlier.
As for Friday evenings, I must appeal to the magnanimity or the broadmindedness of hon. members who come from Ontario and Quebec. Ever since January 14 hon. members
representing the Atlantic and western provinces have been sitting here over the week ends with time wasted in so far as the house is concerned on Friday evenings, whereas for many years Friday evenings were a most useful time for the sitting of the house and resulted in the passing of quite a large number of estimates and also brought about extremely helpful discussion.
As we all know the Friday evening sittings were taken away in order that it might be possible for hon. members living within a short distance of Ottawa to get to their homes. I realize that hon. members had good reason for wishing that change made, but I suggest that at this stage of the session it would be very helpful if the house could consider estimates on Friday evenings.
No attempt has been made to provide for sittings on Saturdays. I am not sure that this may not be necessary at a later stage, but it is certainly not included in this motion.
In drafting these proposals the government has tried to consider the best interests of hon. members and also of the staff of the house, who of course carry a greatly increased load when there are additional hours added and particularly if, for example, we were to sit right through the meal hour. That, I think, would be very unwise. I have seen it done here on one or two occasions and have had my lunch brought into the lobby for fear I might miss something that was going on. It is a very demoralizing way of carrying on the business of the house, and we are not proposing that meal times be taken away. We are also trying to consider the members of the press gallery, who have a very important function to fulfil in connection with parliament.
Hon. members will realize that there is very little legislation remaining on the order paper. On today's order paper there are three measures that have been dealt with in part, and there are three minor measures being introduced. I should really withdraw that statement; the bill of rights is one of the measures being introduced, and I would not call that a minor measure. In addition there is an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, a bill from the other place dealing with the international boundary commission, and a resolution concerning the proposed department of forestry.
Quite good progress has been made with legislation, and it is likely that additional
[Stage Direction]
Business of the House
progress will be made during the present week. Also, quite good progress has been made with the estimates. I am advised that by the end of the week most of the committees of the house will either have finished their actual sittings or be winding them up. Of course some of them may not have brought in final reports, but the sittings of some will be concluded although there are four or five which will have to carry on next week and perhaps some of them until the end of the session.
I ask hon. members to bear these thoughts in mind. I hope it will be possible to have this motion accepted, with the result that a great deal more work may be done commencing next Monday than would otherwise be the case.
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising to oppose the motion, but I am rising to bring to the attention of the Acting Prime Minister and the government some of the matters to which in my opinion consideration should be given on a motion such as this. When the advanced hours of sittings were considered on an earlier occasion I think we adopted the only attitude that could have been adopted at that time. A short time thereafter we have the present motion before us for additional hours of sitting. As I understand it, the effect of the motion will be to increase the hours of sitting by adding 11J hours more to our sitting time during the course of one week.
Notwithstanding what the Acting Prime Minister has said, there is no doubt but that there remain on the order paper a number of serious and contentious matters. I should like to bring these to his attention, because these additional working hours are being sought now when the order paper indicates that there is substantial work for the house to do and a considerable volume of work which, if not on the order paper, is in the hands of committees.
We are being asked to do more work, about which I am not complaining, but we are being asked to do this at a time when very important business of the session is brought down at the last minute. For instance, the combines legislation was brought down only recently and is now before a committee of the house. I understand that the committee is still waiting to hear a large number of witnesses. It is not likely that that legislation will be disposed of very quickly. The bill of rights is now on the order paper for the first time this session and this will involve a debate of some length in addition, I take it, to reference to a committee where I believe a large number of associations and groups desire to be heard. That being the

case I do not think it can be said that most of the important legislation has been disposed of. It is true that apart from the bill of rights the other bills on this morning's order paper, with possibly one exception, can be disposed of fairly rapidly.
I am sorry I cannot agree with the Acting Prime Minister's contention that there will be no serious inconvenience to those of us who sit on this side of the house because of this motion. It is not only inconvenient but difficult for those of us on this side, with these additional working hours, to have to sit on Friday evenings. My hope was that the house might find it possible to sit through the lunch hour instead of sitting on Friday evenings. The Acting Prime Minister seems to have disposed of that, because he said it would be unwise to do so. I remind the hon. gentleman that we have done it in the past not too unsuccessfully. It seems to me it is easier to work during the day time than at night. However, I realize that there may be some who are opposed to that view.
With that in mind I am wondering if the government would not give consideration to an alternative proposal. It has been the practice in the last few months to deal with legislation on Monday and Tuesday and to deal with estimates on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. The alternative proposal which I should like to make for the government's consideration-I am not going to move an amendment to this motion because I ask the government to look at my proposal before it moves as indicated on the order paper-is that on days on which legislation is being considered we sit as suggested in the motion, with an hour's adjournment during the lunch hour; because when legislation is being considered an hour sometimes gives us an opportunity to consider more carefully what should be said on the legislation which still remains on the order paper some of which is very important; and that on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, when estimates are considered, we sit through the lunch hour and adjourn at six o'clock on Friday. We would then be discussing estimates under conditions with which we have had to cope before in this house and which have not been too unsuccessful.
I suggest to the Acting Prime Minister that he give consideration to this alternative, which takes in a portion of the motion and gives to hon. members Friday evening, and of course Saturday, which this motion does not include. Therefore, in effect, the alternative proposal I make is that we accept what is now on the order paper for Monday and Tuesday, days on which legislation is generally considered, and that on the

three remaining days when estimates are considered we sit through the lunch hour instead of adopting the proposal now before the house.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, we shall vote against this motion. We recall the introduction of a similar motion last year and two or three years ago. At that time the minister who introduced something similar suggested that the function of the opposition was to be good whiners. We certainly feel like whining over this. I do not think anyone is more anxious to conclude the business of the house than are the C.C.F. members.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am glad to hear those cries. No party takes its duty more seriously or works harder in fulfilling it than we do. We know that the first extension of hours some three weeks ago stretched us beyond our limited resources. This motion makes our role, and we think that of the official opposition, ridiculous, and underlines the arrogance of this government in pushing the opposition around.
When electors vote in Canada they have no accurate preconception of what the makeup of the House of Commons will be, but surely they expect that there will be a function for the opposition. Hon. members recall the 1958 slogan, "Let us have another link in the Diefenbaker chain." We have 208 links in it, and now it is the missing links which beat us. We are aware that the pace for most government supporters is different from our own. We watch with envy the coming and going of the contingent out making a supplementary living at law or business, or on holiday. Between 40 and 70 are away at any one time, and the figure is even larger early in the week and at the end of the week when those fortunate fellows who live handy to the capital can junket to home and all that that means.
Those missing links defeat us. Four shifts can beat one shift at any time; and the ignominy of our position is always rubbed in. We are taunted with being repetitious, with trying to be big league and to cover everything when it is obviously beyond our means to do so. When we challenge all the rush, the forced pace of committees and the plethora of their meetings, we are told that we cannot expect to cover all such activities; that government members have some rights; that they have a job to do and wish to get it done and go home.
Then there is the more sophisticated approach to this matter. The Prime Minister,
Business of the House
with either pious reference to his recognition of the opposition's role or jaunty phrases on his love of parliament and that he is always glad to have it sitting, apparently indicates that time is not of the essence; that consideration for the opposition is centralized in his conception of parliament.


Mr. Brunsden:: On a point of order, is the hon. member reading his speech? If he is, when did he write it?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member asks me a question. I have a few notes. I wanted to be precise-


Mr. Pearson:: Why shouldn't he?


Mr. Argue:: Anyway, it is not put out by Grosart.


An hon. Member:: It was written by Knowles, though.
Mr. Pallet!: The voice of Fisher but the hand of Knowles.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Save all the contentious items to the end; wear away our energies and our perceptions by rounds of committee meetings, by lengthening the sittings; get parliament out of here, and give the ministers five months to draw up another session's business. Even then we are not given any definite schedule as to where they are going. We are not the only ones to complain. I noticed in this morning's paper that the Conservative members complain about the lack of liaison between cabinet ministers and the ordinary members. I do not know what goes on in those Wednesday morning pep meetings. Maybe the government members are treated with lack of consideration as well as the opposition members. I think it would be much simpler, perhaps brutally fair, if the government gave us a 12-hour closure in relation to each bill and each estimate. I do not know a single member of this party who is not anxious to get home, and I have not met any members of any other parties in this house who are not anxious to get home. We wonder whether this is the way to go about it, to fritter away the days and weeks of the session-


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.
Another hon. Member: What about the divorce bills?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Someone asks "What about the divorce bills?" I should like to point out to the hon. member who made that remark that the time consumed on those bills amounts to two hours a week, and it affects public and private bills and private members' resolutions and has nothing at all to do with government business.

Business of the House


Mr. Cardiff:: You took two full days.


Douglas Mason Fisher: We insist that it is time the House of Commons and the government, since the government controls the House of Commons, smartened up their way of doing business. We think the best way of doing it is by splitting the session. I personally cannot see any reason why we need to be in Ottawa for more than five and a half months in the year, if we would split the session and draw up a proper schedule and get some kind of procedure actually working.
You can classify members of this house, Mr. Speaker, in a number of ways; by parties, by regions and everything else. But I always think that one of the classifications is between the commuters and the stuck. The commuters are the ones who can always get away to their homes in a comparatively short time; the stuck are those members from distant places, referred to so kindly by the minister when he introduced this motion. The pressure on the stuck is always rather severe. They are the ones who are always here on Friday afternoon and Monday, and usually they are members from a distance. They are not in the "T-to-T" school. "T-to-T" usually means Tuesday to Thursday. I could change that to "M-to-T", Montreal to Toronto. They happen to be the lucky ones. We think it is outrageous for the opposition members from the places farther away to carry the burden of the members who spend the week ends at home throughout most of the session. I notice that this morning we could almost outvote the official opposition, but this is not unusual on a Monday morning.
This party, Mr. Speaker, has the greatest respect for members of other parties who diligently attend to the business of this house in this chamber and in committees. We feel that this government by introducing motions such as this mocks us all. If it is a rubber stamp this government wants, why not sit all night, or put us on the hours reputedly worked by the Minister of Finance? Then we would be out of here in a real hurry.


An hon. Member:: Is that an invitation?


Douglas Mason Fisher: An hon. member asks "Is that an invitation?" Certainly it is an invitation. If you want to do it this way, go ahead; you can do it.
We cannot gauge the end of the session now, Mr. Speaker. The house leader expects it to be over by mid-July. If that should happen all of us will know how cursory the examination of the work will be. The government can have its own way. The house leader and the Prime Minister certainly have the forces behind them to rub us out and push it

through, but I do not see how it can look at the business that is ahead and expect to get us out of here in two or three weeks and do any kind of a decent job. If the legislation ahead is as important as the minister argues; if the bill of rights is important; if the Combines Investigation Act amendments are important; if the changes in the Canada Shipping Act are important; if the new forestry department is important, is it not a fiasco that we should be forced to work under hours of sitting of this kind?
I suggest to the members of the government on the front benches who were in the opposition that they should have a little bit of sympathy and understanding for the fact that the opposition at the present time is not even in as good a position as they were at their weakest. At least when their numbers were smallest there were other opposition groups in the house of a little more substance in numbers. I refer to the larger C.C.F. group and the Social Credit group which, whatever you may believe of them, did carry some of the opposition load. That is not the case at the present time.
We have never had a parliament which has been so unbalanced and whose representation has been so much in favour of the government. Nevertheless it seems that the government ministers play upon the sympathies and feelings of the government backbenchers in pushing down the opposition even more than is understandable in the light of its small size. It seems to me it is time the ministry gave those in the opposition a fairer deal, because we have a difficult role to play at the present time and until the next election. It is ridiculous to think that 206 or 207 men should not have their way, but surely it is understood in a democracy that that way is best exercised by recognizing some of the rights of the minority, and these extensions of the hours of sitting are nothing more than an abuse of the minority's rights.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher)-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Read it again.
Another hon. Member: Who wrote this one?


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am greatly amused by remarks from the government benches about members of this group reading their speeches. I do not know of anything more amusing than to hear that kind of charge made. I suggest that if government backbenchers had been as keen in their objection to the reading of speeches at the start of the session as they are now-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will realize that he is not discussing the motion.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, it has always been my opinion that when there are such interjections as were made when I started my remarks the hon. member who has the floor should have the opportunity to reply. Most of the things I intended to say have been covered very well by the hon. member for Port Arthur but there is one thing that I think should be put on the record; that we are not alone in this country in our objection to this type of thing. To prove this I should like to refer to an editorial in the Toronto Globe and Mail of June 1, 1960 and read the first two and the last paragraphs:
The British parliament is in session for the greater part of the year, and so is the United States congress. The Canadian parliament takes its duties less seriously; it gets tired, or maybe bored, after three or four months, and prepares to pack up.	,
If the Canadian parliament had spent those three or four months constructively, if in that time it had debated most or all of the important subjects, appropriations, and new pieces of legislation, it might be forgiven for getting restless around the end of May. But this is rarely, if ever, the case. Parliament crawls along for week after week fruitlessly discussing secondary issues; then it looks at the calendar, realizes how much time it has wasted, and switches into high gear. The important issues, the important legislation, are crowded into a hectic series of all-day sittings and six-day weeks, the object being to clean things up and go home by dominion day.
The last paragraph is very significant.
The imperative thing is to do away with the home stretch stampede which gives major issues hasty consideration or none at all. This is a performance which overtaxes parliament and debases parliament; which disappoints the electorate and short changes the electorate.
As the hon. member for Port Arthur said, if the Prime Minister and the government believe that the bill of rights is so important, then it should not be brought in now during the prorogation stampede. If the government does not believe that the Civil Service Act amendments-I believe there are 91 of them-are important enough to be accorded proper consideration by the house sitting during proper hours, then we certainly cannot agree with them.
It is for these reasons that we intend to vote against the motion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a word about the resolution and to make an appeal to the government at least to consider the alternative proposal that we put forward. From the point of view of the opposition, and I think even from the point of view of government members, I think the suggestion that we work during the lunch
Business of the House
hour in respect of estimates only has something to commend it. We have done that before. We have found that while it is perhaps inconvenient or even worse to use the lunch hour for legislation, because we do not have any time in the middle of the day to discuss matters between the morning and afternoon sessions, that objection has not applied in the past to the consideration of estimates.
Therefore we would accept the proposal, as my hon. friend pointed out, in respect of legislation, and we would hope the government would perhaps accept the proposal to work through the lunch hour in respect of estimates so we could then have Friday evening off. I think that is a reasonable proposal, and I hope the government will at least consider it. If they cannot accept this compromise this morning, perhaps they could consider it during the day and we could decide tomorrow, because the new hours of sitting will not go into effect until next week in any event, so the decision would merely be postponed until tomorrow.
I feel more strongly about this matter than I otherwise might because of the remarks of the Acting Prime Minister in connection with the legislation before us. The impression he left-and he is a very optimistic member of the house, not only in respect of our business-was that we were approaching the end and therefore we could speed up in this way because there are only a few more days to go. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that at almost the end of June the bill of rights has appeared on the order paper for the first time. That bill is going to be given a very thorough discussion on second reading and is going to be sent to a committee. There are individuals and organizations all over the country who will want to be heard and should be heard when the bill of rights goes to its committee, and that is going to take a long time.
Then we have the Combines Investigation Act, and we know what has happened before the standing committee. There are a great many organizations still to be heard. There is a great deal of interest and feeling about this bill, and it is going to take a long time before we finish consideration of this very important and controversial measure. On the order paper we also have a resolution setting up a department of forestry. Then there is also the bill to amend the Canada Elections Act, which is not yet on the order paper.
Therefore it is not a question of rushing toward an end which will be reached within a few days. The broadcasting committee has not even started its work. We have a good many weeks of work ahead of us, and I think we have to consider the extension of

Business of the House
the hours of sitting with that in mind. Therefore I hope the government will find it possible to give consideration to the compromise proposal which has been put before them. If, however, the proposal which we put forward is rejected and a vote is taken, then, because of our strong preference for our proposal but not because we object to extra hours of sitting, we will have to vote against the motion before the house at the present time. I hope that will not be necessary.
We have just heard some remarks from the C.C.F. party. While there were four members of the C.C.F. party in the house at that moment, we were told-


An hon. Member:: Six.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -that they could almost outvote us. There were four members in the house when that statement was made, and the member who made that statement is not now in the house. I see that he is almost in the house. However, the only group that the C.C.F. could outvote this morning or at any other time would be the Social Crediters.
So, Mr. Speaker, while we have some sympathy with some of the points made by the hon. member for Port Arthur, when he tries to speak as the conscience of the house we find, as is so often the case, that he ends up by speaking as the conscience of the C.C.F. We do not go as far as the C.C.F. in its objection to the extension of the hours of sitting at this time, but we have put forward an alternative view to which we hope the government will give consideration.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: rise to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs upon his very reasonable and lucid explanation of a very poor case. His defence of the government and its views with respect to the hours of sitting nearly brought tears to my eyes.
I am not rising to repeat what has been said by my colleagues, because I am not in favour of repetition. I rise simply to bring to the attention of the house the fact that, first of all, we are rather pleased to note the shift in the position of the official opposition after two or three of our speakers expressed their point of view this morning. This is another indication of the influence the speeches of two or three of our members have on the official opposition when it comes to dealing with a problem like this.
I do want to bring to the attention of the house the fact that not only have we the legislation to deal with mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, the bill of rights, the bill to establish a forestry department, the combines legislation and other legislation

but, Mr. Speaker, we have nearly $3 billion in estimates to consider. This means that if we are going to conclude the session within the time suggested by the government we shall have to consider the spending of the people's money at the rate of about $300 million a day. We in the C.C.F. say that is not good enough.
I rise to emphasize the fact that we are protesting this procedure and will vote against this motion. I also rise to emphasize the fact that we are opposed to these unplanned sessions; and to again say that we are in favour of a split session in the future. We could then complete our work with reasonable dispatch and greater efficiency, to the advantage not only of the members of this house but of the people of Canada. When the vote is called, therefore, we will vote against the motion to emphasize our continuing protest against this unnecessary procedure. We hope also that as a result of past experience, not for the benefit of the members of the C.C.F. group in this house but for the welfare of all members, and of the country this government will learn something and improve our procedures at the next session.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker-


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


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this has blown up into quite a little debate for a Monday morning. I am intrigued with the position of the official opposition. The hon. member for Laurier told us they did not like some of the terms of this resolution, but that they were going to vote for it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He did not say that.


Howard Charles Green: Then after argument by the members of the C.C.F. the Leader of the Opposition became convinced, apparently and now says they are going to vote against it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is quite wrong.


Howard Charles Green: 
An hon. Member:: That is a C.C.F.
supporter.


Hazen Robert Argue: Even the gallery turns against you.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, evidently the C.C.F. have a supporter in the gallery.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, you threw her out.


Howard Charles Green: Evidently the essence of their argument is that they believe there should be two sessions of parliament, one in the spring and one in the autumn. I admit at once that there is a good deal to be said for a proposal of that kind. However, that is not the issue before the house today. The question today is whether the house is going to sit these few extra hours to complete the work of the 1960 session. I do not think any member of the opposition is going to be very badly hurt by the proposal which the government is making today. I sat in opposition for 22 years, and I must admit that during that time I made speeches resembling those made today by the hon. member for Port Arthur and the hon. member for Timmins.
This is just a natural complaint that is to be expected from the opposition. I do not believe that either one of these two members or any other member of the C.C.F. party believes that the present government is being unfair with the House of Commons. Sometimes in the heat of debate we hear charges of that kind, but right down deep in their hearts the members of the C.C.F. who were here with us during some of those opposition
Business of the House
days know very well that there is not the slightest chance of the members who now occupy the front benches doing anything that will injure parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: I do not pay so much attention to these "Oh, oh's" I hear from the four remnants of the dictatorial Liberal government. They have nothing else to do but shout "Oh, oh" on this question, because that is the only explanation they can give for their own conduct when they formed the government.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Would the hon. minister permit a question. Would he say that the speeches he made about the rights of parliament when he was over here in opposition were as insincere as he said the hon. member for Port Arthur's speech was?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) ought to be a first class judge of insincere speeches. I do suggest, Mr. Speaker, that nobody across the way is being hurt one tenth as much as the howls we have heard would indicate. As I said, we are prepared to alter the motion in order to do away with sitting on Friday night and to substitute sittings through the lunch hours on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday except when legislation is under consideration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the minister wish to move a specific amendment, or shall I ask the house to give its consent to the amendment of the motion?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the house will agree that we should vote on the proposed change, that instead of sitting Friday night we sit through the lunch hour on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday except when legislation is under consideration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent that the motion be amended as indicated by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Speaker, does the minister mean that on these days we will have to sit until eleven at night, or until ten?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it understood that I shall put the motion as it is now?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, before we vote on an amendment we would want to know what it is.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no amendment before the house at the moment. Is the house ready for the question?

Business of the House


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, perhaps if you could wait for a minute or two we can draft an amendment in accordance with the undertaking I gave.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must inform the minister that unless the house gives unanimous consent to having this amendment moved formally, the question has to be put as it is. Does the house give consent to a formal amendment being moved by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion as amended will now read as follows:
That commencing on Monday, July 4, 1960, the hours of sitting will he from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.; 2 to 6 p.m. and 8 to 11 p.m. on each Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday: on Thursday from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. and 8 to 11 p.m.; and on Friday from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to make this remark. I think perhaps the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition is a good one, and that this matter should stand until tomorrow; then perhaps we will agree on it, because this is certainly not the suggestion which was made by me. I do not want to spend another 15 minutes or so discussing it if that can be avoided, so my suggestion is that we allow this matter to stand over until tomorrow.


Howard Charles Green: If I understand the hon. member for Laurier correctly, he means we should put the motion tomorrow and that it stand until then?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Then that would be satisfactory to us, and we will get it worded properly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think I am more familiar with the wording now. I may be able to read it more clearly if I may be permitted to try again. The motion as amended is as follows:
That commencing on Monday, July 4, 1960, the hours of sitting will be from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.; 2 to 6 p.m. and 8 to 11 p.m. on each Monday, and Tuesday; on Wednesday and Thursday from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. and 8 to 11 p.m.; and on Friday from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Speaker. The proposal as I made it, at least as I thought I made it, was in accordance with what you have read save that for Wednesday, Thursday and Friday we sit through the lunch hour, and that we adjourn at 10 p.m. save on Friday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Lionel Chevrier: That is certainly what was in my mind, and that is what I had understood. My suggestion is that since there is some misunderstanding, perhaps it had better stand as I proposed.


Mr. Churchill:: On the point raised by the hon. member for Laurier, I think on reflection he will recall that he did not mention closing at ten o'clock. It was always 11 p.m., and the concession was that we should not sit on Friday evening in exchange for sitting through the lunch hour on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, and that is how the motion is now drafted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I listened most attentively to the hon. member for Laurier, and my hon. friend was putting forward as an alternative that on the days when estimates were called we should sit through the lunch hour instead of sitting until eleven o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: I must offer my apologies to the house, in that due to failure of transportation arrangements I was unable to be here at the time set for the sitting of the house this morning.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Howard Charles Green: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-79, for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Explain.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I think this bill can be best understood by reading it once it has been made available to hon. members.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Proposed Legislation CANADA SHIPPING ACT



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING PILOTS AND PILOTAGE

Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-80, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION


Howard Charles Green: the first reading of Bill No. S-35, from the Senate, respecting the international boundary commission.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FREIGHT RATES REDUCTION ACT


George Harris Hees: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act to extend for not more than nine months the period during which the revised rates under the said act shall be applicable and to increase the authorized expenditure under the act by an additional $15 million.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Howard Charles Green: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to present a bill to constitute a department of forestry which shall be presided over by a minister of forestry to be appointed under the great seal of Canada, to authorize the appointment of a deputy minister by the governor in council and the necessary officers, clerks and employees in the manner authorized by law, and to provide for the transfer of certain officers and employees of the Departments of Agriculture and of Northern Affairs and National Resources to the new department; that it is also expedient to bring in a consequential amendment to the Salaries Act to provide a salary for the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
5416	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has anything which he thinks he should say to the house at this time in view of the decision taken this morning at the 10-power disarmament talks by the Soviet union, when it refused to continue to participate in the discussions that were set up as the result of agreement among the four foreign ministers, including the foreign minister of the Soviet union.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid the 10-nation disarmament committee has been scuttled by the action of the eastern members this morning. I spoke to General Burns earlier in the morning, and apparently there were at least two western speakers on the list to participate in the discussions this morning. Mr. Zorin, the chairman of the Soviet delegation, had been told by Mr. Eaton, the chairman of the United States delegation, that there would be a western proposal submitted later this week. This was before the committee actually met.
When the committee did meet under the chairmanship today of Mr. Naszkowski of Poland, Mr. Zorin made a statement in which he accused the western members of the committee of refusing to negotiate, and made other charges, and said that the eastern members would be carrying their proposals to the United Nations. Then, in spite of the fact that western members were trying to get the floor, the Polish chairman refused to allow any of them to do so. Instead he called on each of the other four eastern members, and then he and the whole eastern delegation stalked out. Therefore no representative of the western nations was permitted to speak at all. When this happened Mr. Ormsby-Gore, the head of the British delegation, took the chair and Mr. Eaton tabled the United States plan. Of course that was all that could be done at this meeting.
I should like to explain to the house that the Soviet plan, as hon. members will recall, was issued with a great flourish of trumpets just a day or two before the 10-member committee resumed its sittings, which I think was on June 2. All the foreign ambassadors in Moscow were called in and given copies of the Soviet plan. In reporting to the house I said then that there were heavy propaganda overtones to the introduction of this Russian proposal.


Once the meetings of the committee had commenced, the western delegates endeavoured to get clarification of the various points in the eastern proposal, and made various suggestions. For example, the head of the Canadian delegation, General Burns, made a very useful speech on Friday last. I have not yet received the verbatim report of his remarks, but when I do I will probably ask for leave to table it. In addition, of course, there have been discussions going on among the four western nations concerning what reply should be made to the Soviet proposals. The Canadian reaction to the Soviet proposals was duly given to General Burns some days ago. It has been important that in the work of this committee the western nations should work together as closely as possible. Of course the eastern nations do not have that problem, because the four, apart from the Soviet, simply appear to do exactly what they are told by the Soviet.
The United States completed their reactions to the Soviet proposals late last week, and we received a copy on Thursday evening. There have been consultations in Geneva over the week end concerning the United States proposals and proposals which had been put forward by the other four western nations, including Canada, with the intent that there would be a western plan announced within the next day or two. In addition, the western plan was to have been taken before the permanent council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization probably today or tomorrow, but certainly early this week, and then it would have been presented in the committee of ten.
I am not yet in a position to table the Canadian proposals in response to the Russian suggestions or to the United States proposals -to which, incidentally, they were very close -but in my opinion the new western proposals and the Soviet proposals of June 2, which the Soviet bloc has now refused to discuss further, could have provided a basis for detailed, businesslike and uninterrupted negotiations. It now becomes obvious that the Soviet side were not seriously interested in negotiating on the last plan they put forward. I believe that their action in stalking out of the committee as they did this morning was irresponsible, and was taken for propaganda purposes. We will now hear great talk in the United Nations general assembly about the wonderful plan the Soviets proposed, and there will be charges made that the western nations refused even to discuss it. I believe further, Mr. Speaker, that the eastern side have overplayed their hand again, just as they overplayed their hand in the breaking up of the summit conference a few weeks ago.

Canada, from the start, has been very much in earnest about the work of this disarmament committee. I believe that the Canadian government, in following that policy, has had the support of every member of the house, regardless of the party to which he or she belongs, and also the overwhelming support of the Canadian people. We shall continue to be very much in earnest and will do everything we possibly can to work out some solution to the problem. Unfortunately the problem still exists, and Canada will be willing to negotiate and, as I said, do everything she possibly can to help bring about a relaxation of tension.
Naturally these developments are a bit disturbing; but we are dealing here, I believe, with the survival of mankind. This problem we are facing is just that serious. I regret more than I can say that the Soviet and the other four members of the eastern side should have deliberately walked out of these negotiations knowing that there was a proposal to be discussed within the next day or two. Apparently they were afraid of what would be in those proposals, in so far as world public opinion is concerned. This looks like a deliberate attempt to prevent the western proposals from getting out to the nations of the world which have not been involved in the work of this committee.
I take it, of course, that there will be no opportunity now for the committee to do any further work. I understand that a message has been sent by Premier Khrushchev to the heads of government of the five western nations, but we have not actually received that. This is obviously a deliberate step taken to try to upset the west and also to gain a propaganda advantage.
I regret having to give such a report to the house, Mr. Speaker, but I am afraid that is the situation. I suggest that Canadians should not be downhearted. This is a long road that we are on now and, as I said a minute ago, it is a road which may prevent the ending of civilization. I know all Canadians will do their part in an endeavour to see that some solution is eventually found.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of these discouraging and disturbing developments in a matter which, as the minister has just pointed out, is of such vital importance to us all, and having regard to the arrogant and indefensible action taken by the communist delegations, would the government put forward on support a course by which the committee should be reconvened as soon as a western member is chairman-I understand the chairmanship rotates-and at that reconvened meeting the new western proposals
Inquiries of the Ministry would be put forward to the committee and the communist delegation would be put in the position, if they insisted on staying away, of refusing to even discuss those proposals.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the United States proposal was tabled today in the committee. I believe that within the next day or two steps will be taken to make public the western proposal; that is, the proposal of the five western nations. The suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition may be one which can be followed and I am very grateful to him for bringing it up.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, the members of this group wish to thank the minister for his outline of these unfortunate developments, which I know concern us all. I was going to ask the minister whether it would be possible for him to outline in brief the highlights of the western proposal. My second question is this. If this matter goes to the United Nations, as I understand is suggested by the Soviet authorities, is Canada giving consideration to putting forward proposals at the United Nations to narrow this gap and get the thing back on the rails?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I will table the western position in the house as soon as it is available, and probably also the United States reaction to the Soviet proposal and the Canadian reaction to the Soviet proposal of June 2. It is still early yet to know what course will be followed in the United Nations, but I would think it is fairly clear that the Soviet and the other four will do their best to make all the propaganda possible out of their own proposals, and that the western nations will also be dealing with their western proposals. As I said a moment ago, it now appears quite obvious that the Russian proposals were put forward on June 2 with the idea of establishing a propaganda position.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask two
supplementary questions. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs say whether or not Canada supported the proposal put forward by Mr. Eaton today, a proposal which it was announced on Friday last was being supported by the United Kingdom? My second question is this. In view of the fact that the external affairs committee agreed at its last session to afford the minister an opportunity, following his return from Latin America, to appear before that committee, would the minister consider that it might be useful if he would put himself at the disposal of the committee so that he, and possibly General Burns, could report in greater detail on the events which have so sadly eventuated?
5418	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the estimates of the Department of External Affairs are set for consideration later in this week, although they may not be reached until next week. General Burns has responsibilities in Geneva for the time being, and I think it is very important that he should stay there until this whole situation is ironed out.
There was no question this morning of other western members of the 10-nation committee approving or disapproving the United States proposals. They have been under study over the week end by all five western nations, and I think the suggestions Canada has made have been accepted as alterations or additions. I do not know what attitude the United Kingdom took with regard to the proposals, but I should think that as the United States proposals are very close to our own proposals, probably the British thinking was very much like the thinking of the Canadian and United States governments.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour which is based on a news report in the Toronto Globe and Mail. Has the minister received the request from the Ontario association of mayors and reeves, now sitting in Cornwall, for a full investigation by the federal government into the causes and cure of unemployment? If so, what action does the minister propose to take in connection with this resolution which was passed on Saturday?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not received the communication.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister whether, when it is brought to his attention, he would be so good as to give his reaction to it to the house?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Assin-iboia.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, may I have an answer?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is really asking a supplementary question which is hypothetical. It depends on whether the minister receives the request.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour in view of the evidence of still high unemployment in Canada, as witness the 85,000 increase in unemployment insurance claims as compared to a year ago. Could the minister tell the house whether Mayor Phillips


of Toronto was correct when he was reported in Saturday's Globe and Mail to have said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that is not a proper question at this stage, to ask for verification of something which appears as a report in the press.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then, Mr. Speaker, I will put the question directly to the minister. Has the government at this time undertaken a scientific study of the unemployment problem and, if so, would the minister explain to the house what is involved?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member means by "what is involved", but I understand that in the other place a committee has been set up, with capable help, to undertake such a study. We in the Department of Labour are continually, through our research and economic branch, looking at the whole situation, and reports are being made from time to time.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. Has this government, apart from the other place, undertaken a scientific study of unemployment at the present time?


Michael Starr: The Department of Labour, as I mentioned a moment ago, is continually making studies of the unemployment situation through the economic and research branch.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. Can the hon. gentleman in all his capacities inform the house whether he has received a telegram from the city council of Vancouver relative to the unemployment situation in British Columbia, asking that a conference among federal, provincial and municipal governments, management and labour be held in order to deal with the most serious situation which has developed in our city and our province?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I received such a wire just before the house sat this morning.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question. What does the government propose to do about it?


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister, in view of the fact that I asked this question of the Prime Minister last Wednesday, whether he

can give us any more information as to whether such a conference will be held, or what consideration will be given to it?


Howard Charles Green: I think that question has been answered on several occasions within the last few weeks. I am not in a position to make any further statement with regard to it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question and address it to the Minister of Labour. In view of the suggestion that he himself made in Gananoque several weeks ago about a conference among management, labour and government, and in view of this new request from Vancouver, will the Minister of Labour tell the house what the government proposes to do about it?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. member for Essex East is misrepresenting whatever statement was made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister whether the government is relying for its investigation into the question of unemployment solely upon the initiative taken by the Liberal members in the other house?


Michael Starr: I am not aware that the Liberal members in the other house proposed the resolution which set up that committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: An opportunity *denied to us.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister comment on the presence of submarines sighted in Placentia bay, Newfoundland, and reported also to have been seen about five miles off the shore? Second, would the minister comment on the presence of Russian trawlers along the northeast coast of Newfoundland, and advise the house whether these fishing trawlers are fishing for more than fish?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Reports of sightings of submarines are received quite frequently. All such reports are investigated either by the Royal Canadian Navy or by the maritime command of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Reports of these investigations are then classified according to their degree of reliability. Regarding the fishing vessels, there is no proof that Russian
Inquiries of the Ministry trawlers operating off the coast of Newfoundland have been carrying out any operations other than legitimate fishing.



ARCTIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. On May 18 I asked the minister whether the report that United States companies were withdrawing their financial support of Arctic oil exploration had any substance. The minister answered to the effect that the deadline for picking up these options was June 24. Is the minister now in a position to inform the house how many United States companies have taken up options and how many have let their applications go by default?


Hon. Alvin Hamilion (Minisler of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I cannot give the hon. member exact figures on the orders of the day, but I can tell the house that by four o'clock on Friday permits with respect to between 44 million and 45 million acres on the Arctic islands and the continental shelf had been taken out. The total number of applications for permits had involved 146 million acres. In the opinion of my department the number of permits taken out is very encouraging, because to have 45 million acres under exploration in the north is something which was not dreamed of two years ago.


Hubert Badanai: Would the minister deal with my question as to the number who have let their applications drop?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I cannot give an exact breakdown of the number of United States companies which did not take up their options. I know that one individual who had applications in for 42 million acres did not take up any. Of those applications which were taken up, between 75 and 80 per cent were by Canadian companies.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is it a fact that applications covering over 100 million acres, which have not been completed under the terms of exploration, will lapse?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is no question of lapsing; they were never taken out. To put it in another way, the areas in which these people who had priority were interested are now open to any company which complies with the regulations. Land in respect to which these applications were
5420	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry made will be made available to any person or any company at nine a.m. on July 4 or later.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I put a supplementary question so that we may understand the matter clearly. Does that mean that the previous applicants will have no preference with respect to these areas as compared with anybody else?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes; the priorities came to an end on June 24.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: wish to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether he has yet received any official communication from the premier of British Columbia saying that the province is prepared to turn over Garibaldi as a national park if the federal government will undertake the expenditure necessary in order to prepare for the winter games a few years hence.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member for Kootenay East approached me this morning and told me of his intention to ask a similar question, and perhaps I may answer both questions together.
Up to noon today the department had received no official suggestion from the premier of British Columbia that the area known as Garibaldi park should be made available to the federal government for the purpose of setting up a national park. Until I do receive some official indication in answer to my letter written over a year and a half ago saying that we would be willing to consider such a request, I can make no statement as to the government's intentions.
The second part of the question, and one which has been in the minds of some hon. members, concerns the winter Olympics. As I understand the position, the government does not decide where the Olympics are to be held; that is a decision made by the Olympic games committee. The government has received representations from various areas, among them Fernie, B.C.; Manning park; Banff and Lake Louise; Garibaldi, and so on. We receive these representations and carry out studies with regard to them before making all the information we have available to the Olympic games committee.


Mr. M. L. McFarlane (Kootenay East):: With regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East, may I


say that part of the question I had in mind: is still not answered. I should like an assurance that no decision will be reached about preparing Garibaldi park for the Olympic games until the claims of all the other areas have been investigated by the Olympic games committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that a hypothetical
question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I can give no assurance of that kind, except that representations from all groups, including those from Fernie, will be made available to the Olympic games committee together with all the information the department can get together in order to help the committee to reach a proper decision.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could take this opportunity to ask the minister whether he has yet received a communication from the premier of Nova Scotia asking for a second national park in that province?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This question was raised in the house some time ago and the answer was that there was a request from the province of Nova Scotia some time ago with regard to a second national park in that province. However, if the hon. member is referring to a recent request, within the last few days, the answer is no.



JUDGES ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hen. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. C-78 to amend the Judges Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill received first reading on June 22 and, immediately prior to that, the resolution on which it was founded was before the committee of the house for discussion. At that time I gave a full explanation of the provisions of the legislation. I also answered some questions which were addressed to me in committee.
It is, therefore, I think, not necessary for me to delay the house by making any further statement on the principles of the bill at this time, because that question has been fully covered during the resolution stage. However, I shall be very glad indeed to answer any questions which may be asked when the house goes into committee on the bill itself. If hon. members have remarks to make at this stage

I will take note of them and, if necessary, will reply at the close of the debate on second reading.
Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the statement by the minister that he proposes to reply to any general comments that we may have to make on the bill, I do not quarrel with that procedure at this stage in view of our discussion the other night. What I have to say can well be related to the various clauses of the bill as they are reached.
I am assuming, of course, that when we reach clause 3, where I believe there is an important principle involved, it will be possible to have a fairly general discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, at the resolution stage the minister advised us that the government had acceded to the request of the government of Quebec to the extent of the appointment of four puisne judges out of seven judges asked for by that province. It was pointed out on this side at the time that as the matter of the constitution of the courts is something that comes within the competence of the provincial governments, the minister should explain why he had agreed to appoint only four instead of all that had been requested. I want now to ask the minister whether he has anything to add to what he has already said in this context. I would be grateful to the minister if he would explain to us the reasons which he gave to the province in turning down its request for a larger number than is actually provided for at the present time.
The minister mentioned, I believe, that this refusal on the part of the federal government, to appoint the full complement, was not unusual, that it had been exercised on other occasions by former governments. I noted what he had to say in that regard. Since the resolution stage, however, I have had an opportunity of looking up previous discussions in this house on this point, and I find that fairly comprehensive reasons were given by the minister's predecessors for the reluctance of the government of Canada to provide the full number requested. I think the committee is entitled to know the circumstances which warranted the minister in agreeing to appoint the number he has decided on, the circumstances of this fact and particularly the reasons why the federal government has not accepted the proposals made by the administration in Quebec, an administration which is no longer functus officio.
Judges Act


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, I explained briefly in the debate at the resolution stage on June 21 what was the situation in this regard, and my explanation may be found at page 5229 of Hansard for that date. I should like to make it clear that I cannot accept fully the words used by my friend the hon. member for Essex East in describing the situation. I have not refused to appoint the full number asked for. Rather, it was agreed in an amicable fashion between myself and the former administration of the province that it would be acceptable if we were only to appoint three judges in the Montreal district for the time being instead of the five which the provincial legislature has authorized.
There are a number of reasons for this that were in mind during the course of discussions, and perhaps I could mention two or three of them. The first is that while there is on my part a full acceptance of the statement made by the Quebec authorities that there is an extensive backlog of cases in the Montreal district, nevertheless there are, I think, other reasons that could be advanced to explain that situation besides the simple fact of lack of judges.
I speak in this area not as an expert, but I understand, for instance, that it was the intention of the previous provincial government to appoint a commission to review the civil code of procedure, and I do not know whether that commission has been appointed as yet. It has been suggested to me that one of the reasons why there are arrears of cases is that the civil code of procedure, which has not been reviewed or revised for many years, is what I might not disrespectfully describe as a complicated and technical matter, and that a great deal of the time of the judges in Quebec is taken up in hearing applications and motions which arise under the code of procedure. It was suggested to me that a revision of that code which would result in a simplification of the rules of procedure might have the result that some of the time of the judges formerly given to hearing this type of matter might be saved, because I suppose a good deal of that type of application might be heard by what we call in the common law provinces a master in chambers.
It would seem to me that if in fact we were on the eve of a review and revision of the code of procedure which might result in a saving of the time of the judges, it would be reasonable to suggest that instead of appointing the full five we appoint three and see, first, how they got along with the three extra judges and, second, how long it might take to bring in the report and also obtain some views as to whether in fact such a report might have the result I mentioned, namely

Judges Act
the saving of the time of the judges. For those reasons it seemed a sensible and acceptable suggestion to the provincial administration that we appoint only three for the time being.
Another reason for acting deliberately in this matter instead of precipitately by appointing all five is, again, that 1 understand there is a serious problem of physical congestion in the court house in Montreal, that is with respect to rooms in which the judges may hold court. For this sort of reason and because, as I explained on the last occasion when the matter was before the committee of the whole house, the appointment of five additional judges all at one time is a very far-reaching step and one which if taken you cannot undo, it seemed to us for all those reasons it was a proper and sensible thing to suggest that instead of appointing the five at once we would appoint three as a first step and then have a look at the situation as it developed, see the extent to which these extra appointments might assist in enabling the courts to catch up with the backlog of cases, review the situation in a year's time or at the next session of parliament, and then make a final decision as to whether or not two additional judges should be appointed at that time.
I say again it is not a refusal to appoint. It is merely an agreed delay in making the full number of appointments.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the minister will not begrudge my entering this debate once again. The minister will remember that when the matter was up for discussion at the resolution stage, I think on Friday last, both the hon. member for Essex East and I took the position which we are now taking in connection with the appointment of the five additional judges for Montreal.
On the whole I do not think I could disagree very much with what the minister has said, but notwithstanding his statement there are one or two matters which I think should be brought to the minister's attention. It is a fact-and I think he is more familiar with it than I am-that there is a great shortage of judges in the city of Montreal. Whether or not the commission of which he speaks is established, it only emphasizes the demand for judges in that area.
Then again there is the question of the physical congestion in the court house to which he has referred. As between that on the one hand and the necessity, importance and urgency of having more judges on the .other, I think it is the appointment of the .additional judges which should take priority,

and this might well be brought to the attention of those who are responsible for extending the quarters of the judges.


Mr. Chambers:: The new court house was not in the 53 points.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry; I do not know what the hon. member has in mind.


Egan Chambers: Mr. Lesage's 53 points did not contain that.


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend wants to make a political interjection it is all right with me. I have no objection; I can reply to it in the same vein. I was discussing this purely from the judicial standpoint; that the approach ought to be made exclusively on that basis and not on any other basis at all.
I think it will be agreed by all the Montreal lawyers in the house that in view of the great number of cases, in view of the increase in population and in view of the backlog, as the minister himself has said, of cases in Montreal, it is important and urgent that these additional judges be appointed.
I am happy the minister has said that this is not a refusal, that it is merely a delay having regard to several circumstances. If the minister will recall, it was suggested at the resolution stage that during the period between the adoption of the resolution and the committee stage of the bill he might even find it advisable to appoint the additional judges and, of course, he could amend the bill accordingly or he could even do so before the house prorogued. I am sure he will give the proper consideration to the representations which have been made, not only by the province but I am sure by the chief justices of the various districts. With that in mind I simply ask the minister to see to it that every consideration is given to the requests that have been made for additional judges in Montreal.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one comment on this clause of the bill and perhaps ask the Minister of Justice a question. From what I have heard I judge that the province of Quebec is asking for the appointment of seven additional puisne judges, and that this bill provides for four additional judges for the Quebec superior courts. If the province of Quebec feels it necessary to ask for seven additional


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I point out that it is six, not seven. I was guilty of the error first. The first time I answered I said seven but actually it is six, five for Montreal and one for Three Rivers.


Harold Edward Winch: This bill authorizes the appointment of four. Before we pass this bill I should like the minister to comment on

this aspect of the request. I believe that in the past two or three years we have had similar requests from other provinces. Will the minister comment on whether the request for additional judges is in line with the increased population of the provinces, in this case the increased population of Quebec, or whether there is an increase in criminality, and whether that is the major reason for the request for six for Quebec, although the bill authorizes four.
What is the minister's view of this matter? Is it an increase in the population or increase in criminality in the various provinces? Of course in this case we are dealing with one province. What action is being taken by the minister in regard to the situation? Does the increase in population require more judges to handle the cases, or is there actually an increase in criminality?


Lionel Chevrier: That would not have anything to do with it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before I reply to the hon. member for Vancouver East may I deal with the last observation of the hon. member for Laurier. I assure him we will keep this matter under review and give consideration to the representations which have been made and further representations which may be made which, as he points out, come not only from the provincial authorities but also from members of the bar and of the bench, particularly in the Montreal district. That will be done between now and the next session, and we hope the experience that may be gathered in that time will afford us a satisfactory basis to answer the question as to whether or not two further appointments will be immediately necessary.
In reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East, I regret that even with the best will in the world I cannot give a categorical answer as to why there is this fairly steady pressure for an increase in the number of judges; whether it is simply because of the increase in population or because of the increase in population accompanied by an increase in criminality. Of course an increase in population is inevitably one of the accompanying problems that are raised by the growth and development of the nation, and one of those accompanying factors is usually an increase in the amount of litigation. Also, as the national growth of a country increases, as that of Canada has been doing substantially and markedly over the past years, the amount and size, and if you like the importance of litigation also tends to increase and the cases become perhaps more difficult, more numerous and with weightier issues involved.
79951-0-342
Judges Act
I am not suggesting for a moment that the importance of an issue is measured only in terms of the actual amount of money involved. What I am suggesting is that the type of dispute, the type of litigation that arises, does tend to become weightier with an increase in population accompanied as it has been by an increase in the national wealth of the country.
With respect to the question, or that aspect of it, dealing with criminality, the best assessment that I have been able to make is that there is not an absolute increase in criminality but that there is a proportionate increase, an increase keeping pace with the increase in population, yes, and also having a relation to the increased trend toward urbanization.
The other factor which is disturbing with regard to the increase in criminality is the increased tendency toward really shocking crimes, crimes involving the use of excessive violence. That, I think, is the disturbing element about the present figures of criminality, not so much any absolute increase in numbers as the emphasis on the particularly unpleasant types of crimes of violence. These disturbing elements are present. Certainly my hon. friend must have been aware of the concern expressed about this matter in the Montreal district in the press and elsewhere. However, in saying that I must point out that the courts for which we are providing extra judges are not exclusively courts of criminal jurisdiction. They are the superior courts of the province and have jurisdiction, therefore, in both civil and criminal matters. So that again the suggestion I make with regard to criminality and its influence on the increased work load of judges must be tempered by the fact that they are not exclusively judges of criminal jurisdiction.
Really all I can say in answer to the hon. member's question is that this request for extra judges is a trend we see all across Canada. There are frequent requests for an increase in the number of judges of superior courts and these naturally are of concern to the federal authority. It has been pointed out by hon. members opposite, and I agree, that generally speaking the federal government accepts the recommendations of the provincial government with regard to the organization of the courts because they are the governments having constitutional responsibility in that field. But I am satisfied from my review of the precedents and after discussions with my officials who also served previous administrations that my predecessors never felt their consent to such requests, should be automatic, and that they did feel that a reasonable discussion should take

Judges Act
place between the two levels of government and that the federal approach should be, as it naturally is, to suggest a minimum increase. Quite often accommodations are reached, as is the case here, between the two governments. In this case five additional judges were asked for and authorized by the provincial legislature, but it has been agreed that it will be quite acceptable that a lesser number should be appointed, at least initially. I think that sort of attitude and exchange of views is one that has prevailed when other administrations have been in office as well as now.


Harold Edward Winch: Can the minister indicate whether this requirement has resulted primarily from an increase in criminal charges or has it arisen as the result of an increase in the number of civil cases? What is more important, has it resulted because of the need to relieve the backlog of cases so that persons charged can be dealt with promptly? People are not guilty until they are convicted and it is my understanding that too often accused persons have to wait many weeks or months before they are tried. Which reason applies or is it a combination of the three reasons that is responsible for this recommendation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The representations I have received from the provincial authorities and from the bar of Montreal as well as the bench are that the present situation has been building up over several years. It is not the case that a backlog has suddenly arisen overnight but rather that the number of cases awaiting trial was becoming increasingly greater so that the provincial government felt they had to ask the legislature of the province to authorize the appointment of more judges and that the matter could not be left any longer.
I know that associate chief justice Scott of the superior court, Montreal district, has made Herculean endeavours-I do not think that is really much of an exaggeration-and in them he has been assisted by the conscientious efforts of all the puisne judges of that court, to keep pace with the volume of litigation that comes before it. They have reported to me, however, as they reported to their own provincial government, that they could no longer keep pace and that not only were they not cleaning up the existing backlog but they were not keeping pace with the number of new cases arising and being set down for hearing. Therefore this was a cumulative difficulty which required to be dealt with by the appointment of extra judges.
With regard to the reason for the extra work load, with the best will in the world I

cannot be more specific in ascribing causes than I have been in the answer I have already given, that it is a feature inevitably accompanying growth in population and an increase in national wealth.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee will be grateful to the minister for the reply he has made to the hon. member for Vancouver East. I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver East, in his queries to the Minister of Justice, did not want to convey an inference of greater crime proportionately in the city of Montreal than elsewhere.


Harold Edward Winch: I did not.


Lionel Chevrier: I am glad the hon. member now says that he did not.


Harold Edward Winch: I said before that there have been inquiries across Canada of a similar nature. I asked my questions on that basis.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not understand the hon. member to say that. I simply rose to say at this time that it seems to me that the prevention of crime is not so much a matter of the appointment of judges as it is a matter of supervision by other groups of society such as police officers and the like. I am glad the hon. member for Vancouver East has made it unnecessary for me to go any further in this respect because I remember that during the sittings of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines in connection with crime in this country an officer of Canadian National Railways, who had had experience in both the large cities of Montreal and Toronto, made it quite clear that so far as he was concerned there was no more crime, proportionately speaking, in the city of Montreal than elsewhere.
But I take it too that the appointment of these judges will in the majority of cases mean an increase in the number of judges dealing with civil cases because that is where the backlog has accumulated. The minister referred to associate chief justice Scott. I am sure he has had conversations or perhaps correspondence with the chief justice of the Quebec district and other judges of the Montreal district, all of whom I believe have the same feeling so far as the appointment of additional judges is concerned. My only purpose in rising was to say that it seemed to me an increase in criminality, whether in one part of Canada or another, cannot be stopped by the appointment of additional judges.


Mr. Ormiston:: Does a lawyer have to be over a certain age before he can be appointed to the bench? Must he be a certain age?


Edmund Davie Fulton: At the present time the main provision is that a judge must have been a

member of the bar for 10 years. Under the new bill there will be certain factors bearing upon maximum age but perhaps discussion of that matter could be better left to the appropriate clause.


James Norris Ormiston: That would have reference to the circumstances regarding pensions and annuities, would it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. I think it would be more appropriate to leave that discussion to clause 3 of the bill. That would be my suggestion.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise one more query. The minister made a statement three times, I believe, that rather intrigued me. He referred to an increase in population and also an increase in the national wealth. Do I understand it is his view that with an increase in the national wealth there will automatically be an increase in crime? The minister made that statement three times and he tied it in with the population.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman, may I explain at once that my hon. friend has misunderstood me. He asked me about the increase in litigation and then he asked me-


Harold Edward Winch: That is crime, is it not?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, not at all; litigation may be either civil or criminal. My hon. friend asked me how I accounted for the necessity for increasing the number of judges, was it due to an increase in the number of crimes? I said no, not exclusively to an increase in the number of crimes, but it is due to an increase in the amount of litigation; and litigation is both civil and criminal.
Then dealing with that part of it which is civil, I said that the kind of development which Canada has been going through in the last years inevitably produces more civil litigation, more complicated and weighty matters upon which to adjudicate, and weightier issues involved in that type of litigation. I was then dealing with the civil side of litigation. Then I came to the question of criminality, and I answered my hon. friend in that regard. I at no time suggested that an increase in natural wealth was inevitably accompanied by or created an increase in criminality. I suggested that the increase in criminality, if there be any, was entirely due to an increase in population. I did suggest that it was perhaps also due to an increased trend toward urbanization. The other feature of it that I mentioned was a matter which I regard as of serious concern, namely the trend toward an increase in the brutal type of crime involving violence. This was all I said with regard to criminality.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
79951-0-342i
Judges Act
On clause 2-Travelling allowances.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I believe this clause will commend itself to those who are familiar with the difficulty of having a uniform rate that will apply to judges in all parts of the country. Certainly, as the explanation in the bill says, it is impossible to apply a per diem rate that will be satisfactory throughout Canada. We all know of instances of judges who have to travel, particularly to large urban centres, being unable, out of the per diem allowance provided for in the existing section 21, to meet the expenses which confront them.
This clause is intriguing for a number of reasons, one of which I should like to mention for no other purpose than mentioning it, and to invite the minister's consideration and possible action at some other time. Subsection 2 of the present act provides, by implication, that a judge is required to have a legal residence, and of course he is not entitled to expenses when he is living in that legal residence. I feel that the Minister of Justice ought to look into this matter to see whether or not this subsection, to which this clause directs our attention, is being fully observed, whether judges do live in the place which, under the law, they are supposed to live. Judges ought to be the first to observe the requirements of the law and while no great injustice possibly may be directly the consequential result the fact is that in some instances of which I am aware the law in that particular is not being observed.
What I did rise to say, however, was by way of asking the minister what is meant by clause 2, paragraph (a), "his moving or transportation expenses". It is clear what transportation expenses are. Since a judge is going to be given expenses where he attends either as a district judge in admiralty, exchequer court, superior court or county court judge, at a place which is not his legal residence, and since the law provides for his receiving transportation expenses, why should it be necessary to provide for his moving expenses? He is not entitled to expenses while in the place in which he resides. Perhaps "moving" is only a descriptive phrase. Possibly if it said "his moving and transportation expenses," there would be even stronger cogency to what I am saying. I do not understand why the word "moving" should be used here.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I know that it is not a sufficient defence for the use of a phrase, that it has been there right along, but I would point out that this phrase has been in the Judges Act for some time. It is in the present act which we are amending by this bill. Section 21 (a) now entitles a judge to be paid as a travelling allowance

Judges Act
his moving or transportation expenses. My meals, his taxis and other incidental ex-hon. friend will appreciate that we are not penses while he is in the other place attend-changing that portion of the legislation in the ing to his judicial duties. We believe that amendment because we have retained that under these two headings we have now phrase exactly as it was in the former act. provided for the expenses to be covered.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What moving expenses could there be?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am just coming to that. A judge who is travelling to assizes must move from his place of residence to the place where he is going to hold the assizes. I do not mean that he moves his whole household, but he moves himself by one means of transportation or another. Therefore, in order to be abundantly cautious in describing the function which the judge must undertake to get there the phrase was used, "his moving and transportation expenses".


Paul Joseph James Martin: It says "moving or transportation expenses".


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry, that is correct. He moves himself physically from the place where he resides to the place where he is going to hold the assizes. I think the reason for the use of these words is to make it sufficiently inclusive to make it clear that by whatever means of transportation he goes his expenses incurred in moving himself from one place to the other will be covered.
Then under subclause (b) of this clause he is also now entitled, instead of a per diem allowance which is presently described as follows "for each necessary day of travel going and returning and each day during which he so attends"; instead of that sort of per diem allowance he is going to get now reasonable travelling and other expenses incurred by him in so attending. The reason the word "travel" is used again is as follows: Let us take the situation of a judge who goes to a large centre where the hotel is some distance from the court. The judge is then going to have to take taxis and incur taxi fares in getting to and from work. He is travelling while he is there, travelling by taxi. He also has his hotel bills, his meal expenses and so on. This is the reason for the words "reasonable travelling and other expenses incurred by him in so attending".
It is our intention to cover the judge's travelling and living expenses while on circuit in his official duty. First of all, he is entitled to be paid as a travelling allowance (a) his moving or transportation expenses to get from his place of residence to the place where he holds court and returning to his place of residence, and (b) reasonable travelling and other expenses incurred by him in so attending. This covers the hotel bill, his


Paul Joseph James Martin: In a matter
involving legislation that is introduced by the Minister of Justice, and particularly legislation having to do with those who are going to interpret the law, I think we would be expected to give to our language a precision at least as great as we would give to any other enactment that we were considering in this house. That is particularly so when the new deputy minister of justice, for whom we all have the greatest admiration, has a reputation of being such an exact interpreter of the language which we employ in our statutes.
The minister has not impressed me with his arguments for retaining the phrase "moving or transportation expenses". As a matter of fact, as he spoke I became convinced that the whole of (a) was entirely unnecessary and I am grateful for the interjection of the hon. member for Ottawa East for that conviction which I acquired as the minister was speaking. There can be no justification for the use of the word "moving" in view of the proposition "or" in (a). I would suggest to him that the whole of (a) could be removed notwithstanding what the language in the past has been and that (b) would cover all of the expenses which a judge expects and will now be able to receive on a per diem basis. He would be entitled under (b) to reasonable travelling expenses, and that certainly includes all that is suggested in the words "moving or transportation expenses". If there should be any doubt, then the words "and other expenses" would take care of the situation.
I suggest to the Minister of Justice that we should not keep in any section any word that is unnecessary or any words which are not of practical or necessary value. We should seek to simplify the legislation as much as possible, without of course in any way distorting the meaning or intent. That being the case I would suggest that in the interest of clarity and of saying what we really mean we should do away with this surplus wording and leave (a) out altogether. The intent would be clear and adequately covered in (b).


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, may I say I am not asking for any explanation in the interests of clarity on the matter raised by the hon. member for Essex East with regard to the words "moving or transportation", but I do want to say that I am most intrigued

by this section and I would like some explanation from the minister of it.
Personally, I agree completely that the present subsections (1) and (2) of section 21 of the act most certainly are not sufficient. I defy anyone at all, especially anyone in a position of responsibility and authority, to be able to go away from his home and be able to pay his hotel expenses and meals and other expenses on what ranges I think from $8 to $15 a day; it is without doubt completely impossible. But what does intrigue me is the wording of this section. We are substituting in (b) the words "reasonable travelling and other expenses incurred by him in so attending", and I would want the minister to make clear what is the definition of the word "reasonable". I think that is a stupid thing to put in there, because what is the definition of reasonable? As a matter of fact, what is the definition of the Prime Minister's statement in the last campaign that there shall be no undue suffering in Canada? What is the definition of "undue suffering"?


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: You are talking to the committee now.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, I have been told that before. But what is the definition of reasonable? There will be some who would be most happy with a certain type of accommodation. There will be others who will want the tops. That applies to judges the same as to members of the House of Commons or members of royal commissions.


An hon. Member:: That is why the word "reasonable" is used.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes; I have always been reasonable with regard to charges, but I have not had many opportunities to make any. I cannot understand what is meant by "reasonable travelling and other expenses". Why decides what is reasonable? It has to be decided according to the job and the person. Knowing some of the judges in the province of British Columbia there would be a big difference in the kind of bill they would put in for the accommodation and the meals they have. I would like some clarity, in all fairness to the taxpayers and the person concerned, of what is involved as a charge. I repeat that under the present act no judge can travel in that province without being out of pocket. At the same time if there is going to be any change we want to know what will be the basis of payment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, to deal first with the comments of the hon. member for Essex East. I think the hon. member is really
Judges Act
overlooking the fact that this is not a revision of the Judges Act, it is an amendment. As I said on previous occasions, it is my intention ultimately to make a revision of the Judges Act when I am able to make what I regard as certain important revisions in other arrangements with regard to the judiciary and the method by which our judges are paid and the circumstances surrounding the provision for their payment. Until that time we will not be revising the Judges Act, just amending it.
If we were revising it then it would be our intention to go through it from the point of view of seeing whether there were words, phrases or sections which could be deleted so that we could come up with an entirely new Judges Act. However, for the purpose of an amendment the intention of which is to substitute one method of payment for another, namely payment of reasonable expenses instead of a per diem allowance, I do not think we should be making changes as to the headings under which the judge is entitled to be paid.
The present heading is that he is entitled to be paid his moving or transportation expenses. We do not intend to make any change with respect to that heading; the judge is still entitled to be paid under the heading of moving or transportation expenses, and therefore we decided not to make any change although we might have made a change in that wording if we had been revising the act instead of amending it. The change we made was to change the method of calculation of the payments the judge is entitled to receive from a per diem method to reimbursement of his reasonable expenses actually incurred. One of the headings under which he incurs expenses is moving or transportation.
With regard to the use of the word "reasonable" and the matter raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East, may I put it to him this way. You would have to have some words to ascertain what is the amount of expenses. The only other word I could think of would be "actual"-"actual travelling and other expenses". May I point out to the hon. member that in fact we would be opening the door wider to abuse by using the word "actual" than by using the word "reasonable", if there be any possibility of abuse at all. If we put the word "actual" in the statute, then a judge might spend any amount he wanted, however extravagant or unreasonable, and he would be entitled to claim it because the statute would say he is entitled to his actual expenses.

Judges Act
The only word I think you can use and the word which is uniformly used in statutes making provision for the reimbursement of living expenses is the word "reasonable". The judge is entitled to be reimbursed his "reasonable travelling and other expenses incurred by him in so attending".
Then the hon. member asked what is the measure of the word "reasonable". I can only say that it means reasonable having regard to the status of the judge, the circumstances of the case, the town or city in which he is sitting and where a person having the status of a judge might properly be expected to take up his quarters-the type of hotel, and so on, that he might be expected to use. It is his reasonable travelling and other expenses. I do not think the judges will have any difficulty in assessing the position or in understanding or interpreting that word. After all, one of their functions as judges is frequently to interpret and instruct juries on the problem of what "reasonable" means. When it comes to applying it to travelling or other expenses, I do not think judges will have too much difficulty in determining exactly how this applies.


Harold Edward Winch: In British Columbia, one judge might go into one hotel and another might go to another hotel. There would be a big difference in the charge. Which would be reasonable?


Mr. Hanbidge:: I have a couple of questions to put to the minister with regard to travelling expenses. In the case of a judge who owns his own car and has to travel, say a couple of hundred miles, does the travelling allowance for the use of the car vary according to the size of the vehicle?


Mr. Fulion:: I am informed that this comes under the heading of transportation expenses. The practice has been to pay a standard mileage allowance where a judges uses his own car.


Robert Leith Hanbidge: There is another point I wish to raise. Suppose a judge hires a taxi. In Saskatchewan at the present time, for instance, where passenger train services have been discontinued, a judge is sometimes sent to another judicial district which may be several hundred miles from his residence. Is the judge entitled in those circumstances to hire a taxi and charge the account to the government?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The use of taxis is not an uncommon occurrence. In a case like that the actual charge would be reimbursed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.

On clause 3-Grant of Annuities.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Clause 3 is in many respects one of the most important clauses in this bill and, as I said when the minister presented the measure today, I want to make a few remarks which I regard as important. There are objections which have already been stated by those of us in the Liberal opposition earlier, particularly when we were discussing what the minister referred to the other night when he said that the bill now before the committee was a companion measure to the address which this House of Commons has approved for presentation to the parliament of the United Kingdom in respect of certain matters having to do with the district courts, the superior courts and the question of compulsory retirement of judges.
As I indicated when I spoke of these matters, and as did the Leader of the Opposition and others in this party, we are in favour of the principle of the retirement of judges at the age of 75. However, with regard to judges who have already been appointed, we feel that such compulsory retirement involves a breach of contract with the judges concerned and also that it is an interference with the independence which under our system of law all of us are anxious to see our judiciary possess.
The Ontario bar association at its meeting in February of this year expressed the view that while judges should retire at 75 such retirement should not affect those now in office, and the association passed a resolution to that effect. I mention this action taken by the Ontario bar association because the minister did refer to other resolutions passed by various bar associations including the Canadian Bar Association, resolutions which I do not believe are in conflict with the one to which I have just directed the minister's attention.
I think this is a matter of very great importance. We are now taking a step with regard to pension arrangements for judges, both those now on the bench and those to be appointed. While we do not quarrel with regard to the annuity arrangements for those to be appointed we do feel that this is a serious step to take with regard to those who are now on the bench. We say this is a breach of contract, because when those judges were appointed none of them was appointed on the understanding that there would be any interference, beyond the existing statutory ones, with his period of tenure. Thus I say that we are in favour of the annuity arrangements to the extent we have indicated. A former president of the Canadian Bar Association, Mr. Arthur Kelly, said

two years ago, we expect the judges of Canada to be independent of all pressures; we expect them to be free from any distraction which would take away their minds from onerous public duties which they have to perform, and we expect, and the public expects, that they shall maintain a standard of living which is dignified and representative of what we consider the bench represents in Canada.
In so far as the annuity arrangements are concerned I suspect that what the president of the Canadian Bar Association of that day said would be met by the provision which the minister has brought forward, but with regard to the principle of maintaining the independence of the judiciary I think by this clause we in this house are now violating a provision in a way which we should be the last ones to impose on those who by their office are called upon to adjudicate on behalf of citizens in matters affecting the law of contract. What we are doing by this measure is to ask Her Majesty to sanction a bill through her representative in this country, His Excellency the Governor General, which is in violation of a contract, though it is true the contract is not one which is enforceable in the courts but is an arrangement between the state and the appointed judges which has, nevertheless, all the elements of a contract and which otherwise would be enforceable.
We have good precedents for the position we take about this matter, and these precedents have already been mentioned. The committee has been reminded of the position taken in this regard by two former distinguished members of the bar in our country, one who later became a prime minister and the other a distinguished secretary of state. I refer to the late Lord Bennett and to Mr. Cahan both of whom vehemently opposed the initiative taken by the minister of justice in 1927 on the ground that it was an interference with the contractual arrangements, which were presumed to exist between the crown on the one hand and the judge appointed on the other. In 1930 the same minister of justice recognized the soundness of the position taken by Mr. Bennett, Mr. Cahan and others, and took steps by way of annuity arrangements to seek to meet the situation.
True the point arose again in 1933 when the arguments made by Mr. Bennett in particular were cited against the action taken by his solicitor general, Mr. Dupre. It was argued that to treat judges on the bench in the way that was contemplated and, in principle as we are doing today, was to violate a contract solemnly entered into in the only way that it is possible for the crown to enter into a contract with respect to its judges.
Judges Act
In the United Kingdom they were confronted with a situation in 1959. There they brought in a bill providing for larger pensions for the judges. It was known as the judicial pensions bill the text of which I have before me taken from an issue of the Times of November 15, 1959. By the judicial pensions bill there was a radical inroad made into the principle that no high court judge should be removed except on his own initiative by providing a compulsory retiring age of 75 with the qualification that it was to apply only to those to be appointed in the future. In other words the legislation in the United Kingdom took into account the very objection which I am making to this particular provision. I say that the annuity arrangements are satisfactory and should apply only to those who are to be appointed. The provision made for compulsory retirement of judges now on the bench should be on terms and conditions that will take into account this argument of breach of contract and also the desirability of maintaining the independence of the judiciary.
The bill passed in the United Kingdom applied, I find, to the offices of the lords of appeal, in ordinary, the lords chief justices, the master of the rolls, the president of the probate, divorce and admiralty division, the lords justices of appeal and to judges of corresponding rank in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but in every case the principle of the contractual right and the principle of maintaining the integrity and independence of the judiciary were observed.
I find it difficult to understand why the government in the face of that precedent and in the face of the attitude taken by so distinguished a right hon. gentleman of this house as Mr. Bennett, a former prime minister and president of the Canadian Bar Association and a distinguished lawyer, and others, persists in its attitude with regard to this measure in so far as existing judges are concerned. To follow the course I am suggesting, the course followed by the United Kingdom, would not add seriously to the financial obligations of the crown and I believe it would satisfy a principle which I regret is not now being observed. However, I have made this argument before and I do not want to press it except in re-stating it to indicate our concern in the matter.
While discussing this clause there are a number of other points that could be made. Before dealing with them, however, I should like to ask the minister when he replies to what I have said if he would explain precisely to us what was his reasoning with regard to all that is implied in clause 23 (1) (a) and

Judges Act
particularly having in mind what I have said about the question of breach of contract. Clause 23 (1) (b) reads:
(b)	a judge who has continued in judicial office for at least 15 years, if he resigns his office and in the opinion of the governor in council the resignation is conducive to the better administration of justice or is in the national interest.
I should like to ask the minister for more explanation about this clause. What precisely is meant by "conducive to the better administration of justice"? Is that a new phrase?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the minister. Does it deal with a judge who is not performing his functions satisfactorily? Exactly what is intended by those words? More particularly what is intended by the phrase "or is in the national interest"? I can surely understand that where a judge does not perform his judicial functions in a satisfactory manner his removal is in the national interest. In other words I can envisage a series of situations that could be characterized by the phrase "in the national interest" but since the minister is the author of this clause I think the committee may reasonably expect him to give a careful explanation of what is meant by "conducive to the better administration of justice or is in the national interest".
Clause 23 (1) (c) reads as follows:
(c)	a judge who has become afflicted with some permanent infirmity disabling him from the due execution of his office, if he resigns his office or by reason of such infirmity is removed from office-
Then comes into operation the operational part of the clause. Suppose a judge was appointed at the age of 65 and at age of 66 became infirm to the point where he could no longer carry out the execution of his office and, on that account, because of such infirmity, had to resign. Would that judge receive two thirds of his annuity? Has the government given any consideration to a time limit with regard to this clause? One could make a strong case for not having a time limit but at the same time one can conceive of situations having in mind the age of the appointee where the indications of disability might not be as apparent. I have one such case in my mind at this very moment. Naturally I would not want to name the person or describe the situation. I believe that some further explanation about the lack of a time limit might be given by the minister or the hon. gentleman might be able to satisfy us clearly that a time limit in that clause would be wholly undesirable.

We come then to the final lettered clause, 23 (1) (d) which reads as follows:
(d)	a judge who ceases to hold office by reason of his having attained the age of 75 years, if he has held judicial office for at least 10 years or if he held judicial office on the day this section came into force.
It is clear, of course, from that clause that unless a judge has been on the bench for 10 years he cannot qualify for any kind of pension whatever. I can very well understand the concern of the minister in this regard but I am wondering if he has given consideration to a pension or annuity on a basis proportionate to the period of service. There are now on the bench one or two distinguished judges of whom I can readily think who will be affected by this provision.
The minister may possibly have had in mind when he recommended this particular clause that hereafter judicial appointments should be made of persons not older than 65 years. While one can make a strong argument for that practice, I am sure we all know of cases where the state would be robbed of useful service of individuals if we were to adhere to that practice strictly. If that is the case, is it fair for a man who has been practising, let us say, up until he was 66 years of age and has then been appointed to the bench and at the end of the compulsory period of retirement, at 75 years, finds himself not able to qualify for a pension?
It will be argued by some, of course, that a man who has been practising at the bar until he is 66 years of age is likely the kind of man who has sufficient resources so as not to become disturbed when he reaches the retirement age on the bench. But there are cases-and one hesitates to mention names for fear it would bring unfair attention- there is a case in British Columbia right now; I will not give the position of the judge or the place that he occupies on the bench but the minister and other members from British Columbia are familiar with the gentleman of whom I am speaking. In this case an eminent member of the bar went on the bench very late in life. His qualifications were very high. He is now serving with great distinction. I am told that his financial resources are definitely limited, but when he retires from the bench he will not qualify for a pension. I am not now arguing I am raising-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does my hon. friend mean under the provisions of the present legislation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under the present amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am afraid the hon. member has missed the last two lines which read:
-or if he held judicial office on the day this section came into force.
This amendment will only apply to superior court judges appointed in the future.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was going to come to that. If that is clearly the interpretation that my hon. friend puts on it, it would cover the case that I have in mind. After I have listened to the minister perhaps I might ask a few questions to satisfy my concern.
I have been looking at the return which the minister made to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River on April 13. That hon. gentleman asked for the names, the addresses, the date of appointment, age at time of appointment, salary, date of retirement where applicable, and eventual pensions of persons appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada, the supreme courts of the provinces, appeal courts, district and county courts, since June 1, 1957. I realize that there are exceptions to every rule, and a man might be appointed to the bench at the age of 70 who might have very high qualifications which should be put at the disposal of the state. But I am wondering whether a review of the ages at the time of appointment of so many of those who were appointed warrants the general conclusion that all of those appointees come within the reach of the exception which I say must be allowed.
There are a number who were appointed at the age of 68. I do not want to refer to particular names because these men are now on the bench but if hon. members will look at pages 3216 and 3217 of Hansard they will find the names of the parties to whom I have reference, judges appointed at the ages of 68, 66, 67, 70, and so on. There were five at 66 and a number at 68. It seems to me that where it is possible we should see to it that younger men are appointed so that their period of service on the bench can be extended and so that they can acquire additional experience and become the ornaments to the bench and to our system of law that we are all anxious to see in our judicial appointments.
I have raised a number of points, Mr. Chairman, and I would be grateful if the Minister of Justice would comment on them. I will come back to the one to which the minister has just directed my attention after I have heard him. I make one more appeal to the minister. This provision should not apply to judges now on the bench. It is a breach of contract. We are asking the crown to sanction something which these very judges 79951-0-343
Judges Act
in the course of their judicial administration are called upon to adjudicate as between one citizen and another. The authority which appoints those who administer justice in our country should not be guilty of the very violation which, if it attended an arrangement between two individuals, could be rectified by judicial action. We should not put ourselves in that position.
This parliament should not be placed in that position. We should follow the course they followed in the United Kingdom. We could do that, as I say, without any serious effect on the resources of this nation. We would thereby have taken a step which this particular series of amendments does not take. These amendments depart from a principle which was recognized at least on three occasions in this parliament. These amendments are not consistent with our declared view of the independence of the judiciary. We should not ourselves be placed in a position of promoting a breach of contract.


Harold Edward Winch: When the Minister of Justice replies to the previous speaker I should like him to deal at some length with this question of breach of contract. I make these remarks because I listened to the discussion at the resolution stage and to a similar statement coming from the official opposition. Quite bluntly, Mr. Chairman, in view of the term of the contract, in view of the amount of salary paid to judges, which I think is quite a reasonable one, I find it most difficult to understand why, under the terms of the present amending bill to the Judges Act, a person at the age of 75 shall receive two thirds of his salary not only for himself but also under conditions whereby there is something for the widow. This is something rather extraordinary when compared with the contract conditions of other civil servants and most certainly, Mr. Chairman, it does not apply to members of the House of Commons. Just why is there differentiation between those who make the law and those who interpret it? I find this difficult to understand. There is quite a differentiation between those who make the law and those who interpret it.
Although I may be slightly out of order, when we are saying that those who interpret the law should be retired at 75 I should like to know why those who make the law in the other place should not be placed in a similar position. I know I am out of order but I want to express that view because if you cannot interpret the law at 75 I wonder how you can go on making the law after that age in the other place. I should like to know the interpretation of the breaking of a contract. In looking at the bill I can only say that it is one of the most beneficient,

Judges Act
benevolent and generous bills in taking care of people who have been appointed by or work under contract with the government of Canada. I should certainly like to hear from the Minister of Justice why he feels that at the age of 75 we should give a judge two thirds his salary and take care of his widow after he dies because I can assure him that we in this group do not feel that way.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Essex East asked me to reply to the points he made in dealing with clause 3 and I think I should reply to them. They were serious points and he addressed himself to each one of the subclauses of the first part of that clause. The hon. member for Vancouver East asked me to comment particularly upon the allegation that has been made and repeated that in the proposals we have made to the house for a retirement age of 75 without providing for a continuation of full salary there is somehow a breach of contract. Perhaps I should first deal with that point briefly because it was first raised.
I must ask your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, in doing so, because, of course, this bill does not provide for a retirement age at all. The bill only provides for the payment of annuities to judges who resign their office or cease to hold their office because they reach the age of 75. It was an earlier address that provided for the retirement age and I am afraid that a renewal of the discussion which took place in the debate on that address is really out of order because this bill does not provide a retirement age for judges. All the bill does is provide for an annuity to be payable to judges who will have reached what from now on will be the retirement age of 75 years. However, Mr. Chairman, you did not interrupt my hon. friend and I did not raise a point of order. I realize that the two are closely related and I am quite prepared to meet the arguments of my hon. friends in this respect.
However, I wish to point out one thing. I wish to correct something the hon. member for Essex East said, probably inadvertently. He said that this provision, referring to the provision of annuities of two thirds of their salary at age 75, should not apply to judges who will be retired. I think what he really meant was that the retirement age of 75 should not apply to judges at present holding office. Since, however, it does apply or will apply if the address passes I am quite sure my hon. friend would then want this provision now before us to apply because without it they would not be able to get any pension at all. Indeed, under the provision now before us those judges affected by the retirement age, whether they were appointed

before or after the retirement age comes into effect, will have their pensions substantially increased over what they would have been without the bill now before us. They will get two thirds of their present salary instead of two thirds of the salary of which they were in receipt before 1955.
Therefore by this bill we are going a very considerable distance in the direction of taking care of any complaint that may be raised with respect to those judges previously appointed, namely that they suffer a financial loss. True they do not continue at full salary but they will retire on two-thirds of their present salary and I do not really think anyone should seriously suggest that is an unfair financial sacrifice, if it be one, to impose on judges.
Indeed I say that to make it possible for them to leave the bench at two thirds of their full salary is a very considerable improvement over what would be their position if we simply left them to retire when they felt like it or, alternatively, if they died while in office and their widows received a pension; because without what we are asking parliament to do today a judge would receive his pension or the widow her annuity based on the former salary and not on the present one.
However, to deal with the merits of the argument that there is a breach of contract in providing a retirement age applicable to judges who have been previously appointed, I do not want to deal at length with the matter but I should perhaps refer briefly to what I said about it before. I dealt with the question of breach of contract and I referred my hon. friends to the Reilly case which was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1932, affirmed by the privy council in 1934, in which it was held that action somewhat similar to the action being taken here, taken by parliament to change the circumstances of an appointment, could not be said to involve a breach of contract.
It will be remembered that in that case the government through parliamentary action abolished an office to which somebody had been appointed. That person sued for damages for breach of contract and both the Supreme Court of Canada and the privy council then held in effect that it would be strange indeed if parliament, the legislative body which had created the office and had the power to appoint to it, could not in effect change the conditions of appointment and provide that the appointment cease without being charged with breach of contract. Here we have a case where under the British North America Act it is provided that the federal government may appoint to the position of superior court judge. Jurisdiction in that field

is vested by the British North America Act jointly in the dominion and provincial fields, the provincial legislature creating the position and the dominion authority having the power to appoint.
What we are doing now by agreement of these two legislatures, the dominion parliament and the provincial legislatures, is asking the United Kingdom parliament to amend the British North America Act so that in future the statutory provision will be that the office ceases or rather that the person ceases to hold that office when he reaches 75 so that automatically on reaching 75 there is a demission of office. This is exactly on all fours with the principle enunciated by the courts in the Reilly case. Where the legislature having competence causes to be enacted a change in the statute under which appointment is made, then, when the legislature does that there is no question whatever of a breach of contract.
May I point out that the Reilly case was decided after the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett made his criticism of the government in 1927. It is true that he alleged there was a breach of contract although he, I think, used words rather more precise than the words used by the hon. member for Essex East. But I point out to you, sir, that R. B. Bennett's criticism was voiced before the Supreme Court of Canada and the privy council had dealt with this question as they dealt with it conclusively in the Reilly case.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon.
friend permit one question? To what he says about the Reilly case I have, of course, no answer. That was a judicial decision with regard to an appointment that was not judicial. Will the minister not recognize what I said, namely that the contract which I say exists between the state and the judge is not one enforceable at law? There is no doubt about that, as I have said, but it has all the attributes of a contract, and I ask the minister whether he does not agree that all that the Reilly case says is that such a contract is not enforceable at law. It does not say that it is not a contract.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It went a little further than that because as I recall it, and I put the words on Hansard in the other debate, Lord Atkin in the privy council made the significant finding that under these circumstances there is not a breach of contract. He said that the contract is discharged, which he pointed out is a very different thing from a contract being breached. Whether the contract be real or implied, the situation is that the conditions are discharged by the decision of the 79951-0-343i
Judges Act
legislature which created the power to appoint and under whose joint jurisdiction the position falls.
I pointed out further on the earlier occasion that at the present time the British North America Act, the statute under which our authority arises, says that judges may be removed from office at any time by joint address of both houses of parliament. What we have asked parliament to do, therefore, is to pass an address now saying, in effect, that at age 75 all judges shall cease to hold office, which parliament has the right to do at any time. I do not accept for a moment the suggestion that there is a breach of contract, whether the contract is said to be express or implied, because it lies within the terms of the legislative authority of this parliament, having in this case the consent of the provincial legislatures which have joint jurisdiction in this field, to do exactly what we are asking parliament to do.
May I point out that there have been numerous changes made in the conditions surrounding judicial office. My hon. friends talk about a contract, express or implied. They say that a judge is entitled to assume he will continue at the salary at which he was appointed. I never heard any objections from my hon. friends when unilateral action was taken to increase the salary of judges. No question was then raised as to a contract, and there were no arguments to the effect that a judge should be prepared to carry on at the salary which attached to his office at the time of his appointment. It would of course be an absurd argument. But if one takes my friend's argument and applies it by logical extension, or if he is going to be logical about the position he has taken, then he should say that at any time there is an increase in judicial salaries the increased salary should apply only to those who are appointed subsequently and not to those previously appointed. If his argument has any merit it means that when a judge accepted office there was an implied contract that he would continue in office at the salary attached to the office at the time he was appointed. My hon. friend has never raised that argument, and of course would not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is legalistic sophistry.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, but if it be that it is because it is applying the argument that my hon. friend has raised. What I am doing is demonstrating the sophistry of the argument he has raised. However, I reject this argument about breach of contract altogether.
So, Mr. Chairman, I suppose it is obvious that we are not going to arrive at an od idem on this point. I am sorry that my friends

Judges Act
will not accept the force of logic. If they will not, then I am afraid there is nothing I can do about it. I am satisfied, on the basis of the research we made, on the basis of consideration that we gave to it both before and after the discussion took place in this house, that what we are doing is eminently proper and is eminently fair. We have taken account of the financial position of those who were appointed to office before the address becomes effective by making a change with respect to the pensions on which they will retire from office.
I just conclude this section of my discussion by saying that it is my strong view there must be uniformity with respect to the provisions applying to judges' salaries, with respect to the provisions applying to judges' pensions, with respect to the provisions applying to judges during the time they hold office. It would, in my view be improper to bring in legislation now which would have the effect that one group of judges on the bench could continue in office until such time as they choose to retire, while another group of judges must retire at age 75 with the pension that parliament provides. I think it would be an entirely improper thing to create that kind of distinction between judges who are serving simultaneously on the same bench. If for no other reason, therefore, it seemed to us proper to make the retiring age universal and of immediate application and to make the change in pension policy also universal and of immediate application.
My hon. friend from Essex East dealt also with the wording of subclause (b) of this proposed clause. This provides that the governor in council may grant to a judge who has continued in judicial office for at least 15 years, if he resigns his office and in the opinion of the governor in council, the resignation is conducive to the better administration of justice or is in the national interest, an annuity not exceeding two thirds of his salary. My hon. friend asks me to explain what we mean by the words "in the national interest", and why that phrase is used. He also wants to know what we mean by the words "conducive to the better administration of justice". The reason for inserting the words "in the national interest" is based on experience with at least one case that has arisen since I assumed this portfolio, and other cases which I understand arose in the past.
At the present time the existing legislation contains a provision in section 23 for the payment of an annuity to a judge who retires or resigns from office. This provision, however, is qualified by section 30 of the present act which reads as follows:

No annuity shall be granted under subsection (1) of section 23 or under section 25 unless the governor in council is of opinion that it is in the public interest that such judge should resign his office.
In other words, the only condition under which an annuity may now be paid to a judge who resigns other than by reason of sickness is, if in the opinion of the governor in council, the resignation is in the public interest. It has been my experience, and I believe that of my predecessors, that this provision is difficult of interpretation and application.
Let me refer to a hypothetical case in order to avoid identification, actual or potential. Let us suppose that a judge is appointed to a position, not by the federal authority but by some other authority, either public or private, and by whom it is then said to the federal government, we consider that the assumption by this judge of this alternative employment is very much in the public interest. This might be alleged and argued with considerable vehemence. It might be alleged and argued that the federal government which took the position this was not in the public interest, in the sense the words are used in the act, was being selfish and narrow.
But, Mr. Chairman, it does seem to me that when you are dealing with federal legislation and dealing with positions for which parliament provides the salaries and the annuities those words "in the public interest" should be interpreted as meaning the public interest in the sense of the national or federal aspect of the public interest. There have been cases, it is quite true, where former governments have appointed judges to offices within the disposition of the dominion government, such as ambassadors. I can think of at least one, if not more cases in this category. In those cases, the opinion was that the judge's resignation of his office in order to accept the appointment was in the public interest. It was represented in one or two cases that this was a higher or more important calling to which he was being appointed. I think there is no difficulty with the basis of that interpretation because it was an appointment by the national authority. The difficulty arises where you have the situation where the judge himself desires to go to another appointment or some other body wishes to obtain his services in some other capacity, and it is then represented that this resignation in order to enable the appointment to take place is in the public interest.
There has been misunderstanding and difficulty occasioned by this situation in the past. As I say, in my view the application to be given to the these words "is in the

public interest", is in the field for which the federal government is responsible, and we are therefore changing the words of the statute in this case to make it clear, or as clear as we can make it, that the consideration to be borne in mind is the interest within the jurisdiction, authority and control of the federal government and parliament. That is the reason for the use of the words "is in the national interest". We are using the word "national" instead of the word "public".


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the hon. minister think that he has dealt sufficiently with the phrases-


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I am coming to that now; it is another part of the problem which was raised.
The reason for the use of the words "is conducive to the better administration of justice" is closely related to the problem I have just been discussing. At the present time the only way in which an annuity can be paid to a judge who resigns his office under section 23 is either if infirmity or sickness disable him from discharging his office, or if he is resigning for some other reason, and in the opinion of the governor in council it is in the public interest that he should resign his office.
When you come to apply this to the case of a judge who has served 15 years or more and who may have reached the point really where his energy and ability on the bench have in fact been exhausted but you really cannot say he has such sickness or infirmity as to disable him from discharging his office, then it seems to us to be pretty harsh for the governor in council to have to say, "Yes, your resignation will be accepted and your annuity can be paid because it is in the public interest that you should resign".


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree with that.


James Ross Fulton: The reason why we use the words "is conducive to the better administration of justice" is to cover exactly that type of case.


Murdo William Martin: What about a judge whose conduct is in question?


James Ross Fulton: May I come to that in a moment; I will just complete what I was saying on this point.
In other words, this will furnish a way in which we can pay an annuity without having to go so far as to say, "It is in the public interest that you should resign your office", and actually make that as a finding of the governor in council. We can now simply say, "Yes, we agree, under all the circumstances that conditions are such that it would
Judges Act
be conducive to the better administration of justice if you wish to resign"; and in that case an annuity can be paid.
It is perfectly true that this would also cover the case of a judge whose conduct was in question, although perhaps not misconduct of such magnitude as to warrant the submission of an address or the appointment of a commission of inquiry. Those two courses, after all, are both very far-reaching and rather terrible steps to have to take, and would only be taken in what I might call extreme cases. But there are lesser cases where a judge's conduct might have been called in question and it is perhaps his feeling that he himself has come to the conclusion that the administration of justice would be better served if he resigned. By the use of these words in the statute he could resign if he had served 15 years under circumstances where it was deemed to be conducive to the better administration of justice and he would be entitled to his full pension.
Where a judge had given faithful or valuable service for 15 or more years there is no reason why he should not be allowed to submit his resignation under such circumstances and receive his full annuity. Indeed, being practical about it, I think it is a sensible step to make this provision, because if you did not provide some such way in which he could resign and receive his annuity it would be extremely unlikely that you would get his resignation in any event. As I have said, it is rarely, if ever, that one would use the terrible provision I have mentioned which is the only other way that a judge can be removed from the bench.
The third provision which the hon. member asked me to discuss was that contained in clause 23 (1) (c), which reads;
(c) a judge who has become afflicted with some permanent infirmity disabling him from the due execution of his office, if he resigns his office or by reason of such infirmity is removed from officein that case the governor in council may grant to such judge an annuity not exceeding two thirds of his salary.
The hon. member raised the question in that connection as to whether there should not be some provision providing for a minimum term of service before a judge who resigned his office by reason of sickness or infirmity still could receive full pension. May I point out to the hon. member that the present law provides exactly what we are providing here, namely section 23 (1) of the present Judges Act which is as follows:
The governor in council may grant to a judge of a superior court who has continued in office as such for at least 15 years or is afflicted with some

Judges Act
permanent infirmity disabling him from the due execution of his office ... an annuity not exceeding two thirds of-
-his salary. We are making no change in this regard, and I think that is proper because I do not think a judge who in good faith makes all these changes and sacrifices required of him, disposes of his practice and office and who makes other far-reaching financial arrangements in order to accept an appointment to the bench, who is then stricken unexpectedly with some sickness disabling him from discharging his duties, should be deprived of his right to an annuity if he resigns on account of that disability.
The final provision which the hon. member asked me to comment on-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am satisfied with that now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -was with respect to (1) (d). The hon. member says he is now satisfied with that and I am glad to hear that. However, there is one aspect of it which I might point out, and that is that at the present time the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, the exchequer court and the territorial courts in Canada have to serve a minimum of ten years before they are entitled to a pension. We are simply extending that in effect to judges of superior and county courts by providing that future appointees must have served ten years in order to be entitled to full pension on reaching the retirement age of 75.
I think the implications will be obvious and I think they are proper. If we are providing a retirement age universally of 75 years, then I think it is quite proper to provide in effect that you must not appoint anyone over 65 to that office if he is to receive the full pension. There is no prohibition against appointment; it is merely a provision that he must have served ten years in order to retire on full pension at 75, and the assumption is that there will not be very many appointments over the age of 65. That is already the case in the highest court in the land and we see no reason for not extending it to other courts.


Mr. Broome:: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of remarks to make on this. I am not a lawyer but I am quite interested in this matter.
About a year ago on the department's estimates I asked the minister whether the government was contemplating legislation along this line. The minister said he was working on it and hoped to make an agreement with the provinces shortly. He has worked very fast in one year in order to reach agreement with all the provinces.

I have made a few fast calculations with respect to the annuities proposed for judges of county and district courts. Those receiving a salary of $10,000 were formerly entitled to a pension of $5,333 which will now be increased to $7,000, an increase of 30 per cent. Puisne judges and judges of all provincial and federal courts formerly receiving a pension of, say, $9,600 will now receive $11,266, or an increase of 17 per cent. The percentages will vary, of course. I think this represents a very substantial increase in what might be called the over-all pay, or emoluments, of judges. When a vacancy occurs on the bench the minister of justice and his officials must, of course, look for the best person to fill that vacancy and the proposals which are now being put forward will serve as an extra inducement.
I should like the minister to comment on one point and tell us whether he thinks we are likely now to have a reservoir of trained judges who will be available to act on royal commissions and boards of inquiry thus leaving the serving judges free to do the work for which they were appointed, namely to take care of the courts. I think that perhaps the increase in the number of judges is not unconnected with the fact that some of our judges are doing too much outside work. It may be that because of the extra fees, the extra income, that such work has been regarded by the judges with a favourable eye. I think we should discourage this practice and try to keep our judges working on the job they were appointed to do. The present salaries are, in my opinion, adequate. They may not be anywhere near the sums which the judges were making when they were at the bar, but they are certainly adequate, particularly in the light of the changes made in this present bill. I think we can expect that our judges should stick to the bench and keep away from outside activity, no matter how financially rewarding such activities might be.


Robert Leith Hanbidge: What is the position of a judge who has retired in the past four or five years? Would he be entitled to a pension at the increased rate?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That matter will be taken care of by clause 6. The answer is yes.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South, it would certainly be my anticipation and hope that the provision of a uniform compulsory retirement age will, in effect, help establish a reserve of men who have previously been judges and who will toe able to undertake work on these commissions and special inquiries to an increasing extent, thus easing

the pressure now existing for the appointment of serving judges to such commissions and inquiries.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the minister care to say whether or not he feels that those who have been on the bench and who take other appointments in the service of the crown or elsewhere should continue to use the title "The Hon. Mr. Justice-"?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the custom in that regard is that they should continue to use the title "The Hon." but not "The Hon. Mr. Justice". Once judges have resigned they may, by application and submission to Her Majesty, be authorized to continue using the designation "The Hon. so and so" but not "The Hon. Mr. Justice so and so".


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is not in any
way a reflection on the person concerned, because he has obviously very worth while qualities, but does that represent the practice with regard to the address of the chairman of the civil service commission?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Certainly it does to the best of my knowledge. He asked for it only on the basis that the designation "The Hon." might be preserved as is the case with practically every judge who has resigned or retired since I assumed this portfolio.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect to the minister, I wonder if that is the case. I think that where a judge resigns he is entitled to use the prefix "The Hon." only with the concurrence of the governor in council.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, it is with the consent of Her Majesty. In every case the official authority has been contained in permission from Her Majesty, and whenever the matter has been raised with me we have made the appropriate recommendation through His Excellency for authority to use that title. It does not carry the right or authority to continue to use the word "judge" or "justice".


Robert Leith Hanbidge: I should like to inquire of the minister what is the position of a judge's widow in cases when a judge dies in office and, second, when a judge dies a year or so after he becomes eligible for retirement pension.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In both cases the widow would receive two ninths of the salary received by the judge at the time of his resignation or death as the case may be. The elective provision is no longer in effect and it has not been since 1955. If a judge retires or resigns, the annuity works out at two thirds of his salary-we are making a change and relating that to present salary, not the old salary
27. I960
Public Service Superannuation Act -and after his death, whether it occurs while in office or after retirement, his widow receives two ninths of his salary; she receives one third of the pension which itself is two thirds of the salary.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4, 5 and 6 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?	.


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: the third reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-76, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.
He said: I think it is clear from the course of the discussion of this matter on the resolution stage on June 20 that it has won the support and favour of the house. I infer that there is no occasion for my attempting to discuss the bill now. I reviewed the principal features of the bill in making my statement on June 20 as reported at pages 5124-6 of Hansard on the resolution stage. Perhaps therefore I should simply say that the bill does provide important benefits which I believe have commended themselves to the judgment of the house and which have been welcomed outside the house.
Hon. members may, however, be interested in a word about the proposed procedure. In speaking on this matter on the resolution stage on June 20 as recorded at page 5126 I said:
It is my intention to recommend that, after second reading, the bill be referred to a special committee where it will be possible to study the amendments and the changes in the basic benefit and contribution formulas in detail.
At that time it had been expected that one committee, namely a special committee, would be set up and that there would be referred to it not only the present bill but Bill No. C-77 to amend the Civil Service Act as well. Since that time by general agreement the house has decided that Bill No. C-77 should not be proceeded with at this session. The question arose then as to whether it was worth while to set up a special committee simply to deal with this one bill, Bill No. C-76. Requests,

Public Service Superannuation Act however, have been made by hon. members opposite that we should proceed as had been previously indicated to set up the special committee and accordingly when the bill is given second reading I shall be prepared then to offer a motion on which I understand there is general agreement. It is the motion of which I gave notice in Votes and Proceedings of June 16. It is to be found there immediately following page 664.
At that time the notice of motion contemplated the appointment of the special committee in order that both these measures might be referred to it. The only change in the form of the motion will be by elimination of any reference to the referral to that committee of the bill to amend the Civil Service Act.
There have been conferences already between the whips concerning the personnel of the committee. That personnel has been agreed upon and therefore we are in the happy position of being able to offer the motion today by consent and actually appoint the committee and establish its personnel. That has been agreed upon by the whips and therefore we are in a position to proceed in this matter and send it to the proposed standing committee swiftly.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Before the minister resumes his seat would he repeat the page reference with respect to Votes and Proceedings'!


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is the page opposite page 664 of Votes and Proceedings of June 16. In other words, page 1 of the appendix to Votes and Proceedings of June 16.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before the house for second' reading is undoubtedly a very important one. It is important for the effects it has on large numbers of employees in the public service and important in principle but when we examine it we find it deals with different isolated points in existing legislation which I think the house generally will agree is very good legislation. That being the nature of the bill before us it raises some question as to getting the best possible legislation out of this bill by debate at this stage.
It strikes me that if one were to seek to debate a great many questions of principle affecting the subject of the superannuation of public servants no valid result will be obtained. While it is technically possible to do so under the rules-the bill being in such language-in this particular instance it is probably not desirable to do so. I believe the points dealt with in the bill can be more adequately examined in the special committee to be set up for the purpose of dealing with this legislation to which committee the bill


will be referred following second reading. In the committee questions can be directed to the minister and the appropriate officials of the department having to do with the administration of the fund. Questions may be put to the actuarial authorities in the minister's department and others who may want to be present. By following the procedure outlined by the minister of giving the bill second reading now and having it referred to the special committee, when it comes back into the house if there are any questions still unanswered there will be an opportunity in the committee of the whole to discuss the points on particular clauses. I think that is a desirable course to follow on the whole.
There is one point concerning which I should like some information from the minister. If he has it readily available he may give it to the house when he replies or, if not, it could be given in committee. I refer to the whole question raised by the amendment changing the rate of contribution. I have in my hand sessional paper No. 60-B entitled "Report on actuarial examination of the superannuation account in the consolidated revenue fund as at December 31, 1957" tabled in the house on Monday, June 20, 1960. Two paragraphs which squarely deal with this point are found on page 24 of that return. The first reads as follows:
1.	The estimated deficit in the superannuation account as at December 31, 1957, was $137.7 million. It is recommended that this deficit, together with the "unamortized portion of actuarial deficiency in the superannuation account," amounting to $139 million, be liquidated as soon as may reasonably be possible. It is also recommended that, until liquidation of the deficit has been completed, interest be credited to the account in respect of the amount of deficit remaining from time to time, to keep it from growing with interest.
The second paragraph reads in part as follows:
2.	The average contribution rate estimated to be required to pay for the benefits provided under the act is 12.4 per cent of salary for male contributors and 9.7 per cent of salary for female contributors.
And so on. I hope that at some point we can have information provided, if it is available, as to the account up to date and that it can be made clear that the increase in the contributions being sought in the bill now before us is intended to provided adequately for the amount required to provide the benefits under the legislation and any changes in benefits that may be involved and not to provide through the increased contributions the recovery of the deficit in the fund. That is a principle which at some stage should be made clear.
Then there is a reference in the public accounts, 1957, volume 1, at page 47, to the government's contributions with respect to the superannuation account. It indicates that

the government contribution to the superannuation account was $72 million in 1956-57 compared with $31 million in 1955-56. It explains what brought about the increase, and then it goes on to say:
In addition to the above contributions, $50 million was charged to budgetary expenditures as a reduction in the unamortized portion of the actuarial deficiency in the superannuation account reducing the balance in the account to $139 million as at March 31, 1957.
If I recall correctly, I think there have been no further contributions charged to budgetary expenditures as a reduction in the unamortized portion of the actuarial deficiency in the superannuation account, and at some point there should be an adequate explanation of whether that was not done because it was not necessary or what is the prospect in that respect in the future? That should be made clear.
There is the very important question which was covered by some other legislation last year of the whole matter of the inadequacy of the pension being paid to persons already superannuated. This is an old problem, a very difficult and complex one. There was legislation dealing with it, but there are some matters that desire to be clarified. It is a combination of things having to do with the change in salary levels over a period of years and a continuous rise over a period of years which has made the difficulty so great for certain individual retired civil servants, not a great number of them, but it is a very great problem for the ones involved; in fact, it is a severe problem.
Then, I suppose, it would be quite possible to discuss under the bill before us certain special matters that arise by reason of the reference in the bill itself in clauses 2, 3 and 17(1) to certain other legislation, namely the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and the Canadian Forces Act and so on. There are other matters that could be discussed there. There are some real problems, particularly with reference to pensioners from the R.C.M.P., who were pensioned some years ago. There is a problem there that I think it is desirable to have something done about. These are all matters that, while they could be raised at this stage, do raise questions of principle and could be dealt with in the committee stage.
There is an amendment that involves a question of principle. I refer to the change in the provision for death benefits. In existing legislation there was some hardship by reason of the nature of the clause as it stood and a change is being made making provision for a lump sum in any event under certain circumstances. There are some other
27, 1960	5439
Public Service Superannuation Act changes in the bill. I take it that the rest of the changes are mainly concerned with matters that have been shown as being required in the light of administrative experience.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Improvements in administration.


George James McIlraith: Yes, mostly under administration.
Bearing in mind the nature of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I think we can obtain the detailed information at the committee stage. I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming),-I make reference to him in a direct way-when we come back into the house at the committee stage will not be objecting too technically in his view of the rules should it be desired to get some information on some of these points at different times. I hope also that when the committee is set up it will be possible to arrange the actual sittings in such a way that they will not unnecessarily conflict with the other committees sitting dealing with legislation now before them. I have reference to such matters as the combines legislation now before the committee on banking and commerce. I hope that good judgment will prevail so that the committees will not be sitting at the same time. With the house sitting somewhat extended hours and the banking and commerce committee dealing with the combines legislation and having some very important witnesses before it I hope satisfactory arrangements can be made so that the committee sittings can be reconciled with each other in such a way that would enable all hon. members to give the bill a thorough examination.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief with my remarks but I do have a situation which should be drawn to the attention of the minister and the committee which will be considering the provisions of the bill in detail. The situation which I am concerned with may be covered by subclause (4) of clause 20 tout it is somewhat doubtful. It has to do with a very important question of principle, namely the question of administrative errors and the consequent hardship imposed on a civil service employee falling under the provisions of the bill. The situation I have in mind is where an administrative error is made as a result of which a civil servant may be precluded from claiming back pensionable service with some other branch of the government, for instance, previous military service and the like. The situation perhaps may rarely arise but it has arisen in my riding on two occasions. Both of these cases have been brought to the attention of the department

Public Service Superannuation Act concerned and I believe also to the attention of the treasury board. Under the provisions of the act as it now reads, and the way I read the provisions of this bill, there appears to be no solution and no relief for the employees concerned.
Both the employees are employees of the Department of National Defence. One, Mr. C. L. Lawrence, became a contributor under the old act, the act now in existence, first in 1955. Then, of course, he was paying only 4 per cent to the retirement fund. When he was given the right to elect on July 1, 1958 he of course would pay 6 per cent. He had to make his choice with respect to claiming previous service and he had a penalty free election year until July 1, 1959. Form FA135, which provides for compilation of the estimated cost of the previous service was sent from Whitehorse to Edmonton on March 25, 1959, and then was mislaid by the district treasury office in Edmonton. It was not returned until April 12,	1960, over eight
months past the penalty free date. As a result, Mr. Lawrence is denied the opportunity to elect because of this administrative error, and there is apparently under existing legislation no relief for him. Under the provisions of the amending bill, unless it can be found that there is something which covers this problem, there would still be no relief for people who find themselves in similar positions.
The other case concerns Mr. M. E. Erickson, also an employee of the Department of National Defence in the Yukon. He became a contributor under the act on November 1, 1958, and his penalty free election year ended on November 1, 1959. Form FA 135 was received by the chief personnel officer at Whitehorse and forwarded to Mr. Erickson on October 13, 1959. The letter containing form FA 135, that is, the estimate of cost of previous service, was forwarded to Mr. Erickson and addressed to box 84, Whitehorse instead of box 84, Watson Lake, where Mr. Erickson lived. Because of this clerical error Mr. Erickson did not receive form FA 135 in time to make his election before expiration of the penalty free period.
It appears that both of these people have ho relief under the old legislation because, through the executive of the national defence employees association, both here and at Whitehorse, representations have been made to the department concerned and to treasury board and the association has been informed that there is nothing that can be done. As a matter of principle, Mr. Speaker, I feel that if the existing bill does not cover such situations perhaps the committee might give serious consideration to suggesting amendments

which would provide for the rectification of such administrative or clerical errors so that hardship will not be worked on employees who find themselves in such circumstances.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak briefly on behalf of this group in support of the principle and purpose of this very important and somewhat complicated and technical bill. After studying the bill we think it is a definite improvement and a step forward in remedying some of the difficulties created by the present pension arrangements. As the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) dealt quite fully with several questions that we in this group had noted and intended to raise there is no necessity for me to detain the house to repeat what he has said with respect to certain matters to which he thinks consideration should be given. I simply join with him in bringing these matters to the attention of the minister with this exception, that we do want to make certain that the bill protects all classes of civil servants but particularly those who have been retired for some time.
As the hon. member for Ottawa West mentioned, I presume a good many members of the house have encountered rather distressing cases involving civil servants who have been retired for quite a number of years. We are very concerned about those persons who have suffered so long from the results of inflation and we want to see the situation remedied. This type of bill, dealing with the superannuation plan, contributions and actuarial matters, is certainly a type of bill that requires careful study by a committee. When it comes to figures and money matters, particularly legislation of this type, I am one who always likes to see the matter go before a committee and receive careful consideration because it is not a question of simply using words loosely but rather of making certain that two and two make four today and tomorrow.
We were very glad to hear the minister say that he intends to move for the establishment of a select committee to study the bill. The committee will no doubt have the opportunity to hear the minister, his officials and other persons directly concerned with this legislation. With these brief remarks, Mr. Speaker, and leaving any further criticisms until the bill has been returned to the house with any further suggestions that may come to mind as a result of the study of the measure by the committee, I end what I have to say on the bill at this time.


Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to say a few words on the bill to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act. In considering such matters I am always reminded of the fact that it is unfortunate we are losing so many valuable civil servants because they have reached the retirement age. While this matter does not come under the legislation before us, it is a good thing to call the attention of the house to the fact that we should look forward to the day when we will allow civil servants to remain in office longer, especially now that life expectancy is much greater. We need our good men and we should keep them as long as they can be useful to the government of the country.
I am, of course, in favour of the amendments to the act, especially the provision which makes it possible to base future pensions on the average salary received during the last six years of service rather than the last ten years. I congratulate the minister on bringing this amendment forward. It is a very popular move and I am going to take as much credit for it as I can. I can at least say that for the past 15 years I have at all times wanted to see retired civil servants receive adequate pensions. I am the son of a civil servant and if it had not been for my father's pension and what my mother received some 27 years ago when she had seven children to look after it would have been hard to educate my brothers and sisters. I am glad to see that the treatment to be accorded will be even more favourable under the new plan. True, there are some who will feel badly that they do not fall under the six-year plan and it is also true that there are many whose pensions are inadequate but I am still hopeful that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) will improve the legislation he brought in two years ago, I think-


Donald Methuen Fleming: An item in the estimates was brought in two years ago and a statute last year.


Jean-Thomas Richard: *-and increase some of the pensions which are inadequate. With the introduction of this new amendment I imagine there will be a much greater call for the averaging of pensions of civil servants who retired some time ago. In any event, I welcome the fact that the bill will be sent to a special committee and I look forward to the opportunity to take part in passing this legislation.


Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks with respect to clause 2, paragraph 2. I understand that postmasters and assistants in receipt of salaries of $900 or more enjoy the
27, 1960
Public Service Superannuation Act privileges of superannuation. When the minister replies perhaps he could tell me whether the amendments will affect their privileges in any way. There is one other point with reference to clause 20, page 17 of the bill. I am particularly interested in the expression "full time" as applied to any employee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will have an opportunity to discuss the details of the bill when it comes before the committee if he is concerned with details only.
I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for the support they have indicated for second reading of this measure and for the proposal that has been made that it then be referred to the special committee as indicated in the notice of motion in Votes and Proceedings of June 16. I think I can deal very briefly with some of the points that have been raised. The house would not expect me, of course, to deal with individual clauses of the bill or with individual cases. That would not be proper in the debate on second reading. In any event, there will be ample opportunity at the committee stage, whether in special committee or in committee of the whole, to deal with the various questions that have been raised in regard to details of the bill.
So far as the position of postmasters is concerned, may I just say very briefly that because of their differing conditions of service and remuneration it has been difficult to prescribe the conditions under which postmasters or assistant postmasters in revenue post offices or clerks of works meet the requirements of the act for eligibility as contributors. This amendment will therefore call for designation, as such, by the governor in council. It is proposed that all of those in these categories who are now contributors will be protected in their status by a general designation.
The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) raised several questions arising out of the actuarial report, one of three which were tabled last week. He has drawn attention particularly to the two paragraphs appearing on page 24 under the heading "Summary and recommendations". Again speaking quite briefly may I say, as I indicated before, "the average contribution rate estimated"-I am quoting from the report now-"to be required to pay for the benefits prescribed under the act is 12.4 per cent of salary for male contributors and 9.7 per cent of salary for female contributors". That is the position as of August 21, 1959.

Public Service Superannuation Act
As the house is aware, the actual contributions amounted to 12 per cent of salary for male contributors and 10 per cent of salary for female contributors, with the government and the particular civil servant each making equal and matching contributions. Up to the present time, therefore, there has been a small deficiency in the male contributions as compared with the calls upon the fund, and the female contributions have been adequate to meet the calls in that behalf on the fund. This, of course, it the position prior to this current round of substantial increases in salaries. One cannot, of course, expect that this position would continue. The increases in salaries will have an effect which, no other action being taken, would increase the deficiency in respect of the male contributions and bring the female contributions closely into complete balance with female calls upon the fund.
The increased benefits that this measure provides, and they are substantial, will cost money and that is the reason why it has become necessary to propose increases in the contributions of male contributors to 13 per cent, with the government paying half. This, of course, will be in keeping with the scheme of the other two acts, one respecting the armed services and the other respecting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. One cannot be absolutely precise, but the best estimate that is available from the actuaries is that with the increase in male contributions we will be fairly close to balance as between income and outgo of the fund, taking account of the increase in salaries and the substantial increases in benefits. There is no thought of using this increase in the male contributions to build up the fund or to provide a surplus. It is a matter simply of trying to equate the contributions as closely as is reasonably possible with the demands upon the fund.
The other point raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West concerned whether the payments into the superannuation account were to meet the existing unamortized operations of the superannuation account or the estimated deficit in that account. The amount of the former is $139 million, and the amount of the latter is $137.7 million.


George James McIlraith: The figures mentioned by the minister now are as of March 31, 1957. Is there any subsequent change?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There have been no contributions authorized by parliament on account of either of these sums. I think all hon. members are aware that any contribution could' only be made by authorization of parliament.

I think, Mr. Speaker, these are the principal points that were raised, which it may be appropriate to mention in this debate on second reading. I am sure there will be points of detail to be raised in the committee. Two hon. members raised questions as to the position of civil servants who have hitherto retired on superannuation. This bill has no application to them. As I pointed out in the statement which I made at the resolution stage on June 20, their position has been dealt with and very substantially improved by, first of all, the item in the estimates that was introduced and passed two years ago and with the enactment of the Public Service Superannuation Adjustment Act which was passed by parliament one year ago and which brought substantial increases in the existing benefits to those who had retired prior to 1954.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



MOTION FOR SPECIAL COMMITTEE

Donald Methuen Fleming: May I now ask the consent of the house to move the motion of which I gave notice as mentioned earlier in my remarks, in Votes and Proceedings of June 16, and which is found in the appendix opposite page 664. With the change which I mentioned in the notice when speaking on my motion for second reading, having regard to the fact that the committee now is to have referred to it only the present measure and not Bill No. C-77, an act respecting the civil service of Canada, if the house will give unanimous consent I now propose:
That a special committee be appointed to consider a bill to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act with power to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable or necessary;
That the committee shall consist of 15 members to be designated by the house;
That the committee be empowered to sit during the sittings of the house;
That standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto.
If that motion meets with the approval of the house, I have the names of the members of the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald Methuen Fleming: That the special committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act be composed of Mrs. Cas-selman and Messrs. Bell (Carleton), Campeau, Caron, Hicks, Keays, MacLellan, MacRae, Mcllraith, More, Peters, Richard (Ottawa East), Rogers, Smith (Winnipeg North), and Tardif.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the committee having been appointed, may I now move that Bill No. C-76 be referred to the said committee.
Motion agreed to and bill referred to special committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, might I ask unanimous consent of the house to proceed now with the second reading of the measure which was given first reading in this house today, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister consent of the house to proceed with second reading of Bill No. C-80?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Harris Hees: the second reading of Bill C-80, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to implement an arrangement with the government of the United States to coordinate the control of marine pilotage on the great lakes in the interests of safety.
The existing part VI of the Canada Shipping Act governs marine pilotage in general. However, many of the provisions of this part are not suitable for application on the great lakes where ships must cross and recross the international boundary many times during the course of a voyage. Further, one of the main features of Part VI is that acceptance of pilotage services is optional, although in some districts the payment of pilotage dues is made compulsory whether or not a pilot is employed.
On the great lakes we have large bodies of water and connecting rivers which until the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway were cut off from the sea except for comparatively small vssels. Over the years a specialized practice of navigation has grown up in these waters. They have their own collision regulations which are different in some respects from the regulations for preventing collisions at sea. Again the operators of lake ships, both Canadian and United States, used a common language which facilitated communication by radiotelephone. In fact, the use of the radiotelephone became so common on the great lakes that practices were laid down by intergovernmental treaty and the use of
Canada Shipping Act
voice communication between ships became an added safeguard in the avoidance of collision.
Before the opening of the seaway the number of ocean ships which entered the great lakes was comparatively small, as were the ships themselves. Their masters and officers were experienced and, where necessary, they employed local mariners to assist them. With the opening of the seaway large ocean ships entered the great lakes in considerable numbers and competent pilots were required to navigate them, particularly through the restricted portions of those waters. The need for some official control was evident and early in 1959 my department organized a staff of government employed pilots for assignment on request as pilots for the waters lying between Port Weller at the lake Ontario end of the Welland canal and Sarnia at the lake Huron end of the St. Clair river. The international portion of the St. Lawrence river from St. Regis or Cornwall to lake Ontario was already provided for, as far as the availability of pilots was concerned, by an existing pilotage district.
The Canadian attitude toward pilotage, as reflected in existing law, has been that the safety of the ship is the responsibility of the master of that ship. A prudent master invariably employs a pilot when pilots are available for the navigation of waters with which he himself is not familiar, but the responsibility is his to decide whether or not he requires a pilot. In the United States, on the other hand, the employment of pilots in ports and other restricted waters has been compulsory. This attitude was reflected in an earlier proposal from some United States sources to make pilotage compulsory in all the United States waters of the great lakes basin including the United States portions of the river St. Lawrence. In view of the congestion of traffic in the connecting waters of the great lakes, we recognized the desirability of departing from our traditional attitude and agreed to collaborate with the United States government in making pilotage compulsory in these waters. However, we did not feel that the employment of local pilots was essential from a safety point of view while the ships were on the open waters of the great lakes.
The United States administration has, as a result of our discussions with them and their own study, decided that the requirements of safety would be met if among the ships' officers there is one who has had some experience of the great lakes and has by examination established that he is familiar with the great lakes rules and has an adequate

Canada Shipping Act
knowledge of the English language. Congress has passed legislation to give effect to this decision.
Our bill is intended to provide the machinery whereby we can complement, in the Canadian waters of the great lakes, the provisions of the new United States legislation and regulations which may be made thereunder. We propose to do this by a new part VI-A of the Canada Shipping Act which will deal only with great lakes pilotage. We are thus leaving undisturbed, except for one small item, the existing pilotage provisions of part VI. This one exception is an additional section 356A which will provide, pursuant to a reciprocal arrangement, that in the case of a pilotage district made under part VI and which forms part of the great lakes basin a United States pilot may act as such without violating Canadian law.
The proposed Part VI-A starts by defining the terms "designated waters", "great lakes basin" and "registered pilot". I would draw to your attention that the wholly Canadian part of the St. Lawrence river east of St. Regis on the south side of the river opposite Cornwall is not affected by this legislation.
Section 375B is what might be termed the operative section of this bill. I should add, in parentheses, at this point that both Canadian and United States lakers will be exempted from these pilotage requirements. This section provides that no vessel of 250 gross tons or over shall be operated:
(a)	in designated waters unless it is being piloted by a registered pilot; or
(b)	in undesignated waters of the great lakes basin unless there is on board a registered pilot or an officer having the qualifications prescribed by regulation.
In practice the "designated" waters will we expect, be the river St. Lawrence from St. Regis west, the Welland canal, the waters joining lake Erie and lake Huron and those joining lake Huron and lake Superior. However, it will be possible for the President of the United States to designate other waters on the United States side, including perhaps certain ports or other congested areas, and for the governor in council to do likewise on the Canadian side if experience shows such action to be desirable. The undesignated waters will, in general be the open waters of the great lakes. Here an ocean ship will be navigated by her own master and officers, but unless one of them possesses certain qualifications prescribed by order in council there must be on board and available for call a registered pilot.
As stated in an aide memoire which was tabled on February 23, 1960, the qualifications which will be required of the master or one of the officers of a ship which may

navigate the open waters without a registered pilot being on board, as presently contemplated, will be:
(1)	possession of a master's certificate of competency valid for voyages in any part of the world;
(2)	experience of at least two round trips within the preceding two years in the open or undesignated waters where the vessel will be operating;
(3)	a working knowledge, as evidenced by examination, of the great lakes rules of the road;
(4)	proficiency in the English language sufficient to make effective use of the radiotelephone;
(5)	a knowledge of the practice of following separate courses on the great lakes, giving due regard to the suitability of such courses for deep draft vessels.
I might say that the certificate of competency which I have just described we propose to designate as "Great lakes-open water navigation certificate".
Section 375B also contains a clause providing for the exemption by the Minister of Transport of any ships from the above requirements. This clause will make it possible for the Minister of Transport to exempt regular lake vessels, both United States and Canadian, which obviously have no need of this requirement. There is also a clause to ensure the possibility of continued movement of vessels without violation of law when no registered pilots are available or in extraordinary circumstances which make it necessary for the master to avail himself of the best assistance that can be found at the time.
Section 375C sets out the powers of the governor in council in making regulations under this part. These provisions will enable us to make adjustments as experience may dictate and as may become desirable during consultations with our United States counterparts. As will be seen, the power to make regulations includes the designation of the waters in which registered pilots will be required; prescribing qualifications of a Canadian registered pilot and those required by a ship's officer to enable his ship to proceed without a registered pilot in the open waters; and also the fixing of fees to be charged for examinations and for the services rendered by Canadian registered pilots.
Subsection 2 of this section provides that the Minister of Transport may fix the number of Canadian pilots that may ge registered under this part. This is necessary because United States pilots are entitled to a fair share of the work and both sides have agreed to control the number of pilots in this manner.
The remaining provisions cover penalties for violations and provide that the act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.
All these provisions are expressed or implied in the United States bill which is necessarily longer than our bill because of their

different legislative system. We believe that our proposed bill will enable us to work in co-operation with the United States authorities in establishing a safe, controlled and efficient pilotage system on the great lakes.
The United States bill will not come into force until four months after the issuance of regulations made pursuant to it. Before such regulations are made we expect that there will be further discussions between Canadian and United States officials so that the regulations on either side will have substantially the same effect.
Our bill will not be proclaimed until working regulations satisfactory to both sides have been formulated. The date of proclamation should coincide with the effective date on the United States side which is likely to be prior to the opening of the 1961 season of navigation.
Following my usual practice, I propose to refer this bill to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Lionel Chevrier: May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the measure which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) discussed prior to the adjournment at six o'clock is an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act, which is of importance not only because of the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway but because of its effect on those in the great lakes area. It is also of importance to the house in general.
The main features of this legislation are somewhat different from those which were envisaged last year. At that time the minister brought before the house a bill which we on this side said we thought was premature in that an agreement had not then been reached between Canada and the United States concerning the matters that were then up for discussion between the two countries. As the minister stated earlier, there was no necessity for this kind of legislation prior to the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway but because of the seaway and for other reasons as well it became necessary to enter into discussions with the United States to ascertain if the minds of both countries were ad idem so far as pilotage is concerned. One important reason was the increase in the number of ships that moved inland between the lakes and Canadian ports-that is,
Canada Shipping Act
domestic traffic-as well as ocean-going ships that moved from points on the continent of Europe and elsewhere to the inland waters of the great lakes-St. Lawrence basin.
As I have pointed out, it then became necessary to enter into discussions with the United States. When the matter was up for discussion last year I suggested to the minister and to the government that they should give consideration to the establishment of a committee on pilotage as was done with respect to the committee on tolls established for the seaway. In the case of the tolls, as the house knows, it was a matter which was quite successful. An international committee composed of I have forgotten how many Canadians and how many United States citizens-I think three on each side-after consultation with each other was able to establish a tariff of tolls and then, following consultation, had those tolls submitted to the public following hearings that took place in both Canada and the United States.
It seemed to me that if something akin thereto was followed by both countries in so far as pilotage was concerned it would be extremely helpful. While that may not have been followed to the letter I think there was a committee from the Department of Transport which dealt with an opposite committee in the United States composed of members of the coastguard and other such services.
I know that at one time the United States held very strong views with regard to pilotage because they had had some experience on the Panama canal. I think they would have liked Canada to follow the same practice on the Welland canal and in the great lakes area as was followed there. At the time the matter was up for discussion last year I made this statement which can be found at page 2337 of Hansard of April 7 1959:
It seems to me that we should not be asked to pass this kind of legislation until we know what the legislation in the United States congress is going to be. Last year there was a bill brought before congress: it did not go through. We know what the nature of that bill is; I have a copy of it here in my file. But the bill which is now before the United States congress, even if it does go through all of its stages, cannot possibly be passed until October or November of this year. So I ask the question: Are we being asked to pass this kind of legislation before we know what the concurrent legislation on the other side is likely to be? The minister a moment ago used the expression "reciprocal legislation". Well, this is not reciprocal legislation. It is unilateral legislation. It cannot be reciprocal legislation until the two parties have agreed to what they want in the legislation.
After a plea which I made at that time giving additional reasons why the bill should not be discussed at that time the minister very kindly decided to withdraw the bill and

Canada Shipping Act
enter into discussions with the United States with a view to reaching an agreement. Therefore the objections which we on this side of the house might have had to the bill last year no longer exist at this time in so far as this is concerned. I take it now that in effect an agreement has been reached between Canada and the United States on the subject of pilotage on the great lakes and I presume we will have the benefit of the evidence before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines to analyse what transpired during the course of these negotiations.
The part to which I had reference and which came before the United States congress last year and which had not been passed at that time, in fact which lapsed and died with the prorogation of the United States congress, has now been removed. I believe this year it has been approved or is about to pass the last stage of congress. Therefore,
I repeat, the objections which were raised to this kind of legislation no longer obtain at this time.
There are two other matters that should be discussed. One is that the bill no longer contains those amendments to the Canada Shipping Act which were envisaged last year and which meant in effect the abolition of the pilotage districts of Montreal and Quebec. I commend the minister on having taken those clauses out of the bill. I think it would have been a mistake to abolish those districts which have been in existence now for close to 200 years, where pilots rely on navigation for their living and where over those many, many years the trade or profession of pilot has been handed down from father to son through many generations. I will not spend any time dealing with that but I think the government and the minister were well advised to withdraw those clauses which I thought at that time were objectionable.
We are now left with a part which deals exclusively with pilotage on the great lakes, and it is to known as part VI-A. It is rather difficult to comment upon the terms of this bill which, as Your Honour knows, appeared on the order paper for first reading the first time this morning and which we consented to allow to receive its second reading so that it could be discussed and then sent on to committee. It is rather difficult I say, to comment on the various clauses without having read the bill more carefully. It is not impossible but it is rather difficult to deal seriatim with the clauses which are before us. I have no intention of doing that.
During the dinner recess I had an opportunity to read the statement made by the minister earlier and I think I should like to leave the matter in this way. Since the

bill will be sent to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, it will be possible there to hear the evidence of the departmental officers and I presume also the evidence of anyone else who may feel affected or aggrieved or, in fact, helped by this legislation. I do hope the minister will not call the meeting too soon so that it will be possible for those who are interested in the bill to make the representations they desire to make.
In the course of his remarks the minister said nothing about the attitude of the pilots toward this legislation. In his reply perhaps he would make some reference to that. What is the attitude of the pilots in the Montreal-Ottawa-Kingston area? What is the attitude of the pilots which were established by the department in order to meet a situation which was aggravated by certain circumstances which were discussed in the house last year? What is the attitude of the pilots who will be operating in the restricted area and the designated waters under the terms of authorization by appointment through the governor in council? There have been no indications of any attitude in so far as they are concerned.
I ask these questions because last year there was considerable agitation in all fields of navigation with respect to this legislation. There was agitation among pilots in the areas extending all the way from the lower St. Lawrence right up to the head of the lakes. Representations were made by the shipping federation of Canada and also by various other groups. That is why I think the minister is well advised to send this legislation to a committee. In the committee we should find out what are the views of those various associations. There we shall have an opportunity to study the bill more carefully. I also think we should get some indication of the effect of this legislation either from our own officers in the Department of Transport or from witnesses from other places.
I do not know whether the minister has given any consideration to calling witnesses from the United States to indicate the necessity for the first clause and a subsequent clause of the bill. I do not know that when the United States legislation was brought before congress Canadian witnesses gave evidence. In fact, I think it was Canada which was responsible to a large extent for getting the United States to change its attitude on this legislation. If I remember well, the state department, the St. Lawrence seaway corporation, the United States entity which built the United States share of the seaway, and the department of commerce were all favourable

to the Canadian point of view. I think it was only the United States coastguard which held strongly to the view that the pilotage should apply to all of the great lakes areas, both restricted an open waters as well, and it was the Canadian group which was successful in getting the United States, in large part at least, to amend their views in that respect.
Perhaps I have said more than I intended to say at this time but I leave the matter with this final word. It seems to me that the first thing we should want to know about in committee and be apprised of in this house for further discussion when the bill comes up in committee of the whole is the kind of agreement which was reached with the United States.
I am pleased that the designated areas have been indicated already by the minister, so that we know now that those areas are in conformity with the views which were held by Canada during the time of the negotiations with the United States.
So, without saying more, I resume my seat confident that when we have the various witnesses before the committee we will then be able to get not only a better idea of this legislation but will also be able to ascertain what in effect will be its result upon pilotage in the great lakes-St. Lawrence basin.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, we will not keep the minister long. We know he is anxious to go out and get the good word from New Brunswick. When the bill was originally brought in a year ago we thought it was a bad bill and the evidence which was brought out in the Senate committee which investigated the matter last year was tending to substantiate this view when the minister, as a result of the request of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier), which I would have made had I had the opportunity to make it, withdrew the bill. We now have a much simpler and more clear-cut bill. On the face of it we are for it and it only remains to be seen what the detailed information will be in the committee.
I think it is worth making one background statement, Mr. Speaker. The reason I originally became concerned about this matter was through the great lakes pilots association, a group which was in effect, in their terms anyway, locked out by the shipping federation of Canada. It was a type of union, although the classification of the great lakes pilots association as a union brought some disagreement. Two summers ago we had in effect a lockout or strike on the lakes and
Canada Shipping Act
the great lakes pilots association took vigorous exception to the action of the Department of Transport in failing to back them up or to require the shipping federation of Canada to act in a certain way.
There were fears expressed, largely as a result of statements by the United States C.I.O. unions that control pilotage on the United States side, that pilotage on the great lakes was going to become a wonderful example of featherbedding. There were pictures of three pilots on a large foreign ship being paid at the rate of approximately $85 a day, and naturally shipping interests both in Canada and the United States became quite concerned about this. I might say that the Canadian pilots in the great lakes pilots association also became concerned about this picture of the kind of ramp that the Americans were planning.
Last year the government, in order to head off any difficulties, made the pilots temporary civil servants and now that the minister-I remind him again that he is a great socializer-has the Canadian pilots on the great lakes in the government service it looks as though this is going to become a permanent arrangement. The stumbling block with respect to legislation last year in relation to the Americans really lay with Admiral Richmond, the head of the United States coastguard service. Admiral Richmond was strongly against the Canadian arrangement because he thought it was not strict enough in its requirements as to competence and that giving Canadians the power to give a temporary licence to foreign masters who came to Montreal and were proceeding thence up the great lakes would open the United States parts of the lakes to grave dangers.
I have a copy of the report of the United States senate committee on interstate and foreign commerce with respect to bill S.3019 which is the United States counterpart of the bill before us. It was reported out of the committee several weeks ago and I think it is of interest to have a brief review from the report. It reads in part as follows:
Opening of the St. Lawrence seaway in 1959 has greatly complicated vessel safety problems on the great lakes by making possible entry into the lakes of ocean vessels of higher tonnage and in far larger numbers than previously was the case. In addition to the 2,206 United States and Canadian vessels operating on the lakes exclusively or in large part, some 1,033 foreign commercial vessels and 61 vessels under U.S. registry made round voyages on the lakes in 1959. All indications are that this total, of foreign vessels particularly, will increase in the years ahead.
This is the interesting point in view of Admiral Richmond's objections of last year.
The upsurge of foreign vessels navigating U.S. waters of the great lakes, and the entry of U.S. ocean vessels into the area, present a definite

Canada Shipping Act
threat to safe navigation. There is presently statutory requirement for the use of qualified pilots on both U.S. and Canadian vessels navigating only on the lakes. However, operation of the oceangoing vessels, without skilled lake pilots, as evidenced by the reported accidents and near accidents during the first year's operation of the St. Lawrence seaway, presents a threat of considerable magnitude not only to the lake vessels, but also to the ocean vessels whose officers, in some cases, may not be sufficiently familiar with the great lakes rules of the road, the restricted waters, etc.
The report goes on to set out the reasons why the senate passed this bill, indicating, for example, that the shipping federation of Canada has approved it. I would construe that these paragraphs emphasizing the dangers of foreign shipping are really evidence that the Canadians, through the minister's department, must have made compromises with the Americans. It is very difficult for us to see the compromises because the bill is still in skeleton form. The interesting point that was made in both the senate and house of representatives committees in the United States was that the United States merchant marine institute and the United States pilots, as I understand it, asked that the powers as to establishing various areas and the requirement be left with congress rather than with the executive branch. This problem is examined' in the report of the senate committee and it is felt that in order to have any kind of decent co-operation with the committee the executive must be in charge of the regulations in the United States.
Therefore we have a situation where the United States congress has in respect given over control in this particular matter to the executive, working through the commerce department which will handle the licensing of pilots, and the coastguard which will judge their competence. If we follow the congressional system, this is a concession on the part of congress and indicates that they are putting a great deal of faith in the negotiations and the arrangements to come with the Canadians.
But in the bill we have before us in this house we have very few details. I missed the minister's statement as to just what areas are going to be designated as restricted areas for pilotage but I am very curious and will expect details in the committee in order to know what the situation is going to be in the St. Mary's river, lakehead and Duluth areas because this bill, this report-I must not give the impression it is a bill-from the United States senate committee indicates that they expect the St. Mary's river will be a restricted area.


George Harris Hees: If the hon. member did not hear my statement I would be very glad to give him the information he is asking for.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It was about the St. Mary's river.


George Harris Hees: I have it right here. The restricted areas are four: first of all, the St. Lawrence river between Cornwall and lake Ontario; second, the Welland canal; third, the connecting waters between lake Erie and lake Huron, the Detroit river, lake St. Clair and the St. Clair river; and, fourth, the St. Mary's river between lake Huron and lake Superior.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That generally conforms with what the Americans expected. So it appears that the relationships after the passing of this bill, given the passing of it, depend completely so far as their amicable future is concerned upon negotiations between the Department of Transport and the United States department of commerce. We expect that this will not necessarily be easy because the Americans have an added pressure under which the minister's department does not operate.
The United States, as I pointed out to the minister before, believes in free enterprise and in trying to push it as far as possible. They are not creating a situation in which their pilots become civil servants, as the minister has done, because these pilots in the United States are organized in unions. Operating on this free enterprise basis they are always going to be, I would judge, pressing forward complaints about the ratio of pilotage as between Canadian pilots and United States pilots. As the minister knows, there have already been complaints from the New York and Ohio pilots. This indicates to me that we must expect to hear in committee what kind of continuing system is planned in order to keep this relationship balanced as fairly as possible. It would seem to me we need some kind of continuing small committee perhaps, composed of representatives from each side and a third party as a referee or arbitrator. I do not believe we should kid ourselves that this arrangement is going to work smoothly and automatically once it is passed.
At any rate, the point I wanted to make in connection with this bill which is still not crystal clear-here again we have to wait for the regulations-is what is going to be the position of the foreign masters? This is a sensitive point in so far as the United States pilots are concerned. I can only offer the minister the benefit of the experience we have had in our particular area as a result of talking to people on tugs around the elevators. They are in general agreement that the foreign "salties" as they are called are not nearly as capably handled as the lake ships. This is not because the foreign masters are not as

good as the lake masters but because of exceptional difficulties within the great lakes system and the fact these ocean ships have a higher freeboard and do not have the handy winches and controls that the lake ships have. I would suggest to the minister that he make sure when the regulations are drawn up that very tight control is kept on the giving of licences of any kind to foreign masters.
I believe he needs especially, since the United States is not going to have this right to award licences which the minister's officials are going to have, to safeguard his responsibility to make sure that the licences of Canadian pilots are respected. I hope, for that reason, he will make sure that the level of competence required from foreign masters is of such a degree that it will not demean in any way the certificates or licences that Canadian pilots hold.
I would hope also that the minister will be prepared in committee to give us some idea as to whether he plans to make this pilotage service a permanent part of his department by bringing it fully under the requirements of the Civil Service Act. I believe this about sums up the points I wanted to make in connection with this particular bill. I reiterate that we support it. We hope to hear more about it and in general our views are quite compatible with those expressed by the hon. member for Laurier. We think it is a marked improvement over what the minister presented formerly.


Mr. John Smith (Lincoln):: I do not intend to say very much at this time regarding this bill. However, I should like to say that I approve, in principle, the passage of such a measure. I am looking forward to having a good look at the bill and hearing it discussed in committee. I should like also to commend the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) for the manner in which he has moved into this problem of pilotage on the great lakes which two years ago was in quite a muddle. Last year he took the first step which was to put the pilots more or less under the civil service by having them paid by the department. I feel that was an excellent move.
When the bill was first considered I was of the opinion that perhaps pilots should be required all the way through the great lakes. However, I believe that the way the bill is presently framed whereby it will not be necessary to have first class pilots on the open lakes but certificates to be issued to navigators, solves the problem. I feel this provision will be reasonably satisfactory to the pilots themselves.
In so far as the pilots themselves are concerned, I think they will approve of the fact it
Canada Shipping Act
is not going to be the policy of the government to require class B or second class pilots on the open waters; that was something that the pilots did not like. I believe this new set-up under which certificates will be issued will more or less solve the problem.
As I said at the beginning, there is not too much we can say about the bill now. I am certainly going to look forward to hearing the bill discussed in committee.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway has made changes in the shipping act imperative. With the advent of the St. Lawrence seaway we have had a demonstration of its value through the number of ships which have used this great highway of commerce during its first year of operation. The result has been that the lakehead port cities of Fort William and Port Arthur, for example, have been brought to second place in terms of tonnage. The port of Montreal shipped 17,985,975 tons; the lakehead shipped 12,900,000 tons; Vancouver gained third place with 11,845,810 tons; Hamilton was fourth with 7,488,850 tons and Toronto was fifth with only 4,798,435 tons.
I am advised that already this year 60 ocean freighters have docked at the lake-head which represents about half of last year's total. This augurs well for a substantial increase in shipping tonnage in 1960, and eventually the lakehead might overtake even the great port of Montreal. During the 1959 season there were 2,120 arrivals at the lakehead. It is, therefore, only reasonable to expect that the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur will request that the lakehead harbour be given the status of an ocean port. I ask the minister that the request of the joint transportation committee of the Fort William-Port Arthur chamber of commerce and the lakehead port association be given serious consideration.
We are pleased with the government's decision to proceed with the construction of the seaway terminal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, unfortunately this bill, as I understand it, relates exclusively to pilotage, and I hope the hon. member is coming to that subject.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, during the 1959 session of parliament, in anticipation that a change in the Canada Shipping Act was about to be considered by parliament, several organizations such as the St. Lawrence river pilots association and others submitted briefs, copies of which were furnished to hon. members, urging the government to consider the safety factor in the seaway in the light of greatly increased traffic advocating compulsory pilotage. These submissions have no

Canada Shipping Act
doubt been studied and every suggestion considered carefully by the government. The reason for delaying any action at that time, according to the statement of the minister, was because similar legislation was being studied by the United States congress. Our government decided to wait and to introduce amendments to the act which would correspond to changes approved by the United States congress, and that is what appears to be the case now.
This concern over pilotage is shared by the board of marine underwriters. It appears now that a compromise has been adopted to the effect that a pilot is required to be on duty in the narrow channels, as outlined by the minister a moment ago, and in congested areas but not on the long stretches of open water.
With regard to foreign ships, there is an objection to the granting of a B licence to masters and officers of these ships, some of which may present a distinct hazard especially if there happens to be a language barrier. The United States have solved their pilotage problem. Their solution is to leave it to the president to decide what parts of the lakes and the St. Lawrence seaway within the territorial waters of the United States require the use of pilots on foreign ships. I am not suggesting that the minister should assume the power to make these decisions. As pilots would be required in the narrow waters and not on the open lakes, a special licence granted to a ship's captain certifying that he is familiar with the rules of navigation on the great lakes should be sufficient.
Suggestions have been made that Canada should enact legislation to govern the movement of trade within Canadian waters. This idea is a good one because British and United States ships move bulk and general cargo between one Canadian port to another. Canadian ships cannot go to the lakehead, pick up a cargo and deliver it to any other port in the United States, but a United States registered ship can go to the lakehead', pick up a cargo and deliver it to any port in Canada. If that is so, then I submit that there are other amendments to this act which would be quite in order.
It is generally conceded that the greater proportion of world commerce is still being carried by sea going ships. Notwithstanding all other means of modern transportation, nothing can touch them in efficiency, low costs and dependability. Canada owes a great deal to the power of the merchant marine in the development of natural resources, and our industries thrive and prosper because millions of tons of goods and materials move in and out of Canadian ports every year.
[Mr. Badanai.l
We are fortunate in having a few shipping companies operating under Canadian registry whose owners happily are men of patriotism, vision and faith and courage in the future of our country. These men were chiefly responsible for retaining for Canada a semblance of a national merchant marine. One of these companies is the Paterson Steamship Lines which was founded by Senator N. M. Paterson with its head office Fort William.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid the hon. member is getting away from the substance again.
I am sorry to interrupt him but the subject before the house is not very broad and I think hon. members would prefer that we discuss it and that it be sent to the committee rather than our dealing with transportation problems generally.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling. It is not my intention to do anything but to accede to your wise counsel. I shall reserve the remarks I intended to make with regard to the future of our merchant marine to the appropriate time when we discuss the estimates of the Department of Transport.


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


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, there are just two or three questions I would like to answer. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) asked when this matter would go before the committee. I have talked with the chairman of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines today and I told him I was proposing to the house that this bill should be referred to his committee. I understand from him that he will suggest to the steering committee and to the committee itself that this matter be brought before it a week from tomorrow. If that is satisfactory to the committee then that will be done, but as the house knows it is up to the committee.
The hon. member for Laurier also asked if I could give him some advice regarding the attitude of the pilots on this matter. I have not talked to them myself or to the pilots association, but it is my understanding from my officials that the pilots are reasonably satisfied with this measure. The hon. member also asked about the attitude of the United satisfied with our bill which is very close States government, and it is also my information from my officials that they are quite in intent to theirs.
The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) expressed concern that we would perhaps be giving fairly freely a pilotage certificate or licence to foreign masters. I am glad to assure him and the house that

that is not the case. In my opening remarks on this matter when I introduced second reading just before the supper recess I mentioned that the certificates which would be given to those who might qualify on foreign ships to navigate them in the open waters of the great lakes would be known as great lakes-open water navigation certificates. The purpose of that designation is to make it very clear to our own registered pilots that this is not in any way a second class or B class pilotage certificate; it is simply a certificate which will enable that member of the staff of the foreign freighter to navigate the ship in the open waters of the great lakes. It is in no sense of the term a pilotage certificate.
The hon. member for Port Arthur also asked when we intended to bring all of our pilots into the civil service. As I think I have explained to the house on one or two occasions, we like the set-up which exists now between ourselves and the pilots on the great lakes where they are civil servants. I have indicated to all pilotage districts that at any time they wish to enter into that kind of relationship with the government we will be very glad to have them as civil servants. It is up to the pilots themselves to indicate to us when they would wish to change their present status and become civil servants of the government.
Mr. Speaker, I think they are the principal questions which were asked. As hon. members who have spoken have indicated, there will be plenty of opportunity in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines when it meets to ask any questions which they would like to ask. My officials will be there; they are well acquainted with all the details of this important matter and will be only too glad to answer any questions which may be put to them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
Gordon Minto Churchill: It is the understanding- and this is by agreement-that we should now proceed with a continuation of the study of the estimates of the Department of Transport.
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
555. Departmental administration-further amount required. $68,350.
Hubert Badanai: A few moments ago I was trying to point out the importance of having a Canadian merchant marine. The Canadian
Supply-Transport
great lakes shipping industry could provide the foundation upon which to build an international commercial fleet worthy of a major trading nation. During the war, Canada built training and fighting ships. Some of these were built at the Port Arthur shipbuilding yard which at present is not doing much. However, this yard has the experience in both management and personnel to build ships for any purpose. It is regrettable that many ships of Canadian registry were built in foreign shipyards and that many more are being built abroad. The federal government could bolster dwindling employment in Canadian shipyards by encouraging shipbuilding in every possible way.
The Canadian shipbuilding and ship repairing association in one of its letters had this to say, and I quote:
Building ships or manufacturing goods in Canada benefits the national economy as a whole. A large percentage of the price of a ship, probably 40 per cent, finds its way into public treasuries as taxes on income, on profits, on real estate, on the sale of goods bought with the incomes created by the total operations in the building of a ship in Canada. In the case of a foreign-built ship, all such taxes go to another country.
Other considerations which apply particularly to shipbuilding are:
1.	Employment: Shipbuilding not only provides jobs for highly skilled men in the shipyards but also provides jobs for a great variety of types of labour in widely dispersed small communities and big cities of Canada where mines, mills, and manufacturing plants, producing ships' components and materials, are located.
2.	Security: Ships are of vital importance to Canada. A country which lives on its ability to transport goods by water cannot afford to depend on other countries for ships. In emergencies they may not be available. Canada needs its own shipbuilding industry to maintain its economic independence and political sovereignty just as much as it needs its own defence forces. Indeed its navy could not operate in troubled times without Canadian shipyards.
I commend those sentiments to the minister and to the government. We are subsidizing wheat growers, hog producers, egg producers, coal mines, gold mines and railways; why not give a little help to the shipbuilding industry? Why not re-establish the Canadian merchant marine which was allowed to disappear so ingloriously a couple of years ago? Whatever the circumstances surrounding the disposal of those ships, the action taken at that time has not added to the stature of our nation. If a mistake was made-and I submit that the sale of those eight ships to Cuba was a mistake-let us admit it and renew our efforts with the vigour which is the characteristic of everything Canadian.
I realize that enthusiasm for the idea of a subsidized merchant fleet would probably be challenged on the ground that it would result in additional taxes, but I submit that the benefits resulting from a policy of assistance

Supp ly-Transport
to shipbuilding and the development of a merchant fleet would more than offset the cost of such a program.
Not long ago I saw a report in a newspaper to the effect that Greece intends to spend more than $10 million to build a fleet of six freighters for the great lakes-Mediterranean trade. This means that the Hellenic lines will be entering the St. Lawrence seaway for the first time. These ships will bear cargoes to and from such ports as Naples, Istanbul and Beirut, and they are expected to be put into service by the summer of 1961.
Where will these freighters be built? Not in Canada. Our exports and imports will be carried through the great lakes by vessels of other countries.
Canada builds fewer ships than Finland. Our deep-sea fleet which ten years ago numbered some 200 vessels, is now less than a dozen and these are mainly oil tankers sailing between the United States and Canadian ports.
Our shores front on three great oceans, the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arctic. I especially want to underline the reference to the Arctic ocean. If the Prime Minister's vision ever comes to fruition and we witness an increased development of the north the Arctic ocean will become a great sea lane. In addition we have the great lakes system which in itself could be classed as another ocean.
Despite all this other nations build ships for us. Other nations operate ships for us. All this is true because we say we cannot possibly afford to build and operate ships ourselves. Then we wonder why we have so many unemployed. The time has surely come to sound a clarion call for the reconstruction and expansion of a national merchant marine. I commend the suggestion to the minister and to the government. They have the power to initiate a movement to bring back our merchant marine and establish our nation in the forefront of seafaring nations of the world. We are the third largest trading nation of the world but so far as shipping is concerned our position is not much superior to that of Switzerland. I sincerely trust that the government will take action as quickly as possible.
I feel strongly about this, Mr. Chairman, because as Canadians we are often prone to boast of our national resources. We boast about what we have under the ground and above it but we say little about the exploitation of what we have in our own country for the benefit of Canadians and for the benefit of those who will come to our shores

in the years ahead. I commend to the government consideration of this great challenge that faces us from coast to coast.
I know that objections will be raised. Some will say that this is all nonsense and that it would cost millions of dollars. It probably would represent a large expenditure but it would be worth it. It would be a Canadian enterprise of which we would be proud and in years to come we could look back upon it as something worth while. Let this 24th parliament take action.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I should like the minister to comment as to what is the attitude of the government toward the policies now being followed by the railroads with respect to curtailing important services at an exceedingly rapid rate and discharging in large numbers men who have had many years' service, thus causing untold hardship to employees of long standing. I should like to know what is the attitude of this government Is it one of saying that the railroads' business is their own, we do not concern ourselves with the policies of either of the railways, if they lay off men with 25 or 30 years of service and put them out on the street and these men are unable to obtain a pension it is no concern of ours; or does the government believe this is a serious matter? If so, what is the attitude of the minister and of the government in respect to this situation?
Already this session I have mentioned the lay-offs that took place at Moncton and those that took place at London because of the pending transfer of the Canadian National Railways car shops from that city. The minister and the government seemed to take the attitude that this is really no concern of the Department of Transport or the government, that it is purely a question of C.N.R. or C.P.R. policy. The minister and the government appear to take the position that they are above and aloof from these situations.
I have frequently travelled by railroad across Canada. I am absolutely appalled by the number of railway employees who have sat with me and told me the same story. Although they have had 20, 25 or 30 years' service they are in danger of being laid off. They tell me that some of their fellow workers in similar occupations have already been laid off and that there seems to be no concern for their future on the part of the minister, the government or the railway companies.
I believe in progress and I believe that railways must be run on a business like basis. At the same time I do not think profits should come so far above the question of the

welfare and livelihood of people whose whole working lives have been devoted to railway service. The railroads today seem to be bent on a policy of curtailing many of the services provided in the past and this is being done as rapidly as possible. Not only are they hurting their own employees of long standing for whom they apparently have no concern whatever but in my opinion they are unduly curtailing services in many parts of Canada. They are curtailing passenger service on all but the main lines and this is being done even on some of the important lines. They appear determined to curtail passenger service even further. They are closing railway stations all across the country on a large scale. Every time a station is closed railway revenues fall off, the communities affected have fewer services and more communities are placed in a difficult position with respect to maintaining their normal operation.
Sectionmen are being laid off. Sections are being combined with fewer men. I am wondering if this does not contribute to the great increase of railway accidents? Perhaps a lack of proper maintenance help has contributed to the increased number of accidents.
The services I have mentioned are being curtailed all across Canada. Once a station has been closed for a few years the next move by the company is to remove the caretaker engaged to provide minimum services at that point.
There has been a great deal of discussion as to whether or not the Crowsnest pass rates are in jeopardy. I do not think they are. I do not think that all the propaganda that can be commanded by the C.N.R. or C.P.R. against the rates will result in moving any public minded person who has a knowledge both of this country and its railways or in moving this or any other government to dispense with the Crowsnest pass rates. If I had been making these remarks a week or so ago I would have said the same thing. In the light of recent political events in two provinces I am even more certain that this government will have nothing whatever to do with any abandonment of the Crowsnest pass rates.
I am pleased that I have that conviction because I think the Crowsnest pass rates in this country were part and parcel of an agreement of long standing. One part of the agreement had to do with these particular rates, but another part of the agreement gave very substantial advantages to the railways of this country. What I an wondering is whether there is some kind of back room agreement whereby the railway companies will not be allowed to get higher freight rates on grain but where, in return for having
Supply-Transport
to accept the Crowsnest pass rates in the future, they will be given the green light for a further and an even more rapid curtailment of railway services. I think this is what is happening. I think that for all practical purposes today the board of transport commissioners have shut their eyes to the public demand that minimum services be maintained. For all practical purposes today the board of transport commissioners are acting purely and simply as agents of the railway companies of this country and are doing their bidding when it comes to curtailment of services, the closing of stations and the reduction of train services of all kinds.
This is being pushed even a step farther. Now we see a number of instances where the railway companies are applying to the board of transport commissioners for permission to abandon railway lines. Then they will be pulling up the tracks. As a matter of fact, they are already pulling up one set -that is, the C.P.R.-of the double tracks between Moose Jaw and Swift Current. They argue that the double trackage is not needed there. The railways are determined to pull up a large part of the railway branch lines in this country. 1 do not think it is confined to any one area, but certainly the railways are bent and determined on tearing up a very substantial mileage of trackage on the prairies and on the abandonment of a very large number of branch lines.
The people of this country have an economic interest in the maintenance of the Crowsnest pass rates. They need to watch that what is being saved on the one hand by the maintenance of the Crowsnest pass rates is not lost on the other by the abandonment of railway lines. I notice that the minister thinks this is all very amusing, but it is not amusing for the people to have their railway lines abandoned.


George Harris Hees: I do not find it amusing at all. I was not smiling at what the hon. member was saying; I was listening to what he was saying.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister was not; he was talking to his officials.


George Harris Hees: I happened to ask one of my officials a question. Something he said amused me. It was not what the hon. member was saying. I find these matters very serious, as he knows perfectly well, just as this government does. I feel just as keenly about these matters as he does.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the minister feels as keenly as he now suggests, it is a strange thing that he pays no attention and that he giggles with his officials.

Supply-Transport
Mr. Pallet!: That is a complete distortion and the hon. member knows it.


George Harris Hees: If I may say so, I was not giggling; I happened to smile. Perhaps the hon. member and his party do not know what such a thing is.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister to pay some attention if he can.


George Harris Hees: I have paid plenty of attention; I am listening very attentively.


Hazen Robert Argue: This is a very serious matter to the producers and to the communities that are being faced with an abandonment of their railway lines, perhaps the tearing up of railway lines and the complete disintegration of ther communities.
The producers of western Canada are very much concerned that the Crowsnest pass rates be maintained, but it will be of little advantage if in the maintenance of those rates the railway lines going to their marketing points in many instances are removed so that the saving, whatever it may be, of 10 cents or 15 cents a bushel that is brought about by the maintenance of the Crowsnest pass rates -and nobody knows what the saving is because nobody knows what the railways would get if the board of transport commissioners and the government decided that those rates were not to be maintained-is eaten up by a loss of the trackage to their local marketing points, and they are forced to haul their products a much longer distance. If a person who has been accustomed to hauling his grain a distance of six or eight miles is forced by the subsequent abandonment of railway lines to haul his grain 15 or 20 miles he will find there is a very substantial increase in his costs.
I would ask the minister to tell the committee what attention the government gives to the necessity of the maintenance of railway services in this country, and whether the government has given any thought whatsoever to the policies of the railway companies in endeavouring to have branch lines abandoned in the country. I would ask the minister also to tell the committee whether the government has given any consideration to the plight of the thousands of railway workers who are being displaced, and whether any study is going on in the department of the minister, or in the Department of Labour, on the plight of those people and what their job opportunities may be in the future. I do not think it is in keeping with a modern society that we should cast off on the labour market after 25 or 30 years of diligent service those people who have been employees of the railway companies and have
[Mr. Argued
provided excellent service to the people of this country without any consideration whatsoever for their future.
The firemen, because of a very strong union, have been able to make an agreement which to some extent at any rate has protected the livelihood of men in that occupation. As I understand it, the agreement they now have does not prevent modernization. It merely means that the people who are in that occupation at the present time cannot be summarily dismissed without any consideration for their future. I do not know that that is the kind of pattern that could or should be applied to other sections of the railways, but I do feel that the railways of this country have some obligation to employees who have invested their lives in the occupation of railroading. I think the government should tell this committee very frankly what consideration it has given to the very serious situation in which many railroaders now find themselves, and also what consideration the government is giving to the maintenance of a minimum railway service in this country.
As I now see it, in the headlong rush toward so-called modernization with the sole objective of making profits both the employees of the railway companies and the public as a whole are likely to suffer. Last night I was at the new Ottawa airport terminal building and as a Canadian I was exceedingly proud of this magnificent building. It has been placed there because governments of this country have believed it was a good investment. The air lines are able to make use of the services provided by this very substantial public investment.
The only reason I point this out is to say that in the field of transportation there must be a yardstick applied which is not purely the yardstick of profit. There must be a yardstick applied which takes into account the well-being and welfare of the employees and the welfare of and services available to the general public.


George Harris Hees: Could I answer the hon. member as we go along? I should like to answer some of the comments he has made. The hon. member for Assiniboia brought up the question of the relationship between the government and the management of the railway in the day to day management of the affairs of the railway. I should like to point out to him something which I feel sure he knows. Many years ago parliament decided that the management of the C.N.R. should be 100 per cent in the hands of the railway management. The act passed at that time specifically prohibited the government from interfering in the day to day management of the railway. That is the law.

As to the concern of the government with regard to the service provided by Canadian National Railways, I want to assure the hon. member that the government is very much interested in and concerned about the service that the C.N.R. provides to the people of Canada. It is a vital service and the government is very much concerned about it. It pays a great deal of attention to it and discusses it with the management.
This government and this ministry are also very vitally concerned about lay-offs, any lay-offs. As I have pointed out to the house on many occasions, I and the government are very much disturbed at even one lay-off. It is a dreadful thing when even one man has to be deprived of a job. We feel the situation very sincerely and acutely because not only is the man deprived of employment but there is also an effect on his morale and that of his family. We understand that. We have talked over this matter many times with the management of the C.N.R. They also feel the same way about it and they have assured me over and over and over again on the many occasions I have discussed the matter with them that they do everything possible to keep the employee on the job as long as he possibly can be employed, as long as there is work for him to do. But they have pointed out that because of changes in the nature of the work, because of technological improvements and things of that kind they simply cannot employ a man to do nothing when there is literally no work for him to do.
I feel sure the hon. member will agree that that it is sensible, undesirable though it is that the man should be without a job. When it becomes necessary to deprive men of work because there is no work for them to do the management have assured me that they take every possible step to see that these people are put in some other job in every possible case. I have discussed these matters on many occasions with the management and they have assured me, and I believe them, that this is so. The men concerned with management with whom I have talked are sincere men who mean what they say.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great care to what has been said by the hon. member for Fort William in his discussion of ship construction, navigation and a merchant marine for Canada, and I find myself in agreement with what he had to say. I have also listened carefully to what was said by the hon. member for Assiniboia. I must tell the Minister of Transport that I am sure that he, like all other members of the house, must of necessity feel badly when men employed by Canadian National Railways are laid off, and the Canadian Pacific 79951-0-344
Supply-Transport
railway too for that matter. But feeling badly about a situation does not remedy it. It is not enough for the minister to say what he has said this evening and has repeated on a number of other occasions, that he is convinced in his own mind that Canadian National Railways, and the Canadian Pacific railway for that matter, do not lay off men unless they are convinced there is no further work for them. That may be so but that does not help the situation.
Notwithstanding that, I understand the fact is that some 7,000 or 8,000 men have been laid off by Canadian National Railways. I have on my desk a letter that reached me during the course of last week from certain interests indicating that there are many layoffs on the Canadian Pacific railway. While I know that the minister is not responsible for the Canadian Pacific railway, nevertheless I also know that he is interested in railway operations from one end of the country to the other, and today the operations of railways are perhaps more difficult not only in Canada but in the United States than they have been in many years.
While I find myself in general agreement with what was said by the hon. member for Assiniboia with respect to lay-offs on the railways, I must say that I cannot support his rather severe criticism of the board of transport commissioners. I do not believe that the board of transport commissioners is an instrument or tool of Canadian National Railways Or any other railway. The board of transport commissioners was established by act of parliament and they put into effect the sections of the Railway Act under which the railways make applications. If we in this parliament want to meet the situation which the hon. member for Assiniboia has raised, and there is a great deal to be said for what he has advanced; if we want to change the position we must change the act because as the law now stands Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific railway have the right under the act to proceed as they do.


Hazen Robert Argue: With the approval of the board.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member was not listening to me. He was talking to his friends.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not true.


Lionel Chevrier: I said that the board' of transport commissioners is bound by the Railway Act and must apply the Railway Act when an application is made, unfortunate as this may be. I know that when I held the position now held by the Minister of Transport a similar situation occurred in my own riding and there was absolutely nothing I

Supply-Transport
could do about it except to explain the position to those affected thereby. I am talking now about the New York Central railway which ran from one end of my former riding of Stormont to the other. The board of transport commissioners was bound by the Railway Act. Let the hon. member not misunderstand me. I am sympathetic to those people who live along a railway line and find themselves deprived of railway services but I think the remedy perhaps lies in another direction by way of amendment to the act.
However, I did not rise for that purpose but for another. It may be that the minister may not like the purpose of this discussion, but nevertheless I hope he will listen to it because I intend to discuss this matter with the sole object of being constructive in the criticism I have to offer of the minister, his officials and those of the Department of Public Works.
I speak now of the joint team which has been established by the two departments in connection with port facilities along the St. Lawrence. The minister may find this annoying, but even if he does smile I will not be offended because I know that on occasions I have found myself in the same circumstances as the minister does.
I made a motion many weeks ago asking for the production in this house of documents which the minister had discussed, namely the 29 reports that were made on ports extending from the lower St. Lawrence in the province of Quebec to, I believe, within the metropolitan area of Toronto at Oshawa. This motion was defeated. The government, with its huge majority, voted it down. I want to deal with the manner in which that was done as compared with what was done in former years.
The minister, in the discussion in the house and in the committee, ridiculed the idea of an economic survey of the St. Lawrence seaway as I had suggested. I hold in my hand a document prepared by the Department of Trade and Commerce, economic research division, in January, 1951 on the effect of the St. Lawrence seaway upon the Canadian economy. This is a very important and fairly lengthy document containing 144 pages and it deals, amongst other things, with the case for the St. Lawrence seaway; the case for the St. Lawrence power development; the potential water traffic upon the seaway; the minimum estimate of water benefits; the capital costs and carrying charges; and last, but not least, about 25 pages dealing with the effect upon regional and special economic interests of Canada, particularly the prairie provinces, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland, the mari-times and British Columbia, Canadian ports,
[Mr. Chevrier.J
Canadian railways, lake shipping and shipbuilding. This document is a public document which anyone can obtain and it was made public by the then minister of trade and commerce.
When I made the motion in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines in 1958, I believe two years ago, asking that the St. Lawrence seaway authority undertake an economic survey of the effect of the seaway upon the various regions of Canada, I felt that there should be an up-to-date document similar to this which would indicate to the various regions of Canada the beneficial or adverse, if any, effects of this project upon the economy of our country. The committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines voted unanimously in its recommendation for the adoption of that economic survey. The minister saw fit not to accede to this recommendation and I believe in the course of his statement, either in the committee or in the house, he said he thought that it was ridiculous.
I want to say that I believe the team which the minister has set up may be a good thing in individual cases but it is not what is required when one must consider the overall position of the various ports. You cannot have a study of a local situation unless you know what the effect of this power and navigation project, both in Ontario and Quebec, is likely to be upon the rest of Canada. You cannot know that unless a statement of its effect, such as this one, is brought up to date or a new one, having regard to new circumstances, is prepared. It seemed to me at that time that that was essential,' and I believe that what has happened since has proved that what I suggested to the committee was right.
The team which was established by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport has taken officials in the Department of Transport and in the Department of Public Works to do what? They have considered a plan in each individual port, 29 of which have been mentioned, and the information upon which was refused to the House of Commons. Do you know what this team does? Notwithstanding the fact that it considers information from both departments, there is no one from the St. Lawrence seaway authority on this team of experts. How in the world, I ask the minister and the government, is this team going to do the kind of job that is expected of it if it does not get information from those who possess it, namely the St. Lawrence seaway authority who in turn have the information possessed by the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation of the United States? I said earlier that this information in the United States is being

compiled. There should be a representative from the seaway authority on this team.
I hold in my hand now a study made by the New York Central railway system, showing industrial sites all along the United States side of the seaway from Rooseveltown, New York, to Oswego, New York. There is a map of each port; there is a description of the facilities; there is the cost and value of the land; there is the assessment, the taxation, the water rates, everything is contained in this study with respect to even the smallest of these sites. Has the Department of Transport or the Department of Public Works published anything of this nature? If they have, we have not been able to see it.
I think the government must begin now to try to find secondary industries which will establish themselves along both shores of the St. Lawrence seaway. I use that expression with regard to Canada and not with regard to the United States. By "both shores", I mean both the north and south shore of the lower St. Lawrence as well as the north shore of the upper St. Lawrence. I would be glad to send this document over to the minister so that he may see how well it has been prepared. Copies of this document have been sent to thousands of industrial plants not only in the United States but on the continent of Europe, with the result that secondary industry is establishing itself on the United States side of the line but not on the Canadian side.
Here at Rooseveltown in New York state and alongside of it there are two large industries which have established themselves there. One is Reynolds Aluminum and the other is Chevrolet branch of General Motors. I believe they employ about 7,000 people between them. It seems to me that some consideration should be given by the government to what has been done on the other side of the line.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is it not true that the two industries were built during the time when the hon. gentleman was president of the St. Lawrence seaway?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know that that makes any difference.


Thomas Miller Bell: But is it true?


Lionel Chevrier: It is quite possible that they were established while I was the president. However, I can tell you why they were established.
79951-0-344i
Supply-Transport


Thomas Miller Bell: Because the hon. gentleman was there.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank my friend for that compliment, but I do not believe it is the reason. I tell him, frankly, I think the reason was that the New York state power authority allocated blocks of power for development in the area, whereas Ontario hydro fed the power into a grid for central Ontario and southern Ontario leaving no blocks of power for the St. Lawrence and Ottawa valleys to develop secondary industries there. I think that is a serious mistake. I do not want to deal with it unduly, but I see the hon. member wants to rise again and ask a question, and if he wishes he may go ahead.


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not disagree with the hon. member, but I want to make clear to the committee that he is the one who had the opportunity during a long period of time when he had responsibilities to do something about that which he is now discussing.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, no. When I was in the seaway authority, the job of the authority was to build a channel 27 feet in depth from Montreal to the foot of lake Erie and to expropriate land for that purpose. The second job was to establish tolls, not to establish industry. That is not the job of the St. Lawrence seaway at all; that is the job of the government as a whole, and the government of this country is not doing a thing to establish secondary industry along the seaway.
But I do not want to get away from what I intended to say. I want to come now to another public document, a document prepared by Canadian National Railways dealing with the proposed St. Lawrence deep waterways project affecting the city of Cornwall and the surrounding country. Here in my hand is a report by Canadian National Railways which has also been made public. It contains a series of maps and some 70 or 80 pages of material on the area. The point I am trying to make is that these reports were made public to the municipality. We in this committee and those ports which are affected know all about these plans but we cannot find out a thing in so far as the plans of the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport are concerned.
The other evening we discussed this matter in the house, and the purpose of my rising to discuss it now is that I think the ports of Seven Islands, Baie Comeau, the new port which is being established upstream from Seven Islands and Rimouski. Matane and all those ports in the province of Quebec not under the national harbours board; Cornwall, Brockville, and I believe Belleville,

Supply-Transport
have all been studied, from Dorion right up to Oshawa. I think the committee should get some idea what the officials have in mind. The hon. member for Essex East mentioned Windsor and Sarnia and the other ports which were mentioned by the minister during the course of his discussions.
I do not think these men are able to tell us what is likely to happen in one particular area, for example Cornwall, unless there is an over-all plan and unless someone has studied the effect of this power and navigation project upon the various regions of Canada. Have they studied the McGill report on metropolitan Montreal? Have they studied the effect of the seaway upon grain, perhaps one of the finest reports which have been made on the subject by the Chicago board of trade in conjunction with the University of Indiana? Have they studied this report of Canadian National Railways to which I have referred and which deals with the whole international section but more particularly with Cornwall? If they have not, they should.
What have they come down with? They have come down with a report which involves an expenditure of $80,000 in the city of Cornwall. Let me tell the minister what this team actually did when they went to the city of Cornwall. They went to the city of Cornwall and they examined the west end and came to the conclusion that that is where the wharf facilities should go. It was suggested to them that they should look at the facilities that existed opposite the city of Cornwall and they said "No". This is what I want to bring to the attention of the minister. They said, "Oh, no, the water is too swift there; you could not think of establishing a wharf there because the velocity is about eight feet per second". These experts of the Departments of Transport and Public Works did not even know that the St. Lawrence seaway was carrying on works to broaden the cross-sectional area and reduce the velocity of the water from eight to less than four feet per second in order to establish the entrance to a canal, a future canal with 27-foot facilities on the Canadian side of the line.
It was not until after that had been pointed out to their attention that they went back there. And what did they do? They changed their plans from the west end of Cornwall and they went down to the east end and said, "Here is a place which we think is ideal". It is not hard to see when one looks at the map included in the Canadian National Railways report that the amount of water varies in depth all along the eastern front of Cornwall extending from Grays creek to

Courtaulds on the west. The map indicates the water is at every point greater than 27 feet in depth. When you get close to this wharf which has been recommended by the team for extension you have 31 feet, 35 feet and 41 feet. So that a small extension only of the wharf will reach deep water.
I am not complaining about the decision. The decision is probably a good one but it should have been taken twelve months earlier. Furthermore the decision to spend $80,000 is not nearly enough. Far more than that is required in this particular instance, and I add-and I emphasize this to those who sit on the other side of the house-that if the government really wants to deal with the cyclical and the technological unemployment situation in Canada it must of necessity do something toward the establishment of secondary industry. This is the time because here you have in the first year of the seaway six million tons of traffic coming from overseas as compared with less than one million tons prior to the opening of the seaway last year.
Where is that six million tons going to go? It is the business and the duty not so much of this committee to ascertain that but of a committee which would study the effect upon Canada as a whole then allow the team that the minister speaks of with the information that it has in hand to come forward and deal with a particular and a local situation.
Then there is the tremendous amount of domestic traffic. Who would have thought four or five years ago that the traffic on the St. Lawrence canals would amount to 20 million tons and on the Welland canal to 27 million tons? The figures which the minister's department has published for 1960 up until May indicate now a new trend which is a trend away from the smaller ship in favour of the larger ship, which means that there should be greater and greater tonnage. That means tonnage not only for domestic traffic but also, I presume, for ocean traffic. That is why I think that a great deal more can be done for the establishment of secondary industry in this whole great lakes-St. Lawrence basin from the lower St. Lawrence right up to the head of the lakes than is being done now.
I said earlier that the United States is giving consideration to this, and I do not think we are doing enough. I am not saying that the team is incompetent. Certainly I would not make a statement such as that. But I do not think the team which the minister has set up is the kind of team required to do the job.


An hon. Member:: How would the hon. gentleman change it?


Lionel Chevrier: I said earlier-if the hon. member had been here he would know- that the report made in 1951 by the economics branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce should be brought up to date. That in effect was the recommendation I made in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines which was approved unanimously but which the minister thought should not be put into effect. I will not use the term which he used, because I do not want to be involved in an argument with the hon. gentleman so late in the evening. In any event, the minister could not find himself able to give favourable consideration to the recommendation. If a report of that kind which was made public in 1951, and which was an extremely well prepared document, were prepared with reference to the new situation-because when that report was drafted it was not possible to envisage the conditions as they were found in 1956 and 1957, and even today-if a report such as this was given to parliament, plus the work done by the team established by the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works, I think you would have great co-ordination and liaison one with another. As it is, I do not think we have that, and I hope the minister will take these remarks which I have made in good part, because they are meant to be constructive and are not offered in any other way.


Murdo William Martin: I should like to deal with a subject which has been causing me and I am sure a number of other Canadians a great deal of concern, that is, the very inefficient transport system we have developed across the country. I am not saying this in criticism of the present minister. I think this is a situation which has developed from coast to coast largely without our being conscious of it. Year after year we have to subsidize our railway systems to an increasing extent. In addition to subsidizing the railways as such, we subsidize as individuals who have to travel on the railways; we subsidize fares because the fares have been increasing all the time, and we subsidize meals because the price of meals has been going up all the time until one has to pay about three times as much on a train as what a comparable or better meal would cost elsewhere. We subsidize freight, we subsidize express, we subsidize everything.
Not long ago I was going to visit my brother in the province of Quebec. I can recall that when I was a lad one of the big events of the day was going down to meet the train when it came through. I wanted to stop at Scotstown, but in order to meet this particular train my brother would have to go
Supply-Transport
either to Megantic, 40 miles away, or to Sherbrooke, 40 miles in the other direction, because the train does not stop at Scotstown any longer. That, when I come to think of it, is another kind of subsidy. It is little wonder that more and more people are turning to air travel where one does not have to pay three times as much as a meal would normally cost; the meal is provided free, and it is served by an attractive hostess in the bargain. If people do not fly, they go back to the highways and drive, to avoid the inconvenience which they might otherwise encounter. This in turn means that trains are running empty and the subsidy has to be increased.
The railways have made every effort to economize. They have used every device of modern technique and automation to this end. They have even, in my opinion, carried this process to extremes, because as some hon. members have mentioned the length of track allotted to repair gangs has been increased, while the number of men at work has been cut down. More and more wrecks have resulted, but, thank heavens, there has been so far no great loss of life. Any of us who travel a great deal on the railways have noticed that the roads are getting rougher and rougher all the time; it has come to the point on some tracks where it is best to tie yourself in the bunk if you do not want to end up on the floor.
Because of considerations such as I have mentioned people are shipping their freight and express to an increasing extent by road transport. Road transportation is taking over much of the work which was formerly done by the railways. What do we do in this respect? Again we subsidize. We subsidize the transportation interests by building the roads over which their vehicles travel, whereas the railways have to build and maintain their own roads. Thus motor transport is increasing the difficulties of the railways and at the same time it is pounding our highways to pieces and increasing our highway costs; highways which would last for years if travelled only by private motor traffic are being broken up in a year or two by these huge vehicles.
With this increased traffic by both passenger and transport vehicles problems such as the question of safety at level crossings are bound to arise. We have reached the stage where all level crossings will have to be abolished. We seldom hear of a week end passing without one or more fatal accidents caused by a motor vehicle colliding with a train at a level crossing.
May I call it ten o'clock?
Progress reported.	.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the leader of the house intends to do tomorrow and for the rest of the week, if possible?


Gordon Minto Churchill: For tomorrow we have three legislative items. We shall begin with Bill No. S-35, an act respecting the international boundary commission, followed by a resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport dealing with the Freight Rates Reduction Act. The third item is the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister concerning the setting up of a department of forestry.
It may be we shall complete those three items tomorrow, making similar progress to that we have made today. If so, I would ask the indulgence of the house to proceed with the estimates of the Department of Transport. On Wednesday, if the estimates
of the department are not concluded, we shall carry on with those estimates. Then we have the estimates of the departments of justice and fisheries which by arrangement with hon. gentlemen opposite we can take in whatever order is satisfactory.
Friday being Dominion day I am not sure what the house will want to do on this occasion but last year the house met at eleven o'clock and rose at one. That may be what will be done this year as well. In any case on Friday we will start with the bill which the Prime Minister will introduce, an act for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and we will continue the debate on that subject matter the following week.
It being two minutes after ten o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.



ANSWER TO QUESTION

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:
judges' salaries and pensions
Mr. Broome: 27. 1960	5461
Question
1.	What are the salaries paid to judges in the various provincial and federal courts?
2.	What are the pensions paid to judges in the various provincial and federal courts and how are these computed?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):
1. and 2.
The chief justice of Canada	
Puisne judges of the Supreme Court of Canada	
President of the Exchequer Court of Canada
Puisne judges of the Exchequer Court of Canada	
Judges of the territorial courts (Yukon and Northwest Territories)	
The district judges of the admiralty districts of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, British Columbia	
The district judge of the admiralty district of Prince Edward Island	
The district judge of the Ontario admiralty district	
Three district judges of the admiralty district of Newfoundland, each	
The chief justices of all provincial superior courts	
Puisne judges of all provincial superior courts
Judges of county and district courts	
The annuities are two thirds of the salary annexed to the office immediately before the last increase in salary was provided for all
1	2
$ 27,500.00	$16,666.67
22.500.00 18.500.00	13,333.33 10,666.67
16,900.00	9,600.00
16,900.00	9,600.00
1,000.00	666.67
800.00	533.33
600.00	400.00
333.33	222.22
18.500.00 16.900.00 10.500.00	10,666.67 9,600.00 5,333.33
judges on July 11, 1955. In other words, the increase in salary is not considered for the purpose of computing the annuities.

Tuesday, June 28, 1960



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization-Mr. Stanton.
Twelfth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McCleave.