[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE W. McPHEE (Yorkton) presented the first report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

[Stage Direction]
Sir EUGENE FISET (Rimouski) presented the first report of the standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher) presented the first report of the special committee appointed to inquire into the operations of the Canadian radio commission and its administration of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act of 1932 and amendments, and the regulations made under authority thereof, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 48, respecting The Pension Fimd Society of the Bank of Montreal.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Birdie Louise Coleman Wilson.-Mr. Jacobs.
rSir George Perley.]
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Solomon Hyman, otherwise known as Saul or Sam Hyman.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Lewis Gould.- Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Hyman Stot-land.-Mr. Reid (for Mr. Hanson).

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. McNIVEN (Regina City):: 1.	Will the government give consideration to a definite national civil aviation policy during this session of parliament?
2.	If so, will it consider representations that such policy be administered and developed independently of any aeronautical development for military purposes?
3.	Has any agreement been made with Imperial Airways for the trans-Canada transportation of transatlantic passengers and mail on all Canadian route?
4.	Will it be possible to provide for substantially increased inspection of, and supervision over, all aircraft flying in Canada?
5.	Will the government be able to make a substantially increased use of the facilities of the municipal airport in Regina during 1936?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Under consideration.
2.	The development of civil aviation will, as it has in the past, be administered and developed independently of any aeronautical developments for military puiposes.
A resolution is now before the house, providing for the civil aviation branch of the Department of National Defence forming a. part of the proposed department of transport.
3.	No.
4.	Yes.
5.	No, as i.t is not expected that the construction of the trans-Canada highway will be far enough advanced to permit of any regular air services being operated during the year 1936.


C. N. DORION-DISMISSALS
Mr. LACROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):: 1.	How many postmasters were dismissed for political partisanship, upon the recommendation of Mr. C. N. Dorion, ex-member for Quebec-Montmorency, from August 1, 1930, to October 14, 1935?
2.	What are their names?

Questions


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	Seven postmasters were dismissed on the personal statement of Mr. Dorion, former member for Quebec-Montmorency.
2.	Name-Post Office Mrs. E. T. Hebert, Callieres.
Jos. Leclere, St. Pierre d'Orleans.
Eugene Gariepy, Ange Gardien Est.
Aime Goudreault, Les Saules.
F. X. Jobin, Chsurlesbourg Ouesit.
R. Gaulin, Boischatel.
Mrs. Martha Hayes, Riviere aux Pins.


HERVAY CHEMICAL COMPANY
Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	For what periods, respectively, were audits made by (a) J. S. deBilly and (b) by Albert Allaire, of the books of the Hervay Chemical Company of St. Basile, Portneuf county, Quebec, to ascertain the amount of sales tax owed by that firm?
2.	Were the books of the firm accurate?
3.	If not, who discovered that some of the entries in the said books were incorrect?
4.	Were the books of the company seized and conveyed to the office of the collector of inland revenue at Quebec, and, if so, by whom?
5.	Did any employee of the firm admit under oath that entries in the books were false; if so, who was he, and upon what date did he make the statement?
6.	Have any proceedings, for violation of the law, been taken against the company, its directors, or employees?
7.	Have any politicians endeavoured to stop legal proceedings; if so, who are they?
8.	What reasons were advanced for the resignation of Albert Allaire?
9.	Who went to see him relative to the signing of his resignation?
10.	What is the date of said resignation'


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	(a) May 19, 1920, to February 28, 1927. (b) August 1, 1923, to May 1, 1933.
2.	The books produced by the firm for Mr. deBilly's inspection were accurate. Additional books were produced, on demand by Mr. Allaire, for the period covered by his audit.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	No record.
5.	A declaration was made by E. A. Savery, accountant for the company, on May 18, 1931, before a commissioner of the superior court, which reads in part as follows:
"I declare that 50 per cent of the amount of tax and arrears appearing in the report from Mr. Allaire made in April and May, 1931, was not charged by the Hervay Chemical Company to the purchasing customers.
That 50 per cent of the tax which was charged to the different purchasers was not paid by the latter to the Hervay Chemical Company."
6.	Action taken for refusal to produce books, but discontinued owing to defendant producing same before date fixed for return of writ into court.
7.	No record.
8.	Resignation requested because of neglect of duty.
9.	J. S. deBilly, then supervising auditor for the province of Quebec, on instructions from the department at Ottawa.
10.	Resignation dated March 5, 1934, to become effective March 16, 1934.


RADIO BROADCASTING-QUEBEC CITY
Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Who represents the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission as censor of broadcasts in the city of Quebec?
2.	What is his salary or remuneration?
3.	What are his duties?
4.	Was he appointed by the Civil Service Commission, and if so (a) who were the other candidates, and (b) who determined their qualifications?
5.	By whom was the said censor recommended?


Mr. HOWE:: The following information has been supplied by the Canadian Radio Broadcasting commission:
1.	Jean Blais.
2.	No salary or remuneration yet recommended.
3.	To inspect continuities for political broadcasts for observance of article 90, rules and regulations, Canadian Radio Broadcasting commission.
4.	No. See No. 2.
5.	By the vice-chairman, Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission.


Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Who is the manager of radio station CRCK in the city of Quebec?
2.	What is his salary?
3.	Upon what date was he appointed?
4.	Was he appointed by the Civil Service Commission, and if so (a) who were the other candidates, and (b) who determined their qualifications?
5.	By whom was the said manager recommended?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The following information has been supplied by the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission:
1.	Position of manager, Station CRCK, Quebec, has not yet been authorized. The duties are performed by Mr. A. H. Houde, supervisor of studios.
2,	3, 4 and 5. See No. 1.
C.N.R.-Refunding

HAMILTON RIFLE RANGE On the orders of the day.


Mr. H. E. WILTON (Hamilton. West):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask a question if the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). To-day I received a copy of the special supplementary estimates, and in looking through them I find no provision for a matter discussed some time ago regarding the establishment of a rifle range for militia units at Hamilton. I should like to ask the minister-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I do not think that is
a proper question to put on the orders of the day.


Herbert Earl Wilton: I should like to put it
in the form of a question.


Walter Edward Foster: A question of this kind
should be placed on the order paper, or asked through communication with the government.


Herbert Earl Wilton: The only question I
should like to ask is-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Herbert Earl Wilton: -whether it would be included in additional supplementary estimates.


Walter Edward Foster: The question should not
be asked on the orders of the day. When the estimates are under consideration the matter may be taken up.


Herbert Earl Wilton: It will be too late then.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the Canadian National railways, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1936, and to provide for the refunding of certain maturing financial obligations.
He said: The object of the resolution is to provide for capital expenditures and the refunding of capital obligations during the current fiscal period. The 1936 budget of the Canadian National Railways calls for a total amount of 849,859,000, made up of the moneys mentioned in the resolution plus $39,900,000 for net income cash deficit. The provision for the net income cash deficit is being made by way of vote in the special

supplementary estimates. In regard to the bill founded upon the resolution now under discussion, the intention is to follow past practice and to refer it to the special committee on railways and shipping.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
Mr. BENNETT:: This would seem to be the proper time to ask the government as to its policy with respect to the Canadian National Railways. We are now asked to vote a large sum of money for the purpose of providing for the deficit of 1936. It is true that in the supplementary estimates tabled yesterday there is an item dealing with anticipated deficits, but it will be observed that this resolution is to authorize provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1936, as well as to provide for the refunding of loans. That raises at once the acute question as to the policy of the administration with respect to this publicly owned property. If by this resolution we are to authorize, as we are, the payment of money to provide'for the 1936 operations, it does seem to me that at least we should know something about them, what is involved in them and the general principle and practice that is to be pursued by the government in dealing with this problem.


Mr. DUNNING:: The question of the right hon. gentleman is a perfectly proper one and will be dealt with fully by the house when it considers Bill No. 21 now standing as item 18 on the order paper. If it is desired to delay proceeding further with this resolution until Bill No. 21 has been dealt with, the government will raise no objection, although it would facilitate the proceedings generally to be able to get this measure before the special committee on railways and shipping in order to enable it to be advanced. Whatever the policy of the government may be as revealed by Bill No. 21, obviously capital expenditures on the railway will require to be made and certainly parliament will desire to make provision for the refunding of maturing obligations. But I shall not insist on pressing the matter if my right hon. friend desires that the question of general policy should be discussed prior to this measure being dealt with and referred to the special committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the minister's answer is a very fair one, but there is a consideration which I think he overlooks. First, the budget of the railway is to be studied
by the special committee. Obviously the details of that budget are prepared by the gov-

C.N.R.-Refunding
ernment officials, and upon the acquiescence of this house in the budget requirements of the railway depends the willingness of the house to enact the legislation contemplated by this resolution. Therefore it is not essential that the resolution or the bill founded upon it should be before the committee while they are studying the details of the budget requirements of the railway, because the bill is to give effect to the conclusions of the committee as to the amount of money that must be provided by this country to enable the railway company to meet its requirements. I think the minister will realize that the budget requirements of the railway are considered in detail by the committee, and when that has been done the bill founded upon it will be the logical sequence of such action on the part of the standing committee when its report has in turn been considered by the house. Let us assume the committee recommends that a capital expenditure of ten million dollars should be reduced to seven millions, or that some special expenditure which the budget contemplates should not be provided for this present year; in that event the budget requirements and the measure to be founded upon them would be correspondingly modified. That in my judgment is the sequence of events so far as we are concerned.
It does become important that the policy of the government should become known before this final action is taken-, and I cannot see that the ministry would in any sense be prejudiced by this resolution standing until such time as the special committee has had- the opportunity to consider the budget requirements of the railway as prepared and submitted to the government -by the railway officials. I think the hon. gentleman's desire to expedite his measure will not in any sense be interfered with if he delays it until such time as the special committee has considered and reported- upon the budget requirements of the railway.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, I thought as a former member of the standing committee that I was following the procedure which has usually been adopted, that it was customary for the budget of the railway to -be considered by the committee concurrently with the legislation necessary to give effect to it. However, I do not desire to take up the time of the house to press the point. No interest will suffer in the immediate future by delaying the introduction of the bill founded on this resolution, and- rather than have a long discussion about it I think I had better move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. STEVENS:: Before the motion is put will the minister permit me to ask one question? It may be a reflection on myself but I do not quite recall the exact procedure in the past. My impression is that in the past we have dealt only with deficits in the year following the year in which the deficit was incurred. But it would appear by this resolution that this year the ministry is anticipating a deficit for 1936 and proposes now to make provision for it. Am I correct in that?


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. gentleman is
correct. He will remember as a former member of the standing committee that the budget of the railways as presented to that committee always contained provision for an estimated deficit. That deficit was dealt with by the house not in the current session but in the succeeding session when the actual deficit became known. Inasmuch as a deficit will actually arise during the current calendar year the government deems it desirable to make provision for it now in the estimates, and to establish the practice of dealing with the estimated provision for it in advance. Then next year what comes before the house with respec-t to the calendar year 1936 will have to do with the extent to which the officers of the railways were in error in presenting their estimated deficit figure for this year. My own recollection of the procedure in the past is that the Canadian National Railway budget came before the house in rather a peculiar manner. The provision made in the estimates was for the deficit of a previous year, whereas the budget under consideration by the committee on railways and shipping was the estimated deficit of the current year plus provision for capital requirements and refunding such as is contemplated in the measure now under discussion. I really thought I was providing for the committee having before it the complete Canadian National bud-get when, on the one hand, we had yesterday provision in the supplementary estimates for the estimated deficit and to-day we are introducing a measure providing for the balance of the Canadian National Railway budget, being the amount required on capital account for new construction and other works and for refunding. To my mind the complete budget of the Canadian National Railways is not officially before the committee on railways and shipping until this measure, plus the provision in the estimates for the deficit, is before it.
C .N.R.-Refunding

However, if -the committee desires to see it delayed until Bill No. 21 has been discussed, I shall, as I have stated, raise no objection.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want to make it clear
to the minister that at the moment I am not particularly criticizing the change. Personally I would like a little time to consider it, because it is a distinct departure. It involves, for instance, in this particular year, providing in the estimates for two years' deficits, and in subsequent years, if this method is followed, the deficits would be anticipated and provided for. There is just one point in that connection that occurs to me as worthy of consideration. If parliament, which is always looked upon as a sort of Santa Claus, actually in advance anticipates and provides for a certain estimated deficit, is there not a danger that parliament having provided, say, for a forty million dollar deficit, six months afterwards when the financial authorities controlling the railway find they have a deficit perhaps of only fifteen million dollars, they may say to themselves: "We are doing very well. We have not exhausted the forty million deficit provided for." Would there not be a tendency for the management of the road, good as it may be, to become a little less exacting in its efforts to reduce deficits and build up a sound system? Would there not be a tendency to encourage, shall I say, a little laxity? It is psychological; the point may be rather narrow, but I am inclined to think it should be considered carefully before this change is authorized. That is one reason why I would suggest

I am not objecting at all to the minister going ahead with this measure- that we should very carefully study and have a complete explanation of this departure from the practice that has obtained in the past.


Charles Avery Dunning: The point of view expressed by my hon. friend has of course been very carefully considered by the government in the light of past experience on the part of the committee on railways and shipping. My 'hon. friend will remember, as a former member of that committee, that the committee was always faced with fait accompli -the deficit they were considering was one which they had to v-ote anyway because it had been incurred. There was only a restricted opportunity for the committee to say to the railway officers: "You are anticipating that you are going to lose so much money; show us why it is necessary, and show us whether it is not possible to reduce the loss." If this method is adopted the committee will

always be dealing with an anticipated deficit and will not be hampered as it has been in the past by the statement: "The money is gone; you might as well make provision for it." I appreciate the point made by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) when he says that to set up an anticipated deficit in advance might have a psychological effect, but I am inclined to the view that it would be very bad for this country if the Canadian National officers looked at a figure which they themselves had arrived at presumably as the outside figure of their deficit and then figured they could coast along so long as they were close to it. I believe most railway operators would feel a certain pride in being able to improve upon a figure which in their dealings with the committee they had anticipated as the company deficit.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As a matter of fact, did
not the officers of the railway disclose to the committee what was their anticipated deficit? I think that is always done in any case, although we do not actually provide for it. In other words, we do not sanction it. That is the difference between the minister's point of view and my own. As I say, the matter has come before me only at this moment and I am not prepared to dogmatize, but it struck me that this is rather a serious change in principle which ought to be very carefully thought over and studied.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister is entirely
in error in his statement. When I asked for a statement as to policy I had in mind the fact that we voted $41,000,000 just before the Easter recess to take -care of the Canadian National deficit for 1935. That was a deficit which had been examined into, in part, by the special committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: Only in part.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It dealt with it in part,
but it could not deal with the question of interest and so on. The budget was examined in detail for the puipose of ascertaining how they made up their expected deficit, but parliament has never voted money for an expected deficit, the money has never been voted until the deficit has arisen. It will be within the memory of eveiy hon. member that we voted money this year to take care of that deficit. The minister explained that inasmuch as the financial arrangements made by the railway company contemplated their being provided with money to meet their deficit at the end of the year, he wanted this vote to go through in its entirety so that they might be able to meet their financial arrangements.

National Harbours Board


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend
will remember my embarrassment at the lack of opportunity for the standing committee to examine it under the circumstances.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The standing committee examined the budget for 1936-that budget was prepared last year-and it examined the budget for 1935. The minister brought in the legislation that was essential for the purpose of providing for capital expenditures, refunding and matters of that kind, but the railway company was on its toes, to use the language of the street, to make that deficit as low as possible. As a matter of fact it succeeded in making it much less than was anticipated at one time. To vote money in advance in anticipation of a deficit is something which I do not think is ever done in ordinary business enterprises. I was not going to discuss this matter until after the standing committee had discussed the budget, but I am bound to point out that when this is done one of two things happens. The amount estimated is usually an outside figure which it is not expected will be reached, or the figure is one which it is known is too low. Very often such a figure is put in so as to impress the committee with the fact that it has been pared down to the last sou, and then they find that conditions necessitate its being larger. On the other hand, if you take a figure of $50,000,000 and do not expect that your deficit will be that great, you are inviting, as the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) has said, an effort to spend it on deferred maintenance and matters of that kind. I do not think this departure is a sound one, but I shall discuss it later when the budget of the railway company has been considered by the standing committee. I think the resolution might stand until the budget has been considered.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend would prefer that it does not go to the standing committee as yet?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let them see the budget first, because the figure may be different from what it now is.


Charles Avery Dunning: The railway budget is down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may be reduced by the committee. The budget is only before the committee; it has not been presented to the house.


Charles Avery Dunning: It never is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It reaches the house indirectly when the committee brings in its report.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am content to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, April 22, consideration in committee of Bill No. 17, respecting the national harbours board-Mr. Howe-Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Johnston, Lake Centre):: When the committee rose last evening we were dealing with section 4, subsection 1.
On section 4, subsection 1-Officers, clerks and employees.


Mr. CAHAN:: Before we proceed to the consideration of this section, I would like to ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Howe) if he will lay on the table the opinion of the Department of Justice to which he referred in the discussion yesterday in connection with *the necessity of inserting subsection 2 of section 3 in this bill. I have looked over the farm loan acts of 1927, 1934 and 1935, and I cannot see that the insertion of certain words in the farm loan acts necessitates the insertion of this subsection 2 in this bill; there does not appear to be any proper relationship between the two pieces of legislation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No specific written opinion was given on that point. The bill was drawn up by the solicitor of the department working with the solicitor of the Department of Justice. The representative of the Department of Justice assured me that there had been an opinion of the department, and I have no doubt the department would be glad to submit a written opinion if the hon. gentleman so wishes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I inferred from the statement made by the minister that an opinion had been given, that the minister had referred to the department the suggestions I made on the second reading and that the department had decided against the views which I had then expressed. I do not wish to raise any irrelevant issues, but I have looked at the Farm Loan Acts of 1927, 1934 and 1935 and I
National Harbours Board

have found that the farm loan board, so far as I could ascertain, was not empowered by any of these acts to sue in its own name; therefore I could understand that for the purposes of suit on behalf of the farm loan board it might be deemed expedient to make a declaration that the farm loan board was the agent of His Majesty the King acting in the right of the dominion. I could understand that in that particular case such an innovation-I think it was an innovation- should be declared by statute; but I can see no analogy or relationship between the two bills which would render it necessary to insert in this bill, in section 3, subsection 2, that:
The board shall be a body corporate and politic-
With that I agree, but it goes on:
-and be and be deemed to be, for all the purposes of^ this_ aet,_ the agent of His Majesty the King in his right of the Dominion of Canada.
I cannot think that that novel declaration should now be inserted in a bill of this kind constituting a commission which is empowered to sue and be sued in its own name.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would it be satisfactory to my hon. friend if there were obtained from the department and laid on the table an opinion with respect to the point he has raised?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly, that is all I ask; I do not wish to embarrass the hon. gentleman.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Has the minister had time to consider the point we discussed a good while yesterday in regard to the best way of appointing the staff of the harbour board? I may say again that the only object we had in mind was to endeavour to have this board, which is really going to be a large new department, started in the best way, so that those who are employed might consider themselves permanent. In that way we should get better service than if they were subject to dismissal whenever there was a change of government. Has the hon. gentleman had time to consider this question further?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have thought the matter over carefully and I cannot agree with my hon. friend that we are making this board a department of government. There is no change in the administration of the harbour commissions except for the substitution, at the port, for a board of three, of a manager who is an expert in port management, and the creation of a link between the minister and these managers in the shape of a board

of three experts who will supervise the work of the seven commissioners. As I pointed out before, the set-up was indicated in Sir Alexander Gibb's report, which is word for word as we have it here. Sir Alexander was firmly of the opinion that the board should be free to make its own appointments and to control its own staff. I have before me a bill which I found on my desk entitled "An Act respecting the National Harbours Commission," dated March, 1933. This I believe was not presented to parliament in 1933 but it no doubt embodies the views of the government of that day, and there again I find that the provision is exactly the same as the provision in the present bill. I must say I am unable-


George Halsey Perley: If the hon. gentleman will allow me to interrupt him, I would point out that, as he will find as he goes through the years, draft bills are brought in for the consideration of the government, and a draft bill does not necessarily embody at all the wishes or the ideas of the government. It is my own opinion that it is unreasonable for the minister to bring draft bills into the house and quote from them; it is a highly improper thing for him to refer to a draft bill which had no official existence and certainly cannot be said to embody the opinions of the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not intend to make any improper reference to the bill in question; we were simply looking for all the information we could find bearing on the subject and I was hoping that the draft bill might contain some further information. I am unable to improve on the present wording of the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is involved in this a question of far-reaching importance.


Mr. FINN:: Louder.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am going to refer in a moment to the harbour of Halifax and I will speak loud enough for the hon. gentleman to hear me. The question is this: Is the port manager to appoint anybody he is told by the sitting member to appoint? That is the real issue. There have come to me during the last two weeks from various parts of the country reports indicating that members of parliament sitting on the government side have told port managers that they must appoint given people and dismiss given people in connection with the work of the ports, and I will give the names of the ports if it is thought desirable. These communications are supported by a wealth of testimony and are unquestionably sound so far as the facts are concerned. I have no desire to embarrass the minister or to

National Harbours Board
take up unnecessary time, but I would ask what is going to be the use of this scheme if, for instance, a member of parliament says, "I have seen the minister and Mr. Hawken and it is arranged that the port manager will receive instructions as to whom he shall appoint." That may or may not be true; but if he is to appoint John Smith because a member says, "Dear Ralph: You will appoint so and so to that particular job; you must do it because I have seen the minister and I have seen Mr. Hawken," where is that going to lead us?
I have heard the observation that we did not introduce this bill in pursuance of Sir Alexander Gibb's report. That is perfectly true.
I did not introduce it and it is prefectly true also that I could not get it through-I wish to be quite frank with the house. The opposition of that day from Quebec was opposed to the bill as it now is. It was opposed to it then, and added to that the fact that our own friends were not in favour of it, dictator though I was I could not get this bill through-as I say, I want to be frank about it-and that is the reason why on the first occasion that offered I congratulated the Prime Minister in connection with the speech from the throne upon introducing the bill. I did so because I believed that unless it was done at the very first session it could not be done at all and would not be done. Had the fortunes of war been otherwise an effort would have been made to do it. Whether or not that effort would have succeeded I cannot say, but the hon. gentleman has succeeded and when he talks about a draft bill, immediately after the report we began to consider what form of bill might be utilized. But there never was submitted to council a draft bill in the sense of having finality, though there were discussions. I found, however, opposition among our own people as well as opposition from this side, led at that time by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), so that it would be absolutely impossible for us to get the bill through. When I say "impossible" I mean impossible in that sense.


Mr. POWER:: I do not want to contradict the right hon. gentleman, and the Minister of Justice is not here, but I have no recollection of his having opposed any proposal to introduce a bill based on the Gibb report. I am speaking subject to correction, but I do not remember it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Merely an expression of
his disapproval of the report,-that is what I am referring to. I am not going into details, because no bill was submitted to parliament. Not only did it come from one particular
man on this side of the house, but we knew from expressions of opinion made to the then minister of marine that hon. gentlemen were unalterably opposed to the legislation, and the speech made the other evening by the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Vien) represented a view taken by many of our own people. Now this bill is before the house.
I say it means just one thing: it means the substitution of the port managers for the commissioners for the purpose of recording the views of the member for that particular constituency. Is that sound or not? That is the whole issue.


Robert Emmett Finn: That is not so; R. W. Hendry's appointment was sound as port manager.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The senior member for
Halifax says it is not sound. I am inclined to agree that it is not right. What has been put forward by us here is this, that it is idle to say all the positions should be filled by the civil service commission-no one suggests it for a moment; it would be both unfair and unjust to suggest that that should be so. On the other hand there are positions that should be so filled in order that continuity may be obtained and permanency secured, and in order that the service may be in keeping with what the minister has said is desired by reason of this bill being submitted to the house. If for instance an appointment to the harbour of Vancouver is to be made merely on the say-so of members of parliament directed to the port manager, then the port manager is not managing the port, he is managing patronage; that will be his job, and it will take too much of his time, too much of any man's time, to deal with it. There is nothing new about this condition. I was hoping that the result of this new measure would be to eliminate in part that very unfortunate state of affairs. I have been told of ports where there have been a thousand applications for employment-that has not been unusual during the last five years- and that men would get a chit from a member or a minister and thereby would immediately be given a position. I was hopeful from what the minister said when the bill was introduced that that condition would disappear. Of course I realize that it cannot be removed in its entirety, but it should disappear with respect to positions that are so important that in the public interest they should be filled by men who would enjoy an assurance of permanence and of continuity in the service, in order that we might get the best results. I submit to the minister that if the effect of this bill is merely to substitute the port manager for the commissioners in receiving
National Harbours Board

chits and instructions and directions, he will find that he has not accomplished what Sir Alexander Gibb in one of the paragraphs of the report refers to in connection with the "political" administration of the board. If the harbour is to be administered as a political unit, this bill has accomplished no purpose. The purpose might 'be accomplished by an order in council. How, for instance, does the minister function with respect to the engineer of the railway department and the employee of the marine department? What position do they occupy to-day? They have been going around the harbours giving instructions and directions. Under what authority?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They were the commissioners, appointed by order in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Appointed by order in
council to succeed the present commissioners. The same commissioners are commissioners for all the harbours, without regard to residence or anything of that sort; they are merely administering each of these harbours. That indicates the reason, I suppose: the question of who shall determine what men work in a harbour is more or less in the hands of these three gentleman who are resident long distances away. Although long distance telephones are very useful, it is difficult to have Vancouver harbour entirely officered at the instance of the three men who are here. Therefore some one locally must determine that matter, and you get back to the same condition that you have had for years.
If the minister will look at the records and see the number of men that have been dismissed in Vancouver since October 23, he will find that the usual practice has prevailed, that whenever there has been a change of government there has been a change of personnel. If it is a new Conservative government that comes in, they insist on certain men losing their positions and those positions being filled by others; and when a Liberal government comes in, vice versa. Now one hoped, and I think the people hoped, that there was going to be a retention in the service of fit men. If it were desirable I could give the names of two or three such, regardless of their political complexion-some had no politics at all, but they were appointed within the last five years, and that in itself was held to be such a deterrent to their continued employment that they were let out of their positions. I put it to the minister that if the effect of this measure is merely that certain members of parliament are to say to the port manager: This man must go to work and the other man must 
not go to work, depending entirely on their political views, the last state of this harbour is going to be worse than the first. That is a consideration that I do urge upon him; I think the public expects it to be regarded and it must be regarded if this bill is to become effective. The whole burden of one phase of Sir Alexander Gibb's report was the difficulty of making the operation of a port effective under political administration. No one suggests that all these positions should be filled by the civil service commission, but some effort should be made to secure men who have technical knowledge. For instance you have an acting manager at Saint John; you have a manager put in at Halifax. Each of these men may have admirable qualities, but his political associations are not unknown, and in the very nature of things he is supposed to give effect to the recommendations he receives. The same thing is true with respect to other parts of the country.
I can only urge the minister to realize that if we discuss the matter in this way it is not merely for the purpose of making political capital out of it, but with the earnest desire to see this experiment succeed. I am as anxious as the minister is to see it succeed, because it was the late government that asked Sir Alexander Gibb to come here; we discussed the matter with him fully; he went over it carefully and, realizing the difficulties, made his report after very mature consideration. If we are not to make any advance, but merely, as I say, to substitute the port manager for the former commisioners as the recipient of advice and to run the port as a purely political machine, then the very worst will follow instead of the best that we had hoped for.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I find it rather difficult to
discover the real position of my right hon. friend. In speaking to this bill the other day I was severely criticized by him for not giving the local managers more authority over hiring. I will read what he said about it:
The other day there was a snow-storm in Montreal.
I cal! attention to that line because that is the only line that is correct as far as I can discover.
The question of the removal of the snow was referred to Ottawa, as I am informed, and certain delays took place before the question was finally dealt with.
An hon. Member: No.
Mr. Bennett: I only know that those who were charged with responsibility in that port so informed me. There is no reason why this should not be known, and there were certain delays.

National Harbours Board
The question of how much authority the port manager should have is rather difficult. We are trying to set up a new order with reasonable permanence. The authority the port manager should have is something to be decided. Our first view was that he should have none, that he should not be able to hire or to dismiss men. He should be able to suspend men for cause, and notice should be given to the central board. The purpose is obvious; it is to stop the sort of thing my right hon. friend refers to. My right hon. friend criticized us for a situation that he assumed arose in Saint John, which if it had arisen would have been very wrong-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Montreal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In Montreal, rather, and there was criticism from other sources. We therefore relaxed the regulations in some cases. A case may have occurred in Halifax. As a matter of fact we did in Halifax and Vancouver give authority to the port managers to employ men on hourly wages. They have free authority in that regard, and the situation my right hon. friend spoke of might have arisen; I do not know whether it did or not. In any event, as I say, we have not the machinery set up, and until this bill is enacted and we get our board organized, we have very little chance of instituting a system that will work. We feel that the main consideration is not to interfere with the business of the ports; that has been the paramount consideration-we must keep the wheels operating. As to permanence, no one wishes permanence more than I do. Sir Alexander Gibb made a thorough study of the matter, and his opinion deserves weight; he is an excellent man and made an excellent report. He stated that the board-
-should have wide discretionary powers in the matter of rates, salaries, terms of service, the settling and administration of contracts, the engagement of special technical assistance, the sanctioning of emergency capital expenditure, and the control generally of all construction and port operations.
I take the same view. It is a matter that has been under study for a long time, and that is what we hope to work out. We are working towards greater permanence of employment. I believe if the thing is allowed to work out as recommended by Sir Alexander Gibb we shall, over a period of years attain the certainty of service that they have in the Canadian National Railways and other well managed corporations. It is hardly fair to criticize us too severely if at the moment the wheels are not clicking just as they should. We are trying to change from one system to another; as long as we have no 12739-134
permanent legislation we are unable to make a permanent set-up. But I can assure the committee that if my intentions had not been along the lines that the other side are advocating I would not have brought this bill to the point it has now reached. I must say I am getting a bit fed up with it and my resistance is getting at a rather low ebb.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The last observation of the minister indicates that he has not been long experienced in the position he occupies, because he will learn by and by that he will get very weary of many things he may have to do. Patience is a virtue that far transcends all others in dealing with matters of this kind. He cannot deal with this as he would with a plan or design in a drafting room; one has to remember that there are 245 members of this house and they all have a right to express their views if they so desire.
I believe the hon. gentleman really has a desire to accomplish the purpose he has indicated. It was because we felt as we did about it that we asked Sir Alexander Gibb to come and make a report, and it is because we believe that report is a sound one that we are here to-day. When I spoke the other evening about local authority I was referring to the inadvisability of bureaucracy or centralized authority with respect to trifling matters. The minister now says he agrees with my view that the question of removing snow should not have to be submitted to Ottawa.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It never was.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said I was so informed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You said "by people in authority," and I questioned all the people in authority and all of them assure me that it was not. The decision was exactly the opposite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did they telephone to Ottawa for the purpose of receiving authority for removing snow? Is that true or not? They telephoned to Mr. Hawken, if you must know about it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, that is my point. Why deny that there is any truth in it, when I know and oould give the particulars?


Clarence Decatur Howe: He did not call up for that; he simply asked in the conversation: "Is it all right to take on some men?"


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has a trained mind; surely he does not for a single moment-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am taking what the officers in charge said.

National Harbours Board


Richard Bedford Bennett: I heard the deputy say that the man was carrying on a conversation with Mr. Hawken about something else and asked for authority about removing the snow. I said I was so informed, and I said I did not believe the port manager should have to use the long distance telephone to get authority with respect to a matter such as that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does my right hon. friend object to his asking the question when he was talking on the telephone?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but non constat he would not have done it anyway, but he saved two calls by doing it in one. The minister is not an inexperienced man, and I am surprised that he should endeavour to split hairs by making an observation such as that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am surprised at the right hon. gentleman bringing up in the committee such a matter as snow shovelling.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was to illustrate a point which the minister says is well taken, namely that the port manager should have authority to deal with such matters immediately without reference to Ottawa. I shall put a motion on the order paper asking for information as to the long distance telephone calls from Halifax since the situation came into being. As a matter of fact he did ask authority to remove the snow; that was my information and it turned out to be correct. The minister does not think I believe he rang up and asked if he could remove the snow, because probably the sun would have done it before he made up his mind. The point is. simply that I believe the local manager should have reasonable authority, and I use this as an illustration.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How much authority?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question of the fixing of an arbitrary line where the authority of the port manager begins and ends is the reason we are pressing now for the civil service commission to exercise its authority to prevent hiring and firing, to use the language of the minister, with respect to all the appointments. It is idle to say that the men who keep the books and accounts should be subjected to the haunting spectre of being removed from their job at the instance of some politician or member of the House of Commons. It is idle to say that a man who is a policeman in Halifax shall be dismissed because a member of parliament says: "I want that job for someone else," and gives his name. That is the position that I say is wrong; that is what we are endeavouring to overcome. I certainly would not suggest that the port manager should be

able to commit the port of Vancouver to a large capital expenditure, or that the port manager at Saint John should be able to enter into a contract for the construction of a new dock, nor yet that it should be necessary that men who are engaged from day to day or from hour to hour in the port should he permanently appointed. But when it comes to men employed in the keeping of the accounts and records, men who have to do with the technical administration of the port, there should be a certain permanency in their positions; for continuity of service makes for efficiency of administration. The earnest desire that industrial companies have to prevent change of employees finds sound application here. It seems to me that in all positions that involve continuity of service for longer than six months or a year or two years there should be some security. Mark you, the very definition added as to the power of the board is one reason which makes it essential that we assert this position. We say the board is a corporation capable of being sued and to sue, and that it is an agent of His Majesty the King. During the last fifteen or twenty years in Canada we have generally propounded the position that those who are employed by the crown in the class of service to which I refer shall have permanency and security of employment. It is only that; and because we make suggestions to the minister he must not assume that in any siense we are desirous of embarrassing him in the passing of his bill. Rather we desire to help him, and the suggestions we make are not of a political character. Only a- few days ago his colleague sitting beside him placed a measure before the house. We read it and suggested the addition or deletion of a word here or another word there. He leaves the chamber thinking that perhaps the suggestions would improve the bill. We do not ask him to do it at our instance. His colleague then moves the suggested amendment.
We have a duty to discharge in this chamber. I have one for which I am paid, and I am bound to give the best I have to the country which pays me. Part of my duty is to make suggestions as to how I believe we can best attain an end. My suggestions may not be acted upon. I merely make them for what they are worth, and in no capricious or political spirit, but with the hope that they may be accepted for itihe purpose of improving legislation. Sometimes they are accepted by the government, and sometimes they are not. We urge them as strongly as possible, but the minister must not say he is almost prepared

National Harbours Board
to abandon his bill because people make suggestions. That stand would be an invitation to those opposed to the bill to keep up the fight a little longer in the hope that his already frayed nerves may become completely destroyed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have now found what
the right hon. gentleman wishes to know, and I believe I can help him considerably. If he has studied ithe bill he is aware that the accounting is to be under the Minister of Finance, and that the men doing the accounting are in the civil service. So far as the dismissal of engineers is concerned, I know of no engineer being dismissed for a great many years. Even subsequently to 1930 we find that the engineering staffs at all the harbours were the staffs which had been there for many years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some had contracts.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, but a great many had
not. I do not think there has been any great trouble of the type he suggests in connection with technical men occupying responsible positions. I do not think they have been dismissed in the past, and I do not believe there will be a tendency to dismiss them. Whether we could go farther than we have, I doubt very much. We are trying to get the wheels turning, and we believe that without hurting the business of the ports we have gone as far as we can. After all, the one. important point of which we are apt to lose track is that ports must operate efficiently, that business must be done through a port and that the wheels must turn with a minimum of friction. I am more afraid of obstructing the wheels of progress in the port than I am of one or two political appointments. My experience with political appointments is that the man you replace is apt to be as good as the man who replaces him.
I believe the business of the country is more concerned with efficiency than with matters of that kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So do I.


Robert Emmett Finn: Let me say to the right hon. leader of the opposition, who has singled out Halifax harbour for personal comment, that from his admissions one would think he had joined the Oxford movement, because he has confessed that he was in favour of immediately implementing the report of Sir Alexander Gibb, but that his colleague in the government and his supporters would not permit him to do so. It is a sad state of affairs when we have that statement from my friend, the 12739-134i
right hon. the leader of the opposition and the once great Conservative party, who now deserves more than ever to sit in the cold shades of opposition.


Mr. MacNICOL:: It will be a greater party after the next election, too.


Robert Emmett Finn: It may be; no one knows. I hope that if the leader of the opposition lives- and I trust he may

he will follow the policy and procedure of the government of the present prime minister.
With reference to the port of Halifax and the harbour commission may I say that there have been but four removals. These removals were made after Mr. Cornell, an appointee under the government of the leader of the opposition, through the chairman of the commission, Colonel Phinney, was handed the four resignations which were accepted by the new port manager at Halifax. Mr. Cornell was an appointee not of the Liberal party or of the present government, but of the government which held office under the present leader of the opposition. No other removals or dismissals have taken place in connection with the harbour commission at Halifax.
I want to say here and now to the leader of the opposition that there was never such a spectacle as that to be seen after the provincial election of 1933, when the Hon. Angus L. Macdonald became Premier of Nova Scotia. It was found that members of the harbour commission, belonging to the party to which the leader of the opposition belongs,' had started out to steal the franchise from the people of the province of Nova Scotia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I think I shall have to ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement. Men who are not in this house are charged with stealing something.


Robert Emmett Finn: I did not say the leader of the-opposition was a party to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is far worse to say that people who have no chance to be heard are stealing than to make the statement about people who can be heard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Robert Emmett Finn: Furthermore-


Charles Edward Johnston: With regard to the point raised by the leader of the opposition, may I say that the hon. member did not make the charge that any hon. member of this house had done something wrongfully. The statement was made that certain people outside the house did something they should not have done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He used the word "steal."
National Harbours Board


Charles Edward Johnston: That is something he should not have done, but I do not believe the point taken by the leader of the opposition is well taken.


Mr. WALSH:: Would the chairman
endeavour-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Allen Walsh: May I ask the chairman a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Allen Walsh: Would the chairman endeavour to keep the hon. member who has the floor strictly to the question under discussion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is talking provincial politics, and charges theft.


Robert Emmett Finn: The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Walsh) must know something about what happened in Halifax, because he wants me to be kept strictly and closely to the line. I propose to do that. May I say that as a consequence of an investigation by a royal commission, at which both sides were represented by eminent counsel, some sixteen or eighteen men who held positions in departments of the government of *which the Hon, Mr. Harrington was premier, *6r what was known as the Rhodes-Harrington government, were dismissed from office. I remember as a boy in the town of Dartmouth seeing a young man perform tricks such as pulling rabbits out of his sleeve, but that was nothing to the tricks that were played in putting members of the harbour commission out of office and replacing them with others, as was done under the leadership of my right hon. friend the present leader of the opposition, for I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the commissioner of births, deaths and marriages was taken down to the harbour commission and made a timekeeper. Whether he was there to see whether they were born or not, or whether they were going to be bom, I do not know. Another gentleman, a Mr. Stainer, who was in charge of the collection of automobile licence fees, was also taken down there and put into a nice position, which he holds at the present time. Then the ex-Minister of Agriculture of Nova Scotia, Mr. Goucher, who represented Annapolis, was also taken care of. Mr. Hethering-ton, the gentleman who was in charge at Halifax, must have thought they grew potatoes on the wharves, for instead of bringing in goods through our port to be used by our people, he brought the provincial ex-Minister of Agriculture down there to become a mem-
{Mr. Bennett.]
ber of the commission of which Mr. Hethering-ton was the chairman. My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition cannot get away from his responsibility by telling this house in all humility that although he was called a dictator he could not possibly put the Gibb report into effect because the government and his party in the house would not permit it. Looking over the great men who have led parties in this country in the past, looking at the right hon. leader of the opposition as I do now, I have always thought him, and still think him, an outstanding man and leader in Canada, but I cannot help thinking that he allowed himself to be cajoled in connection with these particular appointments, and this gave my colleague from Halifax (Mr. Isnor) and myself the largest majority ever given in Halifax or in any constituency in Canada, a majority of over ten thousand.
The right hon. leader of the opposition speaks of the selection of the port manager. Let me tell him and hon. gentlemen opposite that Mr. Hendry has been in the shipping business in Halifax for the past twenty-five years, and is looked upon as an outstanding man by leaders in the city of Montreal and in the city of Halifax who are not Liberal. He is a graduate of Toronto university. He was made chairman of the tourist committee that was appointed by my right hon. friend opposite when he was Prime Minister. He is to-day a member of the city council and an ex-member of the council of the board of trade. He has personality; he has ability. The Halifax Herald, which is owned and controlled by Senator Dennis, said that it was one of the best appointments that could possibly have been made.
I ask my right hon. friend to look in retrospect at the appointments which he made. He appointed a gentleman, and he is a gentleman, but what was his occupation? He was the agent for Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces for the sale of Tooke's shirts. He was placed on the harbour board to see that the port was developed. On his retirement my right hon. friend appointed Mr. Hether-ington, who is a wholesale grocer, of John Tobin and Company, a citizen of whom any city might be proud. The last appointment my right hon. friend made was of the gentleman whom I have already mentioned, the provincial ex-Minister of Agriculture, and those three constituted the commission. When my right hon. friend went out of office those three gentlemen were relieved of their positions; Mr. Cornell, who was a traffic man, took charge of the port of Halifax; it was to him that the resignations of these other gentlemen were submitted, and the minister

National Harbours Board
through the acting board appointed four others in their places. I say to the leader of the opposition that I was opposed to the immediate removal of men without cause, and to-day my colleague from Halifax and I have the great satisfaction of knowing that of the 140 employees of the Halifax harbour commission only four have gone out of their own volition, their resignations being handed to Mr. Cornell, who was not our appointee but who is still retained and associated with the Department of Marine. So, when my right hon. friend pointed to the port of Halifax somebody must have told him something more than he told us to-day. I said something in the house yesterday; perhaps the right hon. gentleman as he was dropping off to sleep dreamed of it until it reached proportions of greater magnitude than it was, and in so doing he made a mistake. I hope that that was the explanation and that with that manliness which I know he possesses he will be more careful in the future in making statements which cannot be substantiated, at least in reference to the constituency of Halifax which is to-day represented in this house by my colleague (Mr. Isnor) and myself.


George Halsey Perley: I should be sorry if this discussion degenerated into a partisan one. That is certainly not our intention at all. I told the committee yesterday that I certainly would not undertake to assess the blame for the state of affairs that existed in t'he different harbours through the years. Hon. gentlemen opposite might probably say that we dismissed more for political reasons than they did, and we could retort in kind. But that is not the question at all to-day. The minister has brought in a bill which I personally approve, and I congratulate him upon his courage in introducing it. It is for the purpose of bringing about an improvement in the administration of our harbours. We all want that, whether we are Liberals or Conservatives, and I think we can well leave out the question which party dismissed most for partisanship in the years gone by. That is beside the question to-day. The minister has it in mind to improve this service, and for that purpose he has brought down this legislation. All I can say is that the minister to-day has gone a long way towards meeting the views which we on this side of the house have in regard to these appointments. I say again to him, as I said yesterday, that surely there must be some way in which he could alter or amend section 4 to satisfy everybody that political motives will not govern in the dismissal or appointment
of the classes of staff which ought to be permanent if efficient administration is to be maintained. I ask him again to consider this a little further to see if there is not some amendment he can suggest to try to meet his own and our views. If that is done, we could go on with the rest of the bill and see if we cannot make some headway.


Charles Edward Johnston: Shall the subsection carry?


George Halsey Perley: Does the minister prefer not to consider it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We might as well settle it now. I may say that this has been considered and Sir Alexander Gibb also considered it. The accounting staff has been put under the civil service and the heads of departments have not been disturbed. I prefer to see how this works out before we take any further steps.


George Halsey Perley: In what way has the accounting staff been put under the civil service ?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The accounting is to be done by officials of the comptroller of the treasury and that office is under the civil service. These men will be civil servants.


George Halsey Perley: What about the technical staff?
Subsection 1 agreed to.
On section 4, subsection 2-Government Employees' Compensation Act to apply.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This subsection simply provides that should the employees of this board meet with an accident their damages will be assessed as if they were government employees.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Section agreed to.
Section 5, subsection 1, agreed to.
On section 5, subsection 2-Civil Service Act benefits preserved.
Mr. ILSLEY:: I move that subsection 2 of section 5 of the said bill be amended: (a) by striking out the quotation marks where they appear in lines 3 and 4 of the subsection before and after the words "civil service" and "employee," and, (b) by inserting the word "that" after the word "servant" in the sixth line of the said subsection.


George Halsey Perley: There are no
quotation marks in the bill I have.
National Harbours Board


James Lorimer Ilsley: I believe the hon. gentleman is looking at the reprint. In the bill as introduced there were quotation marks.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 6, subsection 1-Board to have jurisdiction over certain harbours, works and property.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There are two or three suggestions I should like to make with respect to this subsection. I do not intend to move amendments, but I should like to make some suggestions to the minister. My first suggestion is with regard to the clause "all works and property." I think section 2, which deals with definitions, should contain a clear statement as to what is meant by the word "works." The harbour commissions operate branch railways-in Montreal, they have a line of their own along the harbour front-elevators, elevator systems, wharves, docks, and so on, and I suggest that "works" should be defined so as to comprise all the works which are to be operated by the new harbour board.
My next suggestion is with reference to the phrase "shall likewise 'have administration, management and control of" in the fourth and fifth lines of the subsection. I suggest that another word should be inserted in order to make clear just what are to be the functions of the board. I think the minister should insert the word "operation" so that it will be cleaj that the board shall have administration, management, control and operation of all works. I think that is a very significant word and it should be inserted.
Then with regard to paragraph (a), which contains the phrase "all works and property which are now administered, managed and controlled by any of the corporations," I think a change should be made. When this act is proclaimed and goes into full force and effect there will be no corporation other than this board which will be administering, managing and controlling the property. Paragraph (a) might well read:
(a) all works and property which from the date of the coming into force of this act were administered, managed and controlled by any of the corporations.
I think that change is required if we are <o avoid difficulty. I shall deal with subsection 2 later, but these suggestions with regard to subsection 1 are intended to be helpful so that the bill may be effective.
(Sir George Perley.l


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the last suggestion
is a decided improvement. Perhaps the subsection can stand for the time being, or would the hon. member prefer to make an amendment now?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Section 2 dealing with
definitions is being held over at my request, and when that section is being considered by the minister a proper definition of "works" can be inserted.
Subsection stands.
On section 6, subsection 2-Boundaries.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This subsection reads:
The boundaries of the harbours of Halifax, Saint John, Chicoutimi, Quebec, Three Rivers, Montreal and Vancouver shall be as described in schedule "B" to this act, or as may be determined from time to time by order of the governor in council and any such order shall be published in the Canada Gazette.
I am assuming that the boundaries which appear in this schedule, and which will be confirmed when this section passes, have been prepared by some person or persons who have special knowledge. I notice that the definition of the harbour of Vancouver is taken from the first act incorporating that harbour. I did not go through all the acts but I infer that that is so in each case. In connection with Montreal, however, the definition given in this schedule is not the exact phraseology of the definition given in the acts which created the harbour board of Montreal. All I am suggesting is that the minister should take care that in drafting the new definition of the area of the harbour of Montreal, as inserted in schedule B, it should be complete and effective. I am simply speaking from experience, because I have been called upon by private parties from time to time in the course of my legal experience to deal with the question of the boundaries of the harbour of Montreal, and I find that there is a very good description on some of the plans which issue from the engineering department of the harbour commission of Montreal. One that appears on this map is to me very clear. It says:
The eastern and western boundaries are defined by the natural banks of the river St. Lawrence at high water mark. The northern bouudary extends from high water mark at the extreme northern end of the island of Montreal at Bout de 1'Isle, eight and three-quarter miles below Longue Pointe Church across the river St. Lawrence, bearing due east astronomically to the high water mark on the opposite shore. The southern boundary extends across the river St. Lawrence from high water mark to high water mark 3,760 feet above and parallel to the Victoria bridge.

National Harbours Board
That is the latest description from the engineering staff of the harbour of Montreal. I do not intend to suggest any amendment to the definition of the area as given in this schedule to this section, but I am simply asking that the minister, who is himself an engineer and experienced in such matters, should be satisfied that the area as at present defined by statute should be included in the schedule with respect to Montreal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On that point I may say that I expressed some reluctance at putting this schedule in because we were not satisfied with the descriptions we had. The descriptions we 'have are the legal outlines as determined by the present harbour acts.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If that is so I am satisfied.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The matter was carefully considered and that is the best we can do.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If that is so I am satisfied.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is the statutory description.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am satisfied if it conforms, but the language is different from the language employed in the act. It also embodies the language employed in an act defining the harbour antecedent to the date of confederation. However, the minister is expert in such matters and I accept it. I do think however there is very serious objection to the last three lines of subsection 2 of section 6. In every case heretofore the boundaries of harbours have been defined and declared by statute. I do not think that the government should take by order in council the power to change those statutory boundaries either by increasing or by decreasing the area which they cover. In Montreal we have very special conditions. The harbour over which the new board will have jurisdiction extends to the natural banks of the river St. Lawrence at high water mark. Then with respect to the foreshore it will be found that grants have been given beyond the high water mark in a number of cases, and the bed of the stream, that is the bed of the harbour, is vested in fee simple in the crown in the right of the province. The extension of these boundaries by order in council will affect very many interests along the harbour front, if I may say so, or along either one or other of the banks of the river St. Lawrence, and I suggest that the government should not take power by order in council to increase or to reduce the statutory area. It would be a very simple matter to introduce at a later date a statute dealing with this question of boundaries. The extension of boundaries by order in council
affects so many private and vested interests as well as interests of the government of the province of Quebec that I suggest to the minister he should go slowly in this matter and come to parliament if he wishes and by statute to redefine these boundaries.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think section 7 protects private interests against any jurisdiction there:
... nothing in section 6 hereof contained shall be deemed to give the board jurisdiction over or control of private property or rights ...
The Canada Shipping Act, which will be in force in August, and also the Government Harbours and Piers Act, give the government the right to determine harbour boundaries by order in council. The only reason this is mentioned here is that these harbours were excluded from the operation of those acts.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Are those bills which have not yet been introduced?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, they are both in effect.
The Canada Shipping Act was passed last year, and it is in the old act as well and is in effect at the moment; so that we really have power to change harbour boundaries by order in council, unless in this bill we exclude ourselves from that power.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In order to make the section comply with the bill as reprinted, I move that subsection 2 of section 6 be amended by striking out the words "the several acts constituting the corporations" in the seventh and eighth lines and substituting therefor the words "schedule B to this act." That is in the reprint now.


George Halsey Perley: With respect to
the authority by order in council to fix boundaries, I understand there is an act which gives authority in a general way but that these harbours are excluded from that act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: Is not my colleague correct when he says that heretofore the boundaries of these harbours have always been fixed by statute?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In every case, as far as I
can discover.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct, yes.


George Halsey Perley: Why not leave
it that way? Parliament meets every year and it is easy to bring in a bill. Most of these harbours are important, and with all
National Harbours Board

due respect to The Canada Gazette I suggest that there are very few people who read it, and there might very well be passed an order in council changing boundaries, which would escape the notice of the ordinary citizen. I would ask the minister to explain why there is any necessity for altering the procedure that has been followed through the years in regard to these harbours.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It seems rather an anomaly that, for instance, the boundary of Vancouver hatbour must be determined by statute, whereas the boundary of Victoria harbour, a very important harbour, may be set by order in council. In the same way, Halifax harbour must be determined by statute, and Sydney harbour can be set by order in council quite legally; so also can Louisburg. I do not know why we should distinguish these seven harbours. I have no great objection, but-


George Halsey Perley: I take it the reason is that these harbours are under dominion authority.


Clarence Decatur Howe: So are the others.


George Halsey Perley: But dominion authority in an entirely different sense. These harbours are administered by the dominion and their boundaries are fixed by statute. My hon. friend here perhaps feels that some person in one of these big cities would be prejudiced by the fact that an order in council was passed altering the boundaries of the harbour, he knowing nothing of it, although theoretically he is supposed to know, and he would be bound by it. I submit there is really no good reason why the procedure should be altered in this case.


Mr. POULIOT:: There is a moving picture entitled Modern Times, by Charlie Chaplin, in which there is a board for television, and the gentleman in charge of that board sees all that is going on in the workshop. I wonder if such a device cannot be used to control the management of all the harbours by one person in Ottawa.


Robert Emmett Finn: Before the amendment is carried I wish to ask the Minister of Marine a question with reference to schedule B, Halifax harbour. I am not a sailor or a navigator, but it says:
For the purposes of this act, the harbour of Halifax shall include all the waters lying northwest of a line running north 56 degrees east and distant 3,500 feet southeasterly from Pleasant point, and including the waters of Bedford basin and the Northwest arm.
Just what does that include? Or might I put it this way; does it include the Dartmouth side of Halifax harbour?
[Sir George Perley.l


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, all the waters of Bedford basin, the harbour of Halifax, the Northwest arm, the Halifax arm out of Chebucto head.


Robert Emmett Finn: As I read this it looks as though for the purposes of this act the harbour of Halifax shall include all the waters lying northwest-that is westerly, the Dartmouth side is easterly-of a line running north 56 degrees east and distant, 3,500 feet southeasterly from Pleasant point, and including the waters of Bedford basin and the Northwest arm. The main harbour of Halifax has Halifax on the one hand and Dartmouth on the other. The district of Woodside contains the Acadian Sugar Refinery. The eastern passage district contains the Imperoil works. In the town of Dartmouth there is the skate and nail factory and the Consumers Cordage Company. I look forward to development on the eastern side of Halifax harbour, which is Dartmouth, and on the western side, which is Halifax, in the same relationship but not in the same degree as Carle ton is to Saint John. The hopes and aspirations of the people of Dartmouth, the town in which I was born, have already been gratified by the building of a pier there. There is a Dartmouth branch to Windsor junction, which has now been continued on to Dean settlement, a distance of about seventy-two miles of railway, and this includes the Dartmouth shore, so that developments may take place there. But I wish to be assured that this definition of Halifax harbour is broad and wade enough to include the eastern side of Halifax harbour. I rather doubt that it does.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can positively assure my
hon. friend that the Dartmouth shore of Halifax harbour is in the harbour just as much as the Halifax shore of Halifax harbour.
. Mr- FINN: The only point is that according to this definition, for the purposes of this act the harbour of Halifax shall include all waters northwest of a line running north 56 degrees east. You get that point north 56 degrees east and then you go westerly. Now if that is in the centre of the harbour, although it includes specifically the Northwest ar.m and Bedford basin, it does not include the town of Dartmouth, and I am not able to take a chart and find out whether it does or not.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the hon. member allow me a moment? I looked into it, and it includes everything that was included in Halifax harbour by the earliest statutes down to the present. This schedule includes everything that wras in the area of Halifax harbour in the early statutes of the province, and at later dates.

National Harbours Board


Robert Emmett Finn: I accept the statement of my hon. friend the ex-secretary of state, but unfortunately he sits in opposition and is not responsible, and I would like to hear from the Minister of Marine who, sitting on this side of the house as a member of the government, is responsible.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I thought I gave that before, but I may say that my hon. friend opposite is quite correct, in that this is exactly the description of Halifax harbour that has been in the statutes from the earliest times. It is taken word for word from the Harbour Commission Act of 1927.


Mr. ISNOR:: Not quite. I hold in my
hand a copy of the 1927 act.


Robert Emmett Finn: I think the gentleman who
drafted this particular section should have provided us with a plan or a little chart to show the location of this point north 56 degrees east and distant 3,500 feet southeasterly from Pleasant point. This is the latest statute, and as such will govern, and it seems to me that the description as set out here does not include Dartmouth but takes a point in the centre of the harbour and includes Bedford basin, the Northwest arm and northwesterly from this point, which means the Halifax side; and this could be very well cleared up by saying that it also includes the shore of Dartmouth, Woodside and Imperoil; then there would be no mistake.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I suggest that at the
rate we are going we shall be at the schedule about two weeks from next Thursday. In the meantime perhaps the hon. gentleman could satisfy himself that the description is correct, and if any amendment is necessary he could bring it to our attention when the schedule comes up for approval. Is that satisfactory?


Robert Emmett Finn: Yes. I do not doubt the hon. minister for a moment, but I should like to see a captain lay down the course the same as if he were taking a ship out of the harbour. I am perfectly satisfied with the statement of the minister; I am sure he intends what he says, but I would like it put in the statute if it is not there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will undertake that if my hon. friend will check that up, before this bill is out of the committee stage he will have opportunity to suggest an amendment, if necessary.	[DOT]


George Halsey Perley: Wouldi the minister be willing that his colleague should move that this clause be amended by striking out the last three lines, if my hon. friend does not think them important?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It becomes a matter of opinion, and I think the opinion of the government should have some weight. We think it would be better to leave the clause as it is. The matter is not one of vital importance.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then I move:
That all the words after "this act" in the seventh line of subsection 2 of section 6 be struck out.
In other words, that the last three lines of subsection 2 of section 6 be struck out.


Mr. RINFRET:: Substituting what?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Nothing.
Amendment (Mr. Cahan) negatived.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Before we pass from this section I should like to have from the minister a fuller explanation of what is involved in taking over these works. The minister made a statement, to which reference was incidentally made yesterday. The statement was as follows; I quoted it yesterday:
To me it show's the most shocking betrayal of public trust I have ever read in my life. I feel in one way that it should be put on Hansard so that the people of this country might learn something about harbour commissions; on the other hand I dislike to do this because it would certainly give the people a very unfortunate idea of how public affairs are conducted.
Now, to a certain extent I think I agree with the leader of the opposition in saying that the minister has said either too much or too little. It is not a matter of making charges of graft or incompetence against any individual who has been on any of these harbour boards. I would be the last one to seek to drag a discussion of that kind on to the floor of this chamber; this house is not suited to be transformed into a court. On the other hand I would say that huge sums of public money have been expended on these harbours in the past, and evidently there have been incompetence and waste. I do not know that we can undo the past; at the same time, now that these properties are to be transferred to another board, I think the public have a right to know the liabilities of these various boards. We do not know that. I think the public have a right to know who is responsible for the huge deficits that have been piled up, which, I understand, have involved the government in paying interest at times, and have led to increased borrowings, while in other cases the boards have not been able to pay the interest due to the government. I think the public have a right to know that kind of thing. There may be a possibility of recovery of some of the moneys that have been misspent in the past.
National Harbours Board

Reference was made the other day to the Montreal harbour bridge. I recall when that matter was up in the house a few years ago; it is true that we had presented to us auditors' statements, but these statements did not go far enough. They revealed that the money was spent and that there were certain receipts to show for it, but they did not reveal who the responsible parties were. Now it was intimated to us the other day that many of these people are out of the country and we could not do anything about the matter. But that is not quite good enough. It is not merely a question of trying to place blame for the past; it is a question of safeguarding the interests of the country. We are not going far enough if we just let the minister say that there has been a shocking betrayal of public trust. That statement he has not withdrawn notwithstanding the efforts of one hon. member to make him do so, and he says that a revelation of what has taken place would give the people a very unfortunate idea of how public affairs are conducted. Well, I am not anxious to arouse further disgust on the part of the public as to the conduct of public affairs, but if we are going to get things straightened out some efforts must be made to place responsibility and to guard the public treasury in the future against the raids that have been made upon it in the past. I think it is quite proper that I should ask the minister to-day, not perhaps to give a long and detailed account, but at least to indicate a little more precisely than he has done the nature of these betrayals of public trust, and to point out what can be done about the situation, before we transfer the assets to the new board. Are we to forget all about the past and let the new board start, without any effort whatever to straighten out the matters that have been in such a tangle during the last few years?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; I would like some further explanation from the minister on that point.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understand my hon. friend wishes to know the financial position of the harbour boards. If he will look at page 1413 of Hansard of March 24 last, when I made my introductory remarks on moving second reading of this bill, he will find the statement set out in full.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I want to go further than that. Let me repeat the minister's words.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member has
repeated them twice; is that not sufficient?
[Mr. Woodsworth.l


James Shaver Woodsworth: And I shall repeat them a third time. They are:
To me it shows the most shocking betrayal of public trust I have ever read in my life.
The minister hesitates to put the details on Hansard, because the revelation would certainly give the people a very unfortunate idea of how public affairs are conducted. In view of these statements it is only fair that the public should have some idea of what the minister had in mind. Then, are we simply going to forget all about the waste of the past, and start from a new base line? Is there any chance of recovering any of these moneys which have been squandered? I think that is a fair question.


Charles Edward Johnston: Shall subsection 2 as amended
carry?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I cannot force the minister to reply, but- I must repeat that it would seem to be in the public interest that the minister should give some further explanation as to what lies behind his statement made the other day, and as to whether or not, in the interest of the public at large, it is possible to recover any part of the moneys squandered. Those are the two questions I am asking. Of course the government will have to take the responsibility of refusing to give the information to the public.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not wish to interrupt
the hon. member,, but I should like to have it clearly understood that we are dealing with section 6, and that we have held subsection 1, paragraphs (a) and (b) in abeyance for the time being until the minister has time to consider the suggested amendment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite right.


Charles Edward Johnston: Shall subsection 2 of section 6
carry?
Amendment (Mr. Usley) agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
Section stands.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Harbour headline.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I confess my experience in
dealing with harbours has been the experience of a lawyer who from time to time has been asked to give advice. Section 9, however, is novel in my experience. I do not believe there has been any such section in any harbour legislation that I have seen.

National Harbours Board


Mr. RYAN:: We have a similar section in
legislation for the Saint John harbour.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not familiar with Saint John harbour, but I understood that the projection of harbour Knes was controlled by the Navigable Waters' Protection Act, chapter 140 of the Revised Statutes, and particularly by section 4 which reads:
4. No work shall be built or placed in, upon, over, under, through or across any navigable water unless the site thereof has been approved by the governor in council, nor unless such work is built, placed and maintained in accordance with plans and regulations approved or made by the governor in council.
Is that not sufficient? It applies to all navigable waters and to all harbours which are navigable waters. Why is the new section 9, which, as I understand it will be new and novel so far as the harbour of Montreal is concerned, now being inserted so as to apply to all harbours?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the hon. member is mistaken. The harbours in which I have worked,-and I have worked in many of them,-have harbour headlines determined by order in council. As Montreal is on a navigable stream it may be a little different.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am speaking simply from my personal memory and experience.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know that the ports of Halifax, Saint John, Vancouver, Port Arthur, Fort William and other ports have harbour headlines. That does not interfere with the Navigable Waters' Protection Act. The work inside the harbour headlines has to receive, so far as site is concerned, approval in accordance with the provisions of the Navigable Waters' Protection Act, but it is the usual custom in most harbours to establish the harbour headlines beyond which work cannot go in any event, either with or without consent under the provisions of the Navigable Waters' Protection Act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the enactment of section 9 be as effective as the minister suggests? If enacted will section 9 override the Navigable Waters' Protection Act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: To this extent, that regardless of the Navigable Waters' Protection Act nothing can be built beyond the harbour headline. That is true to-day. It is only a technical matter, because the department administering the Navigable Waters' Protection Act would not approve any construction extending beyond a harbour headline. It is not our intention in any way to stultify the
working out of the Navigable Waters' Protection Act. The hon. member will find that this act is mentioned later on in the bill we are now discussing.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I shall not discuss the matter at length, because I have not looked up the information, but I am not clear that the enactment of section 9 would not reduce or preclude rights which have already been acquired by riparian owners in the city of Montreal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may not be familiar with many features of the act, but I can assure my hon. friend that I am familiar with harbour headlines and with the Navigable Waters' Protection Act. I spent a great part of the last twenty years in building in harbours, and I am sure that nothing in this bill will in the slightest degree interfere with private property in the harbour of Montreal or elsewhere.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Acquisition of real estate or personal property.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The minister is reconsidering a definition of "works," to include roads, railways and their equipment, warehouses and their equipment and so on. If a sufficiently broad definition is given to "works," this section would be satisfactory to me. I notice that subsection 2 reads:
2. All property acquired or held by the board shall be acquired and held in the name of His Majesty in his right of the Dominion of Canada.
That would be proper. 1 should like the minister, however, to reconsider that subsection when it is compared with section 37. I do not see how the two can be deemed compatible. The transfer of the property of the seven harbour boards to the new board will undoubtedly be an acquisition of that property by the new board. But section 37 provides that the new board, namely the board hereby declared as one corporation, shall:
... possess and be vested with all the works and undertakings and all other the powers, rights, privileges, franchises, assets, effects and properties, real, personal and mixed, belonging to, possessed by or vested in each of the corporations at or before the coming into force of this act.
How can section 10 prevail, which vests all these works and other property, real and personal, in his majesty in the right of the Dominion of Canada, if section 37 is to prevail, whereby the same works and the same
National Harbours Board

property are vested in the new harbour board? I am willing that section 10 be passed now, but I am calling attention to this discrepancy because I shall have considerable to say about section 37 when we come to discuss it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think this perhaps looks
more formidable than it really is because the property of all the boards except the Quebec board is already vested in the crown and administered by the local boards.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then why reinvest it in
the board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not reinvested in the
board. It is to be held by his majesty in the right of the Dominion of Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I agree with section 10, but I am simply giving notice now that when we come to discuss section 37 I shall contend that the provisions of section 37 are entirely inconsistent with the section we are now enacting.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to take that
into consideration.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is a formal amendment I have to move to bring the section into line with the reprint. I move that subsection 3 of section 10 be amended by striking out the words in the first line "Notwithstanding anything in this act" and by adding at the end of the subsection the following, "and for the purposes of this subsection, notwithstanding section thirty-nine hereof, the corporation concerned shall be deemed to continue to exist." The word "concerned" does not appear in the reprint and should appear.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was going to deal with
section 10, subsection 3. Subsection 3 is so loosely drawn that one cannot discuss it with patience. This bill should declare that upon the coming into force of this act all the property, works, effects and assets of the seven existing harbour boards should be vested by statute in the new harbour board. That being so, the old harbour boards should go entirely out of existence when this measure is brought into force. I think this section and another section of the bill, section 37, are loosely drawn and ineffective. They simply tend to becloud the issue. Section 37 reads:
The corporations and the board are hereby declared to be amalgamated and to form one corporation.
In my opinion, and being careful of my language, I never saw a more equivocal suggestion made in a bill. You are not amalgamating or consolidating the old boards with the new board. You are in effect transferring

all the properties of the old board, in so far as their operation, management and control are concerned, to a new board which is coming into existence upon the proclamation of this legislation. You are not consolidating or amalgamating the old boards with the new board, and therefore this provision which is contained in section 10, subsection 3, and which is carried to ridiculous extent in section 37, seems to me to be a provision which should not be found in a bill as carefully drafted as this bill should be.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Some things that look
ridiculous may not appear so ridiculous when we understand the facts. Several of these properties are mortgaged to the public. The Quebec commission have bonds in the hands of the public; the Montreal commission has Montreal bridge bonds in the hands of the public. We cannot get rid of these obligations of the corporations, which obligations are in the hands of the public at the present moment, although we may get rid of them in time, and so the wording is that we are amalgamating these corporations into one so as to preserve the corporate identity which is the security behind the bonds. This is to ensure that the corporate identity does not disappear immediately. My hon. friend says that the provision is ridiculous, but the Department of Justice says that this is the way to do it. There seems to be quite a gulf between the two.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: With all deference I doubt whether you could get a certificate from the chief officers of the Department of Justice that this is the best way to do it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I consulted the Justice department, and I do not think they would let me down.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The suggestion is that certain of these corporations have bonds or charges or liens outstanding. Now the proper way to handle the matter, I would suggest, would be to transfer the property subject to these liens and charges, with a declaration in the bill that the liens and charges outstanding will be assumed and paid for by his majesty in the right of the dominion; that is, assumed and paid for by the dominion government. But when you come to deal with the amalgamation of corporations, I have been at this work for over forty years and I have not yet been able to acquire a clear knowledge of what a general provision for the amalgamation of one corporation with another means. We have endeavoured under companies' acts from time to time to determine

National Harbours Board
Ivhat amalgamation means in particular cases, but there is no definition in this bill, and I suggest that all you desire to accomplish is accomplished by a transfer of all the properties and effects of the seven, boards, which are soon to go out of existence, to his majesty in the right of the Dominion of Canada, and a provision that all works and properties so transferred to his majesty shall be operated and controlled by the new harbour board, letting the old harbour boards and the old corporations go out of existence just as rapidly as you can get them out of existence. If you do that, you will be saved a great deal of anxiety in the future. I am making that suggestion which, I think, should be considered.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are just as anxious as is my hon. friend to put these old liabilities out of existence, but nevertheless the bonds are issued under a trust deed which specifies clearly the corporation that issues the bonds, and I do not think even the government of Canada without the consent of the trustees could wipe out those bonds.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am suggesting not that they should be wiped out, but that a simple clause should be inserted stating that the new harbour board assumes all the liabilities, liens and charges outstanding; then you would provide for them as simply as if you were changing the name of the corporation to a new name. There is no difficulty about that. I am suggesting that the old corporations should be wiped out by this statute when it comes into force by proclamation, and that on that day the new board should stand in the shoes of each of the old corporations, assuming their liabilities and proceeding to operate the whole undertakings as contemplated by this bill. I am leaving that as a suggestion merely.
Amendment (Mr. Ilsley) agreed to.
Section 10 as amended agreed to.
On section 11, subsection 1-Acquisition of lands, etc.


William Michael Ryan: I would suggest to the minister that, if possible, instead of lands being acquired exclusively by expropriation under the Expropriation Act, the provision adopted in the Saint John Harbour Commissioners Act be inserted here. Section 13 of the Saint John Harbour Commissioners Act reads:
Whenever the corporation desires to acquire any lands for any of the purposes of this act; should the corporation be unable to agree with the owner of such lands as to the price to be paid therefor, the corporation shall have the right to acquire such lands without the consent
of the owner, and the provisions of the Railway Act, 1919, relating to the taking of land by railway companies shall, mutatis mutandis, be applicable to the acquisition of such lands by the corporation-
In many cases the lands to be expropriated are not of very great value, and if the Railway Act is applied proceedings can be carried on much cheaper, more speedily and much more satisfactorily to the parties concerned. Under the Railway Act it is simply a matter of taking out a summons and going before a county court judge; without any waste of time whatever a decision is arrived at. Hon. members know that the exchequer court, which has jurisdiction under this section, is a court which travels all over Canada. Dates of sittings are set far apart and matters are left in abeyance. Those who come before this court are put to considerable expense. It may be that large transactions should be brought before the exchequer court, but I think it would be in the interests of the small land owners to have the provisions of the Railway Act apply. This would serve a useful	purpose	and	assist in the	more
expeditious carrying out of expropriation proceedings.
As I read the present bill, it does not give the new board an opportunity of negotiating with an owner to see whether an amicable settlement can be arrived at without court proceedings. Under the provision in the Saint John Harbour Commissioners Act the parties could	negotiate	and	probably	come	to a
friendly settlement without any trouble. If a settlement could not be arrived at, they could go to the county court, or, if necessary, to the supreme court where the judge could deal with the matter in as informal a way as it could be dealt with before a court. The judge would be sitting more or less in a ministerial capacity. From my experience I can say that this procedure would be more satisfactory to the land owner. When the Saint John harbour was taken over, it waa necessary to acquire considerable property, and in every case the Railway Act was applied and settlements arrived at through negotiation or without any great trouble or expense.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Much the same provision is in the Halifax Harbour Commissioners Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This matter was considered. It has been suggested that the land in our harbours is not very valuable, but I think experience has shown that the most valuable property we have in Canada is located in these harbours. It was felt that in a matter of this kind the Expropriation Act was a proper act to apply, under which a judge of
National Harbours Board

the exchequer court sits in judgment on the value of the property. That act was set up to deal with government property, such as this will be. I may say that there is nothing in the bill to prevent purchase by negotiation if that can be done to the satisfaction of both parties.


George Halsey Perley: The previous section provides for that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the board be permitted to expropriate any land it desires without the approval of the minister?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It should have the approval of an order in council.


George Halsey Perley: The previous section commences with the words "when previously authorized by the governor in council,' but those words would not apply to section 11 the way it is drafted. I suggest to the minister that subsection 1 of section 11 should commence with the same words.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Ordinarily an order in council is not required for an expropriation. An expropriation plan can be filed by a land surveyor or by any clerk acting on the instructions of any department of government. The payment would have to be authorized by order in council, but that is not required for the filing of the expropriation plan.


George Halsey Perley: I quite understand that. If the board is buying a small piece of land, under section 10 it must get previous authority from the governor in council, but under section 11 it could expropriate a large property without reference at all to the governor in council. Does the minister want it that way? What I am suggesting is that the expropriation section should contain the same words as the previous section. Under section 10 the board cannot buy a small piece of property without going to the governor in council, whereas under section 11 they can expropriate a very large property without any reference to the governor in council.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And pay for it out of the consolidated fund.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They can file expropriation plans, but they need not pay for the property.


George Halsey Perley: If they do that the government will have to pay, whether or not they provide for it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, no, you can abandon expropriations at any time prior to the time you pay for the property.
[Mr. Howe. 3


George Halsey Perley: Does the minister not wish to have those words in section 11? I am just trying to be helpful in the matter. Does the minister not wish that expropriation proceedings should first be submitted to the governor in council, as is provided for in the case of ordinary purchases?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the reason for that section being in the Expropriation Act and in this bill is because expropriations must often be carried out speedily before they get out of hand. We are just following the ordinary government practice.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, that is just what you are not following. Under the Expropriation Act it is the minister who must file the plans and proceed with the expropriation. I never knew of a minister who did that without previous authority from the privy council of which he is a member. As the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) has suggested, under section 11 the board may acquire and take over land and section 10 does not necessarily apply. This may be construed to mean that the board of itself may acquire lands by expropriation and when once it has so acquired lands, then the imperative clause of the section, to be found from line 34 to the end, comes into effect, to wit:
The amount of any judgment upon each such proceeding shall be payable out of any unappropriated moneys forming part of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
If the board on its own initiative is authorized to proceed with expropriation proceedings and a judgment is given, then, ipso facto, the amount of the judgment is payable out of the unappropriated moneys forming part of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada. It thus becomes a charge upon the treasury of Canada without the parliament of Canada having received any notice of it or having made any appropriation therefor, possibly without the government knowing anything about it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think my hon. friend is wrong when he suggests that litigation before the exchequer court could be carried on without the knowledge of the government of Canada, as the Department of Justice must represent the government before that court.
I have the Expropriation Act before me and I quote from section 9 as follows:
*-a plan and description of such land signed by the minister, the deputy of the minister or the secretary of the department, or by the superintendent of the public work, or by an engineer of the department, or by a land surveyor duly licensed and sworn in-

National Harbours Board


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Any of them may initiate an expropriation.


George Halsey Perley: We are not suggesting that they cannot initiate it. What we are suggesting is that the minister would be protecting himself if he made section 11 begin in the same way as section 10. It does not even say that the minister has to agree to an expropriation or to sanction it before it is done; it does not even say that. We are only suggesting, for the protection of the crown, that the words with which section 10 begins should introduce section 11, and personally I cannot see any reason why the two sections should not begin in the same way.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The words in section 10, subsection 1, are, "When previously authorized by the governor in council." The right hon. member for Argenteuil suggests that those words should be inserted in section 11, subsection 1.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not see that it makes any practical difference. The idea was that the board might need to deal with an emergent situation. I think the danger is more real than apparent, but there is no serious reason why we should not comply with the suggestion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why not do so then?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I move that before the word "the" in the first line of section 11 there be inserted the words "When previously authorized by the governor in council."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, subsection 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 11, subsection 2, agreed to.
On section 11, subsection 3-Ascertainment of compensation.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can see no reason why the provisions of the Expropriation Act should not apply. The last sentence reads:
The amount of any judgment upon each such proceeding shall be payable out of any unappropriated moneys forming part of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
I can see no reason for the insertion of these words here when section 34 of the Expropriation Act is excluded by the insertion of this clause. Section 34 of the Expropriation Act provides that:
The Minister of Finance may pay to any person, out of any unappropriated moneys forming part of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, any sum to which, under the judgment of the court, in virtue of the provisions of this act, he is entitled as compensation money or costs.
Why not make the Expropriation Act apply to the entire proceedings taken under the authority of the order in council authorizing the board to apply it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told that it does not make any difference whether we accept this suggestion or not; the effect is the same. But inasmuch as we have accepted one of the suggestions of my hon. friend he might let our view prevail on the second question.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am trying to get this bill into some form which I myself approve, so that another branch of this legislature might not treat our efforts with ridicule, to say the least. Let us make provisions which we can stand by when this bill leaves this house for the consideration of another branch of parliament.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman's point is that the words are unnecessary.


George Halsey Perley: That is all.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I move that all the words from the word "the," after the word "Act" in line 34, to the end be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. CAMERON (Cape Breton):: If these words are to be struck out you might as well strike out the whole subsection and allow the matter to go under the Expropriation Act altogether.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Unless that is done, there should be a change in line 3, of subsection 3 to provide that the compensation payable in respect to the taking of any lands so vested in his majesty, or of any interest therein, shall be "ascertained and paid" in accordance with the provisions of the Expropriation Act.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We are going very far to meet the hon. gentleman. It does not make any difference, but we desire to get ahead. I move that the words "and paid" be inserted after the word "ascertained."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It makes a great deal of difference whether you adhere to the general terms of the Expropriation Act and the provisions for payment under it, or whether you provide a new method in every special act. This parliament should set its face against making any specific changes of that kind and should allow the genera' acts to apply.
National Harbours Board


Charles Edward Johnston: It has been moved that after the word "ascertained," in line 28, subsection 3, there be inserted the words "and paid." Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, subsection 3 agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
On section 13-Bylaws:
James Lorimer Ilsley: There again I have to move a formal amendment:
That paragraph (h) subsection 1 of section 13 of the said bill be amended by adding after the word "violating" in the second line of the said paragraph the words "or not observing."
It is in the reprint.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is the amendment carried?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You may carry the amendment but please do not carry the section, for the present. With regard to section 13, I have very strong objections to it. This section provides that the board may make bylaws. This board in my view is in essence and effect a new department of government, and in dealing with any new department of government we have for a long time provided that the rules and regulations for carrying into effect the act constituting that body should be made by the governor in council. We have made that provision with regard to the relief commission; we made it with respect to many government commissions. I know that a great deal of opposition centres upon a government which attempts to legislate by order in council, but my view is that it is necessary and altogether expedient that, with regard to the administration of acts which are new, the government should be vested with authority or power to make rules and regulations which, when published in the Canada Gazette, should have the force of law, and that the usual objections to such rules and regulations when made by the governor in council and published in the Canada Gazette should not be entertained. But here is a board, and a government board, dealing with millions of dollars' worth of property which is vested in the crown in the right of the dominion government. It was regarded as objectionable by many gentlemen who sat on the opposition benches during the past five years if we vested in the governor in council authority to make rules and regulations gov-
erning the operations of such a board. Such rules and regulations are necessary, but I say it is altogether inexpedient to vest such legislative power in the three gentlemen who are to be vested with authority as commissioners under this proposed measure. Let the board make its recommendations to the minister; let the minister make those recommendations to the governor in council. But I insist that every rule or regulation, call it bylaw or call it regulation, which is finally put into effect, having the force of law, and which governs all matters of external interest, should be made by an order in council recommended in the ordinary course to council by the minister, and then approved and confirmed by the privy council and published in, the Canada Gazette where every person may take cognizance of it. I think there is a clear distinction between such rules and the regulations which the commissioners may make with regard to their own internal management, such as the rules and regulations they may make as to the attendance of their officers and servants, matters of internal management. That is one thing: I have no objection to the commissioners making such regulations, or bylaws, but I certainly object in this day of responsible government to appointing three gentlemen to be in control of the harbour commissions of Canada and then allowing them to sit in the place of parliament and in the place and stead of government and legislate with regard to the carrying into effect and administration of the act. That is such a sorry suggestion that I cannot think the committee, after due consideration, will agree to it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This also was put in after
considerable study. Perhaps my hon. friend has spent a great deal of time in courts of law and has not been out sufficiently in the firing line of business. We must remember that these harbours have emergent conditions to meet. For example, some time ago there was a grave danger of a boat carrying away a pier in Vancouver harbour, and it was necessary immediately to impose a regulation governing the movement of boats near that bridge. Such things happen quickly around harbours. We are not in this matter jumping off the end of the dock, so to speak. The same regulation is in the grain act, and for the same reason. The board of grain commissioners have power to impose regulations and the governor in council has the power of disallowance. This measure is taken from that act, and is taken for what we thought the very good purpose of allowing necessary

National Harbours Board
action to be taken promptly. As we all know the privy council sometimes does not sit tor considerable periods of time,, and sometimes action h,as to be taken immediately. No serious harm can be done,, because the council, which may allow in one case, can disallow in another. Its full rights are preserved under this section.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not think so. The
hon. gentleman has made some reference to the experience of a lawyer, but 1 will venture to put my experience with his in the administration of large ' undertakings, both in regard to their construction and their operation. Although I have not perhaps the technical training which he has. I have had that experience, and in the light of it I say that there are certain regulations which the harbour commission should be authorized to make, dealing with internal management, but there are others which should be made by bylaws, if you will, authorized or confirmed by the government which must take the responsibility with respect to them. These are regulations of a permanent character. Take for instance:
(b) the use of the harbours and their facilities by vessels and aircraft-
And so on. Permanent regulations should be made in that regard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But temporary regulations
may be necessary sometimes.
Amendment (Mr. ILsley) agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: When the committee
rose I was calling attention to the fact that the bylaws which are to be made by the board under section 13 are in effect given the same force of law as if enacted by parliament, and inserted in this bill. The provision is subsection 6:
Any such bylaw upon coming into force and effect shall, unless and until disallowed as in subsection 5 of this section provided for, have the same force and effect as if enacted herein.
That subsection, taken with the other subsections, provides that the commissioners may proceed to legislate as effectively as if the bylaws were considered and enacted by the parliament of Canada.
I also called attention to the fact that in years past, especially during the past five 12739-135
years, strong opposition was made to certain provisions which authorized the governor in council to make rules and regulations-call them bylaws if you will-with regard to the effective administration of the acts then being passed. For my own part and on the part of my colleagues in the late government, we a.t times suggested that it was impossible, in drafting and enacting a new measure of such comprehensive character as this, to formulate and insert in the original act the bylaws or rules and regulations governing the administration of the act, which bylaws necessarily have, to be amended from time to time. But this section and subsection go very much further. This is a case of providing, not that the governor in council may make bylaws, rules and regulations having the force and effect of the statutes, but that three gentlemen appointed by the governor in council shall have authority to enact bylaws which will have the same force and effect as if incorporated in the act passed and enacted by the parliament of Canada. That is going far beyond anything to which my hon. friends opposite have called attention in the past and which was the subject of their very severe criticisms.
I do not intend to draft a provision which will take the place of section 13 in its entirety, but I suggested that with regard to bylaws which cover and control the internal management of the board, dealing with its own employees, their respective duties and times of attendance and the like, it should be quite competent for the three members of the harbour commission to make such bylaws. But when it is a case of making bylaws which affect vast public and private interests and which have the force of legislation, then new conditions arise. Call them bylaws or orders or rules or regulations as you will; the term applied is not important, but they should be recommended in due course by the minister to the governor in council and should be authorized and confirmed by council and published in the Canada Gazette. Then, when the public who are interested have notice by such publication, such bylaws should be as fully effective as if incorporated in the statute. I was suggesting to the minister that section 13 should be amended in accordance with that proposal.
Take, for instance, some of these provisions:
(b) the use of the harbours and their facilities by vessels and aircraft and the agents, owners, masters or consignees of the same; and for the lease or allotment of any of the harbour property, plant or facilities.

National Harbours Board

If special bylaws are required dealing with those matters, I think they should be confirmed by order of the governor in council. Take the next paragraph:
(e)	the regulations of the construction and maintenance of wharves, piers, buildings or any other structures within the limits of the harbours, and anything incidental thereto.
With regard to a great harbour such as Montreal, with its vast population and commercial and mercantile interests, these bylaws will affect very many interests. Therefore they should be confirmed by orders in council and become effective only when they have been published in the Canada Gazette, so that all parties interested may have proper notice of what the law is, since a succeeding section gives them the same force and effect as if incorporated in the statutes.
The making of such bylaws is an act of legislation for which parliament has conferred power upon the governor in council from time to time, but which should be very reluctantly conferred upon the gentlemen appointed by order in council as commissioners of the harbour board. Take paragraph (d), which states:
(d) the imposition and collection of tolls for any use of any bridge under the administration, management and control of the board.
That is an important matter. The governor in council should take the responsibility for such charges, and they should be made known, as the imposition of all such changes is made known, by publication in an official journal. Then, turning to paragraph (e) we find that it deals with the imposition and collection of rates and tolls on vessels or aircraft, and so on. Then paragraph (f) deals with:
(f)	the regulations of all plant, machinery or appliances, whether floating or not, for loading or unloading vessels, including the power to prescribe that none shall enter any harbour or remain in it without the permission of the board-
And so on. Those by-laws also are of the nature of legislative enactments which, if they are to have the same force and effect as if incorporated in the statute, should be made by the governor in council, and they should be published in the Canada Gazette so as to give notice to the vast commercial and mercantile interests of a great city such as Montreal of the duties, obligations and penalties thereby imposed upon them.
Then, paragraph (g) deals with:
(g)	the granting of pensions and/or the making of contributions to pension or insurance funds and the providing of annuities for employees of the board.

That partakes of a dual character. These matters involve large expenditures of public funds, and I suggest that the rules and regulations governing such expenditures should be authorized and approved by the governor in council, because they are really legislative matters. In effect they are a sort of usurpation of parliamentary power and authority but, as we have found in practice, such usurpation is sometimes necessary. Never before have I noticed in the statutes power given to three gentlemen who may be appointed as a board, to sit in the place of parliament and to enact new laws for the proper administration of a particular act.
In closing may I say that I have not drafted any section in amendment, but I believe the section might well be redrafted. I think the ordinary procedure should be that the minister, as advised by the members of the board or otherwise, should make the usual recommendations to the governor in council, and that the governor in council should enact the bylaws or rules and regulations which are to govern, or at least approve them before they are enforceable. I should like again to impress that suggestion upon the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As my hon. friend knows, I am exceedingly anxious to fall in with his views. I wonder whether this amendment would meet the situation he has in mind:
That subsection 4 of section 13 of the said bill be stricken out and the following substituted therefor: "No such bylaw nor any part thereof which affects any person, other than the board or the officers or employees of the board, shall have force and effect until confirmed by the governor in council and published in The Canada Gazette."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is very much better.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does it suit the hon. member, because after all if we are attempting to please him we might as well be sure that we do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a question of
pleasing us.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not at all. We are trying
to put the bill into as good shape as possible, so that it may meet with as little opposition as possible when it is considered in another place.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Once more I ask the
minister to try to disabuse his mind of the thought that it is a question of pleasing us, at all. What we are endeavouring to do is to submit suggestions that, we believe, are in the public interest, and I must say that I do not think anywhere in any legislation you

National Harbours Board
will find anything analogous to this. Frankly, I know of no such measure anywhere. It confers upon three men, the names of whom have been given from time to time-they may or may not be the men who will be appointed -power to do what this parliament would take days to do, and this parliament is composed of three branches, the commons, the senate and the crown. Surely the hon. gentleman is not serious in asking us to sit here and agree to this section being enacted as it stands. I am quite sure that if he had followed the discussion of the last five years in the House of Commons he would realize that nothing ever approaching this was suggested. The publication of our statutes at least enables people to know when they are violating them. Under this provision the bylaws immediately become effective, and there is no provision for their being published.
Take the question of the granting of pensions, for instance. Here are three men who may give pensions to employees of the board. I may say there is one case, relating to the harbour of Montreal, which promoted a great deal of discussion, and in connection with which there was a grave difference of opinion among lawyers advising the board. That case is well known to everybody.
I am sure the minister has no desire that the revenues of the board should thus be placed in the hands of three men, however eminent they may be, to dispose of by way of pensions, annuities or otherwise. This section confers greater powers than are exercised by legislatures, and especially those which have to deal with complicated questions of navigation. For instance, I suppose the minister realizes that in connection with the harbour of Victoria a question arose as to permitting aircraft or aeroplanes coming from Seattle to land in the harbour. This measure gives power to the board to make a bylaw which would deal with that situation, fraught as it is with most difficult and complex international considerations. The question is bristling with difficulties.
Without again going over the ground my colleague has covered, I suggest that if the board passes bylaws they should become effective only when they have been approved by the governor in council, and should have the force of law from a date fixed by publication in the Gazette.
The minister must realize that subsection 4 of section 6 as amended does not touch the principle at all, and is not ample for the purpose we have in mind. It is merely a palliative, not a remedy. I suggest that the best interests of all would be preserved if the section were allowed to stand and were
redrafted, because as my colleague has said we do not desire to suggest what bills should contain, but we do desire to suggest what they should not contain. The redrafting may be done by the law officers whose duty this is. I implore the government not to try to put through section 13 as it stands, because if they do they will regret it all the days of their lives. In addition it is so contrary to everything they have contended for during the last five years. I remember my friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) waxing eloquent one evening in connection with a modest exercise of the powers of the governor in council in connection with legislation then being introduced. I wonder what he thinks of this.


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: I do not think my protest had much effect as far as I remember.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes, it did, because we provided for publication in the Canada Gazette, and the then Secretary of State made a provision by which no bylaw under the Patent Act could become effective until certain prerequisites had been observed and opportunity afforded to everyone to know what the law was. As this section stands now, it will be admitted that it is a terrible strain on the public to know what the law is. There is no means of knowing for it touches all these numerous and difficult questions. To attempt to modify the section here by amendment is impossible. It requires consideration of the whole problem from the standpoint of whether or not power shall be given to the governor in council and the bylaws shall become effective on a date to be named. This section gives power to three men to do as much as the bill itself does with respect to all the matters therein named. The bill itself requires the assent of the commons, the senate, and the crown, but by this section we are going to give three men, without seats in parliament, without responsibility to anyone, power to pass bylaws with respect to all these matters. The minister will be the first to complain if he finds a situation develop as I think it may. I suggest that the proper thing to do is to have the section redrafted to give effect to what I conceive to be the minister's desire and the true principle which governs in the control of responsible institutions. I concede at once that it may be necessary for the board to make rules and regulations, but such rules and regulations have to do only with administrative matters. Bylaws, on the other hand, deal with matters that are essentially matters of law, that go to the very root of the problems we have to consider. I am
National Harbours Board

satisfied that the minister on reconsideration- and I am sure that if the Minister of Justice were here he would at once agree-will see that this section should be recast, placing the matter under the control of the government in the manner I have indicated. As the section stands, it is doing what has been done in no other bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think my right hon. friend is perhaps going a little far when he says that this has been done in no other bill because this section was taken from the Canada Grain Act, which has been in force for several years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A different thing
altogether.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But in order to save time, if the committee will pass subsections 1 and 2 we will allow subsections 3 to 7 inclusive to stand for recasting.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think the minister will also find it necessary to recast subsection 1. The provision should be that "the governor in council may make bylaws, not inconsistent with the provisions of this act, on the application of the board"; I would prefer it to be on the application of the minister. Similar provision should be made for amending, repealing and extending such bylaws, and then if by another paragraph you provide, as you have attempted to do here, that "such bylaws shall have the same force and effect as if enacted herein," you will be rid to a certain extent of the difficulties of interpretation. I think the subsection should stand. I think the minister will find that sections 14 and 15, the latter dealing with the levying of tolls, should also stand. So far as I am concerned, if I can be of any assistance I am perfectly willing to place myself at the disposal of the minister or his associates to try to redraft it in a form which I think is proper and effective.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Without trespassing too
much on the time of the committee, let me point out that the Canada Grain Act deals with an entirely different set of things. Here you have to deal with foreign ships, for instance, entering harbours. A catastrophe such as occurred in Halifax harbour would be under the control, so far as the placing of ships is concerned, of a bylaw made by these three men. It is only three years ago, I think, that a problem arose in connection with a ship in Montreal harbour and the right of the harbour board to deal with the movement of that ship in a particular way. The representative of the Marine department will recall the circumstances. The ship came
[Mr. Bennett.!
from Buffalo, if my memory serves me aright. Under this section these three men will have power to deal with all these matters. I press this so strongly because it deals with international problems. Our wheat is purely a matter of domestic concern, and even there the section did not go as far as this. I suggest that the section should stand for reconsideration. My colleague, the former Secretary of State, has suggested that he is ready and willing to give of the vast experience he has had in questions of this sort to assist in any way. We have no interest in the matter except that we foresee the difficulties which must arise in dealing with foreign interests. I have given the instance of a seaplane that came up from Seattle, the ship from Buffalo, the explosion in Halifax harbour. Now all these matters are to be under the control of these three men, and what is more they have the power to fix penalties, to provide the punishment, to enact the sanctions that are consequent upon breaches of the bylaws. One of the two succeeding sections deals with tolls, and I believe the minister would say that certainly the governor in council must have something to say when it comes to a question of tolls. Recently in the harbour of New York the question came up of the tolls charged on their piers, the charges being so heavy that six of their piers were idle, and they reduced the tolls. That was done not by one man, but by the body created for that purpose under the control of the governor of the state of New York, the state being represented in the manner that is usual.
I am not going to press my objections any further, but I feel quite satisfied that this section is so much at variance with the whole principle enunciated by the present government from time to time, and so much at variance with the general principle that should govern, in providing that three unprofessional men, unprofessional so far as the drafting of statutes is concerned, should have this power to make bylaws dealing with all these matters without reference to the minister, giving the minister no power of disallowance-


Clarence Decatur Howe: The bill gives the minister
and council the power of disallowance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the general
power of disallowance after the bylaws have been transmitted to him, but all these three men have to do is to meet together and pass the bylaws without first submitting them to the minister for his approval. Once the board has passed its bylaws they become

National Harbours Board
effective against offenders, who are liable to punishment without knowing what the bylaws are, without having seen them, and without their having been published, and penalties are imposed at the discretion of three men without any opportunity of the governor in council, who must ultimately accept the responsibility, being consulted.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can see that my friends
are quite correct when they say that operation will be handicapped by red tape, but that is exactly what they are proposing to do here, to operate the business of our harbours by order in council. I do not think this will work, but I am willing to let clauses 13, 14 and 15 stand, if hon. gentlemen so desire.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Lest it should be thought that I acquiesce in the view that it is red tape to try to provide for reasonable governmental responsibility, I must protest against the use of the words.
Section stands.
Sections 14 and 15 stand.
On section 16, subsection 1-When vessels may be seized.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I assume the provision with regard to the territorial waters of Canada is inserted here because of a bill which, I understand, is to be introduced at a later stage of the session and which will define territorial waters. "Territorial waters" must be defined by some other legislation as we have struck out all the provisions of the Customs Act which heretofore defined territorial waters. I assume that before this bill comes into force the bill defining territorial waters will be considered by parliament.


Mr. MARTIN:: I understood from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) that for some reason or another the phrase "territorial waters" was not regarded as being adequate. If another phrase is to be substituted, I think we should know what the contemplated phrase is to be.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If it is understood that before this bill passes we shall have the other bill before us, there can be no objection to passing this section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for Cape Breton North (Mr. Cameron) could possibly give expert testimony on this point as he took to the privy council the case which is now considered as the authority for the provision with respect to seizures under our Customs Act extending twelve miles out. When making a treaty with the United States, Great Britain was extremely careful to retain the old three mile clause in its efficiency and force for certain purposes although, in view of world conditions and the increased rate of speed at which vessels travel, the right was extended to twelve miles. The three mile limit was based upon the distance an old cannon shot could be thrown, but the increased rate of speed at which vessels travel has resulted in the change being made in the treaty between Great Britain and the United States in connection with seizures of vessels for violation of the Customs Act in connection with liquors. They were very careful not to concede the point that territorial waters in the narrow international sense extended beyond three miles and we must be extremely careful in dealing with this matter. I take it that that is why the Minister of National Revenue stated the other day that in consequence of representations made by Great Britain they had concluded to withdraw the provisions of the Customs Act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: More than that, we have repealed every section of the Customs Act which dealt with territorial waters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. It is being left to a new statute which will embody the terms of the decision of the privy council in the case to which I have referred, Dunphy versus Croft. That statute will embody the provisions of that decision and at the same time meet the general views of nations with respect to the question of the three mile limit. It is a complex and difficult problem; it is not as simple as it looks. For instance, we have had it up many times with respect to the Northumberland strait. Hon. members will probably remember that we have had it up in connection with the narrow waters that lie between the United States and Vancouver. Of course, in that case the distance is more than twenty-four miles, but there may be instances where the distances would not be more than six miles and when that is the case, there is another set of considerations altogether. We must be certain to place upon the statute books such a bill dealing with territorial waters or we shall find ourselves in great difficulty.


William Michael Ryan: Does not the statute of Westminster settle that question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: By the bill which passed this house a few days ago amending the Customs Act, each and every definition of territorial waters was struck out in order that the government might have an opportunity to introduce at a later date in this session a new bill defining territorial waters.
National Harbours Board


John Charles Alexander Cameron: I do not think the decision in the case referred to by the leader of the opposition would help in this particular case because the privy council only went so far as to say that the parliament of Canada had the right to define territorial waters as applied to Canadian vessels.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And for customs purposes.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: And, as Lord Macmillan said, for the purpose of ensuring that the customs law be effective According to the wording of this section, territorial waters would apply to the ships of all nations, and I am doubtful whether the parliament of Canada has power to enact legislation to govern, beyond the three mile limit, any vessels but those registered in Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They went just a little further than that; I think the decision suggested if the vessel were owned by a resident of Canada.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: So far as the treaty with the United States is concerned there is no twelve mile limit; it is one hour's sailing of the offending vessel. That might be eight miles or it might be fourteen miles or even more.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is for customs purposes.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: Just for the purposes of the treaty. In that treaty the high contracting parties reserve expressly the old three mile limit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which so far as we are Concerned is still territorial waters.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: Absolutely.


John Campbell Elliott: I should like to move an amendment to paragraph (b) of section 16:
That paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of section 16 be amended by inserting after the word "violated" in the second line of the said paragraph the words "or has failed to observe."
That will make the paragraph read as it reads in the reprint.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Campbell Elliott: I should like to move:
That paragraph (c) of subsection 1 of section 16 be amended by striking out the word "damage" in the first line of the said paragraph and substituting in lieu thereof the word "injury," and by striking out the word "default" in the second line of the said paragraph and .substituting therefor the words "the fault."

M-r. BENNETT: It will be observed also that we deal with the question of the violation of the bylaw's by foreign ships and make the master liable. This adds to the argument I was submitting in connection with section 13. So far as possible the contemplated bylaws should appear in the legislation. When foreign consuls are instructing their captains and masters in connection with questions of liability arising under the statutes of ports at which they call, they are always anxious to know exactly what is the law. When they have to have recourse to bylaws there is always great difficulty, and so far as possible we should endeavour in statutes of this kind to include in the legislation everything which a stranger coming into our ports and using our harbours should have to know in order to avoid the possibility of running counter to the provisions of the law.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
On section 16, subsection 2-Cases coming under paragraphs (c) and (d).
John Campbell Elliott: I move:	.
That subsection 2 of section 16 be amended by striking out the word "damage" in the third line of the said subsection and substituting therefor the word "injury."
That change appears in the reprint. I also move:
That the subsection be amended by inserting the word "injury" before the word "damages" in the fifth line on page 9 of the said bill; and by inserting the words "the amount of" after the word "for" in the ninth line on page 9 and inserting the word "injury" before the word "damages" in the tenth line, and by inserting the word "injury" before the word "damages" in the twelfth line.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
John Charles Alexander Cameron: It seems to me that in this section the intent of the draftsman would1 have been better carried out if the word "damage" had been retained throughout as well1 as the word "injury." Instead of striking out "damage" and substituting "injury," I think it would be better to retain the word "damage" and add the words "or injury."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The words are not
synonymous; they are alternative.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The admiralty division of the Exchequer Court Act deals in part with subsections 4 and 5, because the court has power, when judgment has been arrived at, under the Admiralty Act to order appropriate proceedings being taken to enforce the judgment. When I read this over I had some

National Harbours Board
doubt whether there should be some saving clause or some provision having regard to the fact that the Admiralty Act does deal with these very matters. The Postmaster General will recall that the Admiralty Act has a set of provisions for the purpose of giving effect to any judgment that may be awarded in rem as well as the judgments of the courts of record in personam. The enforcing of judgments in rem, with respect to the ship, is provided for-the methods of enforcement-in the Exchequer Court Act itself.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, subsections 3 to 5 inclusive, agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 17-Seizure and detention of goods.
John Campbell Elliott: I move:
That paragraph (c) of section 17 be amended by inserting after the word "violated" in the second line of the said subsection the words "or has not been observed."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the section passes I think it is my duty once more to point out to the minister that we are now dealing with cases in which the right of lien or seizure or detention of goods is concerned. For instance, one of the great cases in the courts was with respect to five barrels of beer, and cases against goods of various kinds are well known in the courts of the country. What I would put to the minister is this-it is a matter for his legal department to advise him-is it desirable in a measure of this kind to endeavour to deal with these specifically, or rather to provide, since we have provided that the board may sue and be sued, that they shall have any powers necessary to enable them to enforce their rights under all these circumstances in the admiralty courts, because that is really what it means. In essence we have created a corporation and clothed it with power to sue and be sued, which involves the right of appearance in the admiralty division of the exchequer court; and if we once get into the realm of details here, without making some saving provision as to the existing provisions under the admiralty acts, we may find ourselves in great difficulty. I have not had occasion in many years to do with that sort of thing, but I do not think legislation of this kind should do more than make it clear that the laws of the country are available to the board, because if we are to take it out of the operation of the general laws of the country it will impose upon us the
necessity of specifically mentioning those provisions that do not apply or that do apply as the case may be, and that is a matter of great difficulty.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am advised by our legal
adviser that this clause is in the harbour act? at the moment, and it seems to have worked well in the past. I cannot imagine why i, should be changed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a great difference; this board is the agent of the crown.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 18-At the risk, cost and charges of owner.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The same question comes
up in section 18. Dealing with seizure and detention-


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps it
will assist my hon. friend in making his remarks if I move now the amendment which I propose to submit. I move:
That subsection 1 of section 18 be amended by inserting after the word "violation" in the second line on page 10 of the bill the words or non-observance."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Section 18 as a whole deals with seizures and detentions made under the terms of this bill. Subsection 3 reads:
The seizure and detention may be effected upon the order of,-
(a)	any judge;
(b)	any magistrate having the power of two justices of the peace;
(c)	the chief officer of customs at any port in the Dominion of Canada.
Subsection 4:
Such order may be made on the application of the board or any officer thereof ... and may be executed by any constable or bailiff, or officer of the board.
As that clause stands, I suggest that under this paragraph an officer of the board may apply to the court for an order and that an officer of the board may be the officer to carry out the decision of the court. There seems to be a dual capacity there. I do not see why the ordinary servants of the crown might not be authorized .to carry these orders into effect.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 19-Service of warrant, etcetera.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Notwithstanding what
the law officers advise as to what is contained in the harbour commission acts, I
National Harbours Board

would point out that the provisions with respect to service of process are contained in the Admiralty Act, and the questions of how a ship shall be arrested and how detained, and the manner of serving the process, and haw it shall he posted up, and where, are matters which are dealt with by the Admiralty Act. To deal with them partly in this statute and leave others untouched is to create a confusion which, in my judgment, should not exist. There is nothing new about that, because it has been held time and time again that it is very unwise to endeavour to make the method effective in a statute that deals with a problem which must be solved by a court. The statute creating the court, conferring its jurisdiction and providing for its procedure, itself deals with all of those. All these matters with respect to the arrest of a ship are contained in the Admiralty Act and the Exchequer Court Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Here again, may I advise
that this particular paragraph is taken from all the acts. It seems to stand the test of time and work well. I do not see why it should be changed now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has misunderstood me. Of course these provisions were there. They were there at a time when legislative power with respect to admiralty matters were uncertain and shadowy. We have since had that matter entirely cleared up. If any of those present here representing the departments have before them the Admiralty Act and the Exchequer Court Act dealing with admiralty matters, they will realize that we have now made effective provision for this, and it is a bad exercise of legislative power to include in a statute that deals with the creation of a body provisions with respect to service and arrest that are dealt with by the procedural rules and substantive provisions of the statute which creates the court, because they govern, and this is surplusage which may create confusion if there is any conflict.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 20-Sale of goods at public auction.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This section is still worse, because the Admiralty Act makes specific provision for dealing with all those matters. When a judgment has been obtained, the Admiralty Act and the Exchequer Court Act, the admiralty side of it, make provision as to how you shall proceed to enforce the judgment, and to put such a provision into this

statute is not only bad draftsmanship but the exercise of discretion in a bad way, and would not be thought of, I submit with deference, in any other legislative body, because you are at once creating confusion. The fact that it has been there is one more reason why it should disappear.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is against goods. It has nothing to do with ships, as I understand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has to do with goods on ships that are seized.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, in grain elevators.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, it is the same thing.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 21-Penalties to be paid over to board.
John Campbell Elliott: I move that the section be amended by inserting after the word "violation" at the end of the first line on page 11 of the bill the words "or nonobservance."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 22-Recovery of penalties.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I only point out that you do not recover sums of money under the criminal code by summary conviction. This old section which is taken from the revised statutes deals with an entirely different situation, but inasmuch as scissors and paste seem to be the rule of interpretation rather than the law of the country, I suppose we can only point this out and leave it at that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 23-Revenues to be paid into chartered banks.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This section provides that the revenues of the board shall be paid to the credit of the receiver general-that is all right-and they would be paid through such banks as the Minister of Finance from time to time directs. But should they be credited to a national harbours board trust account? They should be credited, in so far as they are derived from a single harbour, possibly to a special account for that harbour, but they are not held by the receiver general subject to a trust. There can be no objection to having separate accounts with respect to the income and disbursements of those harbours, but why designate them as trust accounts when they are not in the nature of trust accounts in any respect?

National Harbours Board


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no significance to the word "trusts." I would be quite willing for them to be called "special" accounts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is a good deal better.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And would not the minister also provide that there should be a special account in respect of each of the seven harbours?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I think that only
complicates matters. A paragraph will be found later on which states that the funds of one harbour cannot be used for another harbour.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes. That, I think, covers the matter.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 24-Expenditure of moneys.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This expenditure of money by this board should be made subject to the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931. I can see no reason why you should except from the provisions of the audit act the payments which are set forth in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of this section. That act provides very carefully for the audit of all payments of government funds by the comptroller of the treasury, and these exceptions should not be made. I can conceive of no reason why under paragraph
(a)	the payment of expenses incurred in the administration and management of the harbour works and properties should not be vouched and verified in the same way as any other public expenditures. Then, if there is a purchase of investments for reserve fund there is no reason why those expenditures should not be audited and verified and vouched the same as any other expenditure. And the same is especially true with regard to capital expenditures. Those, as far as past experience shows, are payments made out of appropriations of public funds by the parliament of Canada or borrowed funds which have to be repaid subsequently from appropriations by the parliament of Canada. These exceptions in section 24 should not be made, but section 33 should apply in respect to all payments.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The difficulty there is an obvious one. If the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, is to apply, appropriations will have to be made by parliament for all the expenditures of the business, independent of the revenue. It is very difficult in the administration of these vast businesses to tell what the expenditures will be; it is
much easier to tell what the difference between revenue and expenditure will be, because after all the expenditures are more or less in proportion to the revenues. This provision means that parliament will be called upon to appropriate only the difference between revenue and expenditure, if the difference is on the wrong side. If there is a credit balance no appropriation will be necessary. As a matter of business operation it will be much simpler to follow the plan we have, which is the method followed in ordinary business, except that the money while it is in the hands of the government is in the hands of-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The receiver general.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, there is no reason why the expenditures of these harbour boards, which for ordinary administrative expenses might amount to seven or eight million dollars a year-


Clarence Decatur Howe: The income is about seven or eight million dollars; the expenses last year were about ten million.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why should these expenditures not be subject to the 1931 act, the same as these expenditures of some forty or fifty or sixty million dollars which are to be made during the next year by the Department of Public Works? Why should the minister be authorized to expend moneys which are public moneys, received as public moneys, without their expenditure being subject to the same restrictions as every other expenditure of the several hundred million dollars a year made by the Department of Finance under the Minister of Finance?


Clarence Decatur Howe: All these expenditures are subject to the same restrictions as regards audit and handling. The only difference is that these are trading accounts. There is no exception as far as the handling of the money goes; every dollar is handled under the supervision of the treasury and handled by the auditor general. My hon. friend knows that under the provisions he would make it would be necessary, for instance, to appropriate $2,000,000, or possibly more, for the harbour of Vancouver, when as a matter of fact the income from that harbour will be ample to take care of all expenditures. If we can operate it as a trading account no appropriation is necessary. You put a severe task upon the responsible minister if you require him to guess what the expenditure of a port will be. If the business is small the expenditures will be relatively small; if the business is
National Harbours Board

large the expenditure will be large. I think the hon. member would be making a great complication there, without any extra safeguard for the treasury, by the change he wishes to make.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suggest it is not difficult
Take, for instance, the department of public printing which expends several millions of dollars every year. All those accounts pass the comptroller of the treasury; he has his officers in, the bureau of public printing in order to pass them; they are all subject to the provisions of the statute of 1931, and no difficulty arises at all. And no special appropriation has to be made for the disbursements of that department, except for the deficiency.
The hon. gentleman is not correct in saying that paragraphs (a), Ob), (c) and (d) refer to trading accounts. There may be certain trading accounts of a petty nature, but paragraph (a) is the entire expense of administration, management and control of the harbours, works and properties under the jurisdiction of the board. That is not a trading account in any proper sense of the term-
(b)	the purchase of investments for a reserve fund hereinafter referred to.
-that is not a trading account if the term has the ordinary significance that it has in the operation of a mercantile or industrial corporation-
(c)	the payment of capital expenditures.
-that is not a trading account in any usual significance of the term. Then there is the payment of interest on bonds, bonds which are really a liability of the government of Canada; that is not a trading account. There is no reason in the world why the payment of that interest and of the principal when it comes due should not be made by the finance minister of Canada in the ordinary administration of the Finance Act and of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931.
I cannot see the reason for these special exceptions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I can explain that.
These harbours are trading as corporations; they earn the money and take it in and they spend it, and if there is any deficit they borrow it from the dominion government and spend that. They are corporations just the same as any private corporation, with all the flexibility of any private corporation. If my hon. friend or the house insists on wrapping this up in red tape I will not administer it; I would prefer to take the thirty-five acts we have now and continue as we are, because this would make the bill absolutely 
unworkable, without one additional safeguard to the dominion government. The comptroller of the treasury controls every dollar of the money that is taken in and spent; the auditor general audits every account and transaction involved in the harbour work in any way, shape or manner. But my hon. friend is saying that every dollar that these boards earn must go into the treasury of the country and quite independently of that parliament must vote every dollar-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, that is what he says.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, I did not say that; the hon. gentleman does not understand the usual administration of a department of the government if he insists on that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, I insist that is so. There is no reflection upon the honour of the hon. gentleman when I make that statement;
I simply deal with his inexperience. The hon. gentleman says that if we insist upon proper safeguards with regard to these expenditures he will resign from the government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: He states that he will not administer the act if it is placed under his direction.


Charles Avery Dunning: He said that he would rather go back to the thirty-five acts he now has.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This is a government bill.
I do not think we can be intimidated by the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The loss might be overcome.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so, even from among his colleagues. I have no doubt they are qualified in personnel to supply any disadvantage which would be caused in those circumstances. But I do insist that where he is purchasing for investment, where he is paying out for capital expenditures and where he is paying out for the interest on the principal of debentures which have been issued by the previous corporation, and assumed, as they must be, by the new board, there is no reason in the world why such appropriations and expenditures thereunder should not be made under the terms of the 1931 act.


Charles Avery Dunning: The matter is not quite as serious as my hon. friend would represent it. After all, the intention is to follow, in

National Harbours Board
general principle, the manner in which parliament now deals with the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian National Steamships, rather than having them operate directly as a government department with all the restrictions upon income and outgo which would be necessary if that were the case. As my hon. friend knows, in connection with the Canadian National Railways a budget of expenses and income is submitted to the house, and the estimates voted by parliament are really the amounts of differences between the income and the outgo of the company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Plus capital expenditure.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; as my right hon. friend points out, plus capital expenditure. The same principle is applied in connection with the Canadian National Steamships. I have not any other instances in mind at present, but it is thought that inasmuch as the major part of the expenditures of this new body, as in the case of the railways and steamships, will come from the revenues of that body, amounts paid in for services performed, it will be much easier to operate if it is organized on substantially the same basis as the Canadian National Railways.
I think every hon. member could see the almost impossible complication which would ensue if every item of expenditure of the Canadian National Railways had to be voted as an appropriation of parliament. Instead of that, for years we have proceeded by the more practicable method of having a budget submitted which contains the differences between income and outgo plus, as my right hon. friend suggests, the necessary capital expenditures. After having made a thorough examination of the budget and the proposals of the institution, parliament votes those differences. In subsequent sections of the bill there is provision for submission of a budget, and for dealing with the matter substantially in the manner in which we now deal with the Canadian National Railways.
Upon reflection I feel sure my hon. friend would not desire to have detailed accounts such as would be involved in connection with revenues from charges of all kinds, if the matter were treated as a government department. I believe that would involve an unnecessary amount of what the minister correctly described as red tape, in connection with the operation of an ordinary business.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: All I can say as to that-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is not carried, and it will not be carried by making interjections of that kind. Other departments proceed under the
audit act of 1931, and pay out large sums of money. I think in some years there were paid out several millions in connection with one department. It was paid out of the receipts and parliament voted simply the surplus. But every one of those expenditures came under the audit act and was audited by officers under the comptroller of the treasury.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No vote was required
for details.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, no vote was required
for details.


Charles Avery Dunning: So does this provide, in
just the same manner.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have taken a cursory view of the audit act of 1931, and I wish to say that the capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways used to be voted here, first being authorized by the governor in council, then submitted with the authority of his excellency to this house and voted upon. But this bill enables large capital expenditures, in fact all capital expenditures by this board which may amount to millions of dollars-and appropriations of many millions of dollars as time goes on-to be expended without being subject to the audit act of 1931.
I have said all I wish to say, but I do not think section 24 should pass.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the Minister of
Finance misunderstood the Observations of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. All he said was that the administration should be under that act. He does not for a moment suggest that there should be details of all these expenditures, but merely suggests that that, shall I say, safeguard provided by the act should continue with respect to the withdrawal of money. That is all he has suggested. Nobody has suggested for one moment, least of all the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, that we should deal with all these items any more than we should deal with the items for the Canadian National Railways.
My difficulty is with the last two paragraphs, one of which deals with capital account. Obviously that capital account will come out of appropriations made by parliament and subsequently provided for in this bill. Surely capital expenditures would be subject to the same safeguards as surround any other appropriations made for capital expenditure in the same way. And that enables me to ask this question: Is it intended that the Jacques Cartier bridge shall become part of the Mont-
National Harbours Board

real harbour, and that, therefore, the harbour revenues shall continue to be liable for five per cent of $19,000,000, less such sum as may be contributed by the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal, or is it proposed to segregate the bridge from the harbour, and not impose that very unfair burden upon the harbour itself?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is proposed to operate it
as it is now-


Richard Bedford Bennett: As part of the harbour?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; the accounts are kept
separately.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but it is the cause
of creating a deficit in that harbour.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The harbour runs on a deficit, independently of that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It did for some years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But it is the intention to operate the bridge as a separate work or separate utility.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But it will be operated by the national harbours board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And it will continue to be?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because that last paragraph becomes important. There is an item of five per cent of $19,000,000, less the sums paid by the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec. Every year we have had to place in our estimates in the House of Commons a sum to meet the deficit. I do not know what the accumulated deficit is at this time, but it will be recalled that the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31 usually carry an item to deal with that particular deficit. Since I first became familiar with the account I have always felt that it is a bit unfair to the harbour of Montreal to charge the deficit on that bridge against the revenues of the harbour. The minister is perhaps familiar with the situation. The parliament of Canada gave a guarantee without any limitation as to cost, the cost being ultimately about $19,000,000. Bonds were sold in two lots, the last sale being made in 1930. As a matter of fact it was between the date of dissolution and the election. Interest has never been earned, and as a consequence of the erection of the Caughnawaga bridge tolls were reduced. Tolls thus being reduced the real effect is that the deficit is very very heavy, nearly the whole amount.
It is a mistake to make that charge against the Montreal harbour. Does not the minister

think this might be the appropriate moment to segregate the bridge entirely from the operation of the harbour? Otherwise it is a little unfair to the harbour.


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: All the fees taken in by the harbour board are available to pay interest on the bridge. H no funds are available, the house has to find the whole of the interest because of the guarantee that has been given. In view of the importance of Montreal haibour to the whole of Canada, especially western Canada, it is unfair that shipping in the harbour should have to bear any part of that burden of the bridge because obviously it is reflected in tolls.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will
agree that it has never been made a burden on shipping. The accounts have always been kept completely separate and provision for the deficit on the bridge, after taking into account the contribution of the province of Quebec, has been made in succeeding years by appropriations of this house, as my right hon. friend knows. So there is no change in that regard. In the setting of the tolls it would be unfair to depart from what has been the recognized practice of treating that deficit as something entirely separate from the ordinary operating charges which an effort should be made to meet by tolls levied for the purpose.
With respect to the other point, about which the leader of the opposition will understand I have some concern, I have examined the proposal made in section 24, and it must be considered, of course, in its relationship to succeeding sections. Section 26 provides for an annual budget, which, I take it, will be similar in its general character to the annual budget submitted on behalf of the Canadian National Railways inasmuch as it must contain provision for interest on outstanding debentures and other indebtedness, capital expenditure, and retirements. That is with respect to the board's whole operations. But provision is later made for the budget to contain a separation as between port and port. It is not intended to lump the whole or anything of that sort. It seems to me perfectly clear that such a budget would bring before parliament full information with respect to the whole matter and would, therefore, render easy the treating of it as a

National Harbours Board
matter of trade. Then, turning to section 34,
I find that all revenues of and all expenditures "by the board shall be subject to the audit of the auditor general in the same manner as public revenues and expenditures. The only exception,, of course, to section 33 is the provision for the use of revenues by the board to meet expenditures. The provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act call for all revenues to be deposited in the consolidated fund, in which event they can be got out only by appropriation of parliament. That, I take it, is the only exception provided for in section 34, and it is a necessary exception in connection with an organization of this kind, most of the expenditures of which will be met naturally out of its own revenues.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the section
carries the word "trust" in line 20 should be changed to "special."


Charles Avery Dunning: I move, Mr. Chairman,
that, the word "special" be substituted for the word "trust" in line 20.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 25-Allocation of portion of revenues to reserve fund for replacement of fixed assets, etcetera.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The same change should be made in this section in line 37.


Charles Avery Dunning: I move, Mr. Chairman, that the word "special" be substituted for the word "trust" in line 37.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I would ask the minister to enlarge upon the principle of this section. I do not wish him to detail just how he is going to charge up the various amounts spent by different harbours, but is it his purpose to set up a separate account for each one of these seven harbours and debit the expenditure in connection with each port? How is he going to arrive at the amount to be debited or credited? There has been a large amount of spending from time to time in connection with these seven ports. Is it the intention to charge up to each port the amount expended and credit each port with its earnings?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The intention of this section is that the earnings shall be allocated as *shown; that operating expenses shall be the first charge on revenues, and then it is felt that the next charge should be for a reserve fund to replace assets. For example, if the bonds of a port are carried as a live asset by the dominion government, they should be
protected by a fund that might be called a depreciation fund, although here it is called a fund for the replacement of fixed assets.
It is the opinion that in a port such as Montreal or Halifax with proper operation such a reserve fund might accumulate as would take care of any replacements required. We hope so, for replacements are quite an item. After operating expenses we believe that interest should be the next charge on the revenues, and we hope that a fund will accumulate fast enough so that appropriations by parliament for capital expenditures will be limited to very special occasions. So far as Halifax is concerned, I believe that the interest charges are carried only in part. I cannot say definitely what will be done as to interest charges there until the board has examined the situation and determined what would be a fair interest burden for that port.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: May I carry that just a little further? I think the basis of the whole thing should be, not so much the expenditures made, but a revaluation of the properties as they exist to-day. I would ask if a revaluation is going to be made of the various developments that have been made, or is it simply intended to charge against the ports the total amount expended?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think the port of Halifax will be unfairly treated. I believe that the amount of thirteen or fourteen million dollars expended directly by the government through the Canadian National Railways was never set up as an expense. As a matter of fact I think considerable of the other work has not been set up as an interest bearing charge, but I doubt whether it would be possible to say offhand just what will be done in any of these harbours until a thorough examination can be made by the board.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I do not know whether there are other ports conducted in the same way, but, there is a question in my mind as to whether there is power to charge up certain developments or expenditures which have been made more or less in a private way and which have since been taken over by the harbour commission. I have in mind the cold storage plant at Halifax. The question in my mind is whether that, when taken over at a later date by the former administration of the harbour, should be chargeable at the original amount expended in connection with it by the private concern.	*


Charles Avery Dunning: Section 31 will probably
clarify the consideration of such a matter in future years. In that section provision is made for keeping separate accounts for each harbour and for each work or property trans-
National Harbours Board

ferred to it for administration, management and control, and the revenues derived therefrom shall be assigned exclusively for the purpose of such harbour work or property. I assume that that does not enable us at the present time to deal effectively with the questions raised by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor), but it provides the machinery whereby in future years this house may be able to determine matters of policy much more intelligently. Of course they must relate themselves to the progress of the port as well as to the relative responsibility of the former harbour commissions in connection with past acquisitions of property. I admit at once that there is much in the contention of my hon. friend, but I also submit that we have not sufficient material before us nor have we gained the experience in operating these organizations to permit us at this time to make any separation or adjustment. But the set-up which is now being created will at least provide the groundwork upon which the question can be examined with more chance of solution in the future than would be possible at the present time.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I think the Minister of
Finance will appreciate the fact that this is dealing with something entirely different.


Charles Avery Dunning: Quite.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: It is dealing with separate
accounts to be operated by each port, as recommended in the Gibb report. Justly and rightly we should have such accounts, but this deals only with the administration, management and control of the revenues derived from each port and states that they shall be assigned exclusively for the purposes of such port. The basic factor entering into section 25 is in connection with the valuation to be set up in the first place and to be chargeable to each port. What I wanted- to know was whether the properties and developments of the various ports are going to be revalued or to be taken in at the figure used in the past in connection with the particular development.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. gentleman is probably not wholly familiar with the circumstances to which he refers. Under the bill as it now stands, Halifax harbour would be chargeable with just such sums for interest as it is now chargeable with, no more, no less, although it might become less in the course of time. Under this bill it will be charged with that. The cold storage plant was built under a former Liberal administration. It was subsidized and bonds were issued against it bearing a rather high interest rate. The 
plant was located in practically the middle of the harbour improvements, and successive boards requested that it be placed under their control as it interfered with their business. The late government took the view that it could not afford to pay the price suggested or the rate of interest. The rate of interest was finally fixed at three per cent, and that is the sum chargeable under this provision against the revenues of the port under the arrangements by which the harbour commissioners acquired these cold storage facilities. I confess that I never was able to understand why the then government gave the piece of land in question for the construction of this cold storage plant by a private enterprise in practically .the middle of the facilities of the port, but I explained it to my own satisfaction by assuming that they had not contemplated the developments that were subsequently made in that harbour. As the matter stands now, the rate of interest is reduced to three per cent, and the price is much less than that which the government of that day accepted as the cost of the plant.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I brought that up just as an example. I do not know as much of the financial details of the operations of the cold storage plant as does the leader of the opposition. No doubt he is familiar with the details of the reorganization and the taking over.
I do not think the giving of the piece of land was half as important as was the action of the government in taking over the whole scheme after it had been developed and brought into being by a private company.


Mr. KINLEY:: After it became a white elephant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It did not; it paid its interest. This section provides that the budget shall be submitted by the minister to the governor in council for approval. I think one hon. gentleman will agree that this should be "for consideration and approval." It was contended by one eminent counsel that the wording as it appears in the section would leave the governor in council no option but to approve the budget. I think that is within the memory of some hon. members of the committee.


Charles Gavan Power: It seems to me that this is the very term used in the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some question was raised as to the sufficiency of the words and I believe some were added. That was done in the case of one bill, but I do not recall exactly what one it was. I do not know whether it would be necessary to make an amendment.

National Harbours Board


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have no objection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know; I am just asking if it is necessary.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is the amendment to be made?


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not see how that would improve it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was the argument that took place in the house.


Charles Avery Dunning: Would it help to say "approval in whole or in part"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Approval or disapproval in whole or in part" would make it really complete.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps we could leave out the words "for approval," and simply say that such a budget shall be submitted by the minister to the governor in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That will probably cover it, because any appropriation that is to be made must be included in the estimates.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Strike out the words "for approval."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Should not the budget be laid upon the table of the house? Why not provide that "Such budget shall be submitted by the minister to the governor in council for approval and when approved shall be laid upon the table of the house when parliament is in session." Parliament should be informed of that budget.


Charles Avery Dunning: As in the case of the Canadian National Railways, I am quite sure that the house would not be content to vote any moneys without having the budget before it. I was looking to see whether section 32 had any bearing upon the matter, but it would have only by way of the annual report.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Which does not necessarily include a financial report.


Charles Avery Dunning: Would the auditor general's report contain it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, his report does not contain it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think we may take it that parliament would demand production of the budget.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 27-Deficiency in revenues from each harbour, work or property to be included in separate items in estimates.


John Campbell Elliott: I move that the word "special" be substituted for the word "trust" in lines 9 and 15.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 28-Advances for working capital.
Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Does this mean the expenditure in connection with a particular port or is it intended to transfer the amount to other ports?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is for the board as a whole.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a floating amount. The difficulty is that certain harbours have expenses before they have income and we simply have a leeway of $1,000,000 in the estimates at all times for a revolving fund for working capital. We cannot expend in the year more than $1,000,000 for all seven ports.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the same as the printing bureau's advances. I think the word "bonds" had better be placed before the word "debentures" at the top of the page, "for interest on outstanding bonds, debentures and other indebtedness." The words are not synonymous and it might be well to insert the word "bonds."


Charles Avery Dunning: I think that would be an improvement.


John Campbell Elliott: I move that the word "bonds" be inserted before the word "debentures" in the second line on page 12.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 29 agreed to.
On section 30-Governor in council may authorize cancellation of certain debentures and interest.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the word "bonds" ought to be added here also.


Charles Avery Dunning: The word is unnecessary in this section. It is indebtedness to the government of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Assumed at the date-


Charles Avery Dunning: Assumed by the board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Assumed by the board at the date this measure comes into force. This new board will assume certain obligations on the day it comes into existence. Some of these obligations arose out of bonds for which the government was guarantor. Every harbour board issued bonds, but they carried with them, under the harbour commission act, the guarantee of the dominion. Some were sold to the public, at Three Rivers for instance, and interest is paid. The reason why the word "bonds" should be put in there is to cover
National Harbours Board

that very situation. If it were limited to debentures the minister would be right in saying that it represents indebtedness due the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This refers only to reduction of indebtedness to the government. There are no bonds involved.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 31-Separate accounts for each harbour, work or property.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not wish to quarrel about so small a matter, but the bonds of the harbour of Montreal are bonds sold to the public and not debentures, and the guarantee is on bonds and not on debentures. The governor in council here authorizes the cancellation of debentures assumed by the board. However, it seems to be a small matter to waste time about.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 31 to 34 inclusive agreed to.
On section 35-Accounting officers, etcetera.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What does this really mean?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is the ordinary provision that the comptroller of the treasury shall assume charge of the accounting of each of the harbours and that the accounting staff at each harbour shall be attached to the office of the comptroller.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 36-Expenses of the board.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: "Trust" should be changed to "special."


John Campbell Elliott: I move that the word "trust" in line 27 be struck out and the word "special" be substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 37-Amalgamation.
Clarence Decatur Howe: I move that the section stand.
Section stands.
On section 38-Proceedings relative to construction of works in navigable waters under jurisdiction of board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it desirable that all applications regardless of whether they affect harbours or not should be thus transferred, or should this be limited entirely to those that affect the harbour? I have in mind two such applications, one for a telephone line

and the other for a cable passing under navigable waters, but having nothing to do with harbours. Why we should place in the hands of this board jurisdiction with respect to such matters outside the harbours, I know not, because the public works department has all the records and has administered that branch of the service since it came into being and very frequently deals with matters of routine. The minister reports to the governor in council and, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, approves a cable for a telephone or telegraph wire, and matters of that kind. This board has not the machinery to deal with this in the same sense as the public works department has.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the joint report of the public works department and the harbour board. The only purpose of the section is to give the harbour board some knowledge of applications within its own harbour. The point came up in connection with the bridge over the First Narrows in Vancouver. A bridge was built over the entrance to the harbour, and that was a case where the harbour board should have been consulted and as a matter of fact was properly consulted with respect to the dimensions of the bridge. It is an additional safeguard, though I do not know that it has any great significance. It is no great hardship as far as I know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has not quite caught my point. These words "in any navigable water under the jurisdiction of the board" should be limited, I suggest, not "in respect to any work as defined in the said act in any navigable water under the jurisdiction of the - board," but, "in respect to any work in any harbour under the jurisdiction of the board, the application shall be made." Leave it just as it is with respect to anything other than the harbour. I quite agree with the minister that the harbour board should be consulted and should be the proper authority to give the necessary information, but with respect to other simple matters like a telephone line or a telegraph cable the matter should be left as it now is, in the public works department.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may be a little dense here,
but I cannot think of any water under the jurisdiction of the board that is not part of the harbour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are waters that have to be crossed by telephone wires and various kinds of cables that are not under the jurisdiction of any harbour.

National Harbours Board


Clarence Decatur Howe: In that case they would not
be affected.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid that, as the section reads, they might be. That is my whole point. If the hon. minister will look at the section, it states:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Navigable Waters Protection Act, chapter 140 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, in respect to any work as defined in the said act in any navigable water under the jurisdiction of the board, the application shall be made to and the plans and descriptions deposited with the Minister of Transport....
If that is sufficient to make it clear that this does not extend beyond the harbour, I am quite content, but I think it should not go beyond the harbour.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think that is clear. It
refers, of course, to the harbour board, and the extent of the harbours is defined in this particular act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 39-Acts repealed.
John Campbell Elliott: I move:
That section 39 be amended by striking out the word "the" following the word "in" in the first line of the said section, by inserting after the word "schedule" in the same line the letter "A" between quotation marks, and by inserting after the word "act" in the same line the words "except sections fifteen, sixteen and seventeen of the Saint John Harbour Commissioners Act, 1927."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would the minister explain? I have not had time to look up the act of 1927 with reference to Saint John harbour. What are those sections which are excepted?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certain rights were reserved
when lands formerly owned by the city were required by the harbour commission, the right to fish in certain harbour lots, the right of access to the ferry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And paying of obligations that have been incurred prior to a certain date. What is the Quebec act? I have not had time to look that up.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is an old act. I am told
that the act is obsolete and therefore does not need to be repealed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 40-Date of coming into force of act.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think the hon. gentleman will find it more convenient to word section 40 in this form:
This act in whole or in part shall come into force on a date or dates to be fixed by proclamation.
He may find it very important to bring certain sections of the act into force on one day and certain other sections into force a week or ten days later. I can conceive of that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We learned that by experience. It enables you to proclaim one section, and organize your port, and then proclaim another section. That can stand, because there are two or three sections standing. We could deal with it when the bill comes up again.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Could section 40 be allowed to stand? We can consider that further.
Section stands.
M. CAHAN: Does the minister intend to report progress on this bill now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Can we pass the schedules?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is no objection to the schedules, I think.
On schedule A-Acts repealed.


John Campbell Elliott: 
[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I will point out that on page 17 is printed "year and chapter" and "acts of the dominion parliament," which are not similar to the subhead in the main schedule, which is "title of act." They should be made uniform. That is all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. That is a printer's error
at the top. It should be stricken out.
Schedule as amended agreed to.
On schedule B-Boundaries of harbours.


John Campbell Elliott: I move that schedule "B" as in the reprinted bill be added after schedule A.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Whether you pass schedule B to-night is not important, but for the purposes of reference hereafter I suggest that when you are dealing with the harbour of Halifax and re-enact the section of the old act defining thf harbour, you should put in this act a reference to that former act so that it

National Harbours Board

can easily be looked up in years to come. So with the harbour of Saint John, and others. This would help very much in future in case of questions arising as to the source of these various descriptions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may be wrong, but if we pass this, is not this the law that governs a harbour boundary?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so, but all I am suggesting to the minister is this: In the courts of Montreal we have various decisions which refer to the statutory definition of the harbour as contained in an old act prior to confederation which is still in force, never having been repealed, and also as defined1 in 57-58 Victoria, chapter 48. All I am saying is that if we should ever again have any litigation with regard to the area of the harbour it would be helpful if at the foot of each of these descriptions a reference were made to the anterior statutory declaration, the same as in revising a statute we always add a reference to the original statute from which the section is taken.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If this schedule B can be
allowed to stand, I will ask our law officers to look into that matter.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: I should like
to draw the attention of the minister to the description of Vancouver harbour on the last page of the bill as reprinted. In the second line it says, "with the north arm and Port Moody." The province of British Columbia in purging the nomenclature has called the north arm the Indian arm for many years, and I believe that term appears in the official gazetteer for British Columbia. So it might be well to give it its present name of Indian arm.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We took this wording directly from the present harbour act; I doubt whether it would be safe to change the name.


Richard Bedford Bennett: [DOT] "Now known as Indian arm" would be all right.


James Samuel Taylor: All I am saying is that they are attempting to fix the new name, and every step in that direction will, of course, help the province.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My right hon. friend opposite has suggested that we could add "now known as Indian arm." I will ask that that be looked into by our officers.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: No, I
must take exception to that. It is known as themorth arm by every one that sails the seas.


James Samuel Taylor: That is the
unfortunate part, and I very much regret that a minister of the crown should make a statement of that kind.


Mr. GREEN:: Speaking of the north arm,
might I ask the minister what the intention is with regard to the north arm of the Fraser river? I notice it is not included in the port of Vancouver.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are certain harbours
in Canada which are known as national harbours, in which there is a very large investment by the dominion government, and there are other harbours also partly under the control of the dominion government where the investment is largely municipal, and where the municipality has representation in the control. New Westminster harbour is in the latter class; the municipal authorities have always had one representative on the harbour commission, and there is quite a municipal investment in the port. We 'have decided for the moment that they will not be included with the national harbours.


Howard Charles Green: I am referring to the North Fraser river, the north arm, not the main river.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That again is administered
by a local board; there is no dominion government investment in it whatever, and1 we decided not to include that for the moment. It may be taken in later perhaps.
Progress reported.


INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 20, consideration in committee of Bill No. 4, to amend the Indian Act-Mr. Crerar-Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
On section	13-Celebrating	festivities,
dances or ceremonies at which presents are made, or bodies mutilated.
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Superintendent General of Indian Affairs):: When this bill was in committee before, on March 20, the sections were all passed with the exception of section 13. That is a section which imposes some additional penalties to discourage the celebration of the potlatch among the Indians on the Pacific coast. Some exception was taken at that time to the nature of the amendments, to the effect that the act as it stands already provides sufficient safeguards and penalties. Since the matter was before the committee last I have looked further into the

Indian Act
question of the proposed amendments to this section and with the consent of the committee I propose that these amendments be dropped and the section remain as it now stands in the act.


Mr. NEILL:: I wish to congratulate the minister on his decision. It is a tribute to the thoroughness with which he looks after his department that he took the trouble to investigate this relatively trivial matter, trivial at least in regard to bigger things, and having made his decision, brings it down in the way he has. I am certain that neither he nor those who seek the best interests of the Indians will regret his decision. As he said, it is not as though there were not very stringent provisions in the act at the ^present time against potlatching. There are, I think, sixteen penalties provided in the Indian Act. Some of them deal with very serious offences, such as bootlegging or running a disorderly house on an Indian reserve, and in none of these matters is there any penalty which does not have the alternative of a fine in the first instance except this one thing of having a potlatch. In that case there is no alternative of a fine, but two months in gaol is the minimum, with a maximum of six months. To us, perhaps, that does not sound so very much, but to an Indian who lives in the open air two months in gaol is as much as six months would be to us; it is a very severe penalty. And as I say we are not doing away with the existing provisions which will still carry that minimum of two months provided the Indians indulge in the holding of a potlatch. We are only seeking, and the minister has agreed, not to go further and penalize them with this heavy penalty when they are only apparently contemplating such an attitude, which is a thing that is antagonistic to our sense of fair play, and would not be tolerated for a moment if applied to white people.
Since the matter was up before I have been in some communication with the chiefs of the Indians in the district concerned, and they have also sent me a letter signed by an archbishop-an archbishop ranks pretty high out in the west-and he expresses his sympathy with their attitude. He says that he was at one of these meetings, and they began by singing God Save the King. He seemed to have had a pleasant evening and enjoyed his experience. I have also before me a letter from the Indians, and I want to read one sentence from it, which epitomizes the whole sentiment in that regard. The chiefs, seven of them, end their letter thus:
Please bear in mind that wre are Indians and you are white people.
12739-136}
That is the difference between our point of view and theirs. Let us in this matter bear in mind that they are Indians and we are white people, and do not let us try to rush them into our point of view and habits too hurriedly. I have some evidence that the Indians are keenly interested in what is being done. They have asked me to express to the minister their appreciation if he will withdraw this section, and state that they will use their influence to minimize to the fullest extent any of the bad features which may still exist in connection with potlatches. All they wish to do is to maintain the harmless elements of it, in accordance with a custom that originates in antiquity as far back as they can remember. They would be greatly hurt if they had to give it up. I can only add that I am sure the government or those who have charge of Indian affairs will not regret this action.


Charles Avery Dunning: I move that in order to give effect to what the minister indicated, section 13 be stricken out.
Motion agreed to and section dropped.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


CITY OF OTTAWA AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize the Minister of Public Works, on behalf of His Majesty, to enter into an agreement with the corporation of the city of Ottawa to extend the period of the existing agreement with the corporation for one year from 1st July, 1935.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is it all about?


Mr. CARDIN:: In the year 1920 an agreement was made between the then Minister of Public Works and the city of Ottawa by which the dominion government was to pay to the city of Ottawa the sum of $75,000 to compensate for all claims of the city in connection with the sprinkling of certain streets, which was to be undertaken by the federal government, and also for fire protection. After a long discussion between representatives of the city and the Minister of Public Works it was agreed that the federal government should pay the sum of $75,000 in settlement of all claims that the city might have against it. The agreement was renewed each year, and in 1925 the amount of $75,000 was increased to $100,000. Since that time the agreement has been renewed every
City of Ottawa Agreement

year. The object of the bill to be introduced is to authorize the Minister of Public Works to extend the agreement for another year.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Young in the chair.


Mr. HEAPS:: Would the minister inform the committee on what basis the $100,000 was arrived at as a fair and equitable amount?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot give the hon. member exact details as to the claim put in by the city. If I remember correctly, the amount claimed by the city in respect of various items amounted to about $200,000, and it was as a result of a compromise between the Minister of Public Works and the city that the amount was reduced to the sum of $75,000. As a result of that agreement the city of Ottawa agreed to abandon all claims it had made up to that time.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I understood the minister to say that-the amount of $100,000 was for all claims.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; in the first instance it was $75,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The amount of $75,000 for all claims against the government. Now I understand it is an annual claim.


John Campbell Elliott: It has always been an annual claim.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is this $100,000 for fire protection and' other services rendered to the federal buildings in Ottawa?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes


Abraham Albert Heaps: I should like to have some idea as to how the figure is arrived at. It may be too high or it may be too low. I think there ought to be some explanation as to how the amount is made up. Perhaps the minister would be able to inform the committee as to the value of buildings owned by the government in Ottawa, and with that information we might have some idea as to what the service is worth, on the ordinary assessed value.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I confess that I cannot give in detail what the hon. member is asking. I am not ready to admit that the claim made by the city of Ottawa at the time of the agreement was entirely justified. Numerous items were mentioned by the city, and the amount was strongly objected to by the then minister. It was as a result of a mutual understanding that the agreement was reached, and there is no real or definite basis upon which the amount of $75,000 has been agreed upon. It was a matter of agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member wants to know what we get for our money.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We get fire protection for all our buildings, and it is compensation, too, for the water used for sprinkling certain streets, for which the federal government is responsible. At the same time there is something to take the place of the taxes the federal government is not paying on properties in Ottawa.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I believe the federal government gets the same concessions in all municipalities; they do not pay taxes on federal properties. I do not think other municipalities are receiving the same treatment as is the city of Ottawa, and if the government is paying to Ottawa something in lieu of taxes, may I say that other cities in Canada might come to the government expecting the same treatment. It is quite true that in 1920 the government may have made an agreement for $75,000. The minister claims that he does not know whether the sum was equitable or otherwise. At any rate it appears that in 1925 another government of which the minister may have been a member increased the grant to $100,000. If the amount was not equitable in 1920 I cannot understand why it was increased by $25,000 or 33J per cent just a few years later. I am not going to press the point just now, but when the bill is in committee I would ask the minister to give the details which we ought to have on a measure of this kind.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 54, to authoriz-e an agreement between His Majesty the King and the corporation of the city of Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Young in the chair.
On section 1-Agreement extended.
Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Chairman, I have
requested certain information. I do not know whether the minister is in a position to give it now, but I must insist upon having it before agreeing to any of the clauses of this bill.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not know if what I
have presently before me will satisfy my hon. friend, but a few months before the agreement was made, in a statement issued by Mr. Harold Fisher, the then mayor of Ottawa, with a view to revision of the agreement expiring on the last day of June, 1919, Mr. Fisher advanced the principle that the

City of Ottawa Agreement
government should subject itself to the ordinary assessments in the same way as a private individual and he compiled a government tax bill, amounting to $886,453.60 made up of the following items-I will give round figures only:
Water rates		$ 77,000
Street sprinkling	 2,000
Taxes payable on the income of civil servants (taxable income $2,500,000 after allowing for exemptions).. .	57,000
Property tax	 483,000
Business tax-[DOT]
Government owned	property.. ..	226,000Property leased by	dominion government	
46,000Local improvements assessed against government property or property of Ottawa Improvement Commission not paid by	the dominiongovernment	
3,000


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the date of
the agreement?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The agreement was dated
March 13, 1920, and these were the items which were the basis of the claim of the city of Ottawa against the federal government. Claims have been pressed on many occasions by the city and were resisted by the federal government for a long time, but in the end it was decided that it would be advantageous for both parties if an agreement were reached, and after long discussions it was agreed in 1920 that the sum of $75,000 should be paid every year to the city of Ottawa to compensate it for its fire protection of all the public buildings in Ottawa, for street sprinkling, and in lieu of the taxes that would ordinarily be assessed on private property.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) said that if we applied this principle in the city of Ottawa we should apply it elsewhere, but Ottawa is in a different position from any other city where we have only one or two public buildings, and all governments in the past have felt that they should be a little more generous to the capital which we are all interested in developing and beautifying so that it will be an attraction to visitors to our country. I admit that a certain amount of sentiment may have entered into the decision which was reached by the government in 1920, but I believe that the contribution we are making to the city of Ottawa is justified. It has been continued by all governments since 1920, and the bill presently before the committee provides for an extension of the agreement for one year, which otherwise would lapse on the first of July next.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The principle has been
established and has been in effect now for sixteen years, and I do not think it is likely that we will go back on it. I do not think that parliament has dealt ungenerously with the city of Ottawa. I think as a rule it has dealt with it pretty fairly. I myself would not like to deal unfairly with the city of Ottawa, but I remember that only a few years ago when parliament appropriated money for a confederation park, running into many millions of dollars, the people of Ottawa did not seem to appreciate the gift which parliament was making to the city, and after the land had been expropriated and millions of dollars spent a demand was made upon the government that it should compensate the city for the taxes which had been lost through the demolishing of the buildings that had been torn down for the park, and the wiping out of that source of city revenue. I want to point out that the principle is exactly the same in other cities where you have public buildings. The municipalities there have to provide fire equipment, police protection, water service and every other service that a municipality gives; to public buildings. While we may have-only one federal capital we have nine provincial capitals, and in many of them, if not in all, we find quite a large number of buildings which are not paying taxes to their respective municipalities.
While I want to deal fairly with Ottawa, while I am not opposing this grant of $100,000 proposed by the present bill, I still think the information given by the minister is not adequate. I feel that the particulars he gave of the various items submitted in 1920 verged almost on the grotesque. They asked for $57,000 in lieu of the taxes that were not being paid by the federal government. Evidently they tried to put these as high as possible when they expressed the pious hope that they should receive $870,000, but they were willing to settle for less than ten cents on the dollar. Even at that, they -must have felt they got a pretty good bargain. I think we should have some idea as to what we receive in return for the $100,000 granted. All I am able to find out from the minister is that this amount is given to the municipal authorities for fire protection. It cannot be for police protection as the government polices its own buildings. It is in lieu of the general taxation which the private citizen is compelled to pay the municipalities. All I can point out in this regard is that in practically every provincial capital there are either federal or
Copyright Act-Mr. Rinjret

provincial buildings which are exempt from taxation. Ottawa seems to be in a much more favoured position than the other capital cities throughout the dominion. If the Minister of Public Works is asked to give the same treatment to other municipalities that he has given to Ottawa for a number of years, I hope he will give them the same sympathetic consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Copyright Amendment Act, 1931, with respect to fees, charges and royalties which may be collected, and to provide for the constitution of a copyright appeal board and for the travelling and living expenses of the members thereof, and for the remuneration and travelling and living expenses of persons appearing before the board in an advisory capacity.
He said: This resolution precedes a bill to which I referred when we were discussing the bill introduced by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling). The bill to be introduced is based upon a report which was filed with the present government on October 29 by His Honour Judge Parker, a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act, to inquire into the copyright situation and especially that created by the exacting of fees by the Canadian Performing Right Society Limited. I may say that the inquiry dealt mostly with section 10 of the Copyright Amendment Act, 1931, which stipulates:
Each association, society or company which carries on in Canada the business of acquiring copyrights of dramatico-musical or musical works or of performing rights therein, and which deals with or in the issue or grant of licences for the performance in Canada of dramatico-musical or musical works in which copyright subsists, shall, from time to time, file with the minister at the copyright office-
Then follow particulars of the lists of works to be filed and the statements of fees, charges and royalties. In 1935 this act was still further amended by the then Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan). This amendment stated that when in the opinion of the minister a society was charging excessive fees with respect to copyright such as I have just mentioned, a commissioner might be appointed

to inquire into and report on such matters. On March 22, 1935, His Honour James Parker was appointed by the former government to inquire into a situation created by the exacting of fees by the Canadian Performing Right Society Limited and any other society which had unduly withheld the issue or granting of licences with respect to the performance of musical works in Canada. This report has been referred to before and I mentioned it when discussing the bill introduced by the hon. member for Kootenay West. In his report Judge Parker passes judgment upon a list of fees filed by the Canadian Performing Right Society and has recommended that other fees would represent more fairly what the performing rights were worth. The commissioner also recommended certain amendments to the Copyright Act. His recommendations are contained in three paragraphs at the end of his report. The first recommendation is:
That there be included in the Canadian Copyright Act a clause similar to section 40 of the Patent Act, to prevent vexatious and unwarranted legal proceedings.
This is section 66 of the Consolidated Patent Act. His next recommendation was that section 17 of the Copyright Act be amended. This section defines the performance of a musical work by a church, college or school or by a religious, charitable or fraternal organization, provided such performance is given without private profit. There was some confusion as to what was meant by private profit and Judge Parker has recommended that the act be amended to more clearly define this term. His third recommendation was:
That the Copyright Act as amended so as to provide for the establishment of an appeal tribunal, to determine disputes arising out of performance in public and to approve of the tariffs of the Canadian Performing Right Society Limited from time to time before they become effective.
I may say that at this late hour I do not think it would be advisable to enter into a detailed discussion of these amendments. My suggestion would be rather that if this resolution were passed I could introduce a bill which would afford every hon. member an opportunity to ascertain exactly what is proposed in the legislation.
It is not the intention to establish a permanent tribunal in the sense that it would sit all the year or that it would constitute some kind of new commission added to the long list of commissions we already have. But basing our bill upon legislation introduced in another country, what we propose to do is this: We want such societies as I have

Copyright Act-Mr. Bennett
mentioned to file their fees on the first day of November of each year; then, allowing a certain number of days, not less than twenty-one, it would be open to all interested parties to file protests or representations concerning the fees, and in the course of December; thereafter the tribunal would sit, and in my opinion in two or three weeks at most it would pronounce upon these disputes.
The intention is to have the tribunal appointed during pleasure. It will include a member of the judiciary, preferably a judge of the exchequer court. But in order to obviate the necessity of coming back to parliament from time to time to amend the bill, it is simply intended that the chairman of the commission shall be a member of the high judiciary, the other members of the commission being two officers of the public service. There again no special mention is made, but the intention is that one might be from the copyright office and the other from the Department of Justice.
Alan Webster Neill: Would this commission have power to fix fees.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes, this commission will pronounce on fees; that is the recommendation and that is the intention. It is not intended to give any remuneration to any of the three commissioners, one being a judge and the others members of the public service, but they may have to travel and would have to be allowed living and travelling expenses. It might also develop that in certain years the department might feel that legal advice should be submitted to the commission and that is why the bill which I shall introduce is preceded by this resolution.
If the house would accept the agreement that the discussion, even on the principle of the bill, might be reserved until the second reading, and does not object to the resolution in its present form, I would ask that the resolution be passed in committee so as to allow me to introduce the bill and so that everyone would know what is in it. It is not the intention of the government to recommend any extensive amendment to the Copyright Act. As I stated the other day, there will be this fall a meeting in Brussels of the International Union on Copyright and the whole matter of copyright will then be considered; but it is not possible to delay this bill any further, because, in the first place, the dealings of the Canadian Performing Right Society and such associations have not so far been foreseen by any preceding international convention on copyright, and because,
in the second place, in the amendment of 1935 the then Secretary of State had the house adopt a bill whereby all litigation was suspended during the inquiry by Judge Parker. I have had to extend further the time of suspension of all such litigation, as provided for in the 1935 amendment, until this house shall have taken action. I may point out, however, that not only is it desirable to appoint an appeal tribunal which will sit in December, 1936, but it is also necessary to give the Secretary of State power to apply the rates recommended by Judge Parker not only for the time intervening between the filing of his report and the operation of this new tribunal but also for the transition stage between the time he was appointed and the time he made his report. After consultation with the Department of Justice I have been advised that there is doubt as to whether the Secretary of State would have the right to make that adjustment unless he were authorized by parliament. For all these reasons I commend the resolution to the house and, on the understanding I have just given, perhaps the house will allow the resolution to go through committee so that I may introduce the bill which is to be based upon it.


Herbert Earl Wilton: I should like to know to what extent this resolution affects the piratical demands of the performing right society. I want to have that information so as to be able to vote intelligently on the resolution.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am hardly in order in replying, but I take it that this discussion will not be protracted. I have already explained that the idea of the resolution is to permit the introduction of a bill which will cover the time between the filing of fees of the Canadian Performing Right Society, which has been the subject of inquiry, and the time when this tribunal will sit. I shall ask parliament to authorize the Secretary of State to fix the fees, which will be those recommended by Judge Parker, but I do not think that these fees should be extended further than a certain period. After the first of December of this year, if the bill passes, it will be for the appeal tribunal to decide finally whether there is any dispute as to the fees filed by the performing right society.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I need only point out that there are two matters which are affected; one is our obligations under the Berne convention to which we became a party during the regime, I believe, of the government of which
Bank oj Canada-Ruling

the Secretary of State was a member and which is binding upon us, and the second is the extent to which we are warranted in setting up another commission to deal with a matter of this kind. As to the first, ample opportunity will be afforded when the bill is in committee to discuss it if the minister is agreeable to that, because it is a matter in which we have incurred international obligations that are not easily set at nought. On the second point, I had thought that possibly this matter could be referred to the board of railway commissioners. They have not been too busy. They have been accustomed to fixing freight rates and might easily deal with a problem of this kind, because they would approach it without preconceived notions, and the law requires them to have certain qualifications. Moreover, they represent every part of Canada and they would bring to bear upon the matter before them a wealth of experience that could not be expected from officials of departments in matters of this sort, and this would save a lot of cost. However, that matter can possibly be discussed later. I have no desire to impede the hon. gentleman in getting his resolution into committee, but we must reserve our rights to have questions asked and answered when the bill itself is in committee of the whole if the resolution is given effect to to-night.


Charles Avery Dunning: Conceded.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Young in the chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Subject to the reservation that I made a moment ago.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rinfret thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 55, to amend The Copyright Amendment Act, 1931.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We do not desire to be taken as conceding the principle in its entirety, but reserve our right to discuss the bill in detail and make suggestions we may think reasonable, perhaps involving a departure from certain principles inserted in the bill.
Mr. RINFRET moved the second reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


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

Friday, April 24, 1936