Canada, House of Commons Debates, “Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company”, 20th Parl, 3rd Sess (6 May 1947)
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 20th Parl, 3rd Sess, 1947 at 2822-2828.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).
QUEBEC NORTH SHORE AND LABRADOR RAILWAY COMPANY
The house resumed from Friday, May 2, consideration in committee of Bill No. 106, to incorporate Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company—Mr. Rinfret—Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 7—Line of railway described.
Mr. DORION: Mr. Chairman, as I am the representative for the constituency in which this railroad is to be built, I believe I should say a few words on section 7, especially in view of the amazing contentions introduced into the discussion recently by some hon. members. I should like to say, first of all, that, notwithstanding the wishes of certain individuals there are still in Canada provinces which have their rights and powers, and it seems to me that it might as well be said once and for all that no one can foresee the day when there will be only one central power in Canada. If any such thing should ever happen, the confederation would be broken altogether.
As has been already said by the hon. member for Outremont. section 7 deals exclusively with the right to build a railroad. It has not anything to do with mining development. According to paragraph 5 of section 92 of the British North America Act, each provincial legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the class of subjects therein enumerated; and paragraph 5 refers to the management and sale of the public lands belonging to the province and of the timber and wood thereon.
Then, if we want to know what are the public lands belonging to the provinces we must refer to section 117 of the British North America Act, which states:
The several provinces shall retain all their respective public property not otherwise disposed of in this act, subject to the right of Canada to assume any lands or public property required for fortification or for the defence of the country.
And we must also refer to sections 108 and 109, which state that in matters such as this the provincial governments have the absolute right to dispose of the lands, and to grant permits to mining corporations.
In virtue of the powers thus given, ‘the legislature of Quebec passed a law in 1946, which is set out as chapter 42, 10 George VI, of the statutes for that province. This measure is entitled, “an Act to promote mining and industrial development within New Quebec. In sections 1 and 2 it is stated: —
- The minister of mines–
That is the provincial minister.
—is authorized to grant to Hollinger North Shore Exploration Company Limited, in replacement of the special licence number 4676 which it presently holds. a special exploration licence under conditions specified in—
—the following sections.
This licence shall be issued for a period of time running from the date of its issue until June 30, 1952.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is entirely out of order to discuss in this chamber the granting to the Hollinger company of the necessary permit for the exploitation of the mining fields in that area. That must be taken as a fait accompli; and the only question is this: Is this parliament to give to another company the right to build a railroad to facilitate the exploitation of these mining fields? Therefore I am entirely in favour of the principle of the bill, and I shall support section 7.
Mr. HERRIDGE: I should like to make a few remarks on section 7, which gives the right to build this railroad. Before we proceed to give this right I suggest that we should be most careful. Looking back over the history of this country, one realizes that similar rights have been granted without full information and without guarantees as to what was to be done with these rights. In many instances this has resulted in restricting the development of the country.
I was a member of the committee which dealt with this bill and gave it serious consideration. This is an important matter, but no record was kept of the proceedings of that committee. A record should be kept of a committee of that type, something in the nature of our Hansard report, so that we may have some record of what was said in committee by witnesses.
In addition to that, this large corporation– I presume it is such-had the unmitigated gall to come before the committee without presenting…
any proof or any complete information as to what they intend to do, as to what developments are intended, nor did they give any guarantees for the future. It is because of that I wish to speak on this section.
I remember when I was a small boy, coming from England to this country, that we traversed the west looking for land, and considered settling in Saskatchewan at one time. That was the time, of course, when no Englishman need apply, except at a real estate office or a recruiting office. We applied at the real estate office, and put down $100 an acre, cash, for heavily timbered land in British Columbia. That was forty years ago. It was land which had been purchased by a corporation connected with a railroad.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the section.
Mr. HERRIDGE: I am illustrating the principle of granting this right. It is only one illustration out of hundreds, where companies bought land previously from the government for $5 an acre, surveyed it, often incorrectly and sold it to British settlers in the following year for $100 an acre, cash.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order. Section 7 deals only with “line of railway described.” The section only describes the railroad, and has no reference to what happened forty years ago.
Mr. HERRIDGE: Mr. Chairman, I think I have the right to illustrate what happened years ago, and what may happen again in the future.
This is a most important matter. As I pointed out before, there was no verbatim report of the committee proceedings, and the sponsor of the bill has not given a complete and elaborate statement to this committee. If I am permitted to do so I am going to present some facts as to what has happened in the past, to illustrate that this very same procedure in the past has worked to the detriment of many Canadian people, and to the detriment of the development of Canada.
Hundreds of those people, many of them without any substantial means, sweat out years of their lives in developing those proper- ties. The owners who purchased from the government guaranteed certain rights and also guaranteed certain road developments. Those developments did not happen. Why? Because at that time they were not tied down. They made a verbal bargain, and had made certain promises in their literature. The government of the day had nothing concrete from which they could work to keep those people to their agreements.
That is why I object to this bill, without knowing more about these proposals. I have before me a book “The History of Canadian Wealth,” by Myers, a volume I would recommend to hon. members who are interested in the development of Canada. They will get it in the parliamentary library, and I recommend that they read it, because it gives dozens of illustrations of what happened in the past in connection with the development of this country. I am just going to read the preface before going on with my argument. It reads:
The rapid concentration of wealth in Canada is no mere fancy. Already, it is estimated, less than fifty men control $4,000,000,000, or more than one-third of Canada’s material wealth as expressed in railways, banks, factories, mines, land and other properties and resources.
To say that this small group of individuals control so vast a wealth and the agencies of its production does not imply that they own it all. Between ownership and control there is a difference, yet the reverse of that is commonly supposed. By means of their control of financial markets and distributive systems, a small number of men may effectively control sources of wealth which still may remain under individual ownership, as witness the case of the farms, of which control farmers throughout Canada are bitterly complaining. Also it is not necessary for magnates to own all of the stock of railroads, banks, factories and mines; much of that ownership may be distributed among small shareholders, yet by their predominantly large holdings of stock, and through their power of directorship, those magnates can and do control those diversified, and often financially interconnected, sources of wealth.
The process of centralization of wealth has been steadily going on for nearly thirty-five years. The removal of unrestricted competition was first evidenced in the case of the railways of Canada. Beginning in about the year 1879, a considerable number of smaller and formerly independent railways (some of which had already amalgamated) were absorbed by the large systems such as the Grand Trunk—
Mr. SMITH (Calgary West): Surely this is all out of order?
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I agree with the hon. member for Calgary West. The section states that the company may lay out, construct and operate a railway starting at a point on the St. Lawrence river, and I do not see how the hon. member, when he is dealing with this particular clause, eau bring in something that happened long ago.
Mr. HERRIDGE: I am trying to bring it in, in this way—
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I think the point of order raised by the hon. member for Calgary West is sound and I ask the hon. member to deal specifically with the clause.
Mr. HERRIDGE: Do you rule that I am out of order when I am quoting this in support of my argument?
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I am asking the hon. member to deal specifically with the clause.
Mr. GILLIS: May 1 say something on the point of order? 1 can understand why the hon. member for Calgary West does not like this story, because apparently it is treading on the corns of some of his friends. The particular bill before the committee is simply history repeating itself. The hon. member for Kootenay West is dealing with boundaries and territories and resources which were handed over to previous railway companies, and section 7 describes the territories that this company is to take over. He is trying to avoid a repetition of the handing over of the resources of this country which was done in the past.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: If the hon. member will deal specifically with the territory through which this railway proposes to go he will be in order, but surely he is not in order in dealing with something that happened long ago. My hon. friend knows that speeches in committee must be strictly relevant to the section being considered. If the hon. member will deal with this section he will be perfectly in order.
Mr. SMITH (Calgary West): On a point of order, the hon. member for Cape Breton South said that I was raising the point of order because this hurt some of my friends. I do not even know the name of one man who is connected with the railway, nor do I know any person who has anything to do with it at all.
Mr. GILLIS: I was referring to the little bit of history being read by the hon. member for Kootenay West, not to this bill.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. member to try to keep within the terms of the section.
Mr. HERRIDGE: I am quoting from this book to show what happened in the past when clauses of this kind were passed by former parliaments without any guarantees. The pro- face continues:
The highly centralized character of the Canadian banks is well known; the branches of the important banks extend over an immense territory; twenty-six of these institutions have 2,888 branches.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Again I ask the hon. member to deal with the territory through which this line is going; to deal particularly with this section.
Mr. POULIOT: On that point of order, what the hon. member is reading has reference to grants of land being made for the building of railroads, but this case is entirely different. The area belongs to the province which has made a deal with the company. An act has been passed by the legislature of Quebec and there is no question of property rights. There is no question of our granting lands to this company; the only question is giving them the right to build a railroad on land which they already have. That is entirely different and that is why the hon. member is out of order. What he is reading may be interesting but if is not at all pertinent to the case.
Mr. ADAMSON: This bill does not pretend to deal with the granting of land, which in this case belongs to the province of Quebec.
Mr. HIERRIDGE: Mr. Chairman—
Mr. POULIOT: Mr. Chairman, will you decide my point of order?
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. member for Kootenay West should deal with this clause.
Mr. HERRIDGE: I quite understand that lands are within provincial jurisdiction, but this parliament can ask that certain information be given by this company before the bill is passed, in order to protect the rights of the people in the province as well as the rights of the province concerned. We all know that the granting of a charter to a transportation system will give monopolistic control over the area concerned. I maintain that this parliament can do something to protect the people of this country and the people of that province by making certain that this railroad will be built within a certain time and by insisting upon having full information as to the owners of this company, their intentions, the developments they intend to undertake, when they intend to complete the road and so on. That is why I take exception to this bill being passed without that information being given to this committee.
Mr. RINFRET: A full opportunity was given to every hon. member to go to the committee on railways and ask the representatives of the company any questions they wished.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North): 1 should like to rise to a point of order. No member of parliament has to go before a parliamentary committee as do outside people. Our place to ask questions is in committee of the whole, if we so wish.
Mr. CHURCH: I want to ask one question about section 7. We are giving the company the right to build a railway and, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs said the other night, we can only give them jurisdiction in Canada, and only capacity to act. I would call the attention of the government to a meeting held today between fifteen representatives of Newfoundland and the British government in London, England, regarding Newfoundland’s future government. The representatives of Newfoundland were insisting that Labrador be part of that country, and said they are now to come to Canada in June and go into the question of the tenth province of Canada’s federation, Newfoundland and Labrador. and the whole future of it. Under section 7 the company is given power to act, capacity powers only as a corporation to construct within Canada. To proceed with construction beyond Canada they will have to deal with Newfoundland and Labrador. I understand that they dealt with them twenty years ago but spent only about $100,000. While I do not believe in railways and coal mines and electric distribution systems being taken over as is now being done in England, I believe that the Canadian National Railways should have had a survey made of this territory not only in Canada but in Labrador. The policy of our national railway in the past has been to go into territories far less profitable than this proposition may turn out to be. While these mining men are going in at their own expense and surveys have been made under section 7, the fact remains that we are giving away public property. We have only the capacity to give the company railway and subsidiary powers to operate within Canada. For anything else the company wants outside Canada, hotels, power, highways, ocean services, vessels, elevators, wharves, it will have to deal with the provisional government of Labrador and Newfoundland. I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if that is not right?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think the hon. gentleman is quite right, though perhaps not quite complete. The purposes of this bill as I read it are two-fold. One is to incorporate a company, thereby giving it the capacity to acquire powers through any jurisdiction that may be willing to grant powers to it; and the other is to build a railway from a point on the St. Lawrence in Quebec to the border between Quebec and Labrador. That is something which, under the British North America Act, can be granted only by parliament. There is no doubt that the parliament of Canada cannot grant the right to the company to build a railway in Labrador, but the parliament of Canada can grant the capacity to the corporation to go to the government of Labrador and acquire from that government the right to build in the territory governed by the commission government.
Mr. POULIOT: A moment ago I heard one hon. member say that he has the right to argue in this committee just as well as in the railway committee. He is perfectly right. The difference is that in the railway committee witnesses and experts can be heard and be asked questions to satisfy the minds of hon. members who desire information.
Mr. Chairman, in order to ascertain the opinion of the provincial government in regard to this bill, I sent a copy thereof to the premier of Quebec, asking him to kindly let me have his views.
I received today the following telegram, copy of which I shall hand over to the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret). It reads as follows:
Thank you for your kindness in sending me copy of Bill “H” re Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company, which I have received this morning, a few moments before the house met. Insofar as the territory of the province of Quebec is concerned, it la obvious that the provincial authorities alone have the power to deal with hotels, water power and their operation as well as with transportation by truck, bus and automobile. In the province of Quebec, there are proper agencies having the power and the duty to supervise and control the operations arising from the use of highways and the development of provincial natural resources. As always, we are prepared to cooperate sincerely with the federal authorities in order to solve the problems which concern both the dominion and the provincial authorities, according to their respective constitutional rights and on a friendly basis if possible. However, you understand that enroachments can never serve as a basis for cooperation. Again I thank you for your courtesy in this connection.
Maurice L. Duplessis.
I wish to ask the hon. member who has sponsored this bill whether it is the intention of the company to have subsidiary companies exercise the rights which may be granted to it under this bill. It is necessary to distinguish as between the right itself and the power to exercise such right.
This information would be of great interest to the public.
Mr. RINFRET: I do not think the general remarks just made by the hon. member for Temiscouata apply to section 7. They might apply to section Il. I will reserve my reply until we reach that section.
Mr. CHURCH: The subsidiary companies operating power sites, elevators, hotels, ocean services, wharves, aeronautics services outside Canadian territory are not under the control of the province, and must deal also with Labrador. High power costs have added heavy costs to mining production in Canada.
Section agreed to.
On section 8—Issue of securities.
Mr. FRASER: This section says:
The securities issued by the company shall not exceed the cost of the railway constructed or under contract to be constructed.
How does section 16 fit into that? Section 16 says:
The company may lay out, construct, instal, maintain, equip and operate a pipe line or lines for the purpose of the transportation or transmission of oil…
And so forth. Does that mean that the securities issued under section 8 could not be used for this purpose?
Mr. RINFRET: Section 16 was amended in the committee.
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Agreements with other companies for sale, lease or amalgamation.
Mr. HERRIDGE: Would the sponsor of the bill explain this section?
Mr. RINFRET: It deals with working agreements with other railways. At the present time there are no other railways in sight there or near this railway, and therefore it may appear curious to have this provision in the bill. But, as the hon. member will have seen by section 7, the Labrador government will be asked to grant permission by way of agreement for this railway line to pass through Labrador, and it might well be that Labrador might insist on having a railway company incorporated in Labrador. In that case this railway will have to be connected with the Labrador railway and power has to be taken to make the necessary agreement with this new company. That is the purpose of section 9.
Mr. MacINNIS: With reference to subsection 2, section 147 of the Railway Act prohibits the railway company from either directly or indirectly employing any of its funds in the purchase of its own stock. Why is that section being set aside? Does this come under a special act, or is it otherwise provided for in the Railway Act itself?
Mr. RINFRET: As the hon. member has pointed out, section 147 of the Railway Act prohibits any one railway company, unless specially authorized, from investing in the shares or security of another railway company, but, as I have pointed out, it might be that another railway company will have to be incorporated in Labrador which will have to be financed by his company. Of course we shall have to get the power to incorporate under subsection 2 of section 9. That is the purpose of it.
Mr. CHURCH: I should like to ask a question on section 9, subsection 2. There is no railway company yet. How can they acquire the stock, shares, bonds or other securities of other companies?
Mr. RINFRET: I have just explained it.
Mr. CHURCH: I do not see how they can do it; they are not an entity yet, or a railway yet. It is contrary to the Railway Act also, and outside Canada.
Mr. GILLIS: This road will not be built for ten years, anyway.
Mr. RINFRET: Five years.
Mr. GILLIS: 1 should like to find out if under section 9 of this bill as worded it would be permissible for the company now seeking the charter to form holding companies outside Canada. The note in the margin says: “Agreements with other companies for sale, lease or amalgamation.” The section itself concludes by saying, “whether within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada or not and whether within or outside Canada.” Does this section permit the company outside Canada over which this parliament or the Quebec legislation has no jurisdiction?
Mr. RINFRET: I do not think the section goes that far. It authorizes the company to enter into agreements with another railway company outside Canada, such as a railway company in Labrador, in case the government of Labrador insists upon having a railway company incorporated under its laws instead of coming to an agreement without any incorporation.
Mr. GILLIS: What I have in mind is not particularly a railway company. With this road goes a lot of other powers, the development of electricity, pipe lines, gas and that kind of thing. Could this company form a holding company in the United States and sub-lease the resources in that area to a company outside Canada over which none of our legislative bodies have any jurisdiction?
Mr. RINFRET: Section 151 of the Railway Act deals with exactly that, and section 9 is subject to the provisions of section 151 of the Railway Act. Does that answer the hon. member’s question?
Mr. KNIGHT: In reading section 9 of the bill, the sponsor has referred to another railway company. Section 9 says “any other company”; it makes no reference to a railway company.
Mr. RINFRET: That is exactly the last answer I gave. If the hon. member refers to section 151 of the Railway Act he will find the answer.
Mr. GILLIS: Will the hon. member give us a brief explanation of it?
Mr. RINFRET: It is a long section.
Mr. GILLIS: Summarize it.
Mr. RINFRET: The note says: “Agreement for sale, lease or amalgamation of railway.” Then it refers to “approval of shareholders; board to recommend sanction; notice in Canada Gazette; newspapers”, and so forth. The notice has to be put in the Canada Gazette and in the newspapers. Then it refers to proceedings upon sanction, notice of evidence and exemptions in certain cases.
Mr. GILLIS: They deal with railways.
Mr. RINFRET: With railways.
Mr. GILLIS: This section deals with other companies.
Mr. RINFRET: Section 9, subsection 1 reads:
Subject to the provisions of sections one hundred and fifty-one, one hundred and fifty-two and
one hundred and fifty-three of the Railway Act…
I have just referred to section 151 which refers only to railway companies.
Mr. ZAPLITNY: Subsection 2 of section 9 reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section one hundred and forty-seven of the Railway Act the company may acquire the stock, shares, bonds or other securities issued by any such railway company or acquire any interest in any such stock, shares, bonds or other securities.
Is it necessary in this case to set aside section 147 of the Railway Act?
Mr. RINFRET: As I said a moment ago, section 147 of the Railway Act prohibits any railway company from investing in shares and securities of any other railway company except as specially authorized. The connection in this case will be between the Canadian railroad and what might be the Labrador railroad. Because of that, there has to be a special authorization from parliament to authorize this company to buy the shares or stocks of the other Labrador railway.
Section agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
On section 11-Electric and other power.
Mr. CHURCH: Has anybody control over the power rates under this section? High power costs have been fatal to mining production in Canada.
Mr. DORION: This section deals with powers that come under provincial jurisdiction. It deals with electric power, power to generate, acquire, use, transmit and distribute electric and other power. My submission is that we cannot give to the board of railway commissioners any power to deal with matters that come under the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec. Quebec has a board to deal with such matters. The board is set up under the provincial electricity board act, which was passed by the Quebec legislative assembly in 1945. If we were to pass this section as it stands it would come in conflict with what we already have in Quebec. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon):
That, in the first and second lines of section eleven, the words “section three hundred and sixty-eight of the Railway Act” be deleted and that the words “chapter twenty-one of the Statutes of Quebec, 9 George VI, 1945″ be substituted therefor.
Mr. RINFRET: A few moments ago the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) referred to various sections of the British North America Act. I did not answer him because I knew this amendment was coming. Section 92 of the B.N.A. Act, subsection 10, reads as follows:
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say, –
- Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes:
(a) Lines of steam or other ships; railways, canals, telegraphs and other works and undertakings connecting the provinces with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province.
Therefore, under section 92 of the B.N.A. Act railways extending beyond one province do not come within provincial jurisdiction, but within federal jurisdiction. So far as section 117 is concerned, which he referred to a moment ago, it reads as follows:
The several provinces shall retain ail their respective public property not otherwise dis- posed of in this act…
I suggest that section 92, subsection 10, to which I have just referred, deals with property which has been otherwise disposed of. To my way of thinking, what is now being attempted
is much more an encroachment by the province upon federal rights than the other way around.
So far as the telegram which the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) read is concerned, and the question which he has put on that matter, I wish to assure him that if at any time the company have a surplus of power over what they need for their own purposes they will certainly form a new company which will have a provincial charter and which will come under the jurisdiction of the provincial board.
So fan as sections 14 and 15 are concerned—I know the question is going to be put there—if at any time the bus service becomes more extensive than for the company’s own purposes a new company will be formed to render public service, and that company will be a provincial company and will therefore come under the provincial board.
Mr. DORION: The hon. member has referred to subsection 10 of section 92 of the British North America Act. That subsection deals only with lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs and so on. Here in section 11 of this bill we are dealing with electric power. As I said a few minutes ago, we are called upon to give the company power to generate, acquire, use, transmit and distribute electric and other power, and this comes under provincial jurisdiction. That is why I moved the amendment.
Mr. RINFRET: I would refer the hon. member to section 368 of the Railway Act, which reads:
Whenever in any special act passed after the seventh day of July, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, it is stated or provided that a railway company shall have power to acquire, transmit and distribute electric and other power or energy, such company, subject to the provisions of this Act, may for the purposes of its undertaking acquire, but not by expropriation, electric and other power or energy, and transmit and deliver the same to any place in the municipalities through which the railway is built, and receive, transform, transmit, distribute and supply such power or energy in any form; and may dispose of the surplus thereof, and collect rates and charges therefor, but no such rate or charge shall he demanded or taken until it bas been approved of by the board, and the board may revise such rates and charges whenever it deems proper.
So that I may satisfy the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay as far as I possibly can, I would move—
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order. The hon. member is about to move an amendment, but we can have only one amendment at a time.
Mr. DORION: 1 have only one more word to say. In section 368 of the Railway Act, just read by the hon. member, it is stated that the company might have the right to organize electric power, but the section states definitely ‘for the purposes of its undertaking”. Here in section 11, however, we are giving a general power to generate power and distribute electricity.
Mr. CHEVRIER: I am not interested in this bill except from the point of view of the Department of Transport, and I have read carefully the amendment which my hon. friend has proposed. The amendment, if passed, would have the effect of delegating from the federal parliament powers to a provincial government, and the effect of that would be to render this section wholly unconstitutional. Anyone could thereafter move before the courts to strike out and declare this section unconstitutional. That is borne out by the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Quebec Railway versus the city of Beauport.
Mr. SMITH (Calgary West): Has he not something there in the words “for the purposes of its undertaking”?
Mr. DORION: The minister has referred to the Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company case. I have here the judgment of the supreme court, which will be found in Canada Supreme Court Reports, 1945 at page 16. The notes were read by five judges and, as the report states at page 17, this question came before the supreme court when the Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company asked the board of railway commissioners to fix rates of tolls that were to be charged. The company applied for an order of the board of transport commissioners approving its tariff of tolls for the carriage of passengers on the motor buses operated by it. It was held by Justices Rinfret, Kerwin and Rand that in 1939 an amendment to the charter of the Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company was passed by this house which amendment read:
It is enacted and declared that the company’s now existing powers—
Mr. MACKENZIE: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Just before we began the discussion of these particular bills, my good friend the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) moved a resolution in regard to certain other bills, and I think it would be proper to have that debate adjourned so as to keep the proceedings in order.