1942-07-03

Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth) moved:: That the third report of standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on July 1, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Second report of special committee on vocational training.-Mr. Donnelly.

Hon. CYRUS MACMILLAN (Queens) moved:: That the first report of special committee on honours and decorations, presented to the house on July 2, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to;



PRIVILEGE-MR. RALSTON REFERENCE TO STATEMENT OF MR. POULIOT IN DEBATE ON JULY 2

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege I should like to make reference to a statement which was made by the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot) last night about a matter to which he had previously referred but to which I had not paid any attention because a return had already been brought down in the house with respect to it.
Some time ago the hon. member indicated that I had met. Sir Edward Peacock in Montreal in June, 1941, and discussed with him the amalgamation of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways. That reference is at pages 3211 and 3212 of Hansard. The member had also intimated that I had met Sir Edward Peacock on that occasion in my capacity as Acting Minister of Finance. A memorandum from my office was quoted by the hon. member at page 4209 of Hansard indicating that I did not meet Sir Edward Peacock on or about June 25, 1941. Notwithstanding the statement made in the memorandum which he himself read, the hon. member brought up the matter again last night and asked the question:
Why was the Minister of National Defence appointed Acting Minister of Finance? How

is it that the Minister of National Defence has enough spare time to be Acting Minister of Finance?
Later he said:
I do not see why the Minister of National Defence was appointed as his deputy-
That is, deputy to the Minister of Finance. -while Sir Edward Peacock was here.
The implication is that by some kind of skullduggery I was appointed acting Minister of Finance in order that I might discuss with Sir Edward Peacock the amalgamation of the railways. I think it best once and for all to deal with all these matters together.
I want to say to the house that I was not appointed acting Minister of Finance for any purpose connected in the remotest particular with any discussion of the amalgamation of the railways. My appointment as acting Minister of Finance was made in 1940 and took effect automatically in any case in which the minister was absent: that I never saw or had any communication directly or indirectly with Sir Edward Peacock in June, 1941; that I never at any time saw him, or anyone representing him, in my capacity as acting Minister of Finance; and that I never at any time, either as a member of the government or personally, discussed with Sir Edward Peacock, or anybody representing him, the amalgamation of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railways or anything relating to the railways.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of National Defence to representations which have been made to me which indicate that residents on the west coast of British Columbia are disturbed over the length of time it took the military command there to send planes to Estevan Point at the time of the recent shelling of that locality by an enemy raider. Could the minister make a statement which would allay any existing doubts or fears as to the adequacy of our defences to meet such situations as the one mentioned?


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: My hon. friend gave me notice that he would ask a question of this kind. In the absence of my colleague the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) I had inquiries made with regard to the messages which were sent on the night in question, and I have satisfied myself that they were sent

Gasoline
promptly. I would not care to give the house details of all that took place, because I am advised that the information is secret and would be useful to the enemy. But I can say that the messages were sent and were received and that the matter was considered on the spot. The flying conditions were unsuitable at air bases nearest to Estevan Point at the time of the attack, but aircraft were out at dawn next morning and searched the ocean areas off the west coast of Vancouver island, without detecting the enemy ship. A bomber was dispatched from an air base more distant from the point to which the hon. member refers, but it crashed in taking off. The officers advise me that it is doubtful if it could have arrived in time to locate the raider.



ARMING OF VANCOUVER ISLAND VOLUNTEERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: In that same connection, may I make an inquiry of the minister? I have had a communication from a prominent gentleman of Courtney, which I believe is on Vancouver island, regarding the arming of the Rangers, which is a volunteer establishment set up. I believe, for home defence, and especially against invasion. May I ask the minister if any arrangements are being made to issue arms in the nature of, say, rifles and the like, to the Rangers?


James Layton Ralston: Arrangements are being made to issue arms in as great quantities and just as fast as possible. I may say that special arrangements were made the other day with regard to some special arms, in that connection.



GASOLINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAICER (Lake Centre):: On June 12, I asked the Minister of Munitions and Supply what attitude the government intended to take regarding the removal of the discrimination against farmers with regard to the use of their trucks for transportation purposes. On the same day the Minister of Finance finally stated, as reported in Hansard, page 3307:
The matter will be looked into, and in so far as there is discrimination that it is practicable to remove, it will be removed.
The same state of affairs still prevails and is causing a great deal of trouble among farmers all over the country-


Richard Burpee Hanson: And dissatisfaction.
44561-247J	.


John George Diefenbaker: And dissatisfaction as well. Is the minister now in a position to say whether the removal of this discrimination has been considered, and if so, whether an order has been made, or will be made at once, to remove this source of annoyance and difficulty?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Well, Mr. Speaker, just after the hon. gentleman discussed the matter in the house I made inquiries, and I was informed that an order had been issued authorizing certain regional officials to make provision for certain cases, and that that order was outstanding at that time. The hon. gentleman's remarks were brought to the attention of the proper officers, and I was told that provision had already been made for attending to particular cases. The rule was not changed, as far as that goes, but certain discretionary powers were vested in the regional officers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, that is not good enough.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may be permitted, the only order I know of is that a farmer may apply, for instance, in any one province, to an official at the capital of that province, for permission to use his truck on a particular Sunday for transportation purposes. That is quite an impossible situation. I again ask the minister to bring to the attention of the authorities the difficulty experienced by farmers through the failure of the government to remove this regulation.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Quebec West and South (Mr. Parent) yesterday, before the orders of the day were called, complained about the failure of the government to make available in the French language the ways and means resolutions. His words were these-Hansard, page 3865:
How can we judge the importance of the budget until we know the items which will be fought out, or amended if it is possible, without having knowledge of the budget in itemized form? I believe this situation should be remedied without delay, and for my part I am not prepared to support the budget until I have-read what is in it. Until that time I must, be counted as against the budget as a whole. When it comes into committee of ways and means, I reserve my right to discuss the items after I have been able to read them in my own language.
I find that all the ways and means resolutions were printed in the French language on
Private Bills

June 23 or June 24, as part of my budget speech, in Hansard, and I find also that they were printed in French on June 23 or June 24 in Votes and Proceedings. It is true that subsequently they were again printed, separately, for convenience of hon. members; the separate printing in English was made available about Tuesday of this week, and I was informed yesterday that they would be available in French to-day.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 69, respecting change of name of the Saskatchewan Life Insurance Company to Fidelity Life Assurance	Company.-Mr. McNiven (Regina City).
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Eleanor Adele Rea Barrett.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Eleanor Edith IMcKechnie Barlow.-Mr. Whitman.
Rill No. 22, for the relief of Dorothy Agnes Henrietta Russell Cantlie.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 23, for the relief of Irene Coadic Murphy.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Lester Lewis Catchpaw.-Mr. Davidson.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Annie Ruth Fisher Allen.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Alice Adelia LaFleur Johnston.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of George Webb.- Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Edith Morgan Black.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Betty Leah Bregman Beloff.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Malca Levitt, otherwise known as Atty Malcy Levitt.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Marie Louise McCarthy Smyth.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Marie Glenna Grace Thomas Reynolds.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Isabel Jessica Black Jolley.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Margaretha Elisabeth Buck Peereboom.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Ethel May Marshall James.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Anastasia Tkaezuk Wojtkowycz.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Phyllis Wilda Valentine Park Evans.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Louise Mehliss Jackson.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Bertha Beatrix Berlind Ripstein.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Lola McIntosh. -Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
£Mr. Ilsley.]
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Stella Kathleen Marguerite Winnall Barwick.-Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Joyce Elizabeth Blackburn Gordon.-Mr. Hanson (Skeena).
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Kate Elizabeth Laidlaw McNiven.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Margaret Livingstone Turnbull Woodard.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Dorothy Sun-sheine Steirman Cooke.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Doris Golt Rosner.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Anna Pohopoluck Yacobchak.-Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Myer Levine.- Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of George Sutherland Cameron, junior.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Fred Catlow.- Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Mary Celina Broadhurst LaRose.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Elsie Epstein Cohen.-Mr. Casselman (Grenville-Dundas).
Bill	No.	59, for	the	relief	of Gertrude
Pelletier Patenaude.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill	No.	60, for	the	relief	of Marieatt
Venditello Diano.-Mr. Gray.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Edna Annie Heazle Constable.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Dorothy Reed Cushing.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Sarto Desnoyers. -Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of William Milroy Davidson.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Audrey Meredith Mann Harrison.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Francois Henri Drack.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Gladys Irene Dale Weston.-Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Ruth Ufland Fishman.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Norma Brown Stevenson.-Mr. Claxton.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Mary Cummings Bullock.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Elizabeth Gertrude De Serre Gould.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of John Clifford Stanley Darbyson.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Celia Reynolds Schellenberg.-Mr. Mcllraith.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Annie Miriam Scott.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Marguerite Elsie Ramsay Murdoch.-Mr. Claxton.

Divorce Bills
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Elizabeth Molnar Schneider.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Max Kaback.- Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of George McDonald Joseph Carew.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Wandless Joseph Henry Verdon.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Mary Eileen Scott Warrington.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Joseph Bergman. -Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Marie Martha Hermine Browne Peters.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Ethel Gerson Kalmanovitch.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Freda Sweet Simon.-Mr. Gray.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Phyllis Mary Alice Verrinder Horrell.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of James McKinna Wood.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Leah May Jarvis Traver.-Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Barbara Patricia Strange Wolfe.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Bella Miller Keller.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Effie Euphemia Shannon Monette.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Elsie May Cape Newman.

Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Bella White Wolfe.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Alan Swabey.- Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Jean Walker Creighton King.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Alice Beatrice Armand Roberts.-Mr. Hanson (Skeena).
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Frederick William Merchant.-Mr. Hanson (Skeena).
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Irma Kern Ulrich.-Mr. Hanson (Skeena).

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 31, for the relief of Jack Simon-Mr. Bercovitch- Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. HANSELL:: Mr. Chairman, since you are on Bill No. 31 I wish to make a few remarks in connection with these bills in general. I might have done so before Mr. Speaker left the chair, but I simply choose this bill, not because it is in any way particularly distinct from the others, but because the evidence submitted is so voluminous that it attracted my attention. Usually when I receive the printed evidence in these cases I immediately consign them to the wastepaper basket, on the assumption that if you read one of them you have read them all. This particular case, however, is fatter than the others; it takes 140 pages to cover the evidence.
I have taken the trouble to read every bit of the evidence in this case, and I find nothing in it which could be taken as a reason for the granting of a divorce. As we all know, in Canada the only ground upon which a divorce can be granted in any province or by this parliament is proof of adultery.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not the only ground.


Ernest George Hansell: If I am not well informed in that regard, I stand corrected, but that is my understanding of the matter. I have tried to be a bit of a student of this subject. How successful I have been is of course a matter of opinion, but I claim that the survival of a nation or a race is dependent very largely, if not entirely, upon the moral character of the people. Conversely, the downfall of a nation is caused, I venture to say, entirely by its loose character, its loose living, its disregard for the divine prerogatives of God our Creator and Father.
I am not alone in my alarm at the extent to which divorce is becoming a subject of meagre concern to the people of this country, and, as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) interjects, to this House of Commons. I agree. I noticed when you were reading these bills, Mr. Chairman, it was as though you were reading a book. It is all a matter of routine. We have approximately eighty-nine divorce bills to pass this afternoon. We regard it as a matter of routine, a matter of course; all we have to do is to read the names, call the sections, and presto! the man or woman is separated from wife or husband as the case may be.
That is not good enough. We have to regard things a little more seriously than we do. I believe I am right in saying that practically all British law is based upon the laws given by the greatest of all law givers, and the laws given by Moses were not merely the product of human thinking. In my opinion at any rate, very largely the ancient Jewish race was the race used by Almighty God through which he might deal with the world, and in the giving of laws through Moses there was the basis upon which the Creator of all mankind was thenceforward to establish a properly constituted government of the human race.
I claim that the laws of Moses in respect of the matter of divorce are, shall I say, a reflection of the mind of the Creator. Of course I shall be open to question in respect
Divorce Bills

to that interpretation. But the laws of Moses regarded the matter of divorce as so serious that the penalty imposed for adultery was none other than death by stoning. Of course I am not recommending that. My friend interjects that there would be a lot of dead men in Canada if that were done. Nevertheless that is the basis of it all. It is a crime against the human race, and I say again that I am alarmed at the loose way in which this entire subject is handled. I shall come back to that in a moment.
I have chosen this case because it seems to be outstanding in its lack of evidence that adultery was committed. The woman of course was seen alone with a man. What man among us has not at some time or other been seen alone with a lady friend? This lady happened to drive this man home several times while her husband was out of town. That was all brought into the evidence. Now, that sort of evidence is pretty scanty. While the bill is not based entirely upon that, it is based partly upon it. I will read some passages that show that point.


Mr. CLEAVER:: Give us the Saturday
night and Sunday morning episode.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know what
my friend is talking about.


Hughes Cleaver: I am asking the hon.
member to give us the evidence on which this divorce application was founded.


Ernest George Hansell: I will read some.


Hughes Cleaver: Yes, you will leave out
the important part.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend can speak if he wishes and bring out further evidence if he thinks it necessary. It is some time since I read this, and I have not every page at my finger tips. An hon. member says, "Don't waste our time." I am not concerned about that remark. I have as much right to sit at my desk or stand and speak as any other hon member. I did not waste any time last night when I gave up my place in order that the budget debate might be concluded.
I have been unable to find any specific evidence in this case which could be regarded as proper ground for divorce. This lady drove a man around alone-she admitted it. I think it was about five times in the course of three months.
The divorce committee sized up this evidence in a very peculiar way. That is what I am more or less taking objection to. I like to weigh a case on grounds indicated by evidence, but in this case I do not find any. I could read a lot of little pieces from the evidence that might be regarded as spicy, but I am

not going to do that. But any hon. member can go through this case and I declare he will not find any evidence of the ground upon which we in this country grant divorces.
Let me read something from page 122:
Q. Did you at any time-I am sorry to put this question to you-
I will not read that. The woman denies the accusation.
The Hon. Mr-perhaps I better not read the name; call him Mr. X. It is one of the gentlemen on the committee in the other house.


An hon. MEMBER:: A senator?
Mr. HANSELL. Yes. It is page 122:
Hon. Mr. X.:
Q. Did you kiss Charlie?-A. No.
Q. Ever?-A. No.
Q. Did Charlie kiss you?-A. No
Q. Put his arms around you?-A. No.
Q. I should like to ask a question about something that puzzles me. Why did you keep going out to the race course and giving Charlie rides? You were a married woman and you knew your husband would object to your meeting Charlie and taking him. Why did you do it?-A. I didn't keep giving him rides. I mean, it happened on two occasions.
Q. You met him quite often at the race course?-A. Twice.
Q. And you went to the Pot-au-Feu and had meals twice?-A. Those were the only two times.
Q. And the policeman caught you. That was three times. And you picked him up and drove him down the road, and you admitted you were driving when you were followed by the green car. That was another time. That sort of thing extended over a couple of months. Why did you do that? You were a married woman, with a baby. Why did you do that?-A. I knew him, and if I was driving that way I stopped and picked him up.
Q. But you made it convenient to be always there when Charlie needed a ear. Why did you do that?-A. I imagine he needed a car at other times.
Q. Yes, but every time you had a chance you were there. Why did you do that? You gave Charlie how many rides altogether, from the date your husband left until July 25?-A. About five times.
Q. You are sure not more than that?-A. Yes.
Q. Why did you do that? Did you write your husband and tell him you were doing that?- A. No.
The woman was perfectly honest in what she was answering.
Q. You never told you husband until long afterwards, did you. about Charlie? Did you ever tell your husband about him?-A. Yes, I told my husband about Charlie.
Q. When?-A. Tn fact, I asked him if I could not play golf with him.
Q. When?-A. Some time in June, I believe.
Q. After he came back from the coast?- A. Yes.
I do not know how much of this I should read.

Divorce Bills
Q. The thing that puzzles me, as one of the judges here, is why you kept giving this man rides, why you went to the Pot-au-Feu and had meals with him, why you were worried about that green car following, and why you were worried when you were caught by the policeman. Why did you do those things? Your brother-inlaw was ready to go driving with you, and

was ready to go driving with you. But you took Charlie. Why did you do that?-A. It was in the day time. If he had any place to go, I gave him a lift, that was all.
Q. That does not satisfy me. You knew that your husband would not like it, your driving Charlie like that, because you had been discussing this divorce business before, you had been discussing it over three or four or five years?- A. Well, my husband had been discussing it.
Q. You knew it; you had taken part?- A. Yes.
Q. And you deliberately went out with Charlie, after those troubles with your husband. You have to satisfy me on that before you get my vote.
Before she could get the vote of one of the members of the committee she had to satisfy him as to why she drove out in her car with Charlie. That had nothing whatever to do with any evidence of actual adultery.
You have not done it yet.
That is, she had not satisfied him.
Supposing your whole story is true, I am not satisfied about those incidents. You and your husband had discussed this divorce business over a period of four or five years, and yet you deliberately took Charlie out on four or five occasions. . . . Why did you do that?


Hon. Mr.   Y@: And the detectives swear it was many times more.


Hon. Mr.   X@: Q. Yes, the same detective agency that you mentioned, which confirms their story that they were following you.-A. Yes, I knew they were following me.
Q. Then why did you keep picking up Charlie, with those facts before you? That is what you have to explain to this committee.
I claim that was not proper evidence to be brought out before that committee.
You have to get rid of that onus.
That is, the onus of driving that man around.


Hon. Mr.   XX@: Q. Were you doing it for pure cussedness? Some women would. Were you?-A. No.
I shall conclude with just a few more lines. Listen to this:


Hon. Mr.   X@: Q. I cannot imagine Charlie getting in that car so many times and not kissing you. My senses say that this cannot happen.
Imagine that going into the evidence.
A. Why can't it happen?
Q. I do not see how it could happen. But, leave that out. You knew in June you were being followed?-A. Yes.
Q. And you still persisted in those drives with Charlie?


Hon. Mr.   Y@: We cannot understand why
Charlie would be so different from the members of this committee in the same circumstances.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose I shall ever be a Liberal; in fact I know I never shall be. I do not suppose I shall ever be a Conservative. Therefore I do not suppose I shall ever reach the senate. But if I do reach the senate I trust I shall not be placed on a committee such as this, if they have to weigh evidence of this kind and make statements like these.


Hon. Mr.   XX@: Mind you, Charlie is twenty-seven; don't forget that. Pardon me for interrupting. I want to give the woman a chance and tell her the difficulty that is in my mind. She was warned.
The difficulty that happened to be in that hon. gentleman's mind was not the question of whether or not this woman had committed a crime, and I call it a crime regardless of whether it is so regarded in the criminal code; the difficulty this committee member had was that she was going out for rides with some other man twenty-seven years of age. That, Mr. Speaker, is the sort of thing that is inflicted upon this honourable house when we grind through the mill some ninety divorce cases, as we are asked to do this afternoon. I appeal to the house-I should not say in order to show this country that we are not simply a divorce mill-to take some of this evidence into consideration and turn down these bills where adultery has not been absolutely and positively proved. I for one am going to vote against this bill, as I will vote against most of them. If adultery has been committed, however, then I believe divorce is the proper thing.
Just one further word before I sit down. I believe most of these bills give those concerned the right to remarry, a matter which has been discussed in this house previously. Some time ago I referred to the laws of Moses, under which the penalty for this crime was death. I need not say to this honourable house that the Creator of all mankind desires to have in existence a pure and unadulterated race; notwithstanding that, some of these persons who are granted divorces reek from head to foot with social disease. We give them the right to marry again; yes, and as an hon. member suggests, they can be divorced the second or third time, if they wish. I say that sort of system is entirely too loose for a nation which expects to enjoy the smiling countenance and approval of Our Father and God.
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec - Montmorency) (Translation): Mr. Chairman, we are being asked to consider ninety divorce bills. I
Divorce Bills

listened attentively to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) and I protest vigorously against the wholesale passing of these measures.
Who are those called upon to judge the evidence given in these divorce cases submitted to the Senate and the House of Commons? Senators who have reached a certain age, old fizgigs who for the most part have a certain decorative value but who are in no way qualified to interpret the laws of evidence and treat with contempt the testimony they hear, as the hon. member for Macleod pointed out a moment ago. They assemble in Ottawa where they sit for a very few days before returning home and, presto, we have about ninety divorce bills dumped into our laps, all to be passed within the space of fifteen minutes or so!
Mr. Chairman, the House of Commons is not a divorce mill. It is true that the province of Quebec has no divorce courts and we desire none, for the sanctioning of divorce goes against the principles of our religious faith. Personally I oppose divorce, but if the law makes such a procedure mandatory let us at least entrust to a qualified agency the consideration of these divorce cases.
Since I have been here in Ottawa, I know for a fact that the House of Commons has passed as many as 200 divorce bills in a single session. Mr. Chairman, it is high time that something were done. That is why I intend to move that a vote be taken on each of these bills and particularly on Bill No. 31, the evidence concerning which has just been submitted to us and appears most insufficient to my mind.
I may say in passing that I regret to see certain hon. members accept, thoughtlessly I am sure, the chairmanship of house committees of this nature. I note that it is the custom to pass these bills in a wholesale fashion, more often than not without discussion. That is a mistake and we should have started long ago to vote against these divorce bills.


Mr. LALONDE (Translation):: I wish to join the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) in protesting against the wholesale passing of the divorce bills now before us. Last year, and this year again I believe, I was appointed to the divorce committee of the House of Commons but I never sat there. I have always refused to sit on that committee and I will not change my mind. I have no wish to sanction decisions that exemplify the deplorable conditions prevailing in our Christian society. I agree with what the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) has so aptly said, and I shall vote against this bill. I take this opportunity to point out that the

time has come for all hon. members, whatever their race or religion, to do something for the improvement of our society. There is an urgent need for the reconstruction of Christian society on a sound basis despite the fact that, owing to some differences on matters of principle, divorce is recognized in certain provinces while Quebec opposes it on many grounds.
As I said, I wish to join in the protests that have been voiced this afternoon and I repeat that if a vote is taken I shall register my opposition to the bill.
(Text) Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Vote, votel


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. McCann):: Those in favour of section 1 will please say "aye."
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency): We are asking for a vote.


An hon. MEMBER:: Only four are standing.


Mr. LACOMBE:: Take a registered vote. We are asking for a recorded vote.


Mr. REID:: Not in committee.


Mr. LACROIX (Beauce):: A standing vote.
Section agreed to: yeas, 36; nays, 18.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 42, to incorporate the Canadian Dental Association -Mr. Mcllraith-Mr. McCann in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Mr. STIRLING:: I wonder if the sponsor of the bill would be good enough to make an explanatory statement? My recollection is that he did so on a previous occasion, on the second reading, I think, but I am unable to turn it up in Hansard.


Mr. McILRAITH:: On May 29. To save time I might give the explanation again. The bill is very simple. The Canadian Dental association has been in existence as an unincorporated body since the year 1902. The dental profession have incorporated bodies or associations in each of the nine provinces, and these provincial associations have been consulted and have consented to the present bill. The membership of the association is in the neighbourhood of 4,000. The scheme of the bill follows exactly the scheme used in the Canadian Medical Association Act, which act will be found as chapter 62 of the statutes, 8-9 Edward VII.

Private Bills
The objects are set out in detail in section 2 of the bill. It will be seen from these objects that the licensing and control of qualifications and the practice of the dental profession are not covered by this act but are left with the provincial associations. I think that is perhaps all that I can usefully say at the moment, but if there are any questions I shall be very glad to answer them so far as I can.


Mr. STIR  LINO@: Will the passage of this act mean the setting up of a body to pass on the qualifications required by this association?


George James McIlraith: No; this association will have no control over the licensing or over the qualifications of the profession. The real object behind the incorporation arose from practical difficulties in connection with the publication of their magazine. This magazine has a wide circulation, but when it came to making contracts for advertising and other matters in connection with the magazine it was necessary to have the contracts signed by each of the nine provincial associations or incorporated bodies. This involved a great deal of delay and many practical inconveniences, and it was because of these difficulties that incorporation was sought.
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West); Is this body to deal in real estate? Section 6 provides that the association may:
(i) acquire by purchase, lease, gift, legacy or otherwise any real and personal estate and property,-
And:
(iii) sell, manage, develop, lease, mortgage, dispose of or otherwise deal therewith in such manner as the association may determine: Provided that real estate held by the association shall not exceed in value at any one time the sum of five hundred thousand dollars.


George James McIlraith: That section I believe is copied from the act- of 1909 incorporating the Canadian Medical association, I know that it is not the intention of this association in any way to deal in real estate, but it is the practice in these acts to enable the association to hold real estate for its own purposes as incidental to the main purposes of the organization, and that top limit of $500,000 is put in as the limit for any real estate the association may own. That is my understanding of the purpose of the section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. 44561-248

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. E. A. DUBUC (Chicoutimi) moved the second reading of Bill No. 99, respecting certain transmission and distribution lines of Saguenay Transmission Company, Ltd., Saguenay Electric Company and Aluminum Power Company, Ltd.
Mr. D. A. McNIVEN (Regina City):: I wish to make a few observations with regard to this bill-not, I may say, with any desire to oppose it. I understand that the companies named in the bill have from time to time constructed their electrical transmission lines over certain streams or rivers which are now declared to be navigable, and the object of the bill is to remove any doubt as to their right so to construct them. I understand that the applicants are subsidiaries of the Aluminum Company of Canada, which in turn is a subsidiary of the Aluminum Company of America.
Power has been developed on a big scale in that part of Quebec's hinterland known as the Saguenay river basin. Owing to the demand for aluminum in the construction of aeroplanes, power construction has been stepped up very considerably, and within the last year or year and a half, a million horsepower has been developed in that area, making a total development of approximately 1,750,000 horse-power of electrical energy.
The 1941 production of aluminum at the Arvida plant was 500 million pounds. It is estimated that 1942 production will be between 700 million and 800 million pounds, and that this amount will provide all the aluminum that is required for approximately 80,000 planes.
There are huge dams, reservoirs and power stations stretching from lake St. John right back to James bay. For this undertaking there were shipped into northern Quebec some 1,900 tons of equipment, approximately 750 men, and a large number of horses and oxen, by aeroplane. It is probably the largest aeroplane movement of freight ever undertaken in Canada. From this it will be gathered that it is a tremendous undertaking. In recent months the aluminum company was searching for additional power which it endeavoured to obtain in Manitoba. Arrangements could not be made there, and I was surprised to find within the last couple of weeks an announcement in the Financial Post that the aluminum company had decided to develop a site at Toronto covering some 48 acres and had started construction of office and other buildings at a cost exceeding $500,000.

Private Bills

The area involved indicates another huge undertaking of a war character being developed in eastern Canada. May I emphasize the fact that already one million horse-power have been developed in the Saguenay area, and there must be some close association between the location of this new plant at Toronto and the recent announcement of the Ontario government that it proposes to develop the Carillon site at a cost of $40,000,000.
This parliament is being asked to approve the use of a natural resource for the development of power in an area which four years ago had a surplus of power which the producers sought to export, because we were told that hundreds of thousands of horse-power were annually going to waste. If that is so, then I suggest, and I suggest it forcibly, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), and the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), that some direction should be given to these companies which are being heavily subsidized, to the end that future construction will serve some useful purpose in post-war development. It is but another step in the perfecting of that industrial Frankenstein which we are rapidly building 'up in Ontario and Quebec in war industries.
I am not critical of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, whose responsibility it is to obtain war production in the quickest way possible. But while that was true a year or two ago, it has not the same force to-day as it had then. War has broken out on the western front, and I suggest that the transportation of goods east or west and the possibility of attack on either the west or the east coast would justify the installation and establishment of some of these war industries in the prairie provinces, and particularly in Saskatchewan.
What relation has this request to the subject matter of the bill before the house? We have in Saskatchewan unlimited coal deposits that could be used to develop a very large head of power if an enterprise such as the aluminum company or some other company would undertake its development. There is no large head of power developed in Saskatchewan at present. It would have a post-war use, because the power could be transmitted to the farms and the small towns; it would be a means of inducing small industries to come into the province to supply the demand of its million people, and it would help as nothing else would to correct the badly balanced economy of the prairies. Everyone who has given the matter any thought has stated in the most emphatic terms that some development of that kind must take place, 
otherwise the plight of the people on the prairies, in Saskatchewan particularly, is going to be an unhappy one for years to come.
I ask pardon for intruding that thought upon the introduction of this bill, but I did want to bring it to the attention of the Minister of Mines and Resources and the Minister of Finance.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



WAR RISK INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, May 28, consideration in committee of Bill No. 56, to make provision with respect to insurance of property against war risks and the payment of compensation for war damage-Mr. Ilsley -Mr. McCann in the chair.
On section 2-^Definitions.
Mr. GREEN:: When this bill was before
the committee on a previous occasion hon. members on-all sides of the house urged upon the minister that the bill be extended so that fishermen on the two coasts of Canada might be able to get coverage. The section stood at that time with the understanding that the minister would look into the situation. We were all hopeful that he would be able to work out some plan whereby these fishermen could be protected. Is the minister in a position to make a statement?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. We are on section 2, and some points came up when the section was before the committee last. The main point was the protection of fishermen. It was urged that the bill be amended so that fishermen could insure under it. I expressed my opposition to that suggestion on the ground that the bill is designed to cover property within the country, not property outside the country, because different considerations apply, different rates and so forth.
But I thought and, I believe, intimated that some plan might be worked out independently of the bill which would give a reasonable degree of protection to fishermen. I have conferred with my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud), and we have worked out an order in council which I think fairly well covers the situation. That order in council has been passed, and my colleague will either read it to the committee or make some statement about it after I resume my seat.
That was not the only point which arose. Another matter which was discussed under

War Risk Insurance
section 2 was whether ships generally, any ships, should be covered by the bill. Certain hon. members pointed out the apparent discrimination between treatment accorded ships on inland waters and that accorded ships on the high seas. I found it difficult to justify the discrimination. From one point of view, of course, the coverage of ships on inland waters is defensible, because the degree of risk is certainly comparable with the degree of risk to buildings and personal property on land. At the same time I have said several times that it is not the object or intention of the government to supply coverage which can be obtained in a commercial way, and ships on inland waters can be insured with the insurance companies. In view of the fact that it is very hard to explain to a person operating a ship on the coast why he will be unable to get insurance under this bill, while a shipowner operating a ship on the great lakes can, I have decided that the best thing to do is to take ships, whether on inland waters or outside the country, out of the bill altogether. That does not apply to ships in course of construction, but it does apply to ships which have been launched. I shall propose an amendment accordingly.
The definition of "inland waters," the extent of the area covered by that term, has been reconsidered. The government has already made its selection of the advisory committee which is provided for under one of the sections of the bill, even though the section has not been passed by the house, because of the urgency of advancing the scheme. I have therefore had the benefit of the advice of the members of the advisory committee, which advice has been very helpful on a number of points, and as a result of discussions with them and consideration of the matter generally it has been decided to draw a line farther up the river than the line found in section 2 (f). I will propose an amendment in that sense.
When we come to the other sections of the bill-perhaps we shall not reach them this afternoon, though I hope we may-there are two or three other points I shall have to lay before the committee. I will do so after having given them all very careful consideration, and I hope the views of the committee will coincide with my own views. One suggestion relates to the question of taxation. Since the bringing down of the budget the reasons for leaving the section in the form in which it was originally drafted appear to me very much stronger even than they were before. Although the banking and commerce committee rejected that section, I am going to urge in committee of the whole that the section be restored in

44561-248|
exactly or at least substantially its original form, because I think anything else under the present taxation provisions would be indefensible. I will propose one or two other amendments to the bill as we come to the various sections; but with regard to personal property on ships in inland waters it has not been deemed advisable, and I do not deem it advisable, to remove those provisions from the bill. Very awkward situations will arise if they are removed. For instance, grain is sometimes stored in ships. Grain will be insurable in elevators on the great lakes, and I consider it desirable that this coverage of grain should continue after it is loaded into boats on the great lakes. Therefore there will be provision that while ships in inland waters are not insurable under this bill, cargoes of ships in inland waters will be insurable.
I think that gives the committee a fair idea of the result of the thought that has been given to the bill, and perhaps now it would be advisable to have the Minister of Fisheries state to the committee the provisions of the order in council having to do with the protection of fishermen.


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Chairman, when this bill came before the committee some weeks ago, several hon. members representing constituencies in which there were numbers of fishermen, made requests to the effect that those fishermen should be given protection against war damage. It was then stated to the committee that the persons of the fishermen were protected against war risks, if they met with accident due to enemy action; or, if they met with death, that their dependents were protected. In addition, their personal belongings are protected by virtue of a special order in council under the War Measures Act, because all these matters are really war measures.


Mr. NEILL:: Would the minister give the number of the order in council?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I have not the number in mind at the moment, but if I have not already sent a copy to the hon. member I shall do so. It was also intimated that the boats owned by the fishermen should be protected, and it was suggested that they should be covered by insurance.


Howard Charles Green: That was only one of the suggestions I made.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I then stated that the Department of Fisheries had contemplated some protection against damage resulting from enemy action to fishing boats of a class owned by people who could not well afford to insure them or of a class that would not be insurable
War Risk Insurance

against war risk. Since then as the Minister of Finance mentioned a moment ago, we have considered the matter and have recommended to council additional provisions for the payment of compensation to fishermen and others for the loss of boats and gear as a result of war damage. This was done because fishermen generally are not in a position to pay the very high insurance rates against war damage, and in most instances the boats that we intend to cover are not of an insurable class. That is, the companies that carry on marine insurance do not care to insure such small boats against such great risks. For that reason we have made provision for the compassionate relief of fishermen who, as a result of the state of war, suffer war damage to their fishing boats, vessels or gear, in order that these people may be enabled to continue with their calling and resume their operations as soon as possible after the damage is inflicted. They are a class of people who are engaged in an important primary industry, and it would be in the public interest to keep them producing as much as possible for as long as possible, with the least possible interruption through war damage to their fishing gear and boats.
For these reasons an order in council has been passed under the War Measures Act empowering the Minister of Fisheries to pay compensation to any person in an amount not exceeding $2,000 on each diminution of value caused by war damage in any fishing boat of which such person is an owner, provided that if any such person is a joint owner, his compensation hereunder shall be limited to his proportionate share of the amount of $2,000.


Thomas Reid: That is free insurance.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That is not free insurance; it is free compensation.


Alan Webster Neill: As interest may appear.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes. That is compassionate relief, by way of monetary compensation, to fishermen for the loss of their boats through enemy action. The limit is $2,000 per boat.


Alan Webster Neill: What about the nets?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: There may be $400 paid for the nets, but no compensation shall be paid for any claim amounting to less than $25.


Alan Webster Neill: In either case?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In either case; because minor claims would be difficult to adjust and would be so numerous. They would not prevent people from carrying on their calling, even if they met with such minor damages.

No compensation under this order shall be paid in respect of diminution of value caused by war damage in any fishing boat or fishing gear, unless such diminution in value in either case exceeds $25. No compensation shall be paid in respect of diminution of value caused by war damage in fishing boat or fishing gear in respect of which the owner is indemnified against war damage otherwise than under this order.
That is, there would be no duplication. If a fisherman can afford to insure his boat he can collect from the insurance company. But he cannot at the same time expect to receive compassionate relief from the public treasurer.


Alan Webster Neill: What about the excess? Can a man insure beyond $2,000?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Certainly, he can insure beyond $2,000, but he will not receive $2,000 if that insurance is paid.


Alan Webster Neill: Does the minister think that is fair?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I think it is-


Alan Webster Neill: I do not.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: -because it is compassionate relief provided for people who cannot afford to insure.


Howard Charles Green: Why should this be called compassionate relief-


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: -any more than the provision in the act for home owners? The home owner can get free insurance up to $3,000, and then he can insure at his own cost for a higher amount. Apparently the fisherman cannot do that. Anything he gets from the insurance company cuts down the free insurance that may be provided.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It is not free insurance, at all. Fishermen are not asked as a class or individually to contribute to a fund out of which they will be compensated. Under the insurance scheme the public generally are being asked to contribute to the fund. And out of the general fund a certain class of owners are going to be compensated without contributing. But the public generally is making up the fund out of which they will be compensated.


Howard Charles Green: If fishing boats were included in the act it could be treated as free insurance which, I submit, is what should be done.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No compensation shall be paid any person under this order in respect of diminution of values caused by war damage at any one time, of any more than one fishing boat owned by such person.

War Risk Insurance
That means that a person who owns more than one fishing boat cannot collect compensation for each and every boat, or in other words for more than one boat.


Alan Webster Neill: Why not?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, why not?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Because he can carry on his business with one boat. If he owns more than one boat, he is carrying on a business in which he is supposed to be deriving enough profit to provide for replacements to his fleet of boats.


Alan Webster Neill: You cannot carry on a cannery with one boat, and many of the canneries have to provide boats.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: But if a person who is operating a cannery depends upon a fleet of boats, he must make provision for insurance for this fleet of boats, or have a fund provided for the replacement of the fleet.


Alan Webster Neill: That is putting the individual, whether he be a fisherman or a canneryman, who must have more than one boat to run his business, in a position where he must take the entire loss, which we have already agreed should fall upon the nation as a whole. It is pointed out in Mr. Leonard's report, and we were told on the last occasion the bill was discussed it was the view of the government, that a loss of that kind caused by war should not fall upon one individual, but that it should be spread over the nation. Now it is going to be pinned down to one man.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I completely disagree with that. If that were the principle we had adopted, we would not have any bill at all; we would just compensate everybody. There would be no policy and there would be no premium. This is the only class of capital as to which there is free compensation-the only class.


Alan Webster Neill: The only class of what?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The only class of capital
assets in respect of which there is free compensation. I refer to these fishing boats.


Alan Webster Neill: Is not an elevator capital?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Is not grain in a ship, which we are going to take care of, capital?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: And is not the whole of this Bill No. 56 intended to protect the grain man?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, that is the point. In those cases premiums will be charged. There will not h* one dollar of free compensation.
There is free compensation to home owners for the residences in which they live, and fishermen will get that protection under this bill.


Alan Webster Neill: No. they won't; they will
get it only up to $2,000. Many of those fishermen live on their boats.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The fisherman will get the protection for his home and his chattels under the free compensation provision, like any other people in the country.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, if the fisherman has a home ashore. But that is not so if his home is his boat, as is often the case.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am talking about his residence. If there were fifty thousand fishermen in Canada I am sure over forty-nine thousand of them would have residences ashore.


Alan Webster Neill: No, not on the west coast.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, yes, of course.


Alan Webster Neill: Not on the Pacific coast.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not wish the hon.
member to apply the provisions of home protection to this class of case. This is a capital investment; and the owners of boats, or fleets of boats, will be expected to take out insurance-not get free insurance. If that were so, I do not know where we would stop.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the minister answer the point I made? Did not Mr. Leonard say in his recommendation that it was desirable that these war losses should be shared by the nation as a whole, and not put upon one unhappy man? We compensate our soldiers' widows because they have suffered something for which we are all responsible.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think Mr. Leonard said that, and certainly I never said it. I wish my hon. friend to understand that if that were the principle we would not have the bill. We would have free compensation for everybody, from the aluminum company, down.


Alan Webster Neill: And why not? It is a debt of war.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. If the committee wishes to challenge the principle on third reading, well and good. It may, if it wishes, challenge the principle of war risk insurance premiums.


Alan Webster Neill: We cannot do it. It would be out of order, because it would involve an expenditure of public money.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member may vote against it, if he wishes to.


Alan Webster Neill: That does not do any good.
War Risk Insurance


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is nothing out of order in connection with voting against it. But I thought we had passed that stage of the matter, and had adopted the principle, not of free compensation but of insurance.


Alan Webster Neill: Here is the paragraph in the report to which I have reference:
For reasons which I could set out more fully I think the government should accept the principle that the loss ought not to be left to lie where it happens to fall, because the particular person damaged is but the casual victim of a genera] peril which the state is doing its utmost to resist and counteract.
Then he goes on to say that the country as a whole should accept it, and not the lone fisherman.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The country as a whole should furnish insurance privileges; that is what it means.


Alan Webster Neill: But that is not what it says.


Thomas Reid: Is it not a fact that fishermen are in a class by themselves? Here we are insuring homes. Homes are anchored to the soil, and we protect them up to $3,000. On the other hand, ships go out into the open, into dangerous zones. If there were no compensation, these fishermen might very well say, "We are not going out into the danger zone." Therefore I say they should be treated differently. We are told that if a man has two boats and loses both of them, he will be compensated for only one. If he wishes to insure for more than $2,000, he will get no insurance at all from the government.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct.


Thomas Reid: It cuts him out completely.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Correct.


Thomas Reid: I also say it is not fair to the fisherman, because he may not want to go into dangerous waters to fish.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Minister of Fisheries will argue the point, but I may point out that the ground upon which the request was made was that this particular feature had reference to fishermen whose boats are their all. If a fisherman's boat is gone, he cannot fish. It certainly was put up to us that we must not let that happen. It was pointed out that we must not let that prevent his fishing. But when the fisherman moves into the investment class or into the business class I say he should be treated like other persons. We will protect him to the extent of $2,000 on one boat. That will take care of the great majority of them. Certainly I would not like on behalf of the government to assume the obligation of further compensation to some 
fishing companies that own boats and are insuring them at the present time, and that can insure them, and expect to insure them. This is a matter of looking after the small man.


Alan Webster Neill: But they cannot insure their boats at the-present time. That is the trouble. I quote from sessional paper No. 245, which is a return tabled by the Minister of Finance. It is a copy of the report on war risks and bombardment insurance by Mr. T. D'Arcy Leonard. He says in section 6:
Accordingly-
That is, after having stated his case:
-we ought to endeavour to distribute the loss or damage as far as possible among our people as a whole in the fairest and most equitable manner.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What about section 8?


Alan Webster Neill: They took various views and advanced various schemes of compensation such as 10 (a):
Schemes of compensation, whereby the damage in whole or in part is repaid out of the general revenues of the state;
That was the first recommendation. And then (b):
Reinsurance, whereby ordinary commercial insurers reinsure a portion of the risk with the government.
But then look at section 4:
_ Up to December 7, 1941, there w-as available in Canada insurance against war risks to property. Since that date the insurance companies and underwriters have stopped writing new policies and therefore at the present time citizens and commercial concerns cannot protect themselves against the hazard.
That makes it quite evident that it is up to the government. We are at war, and we are protecting our men and women and children against risks, but when it comes to protecting the fishermen against this particular risk we say "no". But in Britain they have compulsory insurance, and here you are insuring the fishermen's boats in safe waters in the middle of the country in the great lakes. As this man says, the risk ought to be borne by the nation as a whole. But you are insuring the fisherman's boat only up to $2,000, which is from one-third to one-tenth of what they are worth, and that applies to only one boat. Bill No. 56 was introduced originally for the purpose apparently of giving a tremendous advantage to the owners of grain on the great lakes, and it has still to be provided that they can get payment for their wheat when it is stored on these boats. One of the objections that we took to the bill originally was that only the vessels of the fishermen on the great lakes were protected. That is a huge

War Risk Insurance
expanse of water where, if anywhere, a boat ought to be safe; yet the man who operates his boat in dangerous waters in British Columbia and the maritimes is ignored. I can quote half a dozen instances where the minister said that he did not visualize that. Now pressure is brought that he ought to do something. If he is going to do it, for heaven's sake do something; do not just make a vague gesture.
The minister has read portions of the order in council; but here we are going to pass this thing, I presume, in twenty minutes, and we shall have to rely only on something of which we have heard extracts read. That is not satisfactory to me. I want to see it down in black and white. These boats run up to $25,000 in value. A good seine boat with net will cost more than that. They have to have powerful engines because the boats go out from thirty to fifty miles to sea, and they are very valuable boats. There was the case the other day where a fisherman bought one of these boats for $26,000. And all you are offering him is $2,000. You want the fish; Britain is crying for the fish, but you will protect the fishermen only up to $2,000, and you will not let him insure beyond that. A submarine can come along and attack a fleet of 150 of these boats and clean the whole lot out. Perhaps the fisherman has a mortgage on the boat, and he has to protect himself. If he does, you will not give him even this paltry $2,000 compensation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Let me set the hon. member straight. In the first place Mr. Leonard in his report was not reporting on sea risks at all, but on land risks. He expressly recommends that we do not go into the sea risk business.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Not by this bill.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not by this bill, and the
reason is that marine risk insurance is available.


Alan Webster Neill: Marine risk is not available.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not under this bill, but it
is available commercially.


Alan Webster Neill: He says "no."


James Lorimer Ilsley: Where?


Alan Webster Neill: I have just read it. For some time it was available, but now it is stopped.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is the land risk.


Alan Webster Neill: It does not say so.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Read the whole report.
Marine insurance is available. I thought my
hon. friend understood the principle of the bill. Let me read section 8 of Mr. Leonard's report:
In the second place, it is my considered view that the property owner is not entitled to compensation out of the ordinary general revenues of the country beyond an amount which would represent provision for essential shelter and necessary household goods; and that in order to receive compensation in excess of that amount, he, along with other property owners, should make a special contribution proportionate or related to the inuemnity he would get.
With regard to a man's business premises, anything in the nature of capital assets, there is no free insurance to anybody except the fisherman. The request of the members of the committee was that the small man-not the man owning a $25,000 boat-be protected. I did not hear anything about that when this matter was up before. I know that some of these schooners on the east coast will run up to $75,000 in value.


Thomas Reid: And they can get insurance?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, and they do get insurance, and can pay the insurance, but the small man cannot, and therefore we are giving him up to $2,000 compensation.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: What about the owner of a $25,000 boat?


James Lorimer Ilsley: He will take out insurance himself.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He cannot get it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, he can from the
company.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What company?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am informed that the insurance is available.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On the last occasion when this matter was up the minister said that the only company that was writing marine insurance was a San Francisco company and that they had stopped issuing insurance. Those were the minister's own words; I am speaking from my memory.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Your memory is bad.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not think so.


Angus MacInnis: It seems to me that the discussion has altogether changed since the last time we were considering this bill. I am sorry I was not in when the Minister of Fisheries was discussing the matter. What we objected to when the bill was previously under consideration was that the fishermen on the east and west coasts were excluded'from the insurance that was given
War Risk Insurance

to shipowners on inland waters and on rivers. I have the section before me. Section 2, paragraph (i) says:
"property" means buildings, machinery, fixtures or other structures erected or placed upon, in, over, under or affixed to land, and all movable corporeal property in Canada, but shall not include:
(i)	land, exclusive of any structures aforesaid;
(ii)	growing crops, plants and trees;
And then:
(iv) ships, other than vessels used solely in docks, ports, rivers or other inland waters or inland waterways;
I understand the suggestion was that fishing boats be included in the bill. I did not hear anything the last time about free insurance for fishing boats, and I cannot understand how it has come in. If the fishing fleet can get marine insurance at reasonable rates, I do not think we are on sound ground in asking that they be given free insurance under this bill, because no other commercial property receives free insurance.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is true.


Angus MacInnis: But if fishing boats cannot get marine insurance at reasonable rates, they should be brought in under this insurance scheme. I think that is all that the fishermen can reasonably ask for and all that their representatives can reasonably ask. They should not receive special treatment under the bill, but I can see no reason why the fishermen on the west coast, where there is great danger, should be treated differently from the fishermen on the great lakes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman came in after I spoke. Under the proposal no ships are to be insured on the great lakes. That will eliminate the discrimination. There is something in what the hon. member says; there is an argument for his position that free insurance should not be given to anybody. But the fact is that unless we provide free compensation for the owners of small fishing boats we know that they will not insure. That is the reason for making special provision, up to a limited extent, for this great number of small fishermen. It does not apply to the man who has a fairly substantial investment. He will go to the commercial agency where insurance is available.
It may be said that insurance is too expensive. If a situation arises where marine insurance generally is too expensive, perhaps the government could give consideration to the setting up of a different scheme. But I have the most deep-seated objection to mixing a marine insurance scheme with a land insurance scheme. They do not do it anywhere,

so far as I know-neither in Great Britain nor the United States nor anywhere else. The two kinds of business are different. Everything about a marine insurance scheme is different from a land insurance scheme, and I must stand firm on that-that we shall not run these marine risks in with land risks. What is proper for a certain rate on land is different from a rate on water. The risk is different, the nature of the business is different, the adjustment is different, the rules are different. For one thing, losses on land are adjusted on the basis of actual loss. It is like fire insurance: if I take out $10,000 insurance on my house, and it burns down, and the house turns out to be worth only $6,000, then I get only $6,000. The reverse, I am told, is true of marine insurance; the value is determined in advance and adhered to regardless of what the actual loss may be. That is a vital distinction. I cannot mix up these two plans.
We have no Canadian government plan of marine insurance, but commercial insurance is available. They have, I believe, a plan in Great Britain: I think they have a plan in the United States; but nowhere do they mix up the two, and I cannot run these fishing boats into this scheme. I have met the thing in what I thought was a very much better way. I have provided for the small man. I have no intention of providing free insurance for men who are heavy or substantial investors. We made inquiries and found that $2,000 would reasonably meet the great majority of these people. You cannot provide for everything, unless you just open the doors wide and say, "Whatever you lose we will pay"; but I think we have gone a reasonable distance in making this provision.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Fisheries was in the middle of his explanation of the order in council when these interruptions took place, and I fear we are hardly giving him a fair chance. The situation seems to me to be this. The danger on the sea coasts of Canada is greater at the present time than the danger on land. In other words there is greater urgency for some protection against marine risks, and yet, as the minister has just said, Canada has no scheme whatever to cover ships, although both the British and the United States have such schemes. I do not think it makes much difference just how the situation is met, but it must be met, and quickly, by the government. I understand that in the United States the policy of the government is to make marine insurance available at reasonable rates if it cannot be obtained at reasonable rates from the commercial companies. That sums up the policy,

War Risk Insurance
as I understand it, as carried out by the United States maritime commission. Why can we not have some such commission set up in Canada?
The minister has said several times this afternoon that this insurance can be obtained now. My information is that it cannot be obtained in Canada-on the west coast, at any rate-at reasonable rates.
I have here a press dispatch from New York dated June 25, which reads as follows:
A 50 per cent increase in premiums for cargo war risk insurance on shipments moving along the Pacific coast north of San Francisco was made by marine underwriters to-day.
That is about ten days ago. There is the position that we are met with on the coast. Our merchant ships are being sunk, our coast is being shelled by submarines, yet the government calmly sits back and says, "We have no plan for marine insurance; we will give it consideration"-which means that perhaps a year from now we may have some scheme. Steps should be taken at once to provide war risk coverage for all boats on the two coasts at reasonable rates.
So far as the order in council which the Minister of Fisheries was reading is concerned, it has several of the earmarks of a cheese-paring officialdom, may I say, as regards some of the restrictions-for example, restricting it to a boat in which there are not more than two persons, and restricting it to one boat only, although a man may own two, and not allowing a man to insure for anything over $2,000, in that if he does so, he is penalized by the deducting of what he gets from the insurance company from what he would get from the government. But it does help out. However, I want to emphasize the urgency of some action by the government to provide for war risk insurance agaiust marine risks.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Most of the insurance on
marine risks taken out in Canada is obtained in Great Britain and the United States.


Howard Charles Green: At very high rates.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, rates which are competitive with the government schemes in those countries. What my hon. friend is asking the Canadian government to do is to supply a low land rate, lower than the rates which are set for us by Great Britain, and-


Howard Charles Green: The minister must not put those words in my mouth. I did not say a low land rate; I said reasonable rates. That is the basis, I believe, which is adopted in the United States. I have here a quotation from the Commercial Fisherman's Weekly of June 12, 1942-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Do we not get the benefit of those United States rates and of the English rates as well?


Howard Charles Green: This quotation reads:
Machinery to provide war risk insurance and reinsurance on American ships, including fishing craft, was set up by the United States maritime commission, which announced January 15 last that a $40,000,000 fund established for such a purpose was open to ship owners unable to obtain adequate insurance for their vessels at "reasonable terms and conditions" from commercial underwriters.	,
We maintain that on the Pacific coast we cannot get that coverage at reasonable rates, and we say that the government should provide a scheme whereby insurance can be obtained at reasonable rates.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend has no
idea of what reasonable rates would be? He has no figures?


Howard Charles Green: There are no figures here.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The government's scheme in the United States is the regulating factor with respect to commercial rates, which are available to Canadian ship owners. That is the whole thing. I hesitate to say that there is no demand that the government go into marine risks, but there is not. It may be that if property owners generally thought that by making a demand they could get a rate lower than the English or the American rate there might be a demand. But what obligation is there on the Canadian government to supply a specially low marine rate? The reason we make this provision for fishermen is that we know that no matter what the rate is, whether low or high, if there are thousands of fishermen-ten thousand, twenty thousand, thirty or forty thousand-having small boats worth $200 or $400 or $1,000, they will not take out insurance, and perhaps they could not get insurance, because the companies would not want to be bothered with writing these very small amounts.


Howard Charles Green: Why leave it all to the
companies? Why give them so much power? Why put the boat owners in the hands of two or three commercial companies?-which is the situation on the Pacific coast. Is that fair?


Alan Webster Neill: I have a suggestion to make which may meet with the approval of the committee, but before I offer it, perhaps I might make this statement. It has been put up to us to-day that this bill has nothing to do with fishermen, and we have been a=kea why we should bring in the fishermen. The answer is that fishermen were spoken of the last time the matter was under discussion,
War Risk Insurance

because the word "ships" is actually used in the bill. We talked about the great lakes. That was when the subject first came up. We were discussing an enormous body of water large enough to take in Great Britain, and the subject naturally extended to fishermen. There is no question that fishermen were [DOT] brought up. This will be found by reference to section 2. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) quoted the statement that had been made by Mr. D'Arcy Leonard. This is what Mr. Leonard said:
I do think however that we should canvass the possibility of making an arrangement with either the maritime shipping commission of the United States or the British war risks insurance office to make sure that cover is available at reasonable rates to Canadian hulls and on cargoes in which Canadians are interested.
That is a definite report, submitted after careful study, and that has not been done. All that we get is something read from an order in council which we have not seen. How did the minister expect this bill to go through when he knew that there were a number of members interested in the subject? He did not let us have a chance to read the order in council, but on the strength of certain extracts from that order in council we are supposed to accept the bill and keep quiet. That will not satisfy me. I suggest that in order to get some harmony, and so that we may have an opportunity of knowing what we are doing, the minister should read the whole of the order in council and have the committee adjourn until Monday. This would give us a chance to look into the order in council. Perhaps the matter is not as bad as it appears and perhaps it is worse, but at any rate we want to see exactly what it is that the order in council says, and to what we are committed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot object to that. I knew I was going to be held up on this bill until provision was made for fishermen, and hon. gentlemen can hold me up as long as they want to-


Alan Webster Neill: I rise to a point of order. It is not fair to say that we are holding up the minister. We have not spoken an hour, and all we have received is the suggestion that we are holding up this legislation. God knows we have sat here long enough and we do not want to hold up anything.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not take it back, and I do not make the statement resentfully. I said that I knew, what is a fact, that I would be held up on the bill until provision was made for fishermen. If hon. gentlemen want us to wait in order that they may see the order in council, that is all right. I do not say that they should refrain from talking; I do not 
expect it. That is their right and privilege. We have tried to make reasonable provision for fishermen, and if hon. members do not think it is sufficient and would like to exercise their privilege of talking on the subject for any length of time, I cannot help it. I have given my reasons why I think this is the best we can do. With regard to marine insurance generally, the demand was for land insurance. There was an insistent demand beginning from Pearl Harbour, not for marine insurance, because that was available-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Where?


James Lorimer Ilsley: From any commercial agency.


George Alexander Cruickshank: At what rate?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot give rates.


Howard Charles Green: You should know them.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know whether I should or not. They are the prevailing rates, and they are available to hon. gentlemen.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Are they subject to war-time price control?


Mr. JACKMAN:: Yes; that is very
important.


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: I was a member of the committee that considered the bill, and no representations were made to the committee on the part of the ship owners. The first time any demand has been made on the government for the protection of ship owners on both coasts is to-day in the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


William Chisholm Macdonald: On the last occasion-


George Alexander Cruickshank: You ought to attend the house more often.


William Chisholm Macdonald: On the last occasion there was some reference to fishermen, and remarks were made on their behalf; but if there is one class in this dominion who do not require any special protection it is the ship owners. Everyone knows that the price of shipping has gone, away up, but there is insurance available and shipowners can take advantage of it. Naturally they have to pay a higher rate as the war risk increases, and I say that both on the Atlantic and on the Pacific coasts there is no difficulty getting that insurance. The hon. member for Vancouver South has quoted certain rates-


Howard Charles Green: The minister's plan covers only very small fishing boats. I was referring to fishing boats as well as other ships.

War Risk Insurance


William Chisholm Macdonald: 
Howard Charles Green: By chopping off the heads
of the great lakes fishermen, taking something away from them. We were not trying to do that.


William Chisholm Macdonald: It was the suggestion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No.


Mr. MAYHEW:: 
Alan Webster Neill: The latter sum would be reasonable and fairly satisfactory.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I think he should be
insured up to the $3,000 on the same basis.
There is another aspect of the matter that should be considered. The bill makes it possible for a man with an investment of half a million on shore to get additional insurance at his own expense at a reasonable rate. In
your marine bill you are not making it possible for him to get it. If what the hon. member says is correct, that there has been a 50 per cent increase in cargo war risk insurance rates, if would mean, according to Mr. Leonard's statement in the banking and commerce committee, that fishing boats in the Prince Rupert area would be paying 45 per cent premium. He said that there were three different sections: 12 per cent at the southern end of the island, 20 per cent about the centre and 30 per cent at the northern part, so that adding 50 per cent would mean that a boat out of Prince Rupert would be paying 45 per cent. That is hardly a reasonable rate. The government should endeavour to provide enough competition so that the private enterprise will at least come to a reasonable base and not overcharge a man who is trying to earn a living.	_
There is another reason why I think the fishermen should be encouraged. They have made very good money up to date in the fishing; many of them have made as much money this year already as they made all last year. They are not going to continue to risk their boats without any insurance and pay practically 100 per cent of their earnings to the government. That is human nature, but it is a fact that must be taken into account.


Mr. POTTIER:: If they are making so much money that they are going to stop working, it seems to me the least they could do is to stay at work a little longer and pay an insurance premium and save the government from having to dip into the treasury in order to provide more money for them. I am not objecting to the order in council referred to by the Minister of Fisheries, because I think it is a great step in behalf of the small man, who is the one we have to protect. Let me give an idea of the number of boats by counties. In Shelburne county in my riding we have 708 fishing boats and 100 larger fishing boats. In Yarmouth county we have eighty-eight fishing boats and ninety-three larger fishing boats. That is the picture of the state of affairs along the shore of the maritime provinces. For these fishermen, their total assets, their livelihood, what they educate their children on, their working capital, are represented by these small boats. And they are not insured. They each own a boat worth perhaps $2,000 to $3,000. The operation of large numbers of boats to the value of $75,000 or $80,000 each, which apparently is the style in British Columbia, is something we do not know anything about. We have a few, not many.
I hope we do not get to the radical point- the "gimme's" such as we see from western
War Risk Insurance


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I did not ask that the man with a fleet of fishing boats should get free insurance. He should be considered on the same basis as the man with that amount of capital on shore; I quite agree with my hon. friend on that. The only point I raised was whether a man who uses his boat as a shelter on the sea should not get the same privilege as the man who uses his home for shelter on land.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want to ask a couple of questions. I represent fishermen-
I do not know how many boats, but from Vancouver north I have no doubt as many as the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare. I quote the words of the hon. member as reported on page 2855 of Hansard: "I think we should leave it as it is now."


James Lorimer Ilsley: Leave what?


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member said:
I rather agree with the last speaker. I do not think that just because you cannot get what you happen to want you should take anything away from anyone else. It serr.s to me that if there is any chance at all of fishing boats getting any protection it will be because somebody else has somewhere similar protection. If we take out of this bill the road leading half way to where we want to go we abolish our only chance, and there never will be any opportunity for fishing boats to be insured. I think we should leave it as it is now, . . .
If that is satisfactory to the maritimes it is not to British Columbia. We are accused of saying "gimme" all the time, but the only place where Japanese submarines are active to-day is on the west coast, so far as Canada

is concerned. We are accused of having the
gimme s . I should like to ask any hon. member from Nova Scotia what subsidy the fishermen of British Columbia got when the lobster fishermen of the maritimes were even having their advertising paid for, and now you cannot buy a tin of lobster because it is not available. But we and the rest of Canada paid the cost of advertising that part of their lobster catch that had to be canned.
The question I desire to ask the minister is this. He referred to fishing boats costing from two to four hundred dollars. So far as I know there are no boats of that class operating in my constituency. I do not class myself as an expert with regard to fishing, like the hon. member for New Westminster or the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, but I believe that in British Columbia they fish with either gill nets or seine nets.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: And trolls.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes. I may be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe the gill net is the least expensive net, costing at prewar prices from $600 up. I should like to know of any boat used on the west coast of Canada, costing from two to four hundred dollars and making use of a gill net costing $600 at the very least.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have no knowledge of the value of gill nets on the British Columbia coast, nor did I purport to be expressing any opinion in that regard.


Mr. MARTIN:: Possibly this discussion between the salt water fishermen of the Pacific and the Atlantic should be balanced by someone speaking for the fresh water fishermen in between. The minister has said that ships on the great lakes have been taken out of the provisions of this act because it was felt that there would be discrimination against ships operating on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Surely that is no argument for denying to the ships on the great lakes the advantages offered by this legislation, and which they would have received if they had been allowed to continue under its provisions. This is not a case of the "gimme's" as far as the great lakes are concerned. The government would still get the money paid in by the ship owners on the great lakes, w'ho I believe would pay a smaller premium. I do not see why hon. members either from the east or from the west would wish to have this discrimination operate against the great lakes fishermen, and certainly the minister has not yet satisfied me that the mere fact that there would be a discrimination is sufficient reason for excluding

War Risk Insurance
shipowners on the great lakes from the operation of this legislation. In effect he is saying, "We cannot give you what we think you are entitled to, because we see no reason for according a similar privilege to those on the two coasts." I suggest to the minister that if there is any stronger argument he should give it to the committee.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think that is the main argument, but I believe it is a strong one. I do not think we would ever hear the last of it if we provided a government scheme at what would be represented as bargain rates for marine insurance on the great lakes, and did not make the same provision on the coast. From the governmental point of view, the parliamentary point of view, that is an excellent reason. I was impressed by the argument advanced by the hon. member for York South in that regard. He took an interest in the debate; and while I do not think he had any interest from a constituency point of view, he did raise the point of discrimination the other day, and I found my own answers to him not quite as convincing as I should have liked them to be. My answer was that there was no reason why we should not extend the same rates to ships on lake Ontario, for example, that we extend to buildings in Toronto. Nevertheless I have stated repeatedly that it is not our aim to supply insurance facilities for persons to whom commercial facilities are available. Commercial facilities are available to ships on the great lakes; and I think we would be accused, and justly accused, of discrimination if we provided insurance for them and not for ships on our coasts. I have taken the matter up with the members of the advisory committee; it has been fully discussed, and I have come to the conclusion that we should take those ships out. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni moved an amendment the other day, to have those ships taken out, and now I think I shall agree with him on that.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: If you take away the opportunity for war risk insurance on ships I do not see why you should not also take away the opportunity for war risk insurance on cargo. I do not think the two things should be mixed up in this bill at all.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There might be some demand for that, I do not know; but from the point of view of cargo, particularly grain, the flow is so continuous-it goes from the elevators into the boats, where it is sometimes stored- that I think we had better leave in cargoes on inland waters. We could never get this so that someone would not accuse us of discrimination. Just as soon as we become too
generous in one line, that is used as an argument why we should be generous in a number of other lines, and we are pushed from one point to another. I cannot have a light regard for demands on the treasury. I must have some sort of control or rein on such demands, and I think we have gone as far as we should be asked to go in this matter.


Howard Charles Green: Has the government given any consideration to the setting up of a Canadian maritime commission, or some other organization which could handle marine insurance in Canada?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Howard Charles Green: Has any consideration been given to the' suggestion made by Mr. D'Arcy Leonard, which is contained in paragraph 19 of his report, as follows:
I do think, however, that we should canvass the possibility of making an arrangement with either the maritime shipping commission of the United States or the British war risks insurance office to make sure that cover is available at reasonable rates to Canadian hulls and on cargoes in which Canadians are interested.
Has any attempt been made to come to some arrangement with either the United States maritime commission or the British war risks insurance office?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There has been no demand. As I say, we might stimulate a demand, or the members of this house might create a demand for it, but up to the present there has been no demand. Let hon. members just think of the situation. We are not going into this business for the fun of it; we are going into it to meet an urgent, pressing, almost desperate demand that arose after Pearl Harbour, for a class of insurance which was disappearing, because it was being cancelled right and left. That is war risk insurance on property on land. That did not apply to property at sea; and we get the benefit of the government schemes in Great Britain and the United States, because the competition of those schemes brings down the commercial rates in those countries, and it is insurance granted by companies in Great Britain and the United States, to a large extent and almost entirely, that is taken out by insurers in this country. Just as the hon. member for Halifax says, they can get insurance. I do not want to set up a bargain rate on marine insurance, nor do I want to go into a scheme of marine insurance if I can help it. It is going to be difficult enough, goodness knows, to operate the scheme we have here, which we have to operate because of the terrific demand for it, but I do not want to go into that other scheme.
War Risk Insurance


Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister allow that order in council to be placed upon Hansard?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Very well.


Angus MacInnis: About twenty minutes
ago the hon. member for Comox-AIberni suggested that the Minister of Fisheries should be allowed to read the order in council so that we might be able to examine it over the week-end. Then we would know what it is all about and would be prepared to act accordingly when next the bill is under discussion. I believe the house will be adjourning in a few moments, and I suggest we might have the order in council read. I do not believe hon. members from the west wish to be at all unreasonable; certainly I do not. I have no doubt we shall be prepared to cooperate with the minister, because we appreciate that where there has been no past experience in such matters the minister has a difficult task. If the order in council were read, we would know at our next meeting what we have to deal with.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The order in council
will be in to-day's Votes and Proceedings, and hon. members will have ample time to familiarize themselves with its provisions. However, I would call their attention again to the fact that the purport of the order in council is to bring compassionate relief to people who might lose property because of war activities, and who could not afford to insure or would have no means of insuring such property. That is the underlying principle of the order in council. It is compassionate relief to fishermen who own fishing boats or fishing gear but who cannot afford to insure, or whose property is not insurable.


Alan Webster Neill: Is the word "compassionate" in the order in council?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: "Compassionate relief."


Mr. McIVOR:: I should like to support
the plea on behalf of shipowners on the great lakes. Their risk is coming into prominence because the great lakes are now included in the term "high seas." Anyone who has sailed lake Superior will know that the risk is just as great there as it is on either the east or west coast. I am sure the minister will take that point into consideration.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: The hon. member for
Fraser Valley quoted my observations at page 2855 of Hansard, as follows:
I think we should leave it as it is now.
True, the hon. member quoted at some length following that, but he did not explain the point to which I was referring. I was pleading on behalf of the fishermen so that 
they would have insurance. I was objecting to an amendment the hon. member for Comox-AIberni had suggested, in which the word "ships" would have been stricken out altogether. My contention was that the word should be left in, because if it were we might have a chance to have fishing boats insured. That was the time I said, "I think we should leave it as it is now." Certainly I did not say that we should not get insurance for the fishermen, or that I was satisfied with the bill, as it was, without insurance for fishing boats. I thought the retention of the word "ships" gave us a chance of securing that kind of insurance, and that was when I made the statement. I should like to correct the impression which might have been left from the interpretation of my remarks given by the hon. member for Fraser Valley.


Mr. HAZEN:: We have not made a great deal of progress, and I would suggest to the minister that the bill be brought before the committee again at as early a date as possible. I have received letters from business men in my constituency who say that their policies with Lloyds are now expiring, and that it will be impossible to get more insurance until the bill becomes law. For that reason I believe it is essential to many people that further discussion be held at as early a date as possible.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am just as anxious as the hon. member to get the bill through, and it will be brought up again as soon as possible.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is one point which should not be overlooked, and which possibly might come more correctly from hon. members on either coast. However, it should be said that there seems to be a disposition to hold up passage of part of the bill, and that that part should be held over for further refinement. But why should we delay passage of that portion of the bill to which there could be no objection. If those uncontentious parts could be accepted, we would avoid a continuation of risks which are now most serious, in the light of the world situation.


James Joseph McCann: Shall the section carry?


Alan Webster Neill: No.


Howard Charles Green: Could not section 2 stand?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, it certainly will.
Section stands.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. McCann); Section 3, insurance against war damage.

Questions


Alan Webster Neill: Well, there is no use debating that at this time of day. It is almost six o'clock. Surely it is not proposed to enter into an extended debate at this time, because that is the main part of the bill. Surely it is not intended to pass the rest of the bill in three minutes.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at six p.m.
Monday, July 6, 1942