1949-10-06

Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaventure) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 14, to amend an act respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Bona Arsenault: Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment to subsection 1 of section 5 of the act respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada which was adopted during the session of 1947-48. The amendment provides for the addition of the following words:
-and whenever in the said statutes or acts, or amendments thereto, the expression "Dominion of Canada" is used, there shall be substituted therefor the expression "Canada", and whenever the word "Dominion" is used, there shall be substituted therefor the word "Canada" or "Canadian or "federal", respectively, or such other adequate word as the context requires.
The reason for this amendment is obvious. It is to be found in the fact that since Canada has ceased to be a dominion and has become a sovereign state, the word "dominion" as applied to Canada has lost its meaning, and-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member has given his reason for moving for leave to introduce the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What is the capacity of the government terminal elevator in Saskatoon?
2.	How much wheat was in storage in said elevator in each month commencing August 1, 1948 and ending July 31, 1949?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	5,500,000 bushels.
2.	Quantity of wheat in store at the end of each month: August, 1948, 6,808 bus.; September, 1948, 3,575 bus.; October, 1948, 5,516
bus.; November, 1948, 2,321 bus.; December, 1948, 580 bus.; January, 1949, 3,046 bus.; February, 1949, 3,046 bus.; March, 1949, 3,046 bus.; April, 1949, 3,046 bus.; May, 1949, 3,046 bus.; June, 1949, 185 bus.; July, 1949, 185 bus.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Hatfield:: 1.	What is the total working population of Canada?
2.	Of the total working population of Canada, how many are employed by the dominion government and how many by the provincial governments (a) permanent; (b) temporary?


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: 1.	As at June 4, 1949, total employment in Canada was 5,018,000 out of a total labour force of 5,121,000.
2.	As at March 31, 1949, there were (a) 37,909 permanents and (b) 86,015 temporaries employed by the dominion government.
There is no information available in the Department of Labour in regard to the number employed by the provincial governments.



STERLING-DOLLAR DEVALUATION    TEXTILE AND WOOLLEN INDUSTRIES

Mr. LaCroix:: 1.	Are the textile and woollen industries already losing the domestic markets to British competitors, owing to the recent sterling-dollar devaluation?
2.	Have there been any layoffs and wage reductions among the workers in the textile and woollen industries in consequence of this devaluation?
3.	What steps are being taken by the government to safeguard such employees?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	There is no evidence to show that the Canadian textile industry is losing its domestic markets to British competitors owing to the sterling-dollar devaluation.
2.	No layoffs or wage reductions have been reported to this department which could be attributed to the recent sterling devaluation.
3.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.
FOREST FIRES Mr. Gauthier (Porlneuf):
1.	How many acres of forest have been destroyed by fire, in Canada, in each of the years, 1940 to 1948, inclusive?
2.	What was the value, in Canadian dollars, of timber so destroyed, in each of the above mentioned years?

Questions


Mr. Maybank:: Statistics on Forest Fires in Canada, 1940-1948
Year	Forested area burned acres	Non-forested area burned acres	Total area burned acres	Estimated stumpage value of merchantable timber burned	Estimated value of young growth burned	Total estimated value of timber burned$	%	t1940	1,448,174	1,242,961	2,691,135	1,355,322	1,102,385	2,457,7071941	3,329,038	923,613	4,252,651	8,814,098	2,510,806	11,324,9041942	914,871	923,600	1,838,471	1,169,923	1,129,775	2,299,6981943	272,117	555,713	827,830	251,821	246,508	498,3291944	1,664,060	739,001	2,403,061	3,083,944	1,551,551	4,635,4951945	450,911	290,620	741,531	1,018,679	477,247	1,495,9261946	428,983	587,723	1,016,706	635,268	478,495	1,113,7631947	297,436	315,571	613,007	565,560	386,796	952,3561948	1,842,868	1,342,115	3,184,983	3,426,308	1,377,943	4,804,251Total	10,648,458	6,920,917	17,569,375	20,320,923	9,261,506	29,582,429
Notes
Above figures do not include the Yukon and Northwest Territory, for which complete statistics are not available during this period.
Much of the merchantable timber burned, and included in the estimated stumpage values above, may have been salvaged in accessible areas.
Losses on cutover lands are included with young growth above.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. While (Middlesex East):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that complacency never won a battle, is the government in a position to indicate whether a house committee on atomic power will be set up, and if so, when?


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Under the rules of the house a special committee was appointed to report on the composition of the standing committees. I hope that its report will be ready tomorrow. There has been some delay, because suggestions must be obtained from the different groups in the house as to the personnel of the committee. It was felt that we should set up the standing committees before introducing any motions for special committees.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brani-Wenlworlh):: On
a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, as you 
are well aware, the international plowing match, the largest annual competition in the world, is being held next week, October 11 to 14, at Burford, Ontario, in the county of Brant. Although you, sir, now represent that portion of Brant county which I had the honour to serve prior to the last election, as the member for the adjoining riding of Brant-Wen tworth I should like to take this opportunity to extend to all hon. members of the house a most hearty invitation to attend this outstanding event in Canadian agriculture. It is indeed a unique occasion, and I consider it a great privilege to be able to speak on your behalf, sir, on this occasion.
I can assure hon. members that the welcome mat will be out in the city of Brantford, the county of Brant, and most particularly the riding of Brant-Wentworth.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Last Tuesday the hon. member for Queens, P.E.I., (Mr. McLure) asked a question concerning the site of the proposed new

building in Charlottetown. His question was, in part:
When will the department or the government make a definite statement about these properties, so that these land owners, home owners and tenants can make arrangements for other locations in the future?
I see I made quite a short answer. I said: "As soon as possible." I think in fairness to the hon. member I should give him the following details.
Notice of expropriation was filed against properties contained in the city block bounded by Richmond street, Pownall street, Sidney street and Queen street in Charlottetown in March of this year, these properties comprising the site selected for the new public building.
Valuations have been obtained on these properties, compiled by Mr. P. S. Bradley and Mr. Gilbert Gaudet of Charlottetown, and the owners communicated with in regard to negotiations for settlements for the properties. No settlements have yet been made, because the asking prices are much in excess of our valuations. The department is now arranging for a third valuation, and upon receipt of this valuation the owners will be communicated with again.
The chief architect has stated that vacant possession of the properties will be required for April 1, 1950, and it is the intention to have notices to vacate by that date forwarded to the former owners at once. In the meantime, negotiations towards settlements for the acquisition of these properties will be continued.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General, and to suggest to him that he should give consideration to a question raised by me last year. I refer to the setting up of a special committee of the house to deal with the problems affecting the rural mail couriers of Canada. He is a new postmaster general. I should like to see him break new ground.


Hon. Edouard Rinfret (Postmaster General):: I shall be pleased to consider the proposal.



NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 6, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
Navigable Waters Protection Act
He said: Mr. Speaker, the amendment concerns two principles. The first is the protection of the riparian rights of persons dwelling on or using the banks of navigable streams or lakes. The second is the democratic principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. The terms of the present act as to pollution definitely give the minister limited authority. The limitation of the present statute is that it proscribes and prohibits the pollution of navigable waters by the depositing of any sawdust, edgings, slabs, bark or rubbish of any description whatsoever into any river, stream or other water, any part of which is navigable or which flows into any navigable water. That provision is to be found in the present Navigable Waters Protection Act, section 19, chapter 140 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. It definitely establishes the right of the federal parliament to deal with matters concerning navigable waters, and waters running into navigable waters.
The amendment that I propose for the consideration of the house today is merely an enlargement of the description of the methods of pollution of navigable waters. The bill is in almost identical words with the original act, and includes such substances as oil, sawdust, chemicals or other industrial pollution. The amendment to section 19 reads:
No owner, lessee, or person operating any industrial plant, oil refinery, chemical works, sawmill or other plant or works, or any other person, shall discharge or throw or allow to be discharged or thrown any noxious waste product, oil. sawdust, chemical or other matter or thing into a river, stream or other water any part of which is navigable or which flows into any navigable water, which has the effect of polluting the water into which it enters or is liable to pollute such waters.
In the same phraseology as the original act, it merely enlarges the description of the methods of pollution. In my opinion it does not alter, substantially or otherwise, the powers and the jurisdiction of the federal parliament; nor is it in any way ultra vires of the rights of the federal parliament because of the overriding rights of any provincial parliament.
In this connection a case has recently been decided in the Supreme Court of Canada which has a definite bearing on the amendment I am introducing in the house today. I am going to quote certain salient paragraphs of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court of Ontario, in both trial and appellate divisions, and by the Supreme Court of Canada, which judgment was rendered only the day before yesterday. The case is known as McKie v. the K.V.P. Company Limited. Briefly, the company was sued by the owners of riparian rights on the Spanish

Navigable Waters Protection Act river, who sought damages as a result of the pollution of the waters of that river. The first judgment had this to say:
The proprietor of riparian lands has a right incident to the land, independent of ownership of the solum of the stream or river, to the flow of water through or by his land in its natural state, and if the stream is polluted or otherwise interfered with so as to affect this right, by an upper riparian proprietor (who has not yet acquired a prescriptive right so to interfere), the lower proprietor may maintain an action for an injunction without proving damage, which is presumed from the interference with the right. It is immaterial, in such an action, that the defendant carries on a business which is important to the community, and carries it on in a proper manner, nor are the economic necessities of the defendant relevant to be considered.
The second paragraph of the judgment reads:
Where smells arise from a river, caused by the effluent entering the water from a mill, and are so offensive as to be an actual and substantial interference with the comfort and enjoyment of properties on the river, measured by ordinary and reasonable standards, and consequently what has been an attractive resort for tourists becomes much less desirable, the owners of the properties are entitled to relief on the footing of nuisance, as well as to relief based on the interference with their riparian rights.
In this case the learned judge awarded damages and also granted an injunction; and it is with the injunction in particular I wish to deal at the present time. The learned judge had this to say:
On all the evidence I find as a fact that the waters of the Spanish river below the defendant's plant have been polluted by the defendant in such a manner as to change their character and substantially affect the use to which the plaintiffs were entitled to put them and to interfere with the enjoyment of the plaintiffs as occupiers of riparian lands.
In his judgment the judge also went back to the common law:
The origin of the common law applicable to this subject goes back to and beyond the Roman law.
The judgment goes on to state clearly the rights of riparian ownership, but I need not add to the quotations I have already given. It awarded certain sums of money to the plaintiffs, and also-and this is the important point -granted an injunction prohibiting the company from continuing the practice of dumping this effluent into the Spanish river. The injunction is in these terms:
An injunction will go restraining the defendant from depositing foreign substances or matter in the Spanish river which alter the character or quality of the water flowing over the lands of the plaintiff . . .
The important point in that judgment is that the learned judge based his decision upon the alteration of the quality of the water. That judgment was taken to the appellate division of the Supreme Court of Ontario,

where the appeal was dismissed and the judgment sustained. In dismissing the appeal the chief justice had this to say:
It is no defence to the person who pollutes to show that the waters were already polluted by other persons. Nor is it a defence that the pollution is the result of business operations carried on in a proper manner and that the business is important to the community.
This judgment was rendered by Chief Justice Robertson, with Justices Laidlaw and Aylesworth concurring. The judgment sustains the damages awarded in the first action and also continues the injunction in these words:
This court doth order and adjudge that the defendant be, and it is hereby, restrained from depositing foreign substances or matter in the Spanish river which alter the character or quality of the water washing the lands owned or occupied by the plaintiff . . .
This court doth order and adjudge that the defendant be, and it is hereby, restrained from discharging or permitting to be discharged from the defendant's works mentioned in the pleadings, into the waters of the Spanish river, any substance or matter that, to the injury of the plaintiff, affects the quality or character of the waters of the said river where the plaintiff's lands border upon it, or that causes the said waters to become less pure than otherwise they would be.
These judgments contain voluminous references both to the common law and to decisions of the privy council, and are in the strongest possible legal terms.
After that judgment was rendered the Ontario act was altered, and an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada, in which the decision was rendered only the day before yesterday.


Mr. Chevrier:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? In what manner has the Ontario act been amended?


Agar Rodney Adamson: I will give the minister that information. It was amended to prevent an injunction being imposed against an industrial plant. There were qualifications to that amendment, but that was the substance of it.
To continue with the supreme court judgment, Mr. Justice Kerwin says:
The sole point argued before us was as to the injunction.
The learned justices say that the injunction shall stand, despite the amendment to the Ontario statute. It was because of the alteration to the Ontario act that counsel for the company appealed and said the injunction should not stand. The supreme court decided, however, that because the case had come to trial before the Ontario statute was amended, the original judgment with regard to the injunction should stand.
I quote from the supreme court judgment:
The amended act came into force on the day it received the royal assent, April 1, 1949, and while the judgment of the court of appeal was given

November 22, 1948, it is contended that the appeal to this court is "pending" within the meaning of the enactment.
May 1 clear up a point by quoting from the judgment?
. . . and since a provincial legislature may not extend the jurisdiction of this court as conferred by parliament, such a provision as the one here in question would not, even if it purported so to do, enable this court to give a judgment that was impossible in law at the time of the decision of the court of appeal.
The reason for the appeal, briefly, was that this company felt seriously aggrieved by the injunction. An alteration in the law was sought which would permit a company causing pollution or distress to riparian owners to pay those riparian owners for the distress so caused. The company could, at the same time, continue the practice which caused those damages. In other words, companies operating on a river could continue to pollute the stream as long as they continued to pay damages to the people inconvenienced by that pollution. Not being a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, I am unable to say whether or not that is a good principle of law. I do know it is not a good principle of ethics, and it is not a good principle from the humanitarian point of view.
The supreme court said:
The rights of riparian owners have always been zealously guarded by the courts.
The learned judges quoted from a privy council decision by Lord Sumner which reads as follows:
The grant of an injunction is the proper remedy for a violation of right, according to a current of authority, which is of many years' standing and is practically unbroken.
There is one more decision of the privy council to which reference is made in this judgment. It is a decision by Viscount Finlay, Lord Birkenhead, and Lord Dunedin. It says in part:
. . . the courts have on more than one occasion expressed their determination to prevent any abuse of the act by legalizing the commission of torts by any defendant who was able and willing to pay damages.
There are quotations from several other cases, all to the same effect. The basic rule is that the injunction shall stand.
So far as I am able to ascertain, Mr. Speaker, that is the legal position in this case. The Ontario act has been amended; so it would seem to me that the sole protector of riparian rights on navigable waters, and waters running into navigable streams, is the federal parliament. The wording of section 19 of the act is to that effect; therefore I believe I am borne out in my contentions.
We come now, sir, to the question of possible damage to industry through this bill which I have introduced. I am informed that
Navigable Waters Protection Act most of the states in the northern United States have enacted similar legislation to that which I am requesting with regard to the pollution of streams. The question of the rights of industry versus the rights of the people is one that should receive careful study. Obviously it would be harmful if an act were passed by this parliament enforcing such restrictions against the pulp and paper industry and others who are not discharging an effluent which damages any riparian owners. It would be wrong, by such an act, so to prescribe their actions and their operations that it would become difficult or impossible for them to continue. I believe that the terms of my amendment are sufficiently flexible to give the power to the minister and the board of transport commissioners to decide each case on its merits. It is left to the good judgment of the court to decide whether or not damage was done.
There again we come to the question of the greatest good for the greatest number. Obviously that is not a legal point, but certainly it is an ethical point; and it is one of the fundamental points of democracy. Obviously it would be wrong to put into any statute something which would cause unemployment or restrict the development of the pulp and paper industry. But, sir, in this case, where there was abundant evidence of pollution that made this river completely and absolutely unusable, the courts have decided that there should be an injunction directing that such pollution should cease.
I want to speak briefly about one other industry which I know something about, and which also has a problem in connection with effluent disposal. I refer to the mining industry. Tailings or slimes containing cyanide-the waste rock or the waste mill products-must be disposed of in some way The practice has been to dump these tailings into a lake, and in some cases damage has no doubt been done to the lakes so treated. But although several mines have dumped tailings into Red lake-and I have a letter to this effect on my desk at the moment-the Ashing and bathing in that lake have not been seriously interfered with because of pollution. Therefore that type of industrial pollution, while not to be recommended, is nevertheless not in the same class as that with which the learned justices of the supreme court dealt in the case of K.V.P. v. McKie. I am quite sure that the mining industry can in the future build its mills so that the tailings and the slimes can in most cases be deposited on land and not dumped into the waters of surrounding lakes. In many cases slimes can perform the useful service of providing a firebreak around the property so that mines built in the bush can provide themselves



S64 HOUSE OF

[Stage Direction]
Navigable Waters Protection Act with a ring of fire protection around the camp. As a matter of fact that is what is being done at the present time in Kirkland Lake. We must also take into consideration the fact that all these industrial processes are constantly improving and developing. I am informed that it is the modern practice of kraft mills such as K.V.P. to store their fibre effluent which causes damage, and to burn this effluent after a period of leaching or drying. I am told that in some kraft mills in the United States this product actually provides heat and power for the mills for several days a month. In the case that I have referred to it was stated that some four or five tons of these fibres were discharged every day into the Spanish river, and the evidence given was to the effect that this material could be dried and burned. I am not competent to pass judgment on that matter, but the information was given to me by an engineer whose opinion I esteem.
So much for the law; so much for the possibility of proscribing and restraining industrial development because of this bill. Now we come to the real reason why I have introduced this measure to this house.
During the summer of this year,.because of pollution, by oil slick and other noxious substances, of the water along the shore of lake Ontario for several miles in the vicinity of Toronto, the use of all the beaches in my riding-and I understand of the beaches elsewhere also-was prohibited by orders of the medical officers of health in the respective municipalities. The use of Sunnyside beach, Long Branch beach, the beaches at the east end of Toronto, at New Toronto, and in Mimico-all teeming with bathers and swimmers from the industrial centres immediately behind them-was completely prohibited during that period by the medical officers of health, because of the pollution, generally considered to be caused by oil, which had taken place. Pictures were published showing, at Sunnyside beach-probably the most densely populated beach in all of Canada-bathers attempting to go into the water and coming out with their feet dripping with oil sludge and pollution.
Here again the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number should apply. A population of a million people were prevented, during one of the longest hot spells we have ever experienced-for a period not of days but weeks-from using their beaches and their lakes because of industrial pollution. This is a situation which, in my opinion, the parliament of Canada should not tolerate- and parliament is the competent authority to deal with it. Attempts were made to trace the source of this pollution. One of the suspected sources refused to admit anyone to
[Mr. Adamson.}
[Stage Direction]
its premises to ascertain the cause, or the suspected cause of the lake pollution, and under the present law apparently no remedial action was possible.
So much for the pollution with regard to human rights; besides that, Mr. Speaker, a great number of wildfowl were killed by the oil lying on the water, and the conservation authorities were much distressed about it. In addition, numerous small craft were seriously incommoded by the oil slime which fouled their bottoms. The smell of the oil, or whatever it was, caused putrefaction of marine growth, and in itself was offensive until the entire lake shore became a malodorous place, the conditions being similar to those on the Spanish river. This, again, is a condition which in this day and age, in this day of better living, should not be tolerated by a modern state.
But there is one more thing. The oil slick was considered to be a serious fire hazard. Fortunately it did not catch fire, but I understand that the fire authorities in Toronto took what they considered to be necessary precautions, and were greatly concerned lest it should catch fire; statements to that effect were made throughout the press of Toronto and the surrounding districts. Therefore on that ground I believe that this industrial pollution should be stopped.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that this is an instance in which a million people have suffered owing to the pollution of that part of lake Ontario.
We come now to the suggested remedies. The amendment I have introduced gives the minister power to inspect any installation or industry, oil refinery, chemical plant or other works situated on or near a navigable water or a stream entering into that navigable water. This merely means that the minister may, as happened this summer, if the residents of the district are suspicious that a certain industrial plant is polluting the water, send an inspector into that plant to see that the plant is operated in such a way as not to cause pollution of the water. It is reasonable to suggest that this be done. If the plant in question is not polluting the water, nothing is done. If the plant in question is polluting the water, the minister may put in inspectors, or may require the burning or other disposal of the waste product which is being discharged into the lake; or he may take other measures which he and his inspectors, who will be technically trained men, deem to be necessary and proper. If the industry considers that it is not being fairly treated, the appeal, as in all cases, will be to the board of transport commissioners. I feel that that is a necessary qualification in this act. Apparently at the present time, under the Ontario

statutes, you can dump anything into lake Ontario and there is nobody to say you nay. If anybody sues you for damage under riparian rights, he can collect small damages, but you cannot prevent the industry in question from continuing to pollute the lake. This is indefensible. I suggest that the amendment I have introduced does not injure any industry which is not polluting the water; nor does it injure any industry that has a proper method of waste disposal.
I come now to the next part of the bill, which concerns sewage disposal. It may surprise hon. members to know that a great number of the larger cities of Canada do in fact discharge raw and untreated sewage right into the rivers or lakes. I understand that the capital city of Ottawa is one of the greatest offenders in this regard. I am also informed that the city of Montreal has no sewage disposal plant. The house will remember the violence of the expressions used some years ago with regard to sewage disposal in Chicago, and that the United States authorities required Chicago to install sewage disposal plants at considerable cost. The city of Chicago did in fact install sewage disposal plants. It seems to me that this whole question of sewage disposal requires a great deal more consideration than it has been given up to the present time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but the hon. member has already exceeded his time.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I thought that on introducing a bill I could continue beyond the forty minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The proper disposal of sewage is a matter requiring the attention of all levels of government, because in many ways it is expensive to install a sewage disposal plant. However, modern sewage disposal plants have been found to be good investments, and modern practice has shown that they can be made to pay their way.
During the summer the concentration of colon bacillus increases as the year goes on, generally reaching the maximum late in August or early in September. It is significant that the curve of the incidence of poliomyelitis almost follows the curve of the increase in concentration of colon bacillus. This is not to say that the colon bacillus is responsible for poliomyelitis, but there is at least circumstantial evidence that this killing disease has an affinity for colon bacillus.
Navigable Waters Protection Act
Sewage oxidizes with the turbulence of a river, and tends to dilute and become less dangerous, provided that the concentration in the first instance is not too great. However, if it is too great that does not occur, and the sewage continues to be a menace for many miles down the river. The Ottawa river is a case in point; the sewage discharged by the city of Ottawa causes much discomfort and is a menace to health for a considerable stretch along the river below the city. So much for sewage disposal.
In this bill the penalties are increased above those in the original bill. There has been a decrease in the value of money, and I felt that the penalties for breaches should be increased.
Water is one of Canada's most sacred trusts. The North American continent has three-quarters of the fresh water of the world. A citizen from any other continent coming to North America is impressed by the abundance of fresh water, particularly when he comes to Canada. It is an inheritance which we must guard.
No other country is dependent upon water to the extent that Canada is. No other country develops so much power from water, and no other country uses it to the extent that we do for navigation. In no other country is it put to so much use as a tourist attraction. It seems to me it is the fundamental duty of this parliament and of the whole Canadian people to preserve, maintain and conserve the rivers and lakes of the country as a sacred trust. This is the overriding reason for the introduction of this measure.


Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the hon. gentleman to some of the features of this bill. I am sorry I did not have an opportunity to confer with the hon. gentleman. I did not know this bill was coming up until five minutes to three, although he sent a note to my office at 1.40 p.m. I have conferred with the law clerk about the bill. I admit that the bill has a laudable object. I should like to quote a letter which I wrote to the mayor of Toronto, Hiram E. McCallum, in connection with this matter, as follows:
I forward to you eight copies of Bill No. 6, introduced by Mr. Rodney Adamson, M.P., in the House of Commons, which is up for first reading in the house tonight. Sept. 27.
A letter was also sent to Dr. Ollivier, Law Clerk of the House of Commons, before the bill was up for second reading. The letter reads in part:
You will note by the bill, as I see it, that if such a bill passes it will prevent the city from using Coatsworth Cut and pouring the liquids from the main drainage works into lake Ontario accordingly.

Navigable Waters Protection Act
You may remember that the Don river used to flow into Toronto bay. Then the city spent $30 million on harbour improvements, including the viaduct which now runs across the front of the city. I want to commend the hon. gentleman for introducing this bill, but I should like to call his attention to one feature of it. As I have said, I wrote to Dr. Ollivier, Law Clerk of the House of Commons, who is learned in this subject and has written a textbook. The letter continues:
You might also note that the Globe and Mail in an editorial last Friday approved of the Adamson bill, as did an editorial in the Toronto Telegram of Monday. October 3, although the bill will prevent the city of Toronto from pouring any liquids into lake Ontario. The city spent $50 million on a duplicate intake pipe.
The people of the riding of the hon. member who is proposing this amendment are using that water. It is pure water, and when you turn on the tap it is cold. It is filtered and chlorinated. As much water as would fill this chamber would need only a small quantity of chlorine, about the size of an ink stand.
The city spent $50 million on a duplicate intake pipe off Scarborough beach, and the plans were passed by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier). Before the city of Toronto started this $50 million project at Scarborough they applied, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, to the Minister of Public Works, who must sanction the plans and specifications. After proper notice the various authorities came down here and the minister issued the necessary permit to proceed with the plant.
I want to call your attention to the size of Toronto harbour today, because there are some new members in the house. Under the new definition, Toronto harbour starts at the centre of the Humber river, the dividing line between the city of Toronto and the township, and runs straight south of the Humber river out into lake Ontario for a distance of three miles, thence east about a mile and a half off Toronto island to a point off Woodbine avenue. Woodbine avenue is as far as the harbour improvement runs on the east. Thence it runs inland. That is the new definition of the harbour, and the harbour authorities have the power to prevent pollution in that territory. A lot of money was spent, and the plans were passed by the Minister of Public Works.
The letter to the mayor of Toronto continues as follows:
. . . and formerly we only had one intake pipe off Gibraltar point, Toronto island-
Near the Sick Children's hospital.
-which had not been inspected for thirty-five years. It blew up in 1910 and 1911, and the city was compelled to drink water from lake Ontario, through

a tunnel from the lake off Toronto island, thence north to Long pond to the shore tunnel at Mugg's landing, Toronto island, and thence across Toronto bay to the pumping station at the foot of John street.
This civic water is pure water, filtered by the slow sand filtration method at the filtration plant on Toronto island and under chlorination of a small amount.. The water is always cold, and we have had hardly any diphtheria or typhoid fever since.
The city built a duplicate intake system costing about $50 million at Victoria park, and has been giving city water to large sections of the county of York to the east, north and west of the city limits proper. These outside places are also being allowed to use Toronto's greatly overtaxed sewage disposal main drainage works in front of the Woodbine race track, where the liquids only are poured after the diversion of the Don river through Coatsworth Cut into lake Ontario accordingly.
I have not had the opportunity yet of conferring with Mr. Adamson about his bill. It also deals with the Don river. As I was born near the banks of the river Don, I know something about that river. There has always been sewage poured into the Don, in my opinion.
Dr. Ollivier, Law Clerk of the House of Commons, gave his opinion on the bill. In my letter to the mayor of the city of Toronto I said:
In my opinion the bill is so worded as to prevent the city from pouring any liquids into lake Ontario in the future, although the city had its plans passed under the Navigable Waters Protection Act by the Minister of Public Works before going ahead with the Scarborough plant. These outside places are also using Toronto's greatly overtaxed sewage disposal works from your main drainage works in front of the Woodbine race track. I shall be glad to give you any further information you wish on the subject.
Dr. Ollivier's opinion is as follows:
If you will so authorize me, I would bring your letter to the attention of Mr. Adamson, with whom I have co-operated in the preparation of his bill.
You will notice that I was careful to provide that not only should noxious products not be discharged in navigable waters but also in all streams or waters which flow into any navigable water.
It is true, as you state, that the Toronto harbour commission has the right to pass bylaws and rules and regulations preventing pollution of waters within their boundary-
That is the new boundary which I explained a few minutes ago.
-and therefore it would not be a bad idea to make it clear that the prescription applies to them as well as to any municipality, although I imagine that the words "any other person shall . . . allow to be discharged . . ." would cover the case.
As to the city of Toronto, they would by the bill be prevented from pouring their liquids at Coatsworth Cut, etc.
It is the opinion of the law clerk, and I gave him the same opinion some time ago, that the city of Toronto would be prevented from doing so by the bill. They would be prevented from pouring liquids into Coatsworth Cut, and using the main drainage works accordingly.
I am sorry to have to take this stand, because I believe that the hon. member had a laudable objective in mind in bringing his

proposal before the house. As you know, Toronto harbour is now fenced off. I remember when the people of Toronto used to be able to bathe at the beaches at Parkdale and all over Toronto island, and at the eastern beaches. That was before the harbour improvement began, but the harbour improvement fenced it off, and there was only one bathing place. They constructed a bath house at Sunnyside which cost $400,000. I did not believe in it myself, and I voted against it when the matter was before the harbour board. I was then mayor, and we were told if we did not proceed with the plan they would stop the work at Ottawa. They spent $400,000 on a bath house at Sunnyside, but the water of the lake is always too cold for the bathers. The result was that the city had to build a very large open air swimming pool at Sunnyside to the east of the bath house. The water of this pool is chlorinated and filtered and is always at a temperature of not less than sixty-five degrees.
When members of the House of Commons visited Toronto last April they saw it, but it was not opened until May. X wish they could have seen it in the summertime, but we hope to have them come to see us again. We hope that some members will be coming up to attend the winter fair.
I do not know that there is anything more I can say about the bill. I do not wish to detain the house longer, but I want to point out that the city of Toronto has been most just and generous to these outlying municipalities. They not only give them water, but they also allow them to use the main drainage works. Otherwise some of those municipalities, which are not very well off, would have had to build their own water plants, and they would be getting their water in the same way as they do in other cities where diphtheria and typhoid are more prevalent.
In 1910 the old intake at Toronto island broke up. I was on the board of control in 1910. They tried for two years to raise the original intake pipe off Gibraltar point, which is near the Sick Children's hospital. Then I got Mr. Robert Weddell, senior, of Trenton, who built the western entrance to Toronto harbour, and Captain John Manley. They went out there at seven o'clock in the morning. They said that the principle that had been followed in trying to raise the broken intake pipe off Toronto island by pontoons was all wrong. I was opposed to that myself, and the powerful Toronto Telegram came to our support. Mr. Weddell and Captain Manley went out with two scows, and a diver went down. One scow was placed on each side of the broken intake pipe; the diver put cables at both ends of that pipe and after about five
Navigable Waters Protection Act hours work it was hauled up to a scow and afterwards brought to the foot of John street. It was repaired in about ten days and replaced in the original position off Toronto island.
That shows what can be done by an efficient public works department. Public leaders may be here today and gone tomorrow, and the key to good municipal government is to have good heads of departments. During the seven years I was in office in Toronto, with the exception of one or two departments, I doubt if I discussed matters in their own offices with the heads of the various departments of that city. They had full authority in regard to policy and full authority to appoint their staffs. I never interfered.
I commend the hon. gentleman Mr. Adamson on the good work he has done, because he has been a most valuable member of this house; but I would ask that he allow this bill to stand until he has conferred with officials of the city of Toronto. I do not want to prevent anyone from speaking on the bill today; far from it. I would ask the hon. gentleman, however, to consider the Toronto angle. Throughout his riding they are using that drinking water. It is pure and cold, chlorinated and filtered. They also use the sewage disposal works; otherwise they would have to provide their own water supply and sewage works, at great expense. The city of Toronto has been most just and generous, and I believe many other cities could adopt the method followed by that great city. It is a great city, though we have no ministers representing it in the cabinet. Now, however, we have some young Liberal members of parliament on the government side coming from Toronto, and I hope they will study this bill and help look after the interests of that city.
While I commend the young member for his good intentions and good works, I would remind him as well as hon. gentlemen opposite that you can never answer a newspaper; it always has the last word. I believe the newspapers had a worthy object in view in endeavouring to give the people of Toronto some of the bathing beaches they had in the old days, but I regret to say that the way they have attempted to attain their objective does not meet the needs of the case.


Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston City):: believe the hon. member who introduced this bill put forth a sincere effort, and perhaps had a real grievance, but I should like to refer very briefly to one or two points in connection with it. This bill proposes to repeal section 19 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. If we read that section closely we will see that it deals with the physical aspects of

Navigable Waters Protection Act navigation, with the turning of propellers, the obstruction to ships, and so on. If we read the proposed section 19 (1), however, it all boils down to the pollution of the water. I suggest that the amendment takes away the real meaning of the original section 19, dealing with the physical aspects of navigation; and we all realize that the act then would be incomplete, because a ship could still travel in polluted waters. That is the first comment I have to offer, and I suggest that the present section 19 should remain as it is.
No one likes a drink of pure water better than I do, but I think we must look at this from the standpoint of the greatest good to the greatest number. I live in Kingston, which is an old, historic city. Some of the newer places may consider us a little old-fashioned, because our sewage is still poured into lake Ontario where it enters the St. Lawrence river. Occasionally we have complaints as far as the water is concerned; but if this bill were adopted I suggest it would work a great hardship on the ratepayers of Kingston and other municipalities similarly situated, which dispose of their sewage in that way. I am sure the number of ratepayers who would be adversely affected would be much greater than the number of people who would benefit, because the adoption of this bill would require the immediate installation of sewage disposal plants.
In his amendment the hon. member has suggested some remedies. I do not believe they would be sufficient to give proper guidance to those who might be administering this legislation. Furthermore I believe this is a matter which should be left to the province, since it concerns property and civil rights.
I suggest that it has been brought up in the wrong house. Section 2 of the proposed bill reads:
The said act is further amended by adding immediately after section twenty-six the following section:
"26A. (1) The minister may, if he has reason to believe that an industrial plant is likely to discharge noxious substances into navigable waters, or into any river, stream or other water which flows into any navigable water, appoint inspectors, empowered to reside at the plant and report any violation of the provisions of the act. The cost of maintaining such inspectors shall be chargeable against and a debt owing the crown by the owner, lessee or operator of the plant."
I think that is definitely a matter of property and civil rights, and I suggest this parliament is not empowered to pass any measure of that kind. So while I agree with the principle put forward by the hon. member,
I suggest that at the present time this bill is premature as far as the older municipalities are concerned, such as Kingston, Belleville, Napanee and so on. I believe it is a proper
IMr. Henderson.]

matter to be considered by the province in which the situation arises, and not by the federal authorities.


Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, the constituency I have the honour to represent is very much interested in the bill which has been introduced in this house by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson). My constituency consists of the city of Windsor and the contiguous township of Sandwich West. It is situated at the junction of lake St. Clair and the Detroit river, which incidentally is the busiest inland waterway in the world. South of that, there is lake Erie. You can see, therefore, that the pollution of waters is a matter of great importance to us; and many worthy local organizations have been studying this problem for some time.
At this time, I should like to pay tribute to the valuable work of the international joint commission. The facts that it has uncovered and the recommendations it has made from time to time for the correction of the pollution of fresh waters have proven very valuable to my constituents. I should like to be associated with that a tribute to one who sat in this chamber, the Hon. James Glen. He also served as Minister of Mines and Resources and is now chairman of the international joint commission. The constituency of Essex West appreciates the work he has done.
Many public and semi-public bodies have taken a great deal of interest in assisting the different governmental organizations in uncovering the facts. One of these organizations is the Essex County Sportsmen's Association. I have before me two telegrams, one from Mr. L. Albrough, the president, and the other from the secretary-treasurer, Mr. S. E. Chauvin, in which they have asked me to support the bill on behalf of the 1,800 members of that particular branch of the sportsmen's association. It is their feeling that this is a step in the right direction. The members of the association are deeply interested in this work and have, therefore, asked me to support the bill.
For reasons which I shall give later, I do not think that this is the proper time to support such a measure. I do, however, believe the principle of the bill is a laudable one which should be supported by all hon. members. For the reasons that have been given by the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Henderson), and which I imagine will be given by the Minister of Transport in due course, I do not believe this is the proper place to introduce such a measure.
In my constituency we are deeply concerned about the pollution of navigable fresh waters. The Essex County Sportsmen's

Association has done a great deal, as I have said, to uncover the facts concerning this matter. As a matter of fact, this summer that organization took me on a tour of the Detroit river, showing me a place where a particular corporation is now pumping refuse from the United States and dumping it on an island in that river. It is the claim of the experts who accompanied us on this trip that the refuse being dumped on this island has caused the foliage, weeds, and things of that nature in the area to dry up and disappear. This, of course, has caused the disappearance of the fish and wildlife from that area. I am drawing this to the attention of the government because permission was given recently for the installation of additional pipe lines to carry this refuse from the United States. The chemicals from the refuse which has accumulated in piles on the island are flowing into the stream.
The city of Windsor has, I understand, made plans for the treating of the sewage from the city and adjacent towns. There are other sources of pollution. A rather serious case was brought to our attention recently in which one of the public utilities was allowing oil to enter what is known as the river Canard. This oil became ignited and killed thousands of dollars' worth of fish, muskrat and other game. I do not propose to deal with the legal aspects of the matter, because that will be ably handled at a later time. Many people, and particularly those who have riparian rights, have suffered considerable damage because of the pollution of these waters, not only in the streams I have mentioned but in many others as well. We must consider, however, the place from which relief should be sought, and my opinion is that this measure should have been introduced in the legislature of the province of Ontario.
The introduction of this bill has value in that it will provide publicity for this particular question, the pollution of fresh water, not only in my constituency but throughout the whole of Canada. It will provide a subject of conversation and will arouse the Canadian people generally to the great harm being done innocently by industries in the pollution of these streams. Large commercial corporations will also learn of the loss they are suffering in permitting this refuse to go into these rivers. Some of this refuse has a high commercial value. Without giving too many illustrations, I may say that I have been told by experts of several cases in the Detroit river and lake St. Clair area in which, after investigation, the industries in question were told how to eliminate the pollution of
Navigable Waters Protection Act the water and, at the same time, derive considerable commercial value from the refuse that had been dumped in the river.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this bill has had some value in the publicity which will be given the subject. For the reasons I have stated I cannot support the bill, but I can commend the principle of it to the Canadian people.


Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale):: I am fortunate enough, Mr. Speaker, to represent the riding of Parkdale in Toronto. I say "fortunate" advisedly since I am the first Liberal to represent that riding since confederation.
I have listened with great interest and with great respect to the argument for and the clear explanation of the bill placed before the house by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson). My riding of Parkdale fronts on lake Ontario, and at the south of it is Sunny-side beach. As has been stated by the hon. member for York West, that beach was covered with oil for most of the summer. I could hardly help being in complete sympathy with the motivation behind the first section of this bill. While my sympathy is there, however, what little reason I possess tells me that we are in the wrong jurisdiction. I would suggest with respect, and I have not made a constitutional study of this bill, that the dominion, under section 91 of the British North America Act, has jurisdiction over navigation and shipping; and that, accordingly, unless we are dealing with the matter of navigation and shipping, we are dealing with something which is not within the legislative powers of this parliament.
In the bill presented here, it would appear to be a fairly clear case of trying to prevent pollution. It is possible that pollution might affect navigation and shipping. I can conceive of pollution being so heavy and so burdensome that it would cover the bottom of a river or canal to the point that navigation might be difficult or impossible. But until such a thing happens or is in danger of happening-and again I offer this opinion with the greatest respect to the hon. members of this house-I personally feel that the matter would not come under navigation and shipping. Possibly also, if the liquid became so thick that it hindered navigation to the point that it lessened the normal speed of vessels, it might be considered under navigation and shipping. While I not only sympathize with the motives behind this bill, and only wish it were possible for us to pass a bill of this kind, in so far as section 1 of it is concerned, I nevertheless submit with respect that this parliament has no jurisdiction.

Navigable Waters Protection Act
As to section 2 of the bill-and at this stage I am not proposing to go into the particulars of the sections; I am dealing with the bill generally-I would welcome it with the greatest of delight. It would give the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) the power to send inspectors into the industries throughout Canada for the purpose of preventing pollution, and the industries in question would pay the salaries of those inspectors. That is a delightful dream that we politicians have had for many years. I can just conceive of the minister sending thousands and thousands of Liberal devotees into the industries of Canada, and having those industries pay for those inspectors. This is something that all politicians have dreamed of but have never dared to hope for.
I must confess that I am surprised to see subsection 2 of section 2 in the bill, coming as it does from the hon. member for York West, a member of the Progressive Conservative party. Hon. members will observe that the governor in council is authorized to prescribe for the violation of this section such penalties as he may deem necessary. The hon. gentleman is proposing that we pass an order in council.
In the learned and delicate manner in which this matter was handled by the hon. member for York West, he has taken a simple matter of pollution and worked it up so that it has reached the lofty pinnacle of human rights. That is no mean accomplishment. In view of the heights to which this pollution has risen, I would humbly suggest to the hon. member for York West that he withdraw this bill and make it a section of that bill which has been so often recommended to this house by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker).
I should like to support this bill with regard to section 1. I think it would be a delightful thing if we had jurisdiction to deal with this matter. I am anxious to clear up this situation in the interests not only of my own constituency but of contiguous ridings. One cannot help sympathizing with the motive behind this bill. This matter of pollution is a nuisance, having been for generations injurious to health and in many other ways as well. Steps should be taken to remedy the situation. I cannot think of anything that is more necessary throughout the provinces of this country. As I suggested earlier, I do not feel that it is a matter for the parliament of Canada to deal with, but that opinion is again offered humbly and with respect.
I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, if we could not have the views of the Minister of Transport on this matter. He doubtless has a clear conception of the constitutionality of the bill


before the house. It would be a distinct pleasure to me to have his views if he sees fit to offer them at this time.


Lionel Chevrier: I have listened with interest, Mr. Speaker, to this debate which has been participated in by members on both sides of the house. I think there will be general agreement with the intention of the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) and the purpose he had in mind when he introduced this bill. It is a laudable thing for the hon. member to seek to protect the waters of lake Ontario and those of other lakes and streams against pollution by oil and other chemical products. No one who has the interests of his constituents at heart wants to see the beaches-whether they be on lake Ontario or on any of our other lakes and streams-polluted to the extent to which the hon. gentleman has made reference. But, however laudable is the intention of the hon. member for York West, there can be no doubt that there would not be the slightest use of attempting to find a remedy in a place which has no jurisdiction, to begin with, and never could have it in any sense of the word.
I said that I listened with interest to the debate which has taken place. I do not think I need to speak at great length because several of the members who have spoken have challenged the validity of this proposed act, even a member on the same side of the house as the hon. member for York West. I refer to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), who is a lawyer and who I think immediately realized-as did the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Henderson) and the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Hunter)-the futility of attempting, by the method suggested, to deal with a serious situation such as that complained about. I think my friend the hon. member for York West presented an excellent argument-and as I listened to him he piled up argument after argument-for provincial intervention, but certainly not for dominion intervention. He started off by saying that the amendment contained two principles. One was the protection of riparian rights. Surely the federal government has no jurisdiction with reference to riparian rights. It is a question of property and civil rights, which falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces.
The hon. member cited the case of McKie v. K.V.P., 1941, 1 D.L.R. at page 39, which is clear evidence against him that this is a matter for provincial, and not federal, jurisdiction. Then he went on to say that the real reason for introducing the bill was to do away with pollution of waters. Pollution is a matter which concerns health and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the province.

I do not want to repeat what the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Hunter), the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Henderson) and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) said, but let me summarize in one word if I may the legal argument, dealing with only one factual argument afterwards.
The hon. member seeks to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act. That act is divided into three parts. The first part deals with works which are built in navigable waters and is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works. The second part concerns the protection, the obstruction, the interference and the impeding of navigation and is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport. The third part has to do with the installation of ferry cable crossings, swing bridges and the like, and is also under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport. The part with which we are concerned at the moment is part II, clearly that which concerns the protection of navigation. The whole intent of part II of the Navigable Waters Protection Act is to pi-otect navigation. The words say so. The whole intent of my hon. friend's bill is to do away with pollution. His bill clearly says so, or at least section 19 (1) does. I will not read it all because it is somewhat lengthy, but the governing words of section 19 (1) are these:
. . . which has the effect of polluting the water into which it enters or is liable to pollute such waters.
In one word the act deals with the protection of navigation, and in another word the bill deals with the pollution of waters. The latter is a matter of health and therefore is one falling under the jurisdiction of the provinces.
Subsection (2) is clearly ultra vires. It says:
No municipality with a population greater than three thousand shall discharge or permit the discharge by its officers, servants, or employees of raw sewage into navigable water or into any other water which flows into navigable water.
Section 92, paragraph 8, of the British North America Act states:
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,-
Municipal institutions in the province.
My hon. friend would want this parliament to legislate with reference to municipal institutions in the province. He provides in his bill for direction to the municipalities. Clearly that section is equally ultra vires. The same may be said of section 26A (1)- and I am repeating here the argument of the hon. member for Parkdale and the hon. member for Kingston City, when I maintain that section 26A (1) of the bill is straight interference with property and civil rights.
Navigable Waters Protection Act What right would the Minister of Transport have to direct or instruct the owners of provincial plants? What right would he have to place officers in those institutions, the direction over which lies with the provinces? It would be straight interference with property and civil rights. I think the same can be said of subsection 2 of section 26A (1), which would constitute another interference with municipal institutions.
The explanatory note of the bill indicates what the hon. gentleman had in mind. It states:
The purpose of this act is to control industrial plants and oil refineries situated on navigable waters, . . .
I submit with deference that this house has no jurisdiction to control industrial plants and oil refineries simply because they are situated on navigable water. We have certain jurisdiction over navigable waters by virtue of part II of the act. For instance, section 19 is intended to keep channels free of logs, sawdust, edgings, slabs and other things which may impede navigation; but in no sense can oil be said to impede navigation, certainly not in the sense that this bill contemplates. Then the explanatory note goes on to say:
... so that their operation does not result in the pollution of the surrounding water area and shore line.
The word "pollution" and the words, "shore line" clearly indicate to me that these are matters concerning property and civil rights and therefore come under provincial jurisdiction. The last sentence of the explanatory note reads:
These three new sections merely enlarge the scope of the original act . . .
This is not a true statement of fact. The three new sections do not merely enlarge the scope of the act; they change entirely the intention of the act. The act is for the protection of navigation; the bill deals with protection against pollution; therefore it is not an enlargement of the scope, it is a change in the nature of the act. The explanatory note goes on to say:
. . . which dealt solely with the pollution of navigable waters by sawmills.
The act does not deal with the pollution of navigable waters; it is concerned with navigation and the protection of navigation.
I do not think I need elaborate on the legal points any further. The hon. member will agree that the house is sympathetic toward him, and appreciates the feelings of the people who have suffered because of the pollution. But clearly this is not the forum where the remedy should be found.
The matter is one which has been of particular interest to me because in the city of Cornwall, whence I come, a similar situation

Navigable Waters Protection Act has arisen from time to time, and the position taken there was the same as that now taken.
It might interest the house to know that in 1946 the international joint commission was asked to consider the problem of pollution of waters in so far as they were international, and they were asked by the Department of Transport to undertake a survey of such waters in order to determine the factors responsible for pollution and to recommend appropriate steps to the respective governments of Canada and the United States, because it was felt at that time by myself and the officers of the department that this was far too important a question not to be given the best possible attention. For that reason the international joint commission, which was asked to take it under advisement, appointed an advisory board of eight technicians, four from Canada-two from the Department of National Health and Welfare and two from the provincial department of health of Ontario-and four from the United States.
The first part of this advisory board's report, covering the waters between lake Superior and lake Erie, will be presented to the international joint commission on October 12, 1949. The second section of their report, covering the waters between lake Erie and lake Ontario, is in the course of preparation and will not be available when the findings of the field staff are fully analysed. This survey, I need hardly say, concerns the pollution of international boundary waters from all causes and not from oil alone. Its terms of reference do not cover the bodies of water between lake Ontario and the end of the international section of the St. Lawrence river near Cornwall.
If it meets with the approval of the house I am perfectly willing to ask the international joint commission to add to its survey the additional international waters extending from the head of lake Ontario to the international boundary at Cornwall.
I think it will meet the wishes of all hon. members, in part at least, if a practical suggestion is made in regard to an attempt to assist those who have suffered by the pollution of waters. But to endeavour to do it by an act of this parliament or by this bill would be, I believe, a serious mistake, even if it could be done, which it cannot. Such legislation would be challenged immediately and I have no doubt would be declared ultra vires.
Therefore I have to inform the house that, for the reasons given, the government cannot accept this bill. I would hope that what I have said will meet the feeling of the house and that perhaps the hon. gentleman will be willing to withdraw his bill.
tMr. Chevrier.]


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, before this debate closes I should like to say a few words. First, I wish to congratulate the hon. member upon having introduced this bill, bringing this important matter to the attention of the house and thereby to the attention of the country. This matter of pollution has been overlooked too long in many places in Canada up to the present time.
While I support the principle of the bill I quite agree with the legalistic argument of the minister as far as the jurisdiction of this house to pass this legislation is concerned. I do not think we can deal with this situation adequately until there is a national policy on pollution of rivers as a result of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. Therefore I do not think it is sufficient for the minister just to give a legalistic argument in reply to the hon. member who has introduced this bill.
I would point out to the minister that the present act deals with the pollution of navigable waters by saw mills, but even those provisions are not enforced. I should like the minister to tell the house at some time the procedure that is followed for the enforcement of those provisions in the act.


Lionel Chevrier: The procedure is to bring into operation sections 27 to 30 of the act which provide penalties for anyone who obstructs navigation contrary to the sections of part I of the act. Any person may proceed under those sections.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This question of navigable waters is a most interesting one because we get so many constitutional definitions. I have had navigable waters explained to me as being under the jurisdiction of the federal government in so far as they are being used for navigation, and as being under the jurisdiction of the provinces when they are being used for the development of power. So far I have not had any clear explanation of the jurisdiction that applies so far as pollution is concerned.
I might say that I wqs in the provincial legislature of British Columbia some years ago and at that time I brought up the question of the pollution of navigable waters. I was then told that it was a federal: matter. We certainly are not going to get anywhere with this matter by simply giving legal explanations for inaction. The only hope we can have of solving this question is through co-operation with the provinces. This is a most important matter in many parts of this country. When considering a problem I always like to find out what others have done and in this connection I

have read some United States literature. That country being older and more densely populated, the question has become more intense and serious. From what I read, the different states have had considerable difficulty in connection with the pollution of navigable and other waters. I should like to read to the house details of the policy that has been developed by Pennsylvania as the result of years of study and experience. Here is the policy now in effect in the state of Pennsylvania:
Under this, the streams of the country, upon the basis of their use in transporting sewage and industrial wastes, may be classified into three groups, as has been done by the sanitary water board of Pennsylvania:
Class A:	Relatively clean and pure streams.
Streams in their natural state probably subject to chance contamination by human beings but unpolluted or uncontaminated from any artificial source, hence generally fit for domestic water supply after chlorination, will support fish life and may be safely used for recreational purposes.
I recognize that in dealing with this question there has to be a compromise between theory and practice. I am giving the house these classifications because from what I have read I think they represent a proper compromise between theory and practice. I continue:
Class B: Streams in which pollution shall be controlled. Streams more or less polluted, where the extent of regulation, control, or elimination of pollution will be determined by a consideration of (a) The present and probable future use and condition of the stream; (b) The practicability of remedial measures for abatement of pollution; and (c) The general interests of the public through the protection of the public health, the health of animals, fish and aquatic life, and the use of the stream for recreational purposes.
Class C: Polluted streams. Streams now so polluted that they cannot be used as sources of public water supplies, will not support fish life and are not used for recreational purposes and also from the standpoint of the public interests and practicability it is not now necessary, economical, or advisable to attempt to restore them to a clean condition.
All artificial pollution of Class A streams is prohibited. Any sewage or industrial wastes on the watershed are to be treated to such a degree that the effluent shall be practically free from suspended matter, nonputrescent and disinfected. Recreational use shall not be sanctioned within prejudicial influence of waterworks' intakes.
The degree of treatment of sewage and industrial wastes discharged into Class B streams is to be determined for each particular stream or portion thereof after consideration of the general interests of the public and the economics of the particular case.
Sewage and industrial wastes may be discharged into Class C streams provided that they do not create a public nuisance or menace to health.
I have read that outline of classification as far as pollution of streams is concerned because I think it is the basis for a sound approach to the whole situation in Canada. I hope that, now the member has brought the matter to the attention of the house, some-
Navigable Waters Protection Act thing will be done about it. It is obviously a matter of great interest to quite a number of members, and I hope that the minister will explore the question beyond the legal aspect in order that it may be taken up with the provinces to see if something cannot be done, by co-operation between the provinces and the federal government, to develop a national policy regarding the pollution of navigable and other waters.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I understand that if I speak now I close the debate.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: In
closing the debate, may I say that I am grateful for the legal opinions offered by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). I do not disagree with him, but the original act simply refers to sawdust, edgings, slabs, bark or rubbish of any description whatsoever being discharged into any river or stream. Perhaps bark or slabs may be considered a menace to navigation, but certainly sawdust and rubbish cannot be considered any more a menace to navigation than oil slicks which, as has been pointed out, foul the bottoms of ships, create a considerable fire hazard, upset the internal operations of condensers for cooling water, thus making it impossible to obtain drinking water from the lakes, and in other ways interfere with the operation of ships.
I submit that the bill is intra vires because of the way section 19 now reads. However, I will not press that, because I am grateful to the minister for having suggested that the international joint commission will undertake a study of the matter of pollution. The Canadian members of the international joint commission were appointed by this house. At the present time they are studying and reporting on the subject of pollution although it is considered to be ultra vires of this house. I merely mention that as an example of the tortuous reasonings and difficulties that we get into on the constitutional question of whether a bill such as mine is ultra vires of the jurisdiction of the house.
Sewage disposal was mentioned by several members who seem to object to some treatment of raw sewage before it is discharged into the waters of the country. Let me say to them that eventually the discharging of raw sewage will be prohibited. Eventually an enlightened public opinion will see to it that raw sewage is treated. My suggestion was that a start should be made at once because the longer it goes on, and the larger the cities grow, the more difficult the solution of the problem will be.

Meat Packing Industry
I had hoped that the bill might be sent to the railway committee where experts on the matter of pollution, people who know the problem, and interested industrialists could get together and give evidence from which a suitable bill might have been evolved and presented to the house. That is not the wish of the government, however, so that cannot happen. I think it is a pity because, despite the question of jurisdiction, despite the legal arguments, the members of this house are sent here to protect the interests of their constituents. I feel that the pollution of navigable waters not only creates a hazard to navigation for the reasons I have given, but also is a considerable menace to the people who live beside these navigable waters.
Motion (Mr. Adamson) negatived on division.



MEAT PACKING INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, September 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North) for the second reading of Bill No. 5, to declare the meat packing industry works for the general advantage of Canada.
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Before we proceed to vote on this measure to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act I want to say a few words. I believe that the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Winnipeg North is of great importance not only to the meat packing industry but to Canada as a whole. I believe it can be regarded as a bill which is in line with words used in the British North America Act, "for the peace, order and good government of Canada." Its object of course is to take into consideration that part of the meat packing industry that carries on operations in two or more provinces, subject of course to paragraph (c) of section 53 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, and therefore to give parliament the right to intervene in disputes of nation-wide importance. Section 92 of the British North America Act sets out the powers conferred upon the provinces at confederation. In my reading of the English language and the act, not placing a strictly legalistic interpretation upon the words, it seems to me it was clearly intended that provincial legislatures should have jurisdiction over all matters of provincial interest. Paragraph 10 states this very clearly, when it excepts:
Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes:

Then, as hon. members will remember, it enumerates undertakings which clearly cut across provincial boundaries and are indeed of national consequence. For example, it states:
Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the prqvince.
Then subparagraph (c) adds this:
Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
At the time of confederation there was no meat packing industry as we understand it today. Under conditions then existing the community was served by many small butcher shops. The butcher slaughtered the cattle and served the community with the meat. He was in close relationship wilh the agricultural producer, the farmer, whom he usually knew and from whom he bought his cattle; and he knew the members of the community who would buy at his shop. That was the situation some eighty years ago. In this country today, however, as in the United States and some other countries, that primitive butchering industry has given way to a nation-wide packing industry. In our own country we not only find that industry nation-wide; in the main we find it in the hands of three great companies. There are smaller packing concerns, of course, but the dominant companies in that field are Canada Packers, Swift Canadian and Burns Limited. Those three companies employ thousands of people from one end of this country to the other. They purchase their livestock not directly from the farmers but largely through commission agents in a few large centres. In the same way their products are sold all across the country through various agencies. So the industry is entirely different from that which was known at the time of confederation.
From my reading of the debates and of what transpired at that time. I believe the fathers of confederation saw that there might be an evolution in this country and that, in the process of such evolution, undertakings, as they put it, which at that time were of local significance serving only a community or a province, might be extended to become something much greater and much wider. So they put in section 92 the words to which I have referred, which I believe have a bearing on this discussion. No longer is the farmer dependent upon an understanding with the local butcher for the marketing of his animals. He ships them great distances. In my own province they are shipped to

Moose Jaw, Saskatoon and Regina; and often the farmer ships them beyond the boundaries of his own province, to Winnipeg, east to Toronto, and so on. So anything which interferes with the operation of that industry, not only in individual localities but from one end of the country to the other, seriously embarrasses the farmer. We discovered that in 1947, when a dispute between these companies and their employees held up the marketing of stock which was ready for the market, and caused not only serious inconvenience to the agricultural community but serious loss to agricultural producers. In the same way and at the same time the consumers who were dependent upon this nation-wide industry were also greatly embarrassed by the shortage of meat which occurred during the strike. As for the men engaged in the industry, organized in a nation-wide union rather than in provincial units of a union, they were denied the wages upon which they depended for their livelihood, and the whole matter was such that it caused serious difficulty all across the country.
During the war years and subsequently, in 1945 and 1946, when similar disputes occurred, they could be negotiated and a settlement assisted under federal jurisdiction, but in 1947 there was no such federal authority. The strike was prolonged, and the packing house workers were compelled to negotiate in the various provinces. As a result the farmer lost, the worker lost, and the community suffered grave inconvenience. So I say this industry is no longer a matter of purely local interest. It is of nation-wide concern; and I believe this parliament should do as it did in the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company some time ago

declare this an industry of national importance and therefore coming under the legislation to which I have just referred.
As I said a few moments ago, this is a matter of nation-wide concern; and if I can read the English language it seems clear that it would certainly fall under subparagraph (c) of subsection 10 of section 92, which declares:
Such works as, although wholly situate within the province-
Then I omit the words I read previously: -declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
With our experience in 1945 and 1946, when the Department of Labour, acting under legislation passed by this parliament and powers granted by this parliament, had the right to assist in the negotiation and settlement of such disputes, so today in peacetime, if the same situation arises, because of the
Meat Packing Industry same national considerations dealing with a nation-wide industry, we believe the same good offices should be exercised by the federal authority.
I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to prolong the debate. I merely rose to say that in our opinion and in the opinion of the employees organized in the packing house industry, in the interests of the agricultural community and the consumers of Canada generally who are, of course, vitally affected when a dispute arises in an industry of this nation-wide significance, we should adopt the amendment suggested in Bill No. 5. This would enable our Department of Labour to assist in negotiations which may be necessary from time to time between the employees and the owners of the meat packing industry, which we contend is of nation-wide concern and of nation-wide importance, and thus should be subject to nation-wide jurisdiction.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, before a vote is taken on this bill, I should like to say a word or two. It is not my intention to speak for long or to hold up the bill at all. It does seem to me that the bill is suggesting a change which would affect the provinces materially. So far as I am aware, none of the provinces have complained or asked for co-operation from the federal government in the management of its labour relations with the packing industry.
It is my view that this legislation does come within the purview of the provinces. Until such time as the provinces have made a request for dominion government assistance or co-operation in having this industry brought under the national labour code, I cannot see where benefits would flow from our interference with the relationship as it exists today. I believe the matter should remain as it is until the provinces make such a request. I am a little suspicious, Mr. Speaker, of centralizing any power of this character. I can see a great danger to labour and to the country generally in it. There is too much centralization at Ottawa now. For the reasons I have given, although I am not going further into them now, I shall have to vote against the bill.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I rise to speak for a few moments because of the argument advanced by the member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston). It is an argument that has been advanced by others who have taken part in this debate, namely, that there has been no formal request from the provinces for this particular change. It seems to me that argument is another example of waiting until after the horse is stolen before locking the barn door. The fact

Meat Packing Industry of the matter is that, during the last serious dispute in the packing house industry, a number of provinces did request federal government assistance in conciliation. One of the difficulties at that time was that the provinces were not unanimous in asking the federal government to take over the matter, and this prevented effective action at the proper time. If we are going to use wisdom in the matter, surely that experience would lead us to make preparations for future disputes of this kind. It does seem to me that the arguments that have been put forward as to the nation-wide character of this industry and the argument advanced by my leader as to the interest in this matter on the part of consumers, workers in the packing house industry and our farmers who produce the livestock, make an affirmative vote by members of this house the part of wisdom.
At this time, I should like to deal with an argument advanced the other night by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Carroll). The last time this bill was before the house the discussion hinged largely on the constitutional point. The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond even went so far as to contend there was a difference in value between section 92, 10 (a) and section 92, 10 (c) of the British North America Act. He argued that the federal parliament did not have as much power under section 92, 10 (c) as under section 92, 10 (a). As I have often had to remark, I am not a lawyer, but it does seem to me to be clear, even from such law as I have learned sitting in this house, that if this parliament has a power assigned to it by the British North America Act it has all the powers that flow therefrom. If this government is assigned the powers set out in section 92, 10 (c), which have been quoted a number of times, we have the powers that flow from it.
Parliament has used that power a number of times. Grain elevators have been declared works for the general advantage of Canada. A similar declaration was made with regard to the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company. Two or three years ago a bill was passed in connection with the Quebec, North Shore and Labrador railway in which a clause was inserted making it a work for the general advantage of Canada. Reference has already been made during the course of this debate to the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company whose property is astride the Manitoba-Saskatchewan boundary; its works were declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. In all of these cases the federal parliament has exercised its power as provided by the constitution. When members rise in this debate, as they have, and [DOT]contend that this would be opening the door,

they fail to remember that the door is already open. The suggestions of my leader have been carried out and there has been a recognition of the fact that times have changed since 1867. Some of the things the fathers of confederation did not know would come into existence are here today, and we have in some respects tried to keep up with the times.
Since this matter was up the last time, I was interested in discovering a reference to possible uses to be made of section 92, 10 (c) of the British North America Act, which is found in volume 2 of the report of the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations, generally known as the Rowell-Sirois report, at page 201. This section deals generally with the problem of railway and highway competition and the commissioners indicate the kind of use that might be made of section 92, 10 (c). I want to quote this paragraph:
The situation may, however, not be permanent since main motor highways might possibly be brought under dominion jurisdiction under section 92, subsection 10, of the British North America Act, which provided that local works and undertakings wholly situate within a province may be declared by parliament to be for the general advantage of Canada or of two or more provinces. By the exercise of the declaratory power, parliament attained jurisdiction over many railways wholly situated within a province, and over grain elevators. While the term "works'' awaits definite judicial definition, there would seem to be no reason why it would not cover highways of the type indicated. Thus, Hon. Mr. Meighen, while the proposed transport act was being considered by the senate standing committee, February 10, 1937, said: "It would not be unreasonable to declare that the trans-Canada highway was a work for the general advantage of Canada."
I quote that to indicate that it is recognized that the door is open wherever it is desirable or necessary to bring under federal jurisdiction undertakings that are of nation-wide importance.
I should like to mention another point in that connection, and that is that in the labour code itself the language in section 92, 10 (c) of the British North America Act is quoted. Then, we go one step further in the labour code, which is chapter 54 of the statutes of 1948, by this enactment in section 54:
Part I of this act shall apply in respect of any corporation established to perform any function or duty on behalf of the government of Canada and in respect of employees of such corporation, except any such corporation, and the employees thereof, that the governor in council excludes from the provisions of part I.
I do not know what action has been taken under that section with regard to the Polymer Corporation at Sarnia, where we make synthetic rubber. But unless the governor in council has excepted it from the provisions of this act, it is a crown corporation and as such comes under the provisions of the national labour code.

Some hon. members have said that this bill would bring a number of small local plants under the provisions of the national labour code. Not so, because the bill proposed by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) applies only in the case where a meat-packing firm operates in two or more provinces.
It has been a bit of a spectacle to some of us sitting in this chamber to hear these constant emotional appeals to the concept of provincial rights. This is a bill to protect the rights of Canadians in all the provinces: surely that is more important than the autonomous rights of the provinces as separate units. To some of us these sectional appeals hardly seem to square with the stirring speeches we have heard during the course of this very session urging us to recognize our status as Canadians and to establish the greatness of our Canadian nationhood. Here is a chance to protect the rights of the people in the provinces, in particular the rights that are guaranteed to them by the national labour code brought in by this government, if only we will take this step and bring this nationwide industry under federal jurisdiction with regard to labour matters.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. SOCIAL SECURITY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, October 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Maclnnis:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should seek the co-operation of the provinces for
[Stage Direction]
Social Security
the purpose of formulating a program of social security that will be national in scope, adequate in its provisions, and that will cover all citizens of Canada in every circumstance where the individual or the family is, for any reason, deprived of the opportunity of earning a living.
Mr. Speaker:: Before hon. members proceed with this resolution I would ask them to consider whether its carriage would require the expenditure of money, and if it would require the expenditure of money whether it is in order at this time. Some time during the evening I shall make a ruling on the resolution and I should be glad now to hear any representations in that regard.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the motion is now the property of the house, but if a decision is to be made this evening I should think that it had better be made now. If there is to be further discussion I should like to have the opportunity to reply.


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared to make my ruling now but I thought it only fair to give hon. members an opportunity to express their views. However, if no hon. members desire to express their views I am prepared to give my ruling.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, would it not be better to allow hon. members to give the matter a little thought before you give your decision? I would suggest that one or two hon. members be permitted to speak and then your ruling could be given.


Mr. Speaker:: With respect to this resolution I must inform the house that after due reflection I have reached the conclusion that the proposed resolution is in the nature of an order which the government could not ignore and which could not be carried out without the expenditure of public moneys. Citation 437 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, 1943, and Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, page 407, both read in part as follows:
No principle is better understood than the constitutional obligation that rests upon the executive government, of alone initiating measures imposing charges upon the public exchequer.
It is customary for members to introduce resolutions that do not directly involve the expenditure of public money and have no operative effect but simply express an abstract opinion on a matter which may necessitate a future grant. I would refer to Canadian Journals, volume 58, page 100. However, in citation 453, page 171, of Beauchesne's third edition, it is clearly stated that:
The tendency has been in the Canadian House of Commons, for the past 25 years, to rule out all

motions purporting to give the government a direc' order to do a thing which cannot be done withou an expenditure of money.
In my opinion, the resolution which has been proposed does not simply express ar abstract opinion. It seems clear that, if il carried, the government would be bound t( comply with its terms and that therefore i1 is in the nature of a direct order and that the order could not be carried out without ar expenditure of public moneys. This expend! ture would be greater or less, depending or the manner in which the co-operation of the provinces was sought, but it is evident tha some expenditure would be involved anc that the expenditure might be considerable Some modern instances of the tendency te rule out all motions of this character may be found in the Journals of the House of Com mons, 1936, at page 52; and 1948, at pagi 225.
I have gone into this matter quite full] because the resolution was put on the orde: paper by the hon. member for Vancouve: East (Mr. Maclnnis). The hon. member ha: been in the house a long time. I know tha he has given a great deal of attention to th< rules, and I always give careful considera tion to any representations he makes respec ting order and procedure in the house. It i only fair that I should go into the matte: fully. For the reasons which I have statei I rule that the resolution is out of order.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I am not goinj to challenge your ruling nor shall I evei discuss it. As a matter of fact, I am of th opinion that your point is well taken. I usei the word "should", not in the sense of givin instructions to the government but in th sense in which it is sometimes used, that i would be desirable if such a thing were done The word "should" is used in that sense quit often. I accept your ruling and if condition are not changed before the next session, shall propose this resolution in a mor acceptable form.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, Octc ber 4, consideration of the motion of Mi Fulton for the second reading of Bill No. 10, t amend the Criminal Code (portrayal c crimes).
Alphonse Fournier: In the absence of the Minister c Justice (Mr. Garson) may I suggest to th hon. member that he permit this bill to stanc The Minister of Justice is most interested i

the subject matter of the bill and the government would not like to see the debate concluded in his absence.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate fully the fact that the Minister of Justice is unavoidably absent and quite naturally I would not wish to see a conclusion forced on this matter in his absence, perhaps in the form of a vote. However, this is the fourth Thursday in the session and in accordance with the rules Thursdays will no longer be private members' days and it may well be that this will be the last occasion, or one of the last, for discussion on this bill. I understand that there are other hon. members who would like to express their opinions on the bill and I wonder if the minister and the government would be agreeable to permitting the debate to continue with the assurance that no vote nor any other conclusion will be forced in the absence of the minister.


Alphonse Fournier: When the speakers are through somebody could adjourn the debate to another day.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the understanding.


Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate because I feel that there are one or two points that have not been brought out, despite the fact that so far excellent reasons have been put forth by previous speakers for checking these crime comics to some extent and for passing Bill No. 10 to amend the Criminal Code. Some months ago I received a letter from the home and school council of Peterborough under date of March 19, 1949, which reads in part:
The following is a report of the findings of a committee appointed by the Peterborough home and school council, to determine whether there are objectionable comic books on sale in Peterborough and if so, what might be done to inhibit their distribution.
The committee visited several retail stores where comic books were sold and found a large variety on the stands of which about half were deemed harmful, in greater or less degree. According to the salesman, the retail proprietors do not order any specific comics. About once a week the distributor collects the slow moving copies for which he subsequently obtains credit and leaves a new supply.
The committee then visited the two local distributing agencies and were courteously received by the managers. It was found that at least ten of the Detroit police department's list of objectionable comics were being distributed in Peterborough along with other crime comics.
There is more to the letter, but I will not read it all. It was sent to me by the corresponding secretary of the home and school council of the city of Peterborough. Here is a list, compiled by the detective bureau of the Detroit police department, of crime 45781-37J
Criminal Code
comics that are banned in that city. It is dated May 11, 1948. The introduction to the list reads:
The following named comic books are, in the opinion of the censor bureau and the Wayne county prosecuting attorney, found to be totally objectionable in accordance with the laws and statutes of the state of Michigan . . .
Then they refer to the different sections of their statutes. Here is the list of the comics, of which, as I said before, ten are included in those sold in the city of Peterborough. The list reads:
All True Comics; Blue Beetle: Boy Comics: Crime Comics; Crime Detective Comics; Crime Exposed Comics; Crime Fighter Comics; Crime Punishment Comics; Dynamic Comics; Exposed Crime Comics; Famous Crime Comics; Fight Comics; Gangster Comics; Headline Comics; Is this Tomorrow; International Crime Patrol; Jo-Jo Comics; Jumbo Comics; Justice Comics; Killers Comics; Lawbreakers Comics; Law Crime Comics; Murder Inc. Comics; Penalty Comics; Phantom Lady Comics; Prize Comics; Public Enemies; Real Clue Comics; Super Mystery Comics; True Crime Comics; Underworld Comics; Wanted Comics; Wings Comics; War Against Crime Comics, and Zoot Comics.
I have here further facts and figures as to these comics, and I believe this information was also compiled by the home and school council. The pamphlet is headed:
Undesirable Newsstand Publications, Facts and Figures
It reads:
1.	There are approximately 90 comic books, Canadian edition, on the market at this time (November 1948).
2.	These comics can be classified in various ways. The following has been found useful for all practical purposes:
(1) crime; (2) general; (3) western; (4) phantasy; (5) animal.
3.	Since the austerity tariff ban was imposed in November, 1947, the Canadian editions of the American comics have steadily increased. The printing only is done in Canada.
4.	One-third of all magazines on the newsstands are comics.
5.	Approximately sixty million copies of comics per month are published; each issue nets around $25,000 in advertising sales alone.
6.	In Canada the sale of obscene books, literature, pictures, photographs or models, is controlled by section 207 of the Criminal Code. Convictions under this section have been difficult, if not impossible, to obtain, indicating that clarification or amendment of the section is required.
That is what the bill is seeking. The pamphlet continues:
7.	Local action in British Columbia was attempted in 1940. Four magazines considered violating section 207 were presented to the attorney general with the request that they be banned. Advice from this department was that it would be impossible to secure a ban on these magazines in British Columbia since the act indicated the publishers would be the only offenders and they were in eastern Canada.
8.	Local action has been enforced against the sale of crime comics in more than fifty cities in the United States.
There is more to the pamphlet, but I will not read it all. There is another point that

Criminal Code
I do not think has been brought out yet, and I believe that it is an important one. The circular I have just read mentions the fact that most of these comics are printed and published in Canada, but they are concocted and drawn in the United States and other countries. Mats or plates are then shipped into Canada to be printed. I understand that there is no duty on those plates or mats entering Canada. There is absolutely no sales tax on the newsprint or paper on which these crime comics are printed.


Gordon Graydon: Our weekly newspapers have to pay it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, and every daily newspaper in Canada has to pay the eight per cent sales tax.


Gordon Graydon: And some weeklies.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There is only one weekly in Canada that does not pay the sales tax; that is the Toronto Star Weekly.


Mr. Howe:: Quoting George McCullagh.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, I am not quoting George McCullagh because I made the statement from the platform over a week before George McCullagh made his broadcast.


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: He is quoting you.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Whether I am quoting him or he is quoting me, my facts and figures are right.


Mr. Mitchell:: But you would not disagree with George.


Gordon Graydon: There are a lot of smaller weeklies, too.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) cannot disagree with me because he knows what I say is right.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not say that. I said you do not disagree with George, the king maker.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am very glad that the Minister of Trade and Commerce interrupted me because it brought the fact'much more vividly to the attention of the house than I could have done. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce will look up the legislation governing the Department of National Revenue and the customs department, he will see that not even a sales tax is paid on the ink they use to print these comics. That may also apply to the Toronto Star Weekly.
I feel that in all fairness to our children every member of the house should support the amendment. We all like comics. I like comics, but I like comics that are clean, and I do not like the trash you get in these dime crime comic books. I have seen them and I have read them. The hon. member for

Macleod (Mr. Hansell) the other night gave many illustrations of these comics and crim( books that would absolutely disgust anyone I know it would disgust everyone in th< house and it would disgust the average mar and woman right across Canada. I say, give our children the funnies but give them clear ones.


Mr. H. P. Cavers (Lincoln):: I do not intend to take a great deal of the time of the house this evening in dealing with Bill No. 10 There are some observations which I shoulc like to make on the principle of the bill, witl which I agree, and on the bill itself. The other evening the hon. member for Macleoc (Mr. Hansell) told us that he was not speak' ing on behalf of his profession. I do no propose to speak on behalf of the honourable profession of which I am a member, bu I have been asked to speak on the bill by the Kiwanis club of St. Catharines which passec a resolution a short time ago recommendinf to the government that some action shoulc be taken as to these pamphlets described a: crime comics.
To my mind they have no humoroui features, and are the very antithesis of wha they are supposed to be. I think we car start with the premise that crime comics arc detrimental to youth and have a bad influenci upon the moral standards of our youn; people. They depict groups of people, gang: of young boys, engaging in sadistic anc criminal actions, and in my view that is : bad thing. In the province from which : come there has been a tendency for younj hoodlums to band together and assault ou: citizens. Probably that is an outgrowth o this very suggestion to young minds. Thi best known of these groups is called thi beanery gang; and I suggest that perhap; the influence of poor literature of this kind indulged in earlier years, has had a goo< deal to do with this tendency.
Our young people seem to have a grea desire to read these publications, whicl certainly are not funny. A few years agi we had the serial type of story, with youni men and women engaged in sports and enter taining pastimes. For example Chums an< The Boys Own Annual. That sort of bool does not seem to appeal to the young peopl these days. I am told they buy these comic and then form voluntary circulating libraries passing them from one to another. So n matter what supervision there may be ii the home, it is difficult to stop such a practice Certainly these comics add nothing to th cultural or educational advancement of ou youth. To me it indicates something wron in our educational system when these so called crime comics have such an appeal t our children. Some members of this hous

aave suggested to me that this may not be the proper way to deal with this matter, that it may be a question of home training. A.S I have said, however, owing to the secretive manner in which these comics are circulated it is very difficult for parents to lo anything to prevent their children coming into possession of these magazines. I have i friend who carries on business as a druggist in the city from which I come. He told me that he conducted his own censorship. He found that many of the comics which came to his place of business were not fit to be circulated among young people. But 1 do aot think we can depend upon individual censorship, because many people are more concerned with the profit derived from the sale of these magazines than with any sense of moral responsibility.
I am sure a step of this kind will not lack public support. As I have said, the Kiwanis club have taken up the matter in an international way; parent-teacher organizations have passed resolutions dealing with it, as have home and school associations and various governing church bodies. So I believe the matter deserves our attention. Here I would give credit to the newspapers of Canada for the high standard they have maintained in their censorship. I believe the funnies we read in the newspapers are of a very high order. Little criticism can be directed at those comics, and perhaps that is why the word "newspaper" is not mentioned in the bill.
For a moment I should like to refer to the bill itself, though I do not wish to be unduly critical of the draftsmanship. The bill refers to the printing, publishing, sale and distribution of any magazine, periodical or book. The word "magazine" indicates to me a publication containing sketches, stories and essays. Surely crime comics do not come within that definition. A "periodical" conveys to my mind a publication appearing at fixed intervals of more than one day, and I feel that crime comics do not come within the scope of that definition. The word "book" conveys to my mind a printed volume bound between two covers, and I do not think that would include crime comics either. I may be construing this bill rather strictly, but in view of the fact that if it is adopted it will be interpreted strictly in some other place, I believe we should scrutinize it carefully here. I am wondering whether these crime comics, as we understand them, are really covered by the expressions used in the bill. It may be that this is not so. I understand the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) did not draft the bill himself, but I would suggest that perhaps the words "or any other publication" after the word "book"
Criminal Code
might be included to cover any printed work offered for sale or distribution. I believe that would amply cover any situation that might arise.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does the hon. gentleman know that the government classes them as magazines? Otherwise they would not be exempt from the eight per cent sales tax on newsprint.


Harry Peter Cavers: I was not aware of that fact. I agree heartily with the principle of this bill, but it occurs to me that as it is drawn it might not fully cover the situation. I am sure all hon. members of this house, many of whom are heads of families, are in sympathy with the aims of this bill and believe that some action should be taken.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, like most of the members of the house, I suppose, I have received a number of letters and resolutions from organizations in my province urging that I support some measure, though not necessarily this one, to restrict the circulation of crime comics or whatever we choose to call the sort of literature under discussion. I am supporting the principle of the bill, although I am doubtful of its efficacy as it is now drafted. It leaves much to chance or to the option of those who are charged with the enforcement of the law. It may be honoured, as some sections of the Criminal Code are honoured, or it may be flouted as the sections dealing with lotteries and various forms of gambling are being flouted today. In my city of Vancouver bingo games are unlawful. I went into a store in this city this morning and saw a girl sitting at a desk openly selling bingo tickets. Surely, our criminal law should be applicable to the whole of Canada.


Gordon Graydon: She knows a good customer when she sees him.


Mr. Lennard:: It is for charity.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member says it is for charity. It seems to me it is stretching the idea of charity rather far when buying a ticket on a game of chance is considered a contribution to charity. No one buys a ticket on a lottery, a game of chance or competition unless he expects to get more back than he pays for the ticket; that does not seem to me to be charity. Charity is what you give even to your own inconvenience, when it hurts it is not giving with the expectation of getting back more than you gave. I have heard all these arguments before. We are told that lotteries for worthy objects are all right. If the object is worthy, it should not have to depend on a lottery. If it is not worthy, it should not be supported at all.



S82 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Criminal Code
Frank Exton Lennard: What has that to do with this biU?


Angus MacInnis: It has everything to do with this bill because the bill suggests an amendment to the Criminal Code. I am suggesting that if one section of the Criminal Code is not enforced, perhaps this amended section will not be enforced either.
There is another point in connection with this matter that I want to mention. Before I deal with that, however, may I say that it is a rather saddening experience to pass a newsstand today and see the amount of trash offered for sale and the very small amount of literature that is worth while. I do not believe we can overcome the effects of crime comics merely by negative action. If the lives of our young people are to be improved, it will have to be by positive action. Something constructive for them to do will have to be found; something that will take up their time so that they will not have time for crime comics and other harmful diversions. When most of the members of this house were growing up there was not much time for comic papers. I suppose a good many of us grew up on the farm, where there was always work to do. If it did not do anything else, at least it kept us out of mischief. On that same basis, I suggest that, if we are going to improve the lives of our children and youth of today, we must put something in their lives to fill the emptiness that is the lot of so many.
It is evident that the member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard) does not agree with that. It is his belief that crime can be suppressed by courts and laws.


Frank Exton Lennard: I said, "How are you going to do that with all these gift shops?"


Angus MacInnis: If history has proven anything at all, it has proven that crime cannot be stopped in that way.
I have only one more remark to make before I sit down. I shall listen attentively to the constructive suggestions that will be made by the voluble member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard). I think perhaps we can say too much about the harmfulness of crime comics. Perhaps we may be just advertising them. The other night when the member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) and the member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) were talking, I felt that clergymen should not talk about these things because they build such an alluring halo around them that it makes people think that resisting temptation is not worth while. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member

for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) on the excellent job he made when presenting this bill. So far as its principle is concerned, I shall support it.
(Translation):


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I take the liberty of adding my voice, as a French-speaking member, to those who have taken part in this debate. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) on the ideas he put forth in introducing this bill.
I agree that it might be better if parliament and the various legislatures united their efforts in order to encourage moral education in our families. We should have a purpose, a comprehensive program to prevent the lowering, at such an alarming rate, of the moral standards of our people, and especially of our youth, as we have witnessed during the past few years, more particularly since the war.
I come from the province of Quebec and while I was a member of the legislature of that province, it passed an act prohibiting children under sixteen years of age from going to the movies. I also remember that during the debate some members strongly opposed the measure. I still have clippings from newspapers published in other provinces, making fun of the province of Quebec, stating it was backward in passing such legislation.
Mr. Speaker, if children under sixteen were not allowed to go to the movies, it would become easier, all over the country, to preserve what is left of moral standards among the people and more particularly, among our youth.
I believe that fair and honest legislation based on principles of morality would improve family education and help parents do their duty more efficiently. It would also give them the necessary courage and strength of mind to forbid their children from going to the movies. In this way, they would not put wrong ideas in the heads of young people when they are at a critical stage of their development.
I appreciate that, once again, we may be called backward, but in the province of Quebec we have resolutely kept this legislation in operation. I think we were right in so doing since, by this bold step, the moral standards of our youth in the province of Quebec have been maintained at a high level.
Reading newspapers from other provinces, I notice that juvenile delinquency is lower in the province of Quebec. I do not wish to disparage other provinces, but I have visited many of them and attended a moving picture

ihow where twelve-year old children were Iriven almost to a frenzy on seeing and hear-ng a film which had to do with underworld :haracters and gangsters. If we continue to et children improve upon what they see on :he screen and what they read in crime ;omics, written in a gibberish language which hey do not understand perfectly, there will :ertainly be a lowering of the moral standard imong young people. If nothing is done to lelp parents in the discharge of their duties, ve shall have only ourselves to blame for rot having done our duty in this Canadian larliament.
The hon. member for Kamloops deserves ;ommendation for the ideas he has voiced in his house. We should launch a well-organ-zed campaign to remove the cause of juvenile lelinquency and take away from our young people those things which they should not lave in their early years.
Text):


Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: May
, Mr. Speaker, perhaps add a little bit of iractical experience to this debate, inasmuch is I have just left a school board in British Columbia and am now an active member of ;he parent-teacher association. I do not ;hink it is the attitude of the parent-teacher issociation to condemn every child who reads :rime comics and every mother and father >f such a child; because it is my experience hat a child only reflects the ability of that nother and father to take care of their home.
do not believe that crime magazines will :ver hurt the child whose mother and father ake an intelligent view of these comics, >ecause if the mother and father handle the lituation properly, as I handle it in my home,
' do not think any child will come to any larm through them. They are not a good hing, and we know that fact. But that is lot the idea.
Through no fault of their own, perhaps, here are some kiddies who have come into he juvenile courts; and I have been able to ;it in those courts with the permission of :ertain law enforcement officers. I have found hat because the mothers and fathers did not ake the proper interest in these children hese so-called crime comics have affected the ives of these young people. In every case where crime comics have been mentioned in he juvenile court, I find that it has usually seen the case that the mother and father did lot take enough interest in their children to ;top them from using these books.
The other day I went into one of the stores n Ottawa to see just how bad the situation was here. In the store 46 different kinds of
Criminal Code
this trash were offered for sale. This is the offal of the magazine trade. No one should have to buy it. No one should be able to buy it. But I find that, unless some of these magazine stands buy these books, they cannot buy the national magazines that they need to keep going. Within the last two or three days I have been told that it is also true -and it is true in British Columbia-that, unless the magazine dealers here handle these magazines to the extent of a certain percentage per month, they cannot buy the magazines from which they make their money to pay their fuel and rent bills. These are not the so-called "crime does not pay" magazines; I find they include Crime and Punishment, and Crime of Women. In this are depicted women of ill repute standing in rather suggestive attitudes. That is a fine model for our young people to look at! There are Women Outlaws and True Mystery. This latter is the most filthy book that I have ever seen on a magazine stand.


An hon. Member:: What is in it?


Tom Goode: The hon. member can read it after I am through with it. But for young ladies and young gentlemen to read this type of magazine is pitiful in a civilized country. I believe the principle of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) is good. I believe its intent is good. I do not know that this bill can be sustained in law. I would have to take advice from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) on that point. But if there is anything I can do to suggest to the Minister of Justice that some type of bill be put through so that the law can be made conclusive and so that our provincial attorneys general can be successful in getting convictions in these cases, then I will say for myself and for every mother and father in this country:	Thank God.


Agar Rodney Adamson: There is just one other angle of this matter, Mr. Speaker, that I should like to touch on briefly. I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) has just made an excellent point for the support of the bill when he said, from having had experience in juvenile courts, that a great deal of the juvenile delinquency that he saw was caused by lack of discipline or family life or security in the home. Then the crime comic got in and did its work. Although he may not have intended it as such, I think that is a point that reinforces the argument of my friend the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton).

Criminal Code
For a time I had the privilege of being a member of the citizens committee in Toronto with regard to what is known as the beanery gang. I do not think the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Cavers) is quite correct in saying that the beanery gang was not a gang from a certain district in the city of Toronto. In this particular I want to give a great deal of credit to the Rev. Gordon Domm of Bathurst street United church for taking these young people off the streets of the district, opening the basement of his church to them, and doing a great deal of rehabilitation work. I do not think that sufficient appreciation has ever been shown of the work that he and his committee have done. There is one remarkable aspect of this matter of juvenile delinquency and the extraordinary variety of anti-social behaviour that is going on today. It is a wild and extraordinarily imaginative type, caused in part by these crime magazines but also in part by the daily press. When some strange and violent incidents of anti-social behaviour took place in Toronto, it was found that the daily press of Toronto played them up-I do not intend to mention the incidents, but they have occurred from week to week-with the names, the description, the location and all the rest of it. That practice made heroes of these young delinquents who committed these peculiar manifestations of anti-social behaviour. I would rather call them that than crimes, although they are crimes.
When this was publicized-and it was particularly so in groups and gangs-people would say, "Oh, well, look what they did over there. They have done this particular thing." That gave the incentive for another group to go and do some other even worse act in another part of the city. This cannot be anything but a plea to the daily press, when these anti-social incidents occur, when these peculiar acts of sadism and violence that are all too common today in Canada occur, not to play up the participants as heroes. I know that they have tremendous news value. I know that the newspapers depend on the sale of their papers, and the circulation depends on news value and news interest in the papers; but I do plead with the daily press and the weekly press that when these extraordinary things occur they do not give them publicity, because it merely sets the pattern for others to try to emulate.
I know that it is asking a lot of the press. It is something that they can only do voluntarily. I am speaking as a member of the committee on the beanery gang, and I know that when the press stopped playing up the delinquent actions in Toronto the concentration of members gradually decreased. It is a matter of example, and if the daily press

will display restraint in emphasizing the bad examples I am sure that a great deal of good can be done.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: I think that almost everything that can be said has been said on this subject, but there is one thing that we perhaps should have, namely, statistics about comic strips as to what extent they are read, and to what extent their distribution is big business, because the fact that it is big business is one of the problems we find facing us. Such figures as I shall use are taken from a brief presented to the Saskatchewan library advisory council in 1946 by one Mrs. J. R. Both well, provincial librarian at Regina, Sask. The problem of controlling the circulation of undesirable literature forms the subject matter of a paragraph, the beginning of which I shall read:
Before discussing suggestions for controlling the circulation of undesirable magazines, it is well to obtain some idea of the number of readers patronizing them. Unfortunately figures are not available to show the circulation of comics "pulps," or other classes of undesirable periodicals either in Saskatchewan or Canada.
The next paragraph which is of interest is this. It is taken from the Wilson Library Bulletin of October, 1946, and is entitled "Magazine Best Sellers."
The analysis showed comic books as a group topped all other types of magazines with a paid monthly circulation of 29,661,000.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that in Canada?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: These are figures for the United States. I explained that the figures were not available in Canada. These are corresponding figures for the United States. Perhaps I neglected to mention that. I continue:
It is estimated that each copy has three to five readers, so that the monthly readership of the American comic magazines would be in the neighbourhood of 100,000,000.
Fortune magazine has estimated that the comic book industry has an annual turnover of $18 million.
The question of which age, sex and income groups are most addicted to the various forms of undesirable literature is a difficult one to answer. A recent survey by the Market Research Company in the United States indicated that the following proportions of each age group read comics regularly.
Age Group	Male Per Cent	Female Per Cent	Copies Read6-11 years 	.. 95	91	(12-13 a month)12-17 years 	.. 87	81	(12-13 a month)18-30 years 	.. 41	28	(7 - 8 a month)31 years and on ..	.. 16	12	(6 a month)
It will be noticed as the age increases the number grows less. I am not going to comment on this myself. I have a large file on censorship, and it is one of my favourite topics and one on which I could speak at

<rcat length. I do not think the question if censorship really enters into this debate, rhis particular bill does not call for censor-;hip as such. As I understand it, it asks that he circulation of a certain type of book be nade illegal, and then it will be left to some-me to originate court action. If that court iction were taken and punishment were landed out to the people who sell these nagazines, it is presumed that it would be i deterrent to people of a like class. I understand that that is the purpose of the bill. Personally I have not made up my mind whether I am in favour of it or not. It is a xemendously difficult problem. Whether you ire thinking of censorship or not, you are naking the judge and jury into censors. The juestion is whether the judge and jury of ;welve honest men and true are competent ;o carry out the censorship. I do not know, [f they cannot do any better than the depart-nent of customs and excise I do not think we had better start, because, as I said m a previous occasion, I have no confidence in that particular body to carry out censorship. If we are to have censorship then it will have to be an efficient censorship. It would be a more efficient censorship system if it were done by people who had the necessary background, education, experience and training, and we would have much more jonfidence in their competence to perform such censorship. This brief contains the opinion of one who has made some study of this matter. I refer to Mr. Sandwell of Toronto Saturday Night. Like myself, he is opposed to censorship generally, but listen to what he has to say. Mr. Sandwell expresses himself as "strongly opposed to censorship except for the juvenile who is incapable of performing the act of judgment necessary to choose between good and evil ideas." I mentioned this the other day in a short speech I made on a kindred subject. We are dealing with two classes of people, people whose characters are formed, and people who are vulnerable, in that they are exposed to outside environment, without having much judgment in choosing what part of that environment they wish to make their own. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), who is in favour of the positive approach to this problem. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) has argued that if the home were right, if the proper guidance were given, these bad effects would be overcome. I would go perhaps even further and say that the child of a certain age should have some experience in these things, but under proper guidance. But 45781-38
Criminal Code
there again the parents, like the judge and jury to whom I referred, would have to have some competence in the matter.
I am afraid that many parents in this country adopt the wrong attitude toward these comics. I have found as a matter of experience that many of them simply dismiss the whole question of literature for children of 7 to 14 years of age by assuming that, because they have the comics, they do not need anything more.
I repeat that in this country and on this North American continent there is a tremendous dearth of literature for young people. In this connection we owe a debt, but of the wrong sort, to our United States friends. Our imitation of them is a part of the inferiority complex which Canada has developed. The result is that we have not gone into the field of literature for youth or indeed into any field of literature with outstanding success. It is certainly true that there is nothing in this country for the young people to read as compared with what is available to young people in other countries, particularly in Great Britain. In that country there is a great choice of reading matter for young people as well as for adults.
I suggest that instead of censorship or court action we institute a counter-attack by substituting things that are good for things that are evil. There should be a cultivation of taste for good literature while people are still young. Let us give our young people better literature, but if they have to read any of these salacious books let them be read under the guidance of their parents or people who can give proper advice in the matter. In this connection I should like to read again from this brief:
A more direct but possibly more workable approach to the problem than outright censorship is the counter-attack. Many educators and librarians believe that an aggressive program to make alternative literature available to the reading public is a solution to the problem. They suggest that the undesirable literature be analysed to discover what elements in it appeal to people and that efforts be made to supply these elements in a more wholesome form.
I think that is common sense. While I am on the question of children's books I should like to say a word about the expense connected with obtaining these books. One reason why comic books are tolerated by many parents is the fact that they are so cheap. The comic strips appear in the daily or weekly newspapers and those particular pages are thrown to the children, somewhat as a bone is thrown to a dog. Children's books are quite expensive, as is anything that can claim the name of good literature. If

Criminal Code
children's books could be brought out in paper-bound editions I believe they would be more attractive and more would be read.
As a degree of confirmation of what the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond said, I should like to read the final comment in this brief. I consider this brief to be a valuable piece of work and I recommend it to the consideration of hon. members. I congratulate the person who prepared the brief upon its worth. This final paragraph reads:
Immunization against undesirable literature:
A final proposal for protecting children against the evil influence present in much of the literature available today is an immunization program. Most psychologists think it bad to prohibit children the reading of certain books since forbidden fruit always is more attractive. But they believe that if children are provided with a normal home, sufficient outlets for their energy and a full and well-rounded life of work and play, they will not suffer harm from whatever undesirable literature they come in contact with, nor will they spend an excessive amount of time on it. While this is probably sound psychology, it depends on a long-term program of parent education and the development of adequate educational and recreational opportunities for all.
It then goes on to say something about the British Columbia legislative committee which investigated this matter some time ago, and I read:
This was the chief solution proposed by the British Columbia legislative committee which investigated the question last session and recommended that the provincial government "lend every possible encouragement to the establishment and development of community centres, and the greater use of school buildings for recreational, physical education, and other leisure-time purposes under the leadership of trained personnel."
I have no apology for offering this brief for the consideration of the house, because I think it contains many things which are fundamental to this particular discussion. As far as my own decision in the matter is concerned, I repeat what I said at the beginning, that I am not prepared to make a decision at the moment. This is one of those things about which so much can be said on both sides that one has difficulty in arriving at a decision.
This comic book and comic strip business originated in the United States. I remember the first comic strip I saw as a little boy of twelve years. I do not know whether hon. members of my age will remember it. It certainly appealed to me because I had never seen anything like it before. I refer to the time when, while on a trip to the United States, I saw the Buster Brown comic strip. May I say that the Buster Browns have become rather hardened young criminals since those days.
As I say, this is an American institution. We call these things comics; but, as has been pointed out tonight, that is a misnomer

because there is nothing comic about them I do not think the children would be inter ested in these things if they were not almos forced to read them because of a lack of othei literature.
I think they really appeal more to th< adolescent, moronic type of mind, that type of mind that would get some satisfaction o; perhaps some bolstering up of an inferio; complex from them, and as we know, th< inferiority complex is one of the greates factors in the make-up of criminals. Thi fact that v/e copy these things is an illustra tion of something I said the other day. Ir the matter of literature we seem to be copier: rather than originators. The sooner we change that attitude the better it will be not only for the adults but for our children


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr
Speaker, I would not like this occasion tc pass without expressing my congratulation: to the hon. member for Kamloops upor having brought in this bill and just speaking briefly on behalf of the Social Credit grout with reference to the principle. Let m( assure the members of the house, and particu larly the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr Fulton), that we feel he has done a service to the country by introducing this bill Whether or not the provisions of the bill car be adequately enforced is something on which I am not an expert, but the problen that is envisioned by the sponsor of the bil is not a new one. Society has been beset foi many years by the problem of salacious literature. In my younger days the appea was mainly confined to grown-ups, but the emphasis now seems to have shifted to the younger people. I suppose that is because they have a lot more money to spend thar I had when I was a boy.
I am not entirely unacquainted with thi: problem, which is now becoming much more intensified. I speak now as one who has hat experience with it as minister of educatior of one of our provinces where we tried t( take the problem seriously and to do some thing about it. I speak also as a parent wh< has tried to raise seven children and to keej them free from the influence of the type o: periodical mentioned in the bill. I speak als( as a member of a home and school association I think that no matter how good our home: may be, no matter what kind of positive approach we take, we must remember tha it is usually only for a comparatively smal fraction of the day that our children are a' home. Although we may be very careful tc select and help our children select the kinc of literature they bring into the home, wc cannot very well control the kind of periodica round which little knots of children wil gather on the street outside the home.


I feel that every effort must be made in i positive way to substitute the kind of litera-ure and periodicals that will be uplifting, sducational and beneficial to our youth. I do lot think there is such a dearth of that kind >f periodical as has been represented tonight. Vs a parent I have been concerned about lelping my children to get the proper kind if literature and periodicals, and to this day ! have not found it impossible to keep them iretty well supplied with good reading naterial.
Let me refer you to some just offhand. For *irls it is possible today to purchase a book ;hat comes out once or twice a month called 'Calling All Girls". It is a very high type ;if publication and one that fills a great need. There is a companion to it entitled "Calling All Boys" that I can recommend for any-oody's boys. They get pleasure out of reading those things. They find that they fill their aeeds to a certain degree. Then there are so many of the splendid old books that we all read as young people, and that are still just as vital to the boys and girls of this day as they were in our time. I wonder if we are not neglecting to supply them in our home libraries or to help our boys and girls to know where they can lay their hands on them when they want them. I know for certain that in the schools every effort is made to supply splendid libraries of such books for the boys and girls in the various grades.
Therefore I cannot believe that there is a dearth of good material for boys and girls to read. That was the conclusion that I reached when I was studying this particular problem as minister of education in the Alberta government. On the other hand, tons of these comic books appear on the newsstands dressed in the brightest colours and with the most appealing covers. Of course, that overbalances whatever influence there may be in the home and the school along the positive line of approach.
One of the main difficulties today is that practically any place that sells ice cream cones or all-day suckers will sell this trash to try to make a living. Any time a child goes in to buy an ice cream cone or an all-day sucker he is faced with the alternative of these very compelling pictures and colours, and very often a lot of good salesmanship in displaying them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A lot of propaganda.


Solon Earl Low: A lot of propaganda, as the hon. member for Kamloops suggests. The best teaching in the world in the home, the wisest guidance in the home, cannot always protect youngsters when they are subjected to such alluring things every time they go to a store. With all deference, I suggest to the hon.
Criminal Code
member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) that, while the positive approach is excellent and we must use it, at the same time we must protect our boys and girls from the sight of these things as much as we possibly can. That is why I say we are much in favour of the principle of the bill. We appeal to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and the government to take speedy and effective action to see to it that this sort of temptation and evil is placed as far as possible beyond the reach of our children.
I think that as parents and public men we can assist a great deal by watchfulness and alertness in seeing that whenever these things do appear we are ready to take action on our own and to discourage the publication and sale of such literature.


An hon. Member:: Trash.


Solon Earl Low: Trash; that is a good name for it. I do not want to dignify it by calling it literature. It seems to me that there is one other point that ought to be stressed further.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) appeal to the newspapers about the whole problem. I think there is a responsibility on the part of the newspapers of the country not to overplay the gruesome and morbid details of crimes that are committed in reality. Our boys and girls cannot help reading the newspapers that come into our homes. Surely we ought not to feel that our journals and our newspapers are not fit for our boys and girls to read. I think we ought to encourage our boys and girls to read the papers, but any time a journalist writes up one of these crimes committed in society I think he should not play up the lewd and sensational in order to appeal to the morbid curiosity of readers. That in itself has a deteriorating effect on the mind of the child, and a child is quite likely to be tempted to try some of the things he hears about such as skinning victims alive from their necks up or down.
I saw a portrayal of that kind of thing in one of our daily newspapers. They are only trying to play up sensationalism. I add my voice to that of the hon. member for York West in appealing to the newspapers to try to play down that kind of thing as much as possible in order that our boys and girls will have something clean and decent to read in our daily and weekly newspapers.
I have come to the conclusion that we must attack this evil on all fronts. There is the positive approach, which the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) has mentioned, and with which I agree. But it is not enough, just as it is not enough to try to

Criminal Code
educate our people against the evils of overindulgence in liquor. We have to do something by way of legal control in order to keep as many as possible of our younger people away from it at least until they have reached the age of self-control and restraint. So I say it must be a double-barrelled approach; and for that reason I am congratulating the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) on his courage and responsible citizenship in bringing forward this bill, which we as a group intend to support.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: It was not my intention this evening, Mr. Speaker, to add my voice to what seems to be the unanimous opinion of the house, but during the last few minutes of the debate a different note seems to have entered the discussion, a suggestion that our present system does not provide sufficient entertainment for our children and that this is probably why they carry on the reading of these crime comics in a quiet way, while not under the supervision of their parents.
That is an opinion with which I disagree wholeheartedly, and I am going to try to prove that such is not the case. I shall take as an example one child whom I know intimately; I refer to my daughter, who is ten years of age, and who has a number of companions of the same age. In the town in which I live I think it would be safe to say that from the beginning ninety to ninety-five per cent of the youngsters have had all the toys they could possibly play with, going from three-wheel tricycles until they reach high school and ride bicycles. They have had at their disposal swimming pools in the summer time and skating rinks in the winter; they have gone skiing and have had every other conceivable type of pastime. If they should be given any more entertainment you would have to take them by the hand and force them to play.
However, I have found it necessary to maintain a certain degree of censorship on the comic books that come into our home by the trading method. A child buys a book for ten cents; in a month he may buy twenty books, and all are circulated. The majority of them are entertaining and easy to read, but we have encountered some that certainly should not be seen by children of that age. The minds of these children are naturally wholesome, but if that type of material is continually shown them they are bound to read it some time or other, even if they have the strictest supervision in their homes. It is very unlikely that they would commit any of these crimes, but certainly it is good neither for their souls nor for their bodies to have this sort of stuff presented to them. Whatever our supervision may be, if a trap
(Mr. Low.]
is set on the lawn our children are very likely to fall into it. I believe the people who are setting these traps should be either put behind bars or given some other severe penalty. *


Mr. J. W. Noseworihy (York South):: I rise to support this bill, Mr. Speaker, and to congratulate the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) on introducing it. I sincerely hope it does not meet the fate of the other private members' bills that have been introduced so far this session. Not being a lawyer, I do not know whether some bright legal light on the government side will find that this bill interferes with property and civil rights, or with other provincial rights. It may even be found that the federal government will have to spend some money to enforce this legislation when it becomes law, and it may be ruled out of order on that ground. Seriously, however, I hope it will receive the careful consideration of every hon. member of the house, that it will be considered on its merits, and that the government, if it is not prepared to accept the bill, at least will not do anything to bring about its defeat.
As has been stated already, I recognize that legislation in itself is no substitute for education, for good libraries or good literature. It is no substitute for healthful recreation or for good home training. I agree with everything that has been said with regard to the positive approach to this question. I think much more can and should be done by way of a positive approach; but the fact is that in a great many homes it is just about impossible for a child to get the sort of training some hon. members have mentioned, to which no doubt children are entitled. We have to accept conditions as they are. We do not have good libraries everywhere. There is a dearth of good reading material for boys and girls of the adolescent age.
I think we should bear in mind that every church organization, every educational institution, every cultural organization and as a matter of fact every organization interested in building good citizens is concerned with this problem; and I am quite sure this legislation will have the support of all those groups. While we may accept the fact that legislation is not a substitute for all those other things I have mentioned, while we may accept the fact that legislation without enforcement is useless or worse than useless, still I see no good reason why we should deplore the possibility of obtaining enforcement of this legislation. I am quite sure public opinion against crime comics in this country is sufficient to warrant the application and enforcement of such legislation as we have before us this evening.

1 believe the question we must keep in mind is this. Why should we permit a few publishers or distributors of this kind of literature to go on day in and day out, undoing and undermining the very thing the churches, educational institutions and cultural organizations of this country are trying to build? Why is it necessary for us to permit these papers to be sold just for the sake of the profit there is in this business? Surely we can, by legislation, lend our support to those who are fighting this battle. We can do that by accepting this bill.
On motion of Mr. Tustin the debate was adjourned.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 13, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in introducing this
bill there are two things I want to say at the outset. First, I hope that it does not give rise to a debate on the merits or demerits of the port of Churchill so far as the physical capacities of that port are concerned. That is not my purpose in introducing the bill. There are many difficulties in marketing grain through the port of Churchill other than any physical handicaps that may exist at that port. I have introduced this bill for the purpose of removing what I, at least, believe to be an injustice existing in the financial arrangements for marketing wheat through that port.
When the port of Churchill was first talked about many years ago, the grain growers of western Canada were asking through their organizations for a railroad and a port at that point. The dominion government allotted certain lands in western Canada for the purpose of building that railroad. I believe some 14 million acres of land was sold for approximately $42 million. According to the minister of transport who spoke in this house on March 31, 1945 the Hudson Bay railway itself cost $32,500,000; the terminal works at Churchill $13 million; the terminal works at Nelson, which were afterwards abandoned, $6 million: a total of fifty-one and one-half million. This money was western money set aside out of the sale of western land for the development of the port of Churchill. Naturally, the farmers in western Canada thought they would derive certain benefits from that port when it came into operation.
The producers of wheat in western Canada have received very little benefit from the port. Any benefit there may have been from shipping wheat through Churchill has
Canadian Wheat Board Act largely gone to the consumer rather than to the producer. I have before me a summary of the cost of shipping grain through the port of Churchill as compared with the various other routes. This table was compiled by the Hudson Bay Route Association, and I believe it is correct. For the great lakes route: first via lake and rail, it costs 58-037 cents per bushel; via all water to transfer points, 56-671 cents per bushel; via lake and rail to Halifax and Saint John, 59-605 cents per bushel. To ship wheat through Vancouver to England it costs 59-65 cents; through Churchill the cost is only 45 * 95 cents per bushel, leaving a favourable balance so far as Churchill is concerned of anywhere from ten to fourteen cents a bushel.
Up to date the wheat growers of western Canada have received no benefit from that lower rate. I will admit that this bill will not give that to us, but it will go part of the way. It is only a step. Whether or not the bill is accepted by the government depends perhaps on the government's intention with regard to the port of Churchill. I put on the order paper a question which was answered on September 29. The purpose of the question was to try to find out what the government's intention might be with regard to the port of Churchill and the marketing of wheat through that port under the world wheat agreement. Until now, we have shipped wheat through the port of Churchill under the British wheat agreement and sold it at the same price as we received at Fort William or Port Arthur. I asked the following question:
Has the wheat board established a price for wheat at Churchill under the world wheat agreement?
The answer was:
No, but question was raised and matter is receiving attention.
I do not know whether it has received that attention and the government has arrived at any decision. Perhaps the minister will give us some information on that when he speaks on this bill. Until some consideration is given with respect to the price at Churchill as compared with Port Arthur and Fort William, the people in western Canada who allocated some 14 million acres of land and spent approximately $42 million for the building of that railway will not derive any benefit from it.
This bill has been introduced for the purpose of eliminating what I believe to be an injustice. In 1940 when the Wheat Board Act was amended the word "Vancouver" was added wherever the words "Port Arthur and Fort William" appeared. Before that amendment, the people living in the western part of Saskatchewan and the province of Alberta were paid for their wheat on the basis of

Canadian Wheat Board Act the Port Arthur-Fort William price less the freight from the point of delivery. After that amendment to the wheat board act those people whose freight rate to Vancouver was less than the freight rate to Port Arthur or Fort William were paid for their wheat on the basis of the Vancouver freight rate.
During the war, the wheat board took delivery of that wheat and, although little wheat was shipped through the port of Vancouver and most of it was taken to Port Arthur and Fort William, the difference between the freight rate to Vancouver and the freight rate to Port Arthur-Fort William was paid out of the general funds of the board. It was an equalization measure and, so far as the remainder of the growers were concerned, the freight rate was equalized. The people who live in northern Saskatchewan and northern Manitoba find the freight rate to the port of Churchill is lower than the rate to Port Arthur-Fort William. It is my belief that those people should receive the benefit of that lower rate structure, and that is the reason for the introduction of this bill.
There is not as great a differential in the freight rate to Churchill as there is in the freight rate to Vancouver. As a matter of fact, if we take Hudson Bay junction as being the point at which wheat from northern Saskatchewan will go either to Port Arthur or Churchill, we find the freight rate from Hudson Bay junction to Port Arthur is 21 cents per hundred. The freight rate to Churchill is 18 cents per hundred. This leaves a difference of 3 cents that those people would receive in the form of an increased price for wheat because of that lower rate to Churchill. If the freight rate were equalized, however, on the basis of miles, the differential would be greater.
The mileage from Hudson Bay junction to Churchill is 598-6 miles and to Fort William and Port Arthur it is 816-5 miles. Worked out on an equalized mileage rate this would mean that the freight rate from Hudson Bay junction to Port Arthur or Fort William should be 15-6 cents per hundred rather than the 18 cents. Again, if the railroad construction program which should be carried out in northern Saskatchewan were completed, and if those roads which were started towards the port of Churchill or towards The Pas in Manitoba to connect up with the Hudson Bay railway were completed-that is, from Nipa-win north, from Carrot River and Arborfield north to The Pas-that would reduce the mileage again so that there would be a reasonable advantage in the freight rate to Churchill as compared with the freight rate to Port Arthur and Fort William. We in that part of Saskatchewan feel that, if the people in IMr. Wright.]
western Saskatchewan and Alberta are tc receive the benefit of the lower freight rate to Vancouver, we should be entitled to the lower freight rate to Churchill.
The minister may say that that 3 cents that is there at the present time does nol amount to anything, and that the diversion charge that is made by the grain company eats up the advantage that there is in the freight rate. That argument is right at the present time. Personally I think it is time that we did something about these diversion charges. For instance, I see no reason why companies handling the farmers' grain, especially where they are shipping it to a point where they have no terminal elevators of their own, should charge 1J cents a bushel for diverting that grain to that particular point. That is what happens at the present time. Whatever justice there may be in the elevator companies making this diversion charge where the wheat is going to Port Arthur and Fort William where they have a terminal of their own, in which this wheat could be placed, when the wheat is placed in a terminal elevator other than their own and a diversion charge of 1| cents a bushel is made, I certainly cannot see any justice in that. As a matter of fact, I do not think they should make that charge at all. I do not think it is justified. At the present time that diversion charge is there.
But even though that diversion charge is there, if this bill were to pass it would mean -as it has been interpreted to me, at least- that the favourable freight rate would be paid on all grain grown in that area even though it did not go to Churchill, and that we would get paid for our wheat on the basis of the more favourable freight rate to Churchill even though that grain went to Port Arthur or Fort William. That is what is happening in western' Saskatchewan, and that is what is happening in Alberta where they are paid on the basis of the Vancouver freight rate structure there.
There is just one point which I hope the minister will clear up, and it is this. If it is the government's intention to make a different price on wheat out of Churchill in respect of the world wheat agreement, this bill might mean that the advantage which might be gained through that price could not be passed back to the farmers living in the favourable freight rate area adjacent to the port of Churchill. I do not want the bill to have that effect. That is not the intention of the bill. The intention of the bill is simply to provide that those people in the freight areas favourable to Churchill should have the same privileges as are enjoyed by those people in western Saskatchewan and Alberta with respect to the port of Vancouver.

It has been said that the port of Churchill an never handle a great deal of grain. To late I do not think there has been any year in which the port has handled much over 5 million bushels; in fact, it has only been for two or three years that 5 million bushels have been handled. But it is possible for the port to handle a great deal more, and I believe it will do so. Even the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has stated that. I just want to quote from Hansard of the second session of 1945, volume 1, page 1109, where the minister is reported as having stated:
In spite of the short season I think it may be possible to reach the objective of those who developed the route, which was a movement of 20,000,000 bushels of grain in the season. That does not sound much when compared with the movement through Port Arthur and Fort William or through Vancouver. but 20,000,000 bushels is a considerable movement for any port. Few ports on the continent have larger movements than that. Therefore I am not suggesting that the outlook for Churchill is hopeless; far from it. I feel that in post-war years the port will develop as far as its physical limitations will permit, and I can assure the house that the government will make every effort to see that that development is pressed actively and vigorously.
I submit that the passing of this bill would be one method of developing that port. It would mean that people living adjacent to the port would get the same advantage out of it. That is what they spent their money for. That is what the route was developed for, namely, to give some advantage to the people living in the west and more particularly, I believe, to those people in northern Manitoba and northern Saskatchewan who live adjacent to the port.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps I should say a few words on this bill at the outset so that the debate may be kept within closer bounds than would otherwise be the case. I will say at once that no one is more anxious than I am to see the port of Churchill, and particularly the grain elevator in Churchill, succeed. I have a personal interest aside from the fact that I was minister of transport for a considerable period. Prior to that, when I was a private citizen living a happy life as a consulting engineer, I was responsible for the design and construction of the grain elevator at Churchill. I spent a good many weeks there in connection with that work. I have always had a great interest in the port. I am happy that the last two years have both been, I think, record years for the movement of wheat through Churchill.
I am afraid that making Churchill the basing point for wheat under the present Canadian Wheat Board Act would curtail the movement rather than otherwise, for reasons
Canadian Wheat Board Act that I will give in a moment or two. I think that the wheat board have handled the movement of wheat to Churchill with great skill. It is not an easy movement to control. Only certain grades can be handled by the port. They are grades that will make up into full cargoes; for unlike the situation at other ports in Canada, it is not possible to ship parcels of grain through the port of Churchill.
My hon. friend says that to make Churchill the basing point would give advantages to farmers within the area. I should like to remind him that, unless the advantages are actually earned, the advantages to the farmers within that area are paid for by farmers in other areas.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is that not what happens in Alberta?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. I think the Alberta situation carries itself.


Percy Ellis Wright: It did not during the war.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, perhaps at times. But I would point out that the port of Vancouver is open for twelve months of the year. No excessive carrying charges are involved in shipping by that route. It is not a matter of selection, because all grain is marketable at Vancouver. The same thing is true of the Fort William route. Of course on the Fort William route in winter the haul is longer than in summer. The summer movements end at Montreal; whereas shipment in the winter months must be through Saint John or Halifax. But here again that route is open for shipment twelve months in the year, and any grade of grain is marketable on the eastern route.
As my hon. friend knows, Churchill is open for shipment about two and a half months in the year. For example, if today grain were shipped from, we will say, Hudson Bay junction to Churchill, it is true that the rate would be three to three and a half cents lower than the same shipment to Fort William; but that grain would necessarily remain in the elevator until September 1950. It would involve about eleven months of carrying charges which would involve an expense of fifteen cents or sixteen cents at least, perhaps a little more than that, on $1.75 wheat. Under the present system that expense would be carried by other farmers. Obviously next September the grain would have charges against it greatly in excess of the price it would return when loaded on a ship.
In actual practice grain is not shipped into Churchill in October and November. Shipments to Churchill begin in about May or June, and the elevator is filled to capacity when the shipping season actually opens. However, it is filled with grain that has

Canadian Wheat Board Act accumulated a carrying charge of perhaps only two months, at the maximum two or three months, instead of eleven months as would happen if the grain were moved into the elevator at this time. As X say, sufficient of the old crop is assembled to fill the elevator. Certain other old crop is held back to take care of the interval until the new crop begins to move, and then sufficient new crop is diverted into the elevator to take care of any boats that may be en route to that port. At the end of the season the elevator is empty. All the grain has been shipped, and the elevator remains empty until the following spring. As my hon. friend will appreciate, it is a closely regulated movement. It involves the minimum of storage and carrying charges and interest on the wheat. It is the kind of movement that is best for the grain growers of all Canada who pay all bills for the movement of wheat.
There is another difficulty about making Churchill a basing point. We will assume that the movement is a real movement. I think we must assume that. My hon. friend would not want a movement that was not possible and that is-


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister admits that it is possible?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I mean economically possible. Another thing is that this is a short wheat crop. It is selling very readily. The crop is pretty well sold at this time, and it is sold for delivery within the current crop year. My hon. friend will appreciate that the Canada-United Kingdom wheat agreement ends at the end of this year, as does the five-year pool on wheat. Naturally it is greatly in the interests of Canada to deliver that wheat within the current crop year so that it may be delivered under the wheat agreement. I do not know what the price of wheat will be for the crop year 1950-51, and I am sure that my hon. friend does not know either. But if I were guessing I would guess that it might be a lower price than the price under the present contract. Well, if that wheat is in Churchill it cannot be delivered against the wheat contract, and therefore all the farmers in Canada would have to suffer a loss that would accrue through a price differential as between the next crop year and this crop year. There is a further difficulty that the wheat delivered during this year and shipped to Churchill is part of the wheat that must be accounted for under the contract. If that wheat were in Churchill the settlement under the five-year pool would have to be delayed until that wheat was actually marketed.
Those are the practical difficulties. There is another practical difficulty. Again I say I 
assume that my hon. friend would not wan1 a fictitious value put on wheat. He would want it based on actual possibilities. There are some 40 million bushels of wheat that are tributary to the port of Churchill. As far as price differentials are concerned, we all know that only a fraction of that 40 million bushels can possibly be shipped through Churchill, My hon. friend says the fraction may be 50 per cent. Actually under present day conditions it is not more than 12J per cent. Therefore 40 million bushels of wheat would benefit; whereas the actual movement that should properly benefit is the wheat which can actually move through the port which is only about 12J per cent of the wheat tributary to the port.
If the government were paying the bills one might say: "That is all right; justice demands that these payments shall be made. The government is a very indefinite person. He cannot complain very much. It is all the people of Canada." But it is not the government that is paying the bills; it is the producers of the prairie provinces. I would think that the grower who is not tributary to the port of Churchill would ask: Why should I be charged in order that those who theoretically can ship from Churchill shall all benefit through their proximity to that port?
Those are the objections. I think that they are very real objections. I believe that the best results for the port of Churchill can be obtained by allowing the wheat board, which I think everyone in this house will admit is doing a first rate job in looking after the interests of all the wheat growers of Canada, to handle grain to the port of Churchill in the interests of Canada, and in the interest of the grain growers of western Canada as a whole.
If there were no pool and if we had an open marketing system as we had years ago there would be no objection to allowing anyone to ship to the port of Churchill who wished to do so, provided the grain were sold as it used to be when it was loaded on a boat. If under those conditions a grower within the area wished to ship to Churchill in November, we will say, he would do so, but he would do so knowing that his grain must pay carrying charges, must pay storage and must pay interest until roughly the 1st of September of the year following. If they knew that, I am sure the people in that area would not ship. But if the proposal of my hon. friend were accepted, if Churchill were a basing point, the economics of the situation to the person in that area would disappear entirely. He would say: What do I care about the carrying charges or how much they are? I get


$1.75 when my grain goes into the elevator at Churchill, and I am going to ship it in November and let somebody else worry about when it comes out of the elevator. That would be a fictitious situation, a situation that would not follow the laws of economics, and a situation which I am sure my hon. friend would not care to foster.
Just to sum up. The differences between Churchill and Vancouver and Churchill and Port Arthur are, first, that only two or three grades of wheat are merchantable at Churchill. If my hon. friend put feed wheat into Churchill it would be there until someone railed it back to Le Pas and down to Port Arthur. In other words, it is a limited market. Second, it differs from the other ports in that it is open only about two and a half months in the year instead of twelve months. Third, it depends on contracts made by the buyers of the wheat with one merchant shipping line. I believe that line is the only one that does business into Churchill.
All grain there is at the risk of these contracts being made. Under present-day conditions wheat is not shipped until contracts have been made which specify grade, quantities and tonnage. My hon. friend will say that everyone should have confidence that those contracts can be made, but there is that element of uncertainty which is not present in the method of handling grain through the other ports.
While my hon. friend is seeking to remedy what he feels is an injustice to the grain growers within a particular radius of Churchill through not having Churchill as a basing point, his remedy would inflict a greater injustice upon the grain growers outside that radius who would have to pay the bills to enable the farmers to collect higher prices through the basing point being at Churchill.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at any great length on this bill, because I understand there is a resolution on the order paper in connection with which we may have an opportunity to speak. What I have to say is more in the form of a question to be addressed to the minister. Is it not true that his statement is predicated upon the port only using 12J per cent of the wheat that is available in the area which is tributary to the port?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I would just as soon use 50 per cent.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I know the port is being used to only 12J per cent of that 40 million bushels, but would not the situation be different if the port was using 15 million or 20 million bushels?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I have a copy of a letter from the manager of the port in which he says that the facilities there would permit them to ship 25 million bushels out of the port so long as those facilities were not interfered with by too much in the way of imports. While we are working now under definite agreements, I submit that the minister's argument will not be as valid when those agreements run out. It has not always been as easy to sell wheat as it is today or as it was during the war years and the years just subsequent.
Is it not quite true that it is likely wheat will have to be stored at some point? It seems to me that it would not matter very much from an expense point of view where it is stored. I know that the wheat board gave instructions that October 6 should be the final date for shipments to Churchill, and I would not think there would be any large amount of wheat stored at that port this winter. The day will come when wheat will have to be stored.
I do not see any sense in taking delivery of all grain in the east any more than I could see any sense in the wheat board taking delivery of nearly all Saskatchewan flaxseed last year at Fort William. The result was that those people in Saskatchewan who wanted to crush flax could not get a kernel of grain lately. They would have had to haul it back to the prairie provinces.
I suggest that if wheat is going to be stored in preparation for shipment some of it might be stored in the government elevator at Saskatoon. As far as I am concerned that elevator is just a white elephant, because it stands year after year with the bins empty. Grain has often been stored on the farm, and I think that is a good policy, but more use should be made of the government storage elevators in various parts of the country.
I was disappointed, and I know the people in my constituency were disappointed, when the vegetable oil mill had to close down two or three weeks sooner than it ordinarily would because no flaxseed was stored at Saskatoon. I make a plea to the minister that if wheat has to be stored it should be stored at Churchill, and in the government elevator at Saskatoon which has a 5J million bushel capacity. I am going to keep on advocating the use of the port of Churchill. I should like the route to be tried at least once to full capacity. Give that port a chance to show what it can do.


Mr.  A. J. Baler@The Balllefords: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) say that he had a special interest in Churchill. Many of us in northern Saskatchewan have a special interest in that port. After listening to the

Canadian Wheat Board Act minister a few minutes ago we realize that there are many ramifications in connection with the shipment of wheat through Churchill.
Early this fall we were much concerned over what we heard and read about the boats coming into Churchill having no grain to take out on their return trips. After hearing the minister speak tonight I am beginning to see the reason why there was no grain at the terminal at Saskatoon. We are also very much interested in that elevator, and I am particularly because my farm is not far from it.
The marketing of grain is of much concern to us all and the minister has said that it must be got out quickly on demand. Possibly that has much to do with there being no grain in the terminal at Saskatoon. I am hoping that in the future, when the marketing of our grain is in a more stable position than at the present time, greater use will be made of this port. I do not intend to say much more about the shipping of our grain, but I should like to read a letter which I received since coming down here which refers to Churchill. This letter has nothing to do with wheat, but I think its contents are significant. It is addressed to myself and reads:
It is my intention to bring some pedigreed cattle over from Great Britain next summer. Would prefer to ship into the country via the port of Churchill on account of that port being about 1,200 miles closer to our point than Halifax, thereby saving a long rail haul and consequently larger cost for freight, et cetera. At present there are no quarantine facilities at Churchill nor stockyards either (these were removed during the war) and it would be necessary to have quarantine facilities arranged by the Department of Agriculture, health of animals branch. Dr. Childs of Ottawa, I believe, is the chief veterinarian in charge of this.
He goes on to say:
I have discussed this matter with the secretary of the On to the Bay Association who is in correspondence with Messrs. Dalgleish, the shipping firm of Newcastle, who, for the past several years, have been sending ships to Churchill for wheat, with a view to ascertaining rates, etc., for transportation.
That letter is signed by P. J. Ibbotson, of Radisson, Sask. He happens to be a breeder of purebred Shorthorn cattle in my constituency, and also a grain grower. Such a letter does bring it to our attention that possibly greater use should be made of the port of Churchill, not only for the shipping of grain from Canada, but also for the shipping of livestock and goods from Great Britain to different parts of Canada.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: There seems to be a long drawn out argument as to the port of Churchill, but there is one bright spot in that argument in that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) stated tonight that he is in favour of that port. I think if more of our men in positions of power were in favour of Churchill rather
[Ur. Bater.l	i
than Montreal and other ports we would have a much greater advantage than we have been able to reap in the past. Many of the arguments of the minister have been based on present crop conditions, a short crop, and the fact that our contract with Great Britain expires at the end of July, 1950.
The people of northern Saskatchewan and others fairly close to the port of Churchill should be able to take advantage of it, and are entitled to some benefits on account of its existence. If it is not feasible to put the necessary changes into effect this year then action should be taken as soon as possible so that the people adjacent to that port can reap those benefits. I believe I had something to do with having the port of Vancouver amendment made in the Canadian Wheat Board Act. In my opinion, while we were entitled to have that change made, others are also entitled to have the port of Churchill used as a basic port.
Therefore, while the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as I said before, has based most of his arguments on the short crop this year and the fact that our contract with Great Britain expires next year, I feel that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will have to get busy and see that we get more rain so that we can grow larger crops and use the port of Churchill as a storage port if for no other purpose. While he is doing that, the Minister of Trade and Commerce can see to it that we have a contract that will bring us beneficial results for the delivery of the wheat that we can produce provided we get the necessary rain.


Mr. J. J. Smith (Moose Mountain):: I want to speak very briefly on this bill. The matter of how we sell our wheat interests the people of my constituency so that I do not hesitate to put in a word on the marketing of grain. Some hon. members have said that northern Saskatchewan would benefit greatly by the use of the Churchill route. I think that we can all agree on that; but, as has been stated by the minister, under our wheat agreement with Great Britain we have to market that grain this year.
As far as my constituency is concerned, I am not in favour of the bill in its present form because we in western Canada will have to pay the storage on that grain. I understand that under the world wheat agreement the price of wheat will go down a little each year. If the wheat has to be stored and we have to pay for the storage and also take a chance on the price going down, then I am not in favour of the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order. If the hon. member for Melfort speaks now he will close the debate.


Percy Ellis Wright: I must say that I think the answers of the minister are rather weak. His whole case is predicated on the fact that the bill does not provide for the handling of the 40 million bushels of wheat that might be grown in the favourable freight rate area adjacent to Churchill. I think that argument may be wrong. With very little expansion the facilities at the port could be made to handle 40 million bushels of wheat. On the average, I do not think there are 40 million bushels of wheat produced in that area of the grades that can be marketed through Churchill. I think probably 25 million or 30 million would be closer to the amount that could be marketed from that area via the port of Churchill. Therefore I do not think his argument is sound.
His other argument is that if the freight rates were paid on the basis of all we produce in that area the growers in the area would not be interested in whether their wheat went to the port of Churchill because they would get the advantage even if it went to Port Arthur or Fort William. I should like to point out as to that argument that at the present time the wheat board-and I am not criticizing them because I think they have done a good job in many respects-have not put forth every effort to use the port of Churchill because it did not matter to the wheat board whether or not the wheat went there. They paid for it on the basis of the Fort William-Port Arthur price. If they had been paying for it on the basis of the Churchill price they would have been more interested in seeing that as much of that wheat as possible was delivered through the port of Churchill, either under the British contract or otherwise.
As for the minister's argument that wheat going to Churchill would remain in storage there until it had accumulated considerable storage charges against it, I should like to point out that in my memory there has not been a crop year in western Canada when there was not a carryover of wheat of anywhere from 40 million to as high as 400 or 500 million bushels. Therefore the two and a half million bushels of wheat that might be carried over at the port of Churchill would be a very small portion at any time of the total carryover of wheat in Canada. Carrying charges must be paid on that wheat whether it is at Churchill, Saskatoon, Fort William or Montreal. Carrying charges are accumulating just the same. I do not think the argument is sound that it is going to cost the wheat growers of the west a lot of money for carrying charges at the port of Churchill. As for its costing the wheat growers of western Canada more money because of the favourable freight rate to Churchill being
Canadian Wheat Board Act paid to the growers in the Churchill area, that depends entirely on whether we make full use of the port. I think that we can make full use of the port to the extent of the wheat that is grown in that area of the grades that can be marketed through Churchill.
The minister did not answer my inquiry as to what the possible price might be at Churchill under the world wheat contract. Possibly he cannot do so at the present time, but if a favourable price is obtained for wheat at the port of Churchill under the world contract, a price in excess of the price at Port Arthur or Fort William, then I think it is doubly necessary that the people adjacent to that port should get some advantage from that price.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would agree.


Percy Ellis Wright: Under those circumstances I think the bill should have the consideration of the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Now that we have discussed this matter, perhaps the hon. member will not press the bill to a vote and will withdraw it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Is the hon. member withdrawing the bill?


Percy Ellis Wright: No; put it to a vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Wright) negatived on division.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Lionel Bertrand (Terrebonne) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should during the present session take into consideration the advisability of including in their social security program a system of allowances to every person, without any sufficient income or means of support, who, by reason of an injury, accident, congenital infirmity or incurable disease, is at a disadvantage in seeking or obtaining employment, or incapable of providing for his subsistence, and whose age prevents him from benefiting by the social security legislation now in force.
He said: This motion was discussed in 1946 but was not adopted. It barely needs comment. My remarks will be very brief, because I should like to know the opinion of the house on this question. In 1946 no less than 15 hon. members, representing all parties in the house, supported the motion.

Social Security
The then Minister of National Health and Welfare also was sympathetic to it, and I have no doubt the present minister will be sympathetic as well. Numerous welfare associations supported such legislation at that time, and today they strongly urge its adoption.
In the domain of social security, Canada has made an effort which deserves mention. Family allowances are now enabling large families with low incomes to face the heavy charges imposed upon them by a higher cost of living. Indigent mothers, blind and aged people are receiving from various governments grants which alleviate their sufferings and permit them to improve their lives. Allowances and pensions give veterans an opportunity to rebuild their lives on a better basis and assure them of a living if, physically speaking, they have left parts of themselves in the conflict. The labourer temporarily out of work may realize unemployment insurance benefits.
Family allowances stop at the age of sixteen; old age pensions start at seventy. In my opinion the age limit for this latter pension should be lowered to sixty-five as soon as possible. The difference of fifty-four years between the ages of sixteen and seventy represents more than the average human life. In my opinion a certain section of the people within those age limits has been left unprovided for; that is, the invalids and cripples. This group includes the victims of infantile paralysis, those who have suffered accidents of all kinds but who do not come under the benefits of any provincial accident insurance, persons suffering from congenital deformities, and other sick people we cannot cure.
If these people or their families are wealthy they can obtain all the necessary treatments in peaceful surroundings, thus alleviating the burden of their misfortunes. If they are poor they have to rely upon public charity. No municipal bylaw will provide help for them; no provincial allowance, as far as I know, can give them any grant; and I could not discover any federal statute under which they might get assistance of any kind. No one will employ an invalid; he is not accepted on the labour market. In this age of mechanization the machine, which does not stop, supersedes the human who, in order to follow it, must have strong arms, strong legs and powerful eyesight. Invalids and crippled persons are set aside for reasons of security and production. In the meantime the cripples and invalids, out of work or occasionally employed at casual jobs, cannot earn their living. If they have wives and children their fate is simply tragic. Then they must resort to public charity or welfare associations, or

even beg from door to door. In addition to their physical misfortune they must undergo the brutal obligation of living desperate days with no hope of improvement. From week to week, under the heavy existence they have to bear, they become discouraged, if not filled with despair. Misfortune will poison them, but misery will kill them.
Crippled persons and invalids deserve their place in the sun. They have a right to happiness just the same as anyone else. So would it not be right for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr.-Martin) to study this problem and make a statement concerning these indigent persons, and then recommend a suitable system of allowances to be paid by the federal government or subsidized by both the federal and provincial authorities? The social security program cannot be complete if indigent invalids and crippled persons are left to their unfortunate fate.
Everyone endorses a program of social security for children, for the family, for indigent mothers, for the aged and blind, and for veterans and disabled soldiers. I am sure everyone will also endorse a movement to extend to crippled people and invalids the total sympathy of the nation, if special legislation to that effect is presented. Their existence on a lounge chair is restricted by the horizon of their window. They live in darkness, without light or company, in a state of perpetual restlessness with respect to the future, constant dejection, sleepless nights and continuous disappointment. A person who has never suffered cannot understand the darkness cast upon the life of a hapless person afflicted with infirmity, want and often poverty. Let us assure them that even though they may be ignored locally the nation as a whole is not indifferent to their fate and will not reject them from our national life. Spreading joy means spreading peace. To abolish social misery means strengthening the security of the nation.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, everyone approves the social security granted to children, families, indigent mothers, old men and women, blind persons, veterans and disabled servicemen. Everyone will also express approval if we extend to cripples and invalids the full sympathy of the nation, under the form of legislation specially meant for them. Their outlook is limited to what they can see through the window from their lounge-chair; it is restricted to a house whose threshold definitely shuts out the horizon; it is concentrated in the shadows, because they dread sunlight and the crowds; it centres around a

succession of worries about the future, of endless discouragement, of sleepless nights and of accumulated despair. Those who have never suffered cannot realize how gloomy is the solitary life of the hapless people who have to contend with physical disability, want and too often distress. Let us cast some ray of hope in their direction, by helping them to live. Let us give them the assurance that, while they may be unknown and unnoticed locally, the nation as a whole is not unmindful of their plight and does not consider them as outcasts. By giving joy we ensure peace; and by abolishing social distress we strengthen the security of the nation.
(Text):


Mr. L. Philippe Picard (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution now before the house commends itself to the sympathy and attention of all members. I am sure they appreciate the humanitarian views of the sponsor of this resolution who is bringing the matter before us for the fourth time. I have no doubt his views are shared by all members of this house. The welfare of the masses is the concern of all right-thinking citizens since no state can progress in harmony nor can a democratic society develop unless the vast majority of the people can live without fear and anxiety. The need of man is to live in security and freedom; not only political freedom which we in this country are fortunate enough to enjoy-often without realizing our good fortune-but freedom from want and freedom from fear of what tomorrow may have in store for us.
It was for this reason that years ago, under Liberal guidance, this country embarked on a program of social security. It has developed gradually, step by step, bringing joy to so many families, bread and better clothing to so many children throughout the country by means of the family allowances. That perfection has not yet been attained, I would be the first to admit, but I should not like my friends opposite to overlook the propriety of giving justice where justice is due. I am, of course, referring to the administration that has given Canada a system of social security of which we might well be proud even though, as I said before, it is not perfect.
If I may be permitted to quote a few words I said in this house in 1946, which are to be found at page 738 of Hansard:
Social security is not a cure-all for man's troubles, nor is it intended to prevent man from working for his living. It would not be right to bring into being any social system which would have as its outcome any diminution, if I may so describe it, of individual effort, or any crushing of initiative. On the other hand, it is impossible to do away with risks and responsibilities, and it would not be right to have a society based on paternalism. What must
Social Security
be created is equality of opportunity for all. Heredity, talent, initiative and work will soon make sure that equality of attainment will not be achieved.
In principle, sir, all men are born equal; yet from the moment of their conception they are unequal. Some are born of healthy parents and some are born invalids, diseased and sick. Some men are born of parents who have great intelligence, while others are born of less intelligent parents; some are born wealthy and others are born in poverty. The moment a man is born, inequality is born. A system of social security is needed to correct somewhat that situation which nature and life bring about in society. It is also a false principle that equal work brings equal results. We know too well that that is false.
The measure now before us proposes a pension for invalids. It has been argued by many economists and sociologists that such a measure should be adopted at the same time as health insurance. I should like, at this point, to put on the record what I said on this question of health insurance, which is found at page 740 of Hansard of 1946:
Sickness Is the most constant and frequent risk for the low income population and for wage earners in general. It is a risk which may entail the loss of health and earning capacity, the loss of livelihood, the loss of ability to pay for medical assistance.
What is needed is to place at the disposal of the people the facilities of modern medicine for the preservation of the health and detection of disease. As stated in the proposals to the provinces, under our present system, for those who cannot afford to pay, the cost of ill health falls at the very moment when earning capacity is cut off. Those unable to pay are left to the charity of benefactors. It is evident that a scheme of health insurance such as is proposed by the dominion to the provinces is necessary, and it is to be hoped that an agreement in this regard will be reached. Any such scheme should include an extension of assistance to the blind, assistance to needy mothers, and maternity grants.
And of course pensions for invalids. One of the most important aspects of social security is that which has to do with financial aid for interruptions or stoppage of income, or inability to earn sufficient income due to invalidity. The main headings under which such interruptions in work might be classified are unemployment, illness, age, disability and invalidity. Invalidity would fall into two different categories, temporary or permanent. There is also the question of industrial disability. The people who would suffer under this classification would be protected, of course, by the workmen's compensation acts that have been passed by the provinces. There are several classes of people who are not industrial invalids but who have been invalids from birth or who have never fallen into the category of people who were insured under the unemployment insurance scheme or who could not qualify



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall
take up estimates, commencing with Veterans Affairs and later on Labour or Public Works, I do not know which.


Mr. Green:: All day?


Alphonse Fournier: All day, except during the hour reserved for private bills.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, Ociober 7, 1949