1952-03-05

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication from two members notifying me that the following vacancy has occurred in the representation:
Of Clovis Thomas Richard, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Gloucester, consequent upon his acceptance of an office of emolument under the crown.
I accordingly issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Will the Secretary of State ascertain whether I might soon have the order for return which was passed by this house on November 28, 1951? It had to do with the five-day week in the government service.
Hon, F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):
I shall be glad to look into the matter.



SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: I
should like to ask if the committee which was appointed last session to consider changes in the hours of sitting is still functioning, and when we may expect another report.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: My impression, Mr. Speaker, is
that committees are appointed only for the session during which the appointment is made, and that if it is desired that this committee be reconstituted to consider the same matter, it will have to be done by resolution.


William Joseph Browne: May I ask
the Prime Minister if he would not consider reverting to the hours of sitting which were in effect when we adjourned at the end of the last session?-that is, if the committee
is not to be set up. I do not think we need a committee to decide upon that. I believe all members are agreed upon it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This is not something for the Prime Minister to consider, but rather for the house itself to determine. The resolutions that were adopted had to do with the hours of sitting during the last session. Towards the end of the last session a report was submitted which was not acted upon. The report contained two recommendations, of which, I understand one was a unanimous recommendation, and the other was not. I inquired as to what the situation was in that respect according to the rules, and I was told that that report could not be dealt with unless a motion was adopted by the house to deal with it at this session.
I had a word with my hon. friend about the matter, and there are many who feel that it would be quite proper to adopt the two recommendations, but that to adopt only one would mean a shortening of the hours without anything being done to shorten debate. The other view is that nothing should be done to interfere with the present rule as to the time a member may take for his speech. The information I got from the table was that if we adopted a motion to consider the report, it would have to go to the committee of the whole. It was felt that if it went to the committee of the whole, a long time would be taken up in debate, and that the prospects of having anything constructive achieved were not particularly bright.
If we can satisfy ourselves all over the house that we could achieve something constructive by having a decision that this report be considered at this session and by referring it to the committee of the whole, I think we should all be glad to have something constructive achieved. But if we remain under the impression that we would merely have quite a long debate upon it in the committee of the whole, I do not think it would be proper to have that debate at this stage of the session.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might
be permitted to say a few words in connection with this matter, in view of the fact that it is one of concern to all hon. members.
It will be recalled that the arrangement which had been made temporarily gave to the members during the week two evenings which were clear and in respect to which they could make their own private arrangements. The
13S	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry other suggestion that was under consideration was that the length of debates be limited so that any shortening of time in the week would be compensated by the shorter speeches.


Mr. Cruickshank:: And speeches not read.


George Alexander Drew: It is quite clear that there would not be unanimity in regard to the latter suggestion-and not for the reason which perhaps is in the minds of some of the members. I think that inquiry will clearly establish the fact that other legislative chambers which conduct their business under rules similar to ours, and which have no time limit but have orderly planning of their business, carry on-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: I say this with the utmost seriousness. The laughter of hon. members in regard to this matter merely indicates that . they have overlooked the fact that the House of Commons at Westminster, which we follow to a considerable extent, has no time limit on speeches; but because of the planning of debates, and the indication ahead as to when the debates are to take place, it is able to do the extremely important business which is carried on there in a much shorter time than we do ours.


Mr. Claxton:: Because it has a timetable.


Mr. Whitman:: There are no filibusters there.


George Alexander Drew: I might say that a comment of that kind is really a reflection on the minister who made it, because in this particular case the minister who made that comment-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, some of the changes are occurring so quickly that perhaps it is only natural that one should expect to see an elevation of that kind taking place.


Mr. Graydon:: There is a fairly big change there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Make me a parliamentary assistant.


George Alexander Drew: I confess that in this particular case I thought that remark had come from someone other than the hon. member who made it.
In all seriousness, I am putting this suggestion forward in the hope that it might be possible to choose hours of sitting which would enable the members who are here for such a considerable part of the year to maintain the ordinary social contacts which are and should be very much a part of the life of every hon. member. No attempt should be made arbitrarily to curtail the length of speeches, because such an attempt


will not work. If an attempt is made to do that, there are a dozen devices by which any such limitation could be overcome. I suggest that satisfactory hours be arranged. Within the, shall we say, more congenial atmosphere that might be brought about by that very fact, perhaps the total hours of sitting might be shortened.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Prime Minister, after this discussion, give consideration to the possibility of placing on the order paper a motion approving part I of the report of the committee that was presented last year?


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: You do it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. Perhaps after that motion has been decided, on its own merits, the Prime Minister might like to place on the order paper a motion approving part II as well, and test the feeling of the house.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am informed that the tradition has been that when there was to be any change in the rules, the report suggesting the change should be referred to the committee of the whole for consideration. I was told that that was invariably the way it had been done, and that it would be looked upon as a rather serious departure to suggest that anything for more than one session be dealt with in any other way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then will the Prime Minister consider placing on the order paper a motion to that effect, namely, for consideration of that report in committee of the whole?


Mr, St. Laurent:: Not at this stage of the session, Mr. Speaker, because the information I have-and I think the reaction of the house today tends to confirm that information-is that we would take quite a long time on it in committee of the whole.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not on part I anyway.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think it is also felt to be regrettable that, because of the unfortunate circumstances that had arisen just before we met, we have had to depart from the usual tradition of having the debate on the speech from the throne, after the motion for the address in reply had been moved and seconded, the first order of business. As soon as we dispose of the measure that is now before the house, I think it would be the desire of all to continue the debate on the address.



PUBLICATION OF ENGLISH &quot;HANSARD&quot; INDEXES FOR 1951

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Frangois Poulioi (Temiscouala):: May I be permitted to say with all frankness, without flattery and with due deference, that Your Honour is a miracle man. On the last day of last session I asked again for the indexes of Hansard for the first and the last session of last year. I never thought that I would have them on my desk at the beginning of this session, and I thank you, sir, on behalf of your colleagues of the House of Commons and of all the readers of Hansard, for your diligence in the matter.



GRADING REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister please state what heavy and extra heavy hogs can now weigh under the new arrangements announced by the minister? Will he also state the spread in price that will compare with the floor price of $24.50 at St. Boniface for grade A hogs?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: In broadcasting the other day with regard to the matter, I used the figures which would be best understood by farmers. The figures which I will read into the record here represent the technical way of expressing it. In the address the other day I said that our objective would be to pay no premiums whatsoever on any hogs that weigh less than 200 pounds, live weight. A farmer can weigh his hogs at home and tell whether or not they will measure up to that requirement, provided that it is subject to the grading regulations in any case. To complete the statement, I said that from 200 pounds up to 240, all the hogs which are graded A will have $2 per hog paid upon them. Then so far as grade B is concerned, it will extend on up as far as the grade makes the B classification possible. I think the farmer will understand those figures better than he will understand these that I now propose to read into the record.
The regulations with respect to hog carcass grading under the Livestock and Livestock Products Act are still in effect, and provide that heavies shall weigh over 185 pounds but not over 195 pounds, and extra heavies shall weigh over 195 pounds. The only change which has been made is the basis on which premiums are paid.
Inquiries of the Ministry
The support price on hogs applies on grades A and B-l. The prices of other grades is determined by supply and demand. The figures that I gave a few moments ago are those which direct us in paying premiums, and we think placing the premium on heavier hogs will influence the farmer in bringing them in.


Mr. Fair:: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Will the prices announced apply to the producer or to the packer?


James Garfield Gardiner: They apply in the packing house, but the producer will get the result, namely, the premium.


Robert Fair: There is nothing, however, to prevent the prices of hogs from going away below the price mentioned so far as the producer is concerned.


James Garfield Gardiner: Except that we have already said it is only in packing plants where the floor price is maintained that the premium will be paid. I should have said in answer to the second part of the question that that was established during the two weeks from, I think, February 16 to the end of February and we intend to take that as the check.


Mr. Wright:: I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture a supplementary question to the one which was asked by the hon. member for Selkirk. Are any of the requirements for grade B hogs changed, except the one with regard to weight? Because if they are not, there will be very few grade B hogs over 241 pounds. Naturally there would be more fat on them than would be allowed under that grade as it stands at the present time.


James Garfield Gardiner: A grade B hog may be in
any of the weights from the lower weights right up as high as it is possible to have them graded as B. My hon. friend understands the reason why they would not be graded as B. It is the reason he has just stated. If the farmer feeds them in such a way that they are too fat, it does not make any difference what the weight is; they will not be B.


Mr. Harkness:: I should like to ask a supplementary question in connection with this floor price of hogs. Can the minister tell us why the floor price has not been operating in Alberta for the last week or so?-I am not sure just how long.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think part of the reason is the difficulty that has arisen as a result of foot-and-mouth disease, but I am not able to state that definitely.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Why should an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease have any effect on the operation of the floor price? I understand
138

Inquiries of the Ministry that the government has guaranteed this floor price, and I do not see why the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease should affect it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am afraid that if you confine the delivery of meat to Calgary and do not permit it to go out from there to anywhere else, in spite of any regulations that the government or anyone else can make, pork will probably come down in price. That is something which is controlled locally. A butcher, for example, who does not come under these other regulations at all goes out and buys pigs at a price and sells his pork. It is most difficult to enforce regulations which apply right across the country unless we get rid of the controls that have been put on by provinces.


William Scottie Bryce: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the minister. Do I understand from the statement he has just made that the prices paid for heavy and extra heavy hogs during that two-weeks period will become the floor for future operations?


James Garfield Gardiner: The floor under the prices paid for hogs which will be used from now on to check buyers will be based upon the prices which were established from the 16th of February down to the end of February, when this disease came upon us. We will take that as a check when we are checking the plant to see whether or not they are paying the floor price.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no floor price in Alberta.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice in connection with the monumental work of the commission on criminal law amendments. Has it reported? What are the minister's plans with regard to the submission to a committee of the house of the suggested1 amendments of the commission that was set up by him to revise the Criminal Code?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the work to which my hon. friend refers has now been completed, and the printing of the report and of a proposed draft bill is now in progress. We expect that this will be finished in about three weeks from the present time. When the draft bill has been printed it will be submitted to council, and a decision will be reached as to the method of procedure from that time on.


John George Diefenbaker: One more question, Mr. Speaker; is it intended-and in asking the question I am not, of course, presuming what council will do-to have these amendments placed before the house at this session?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.



QUESTION AS TO RETURNING TO CAR ORDER BOOK SYSTEM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith) asked me yesterday to make a statement about the suspension of the car order book in western Canada. The situation is as follows.
On December 4, 1951, the following statement was issued on behalf of the transport controller:
The transport controller today issued instructions to all railways in western Canada to discontinue operation of the car order book until July 31, 1952. This action was taken after consultation with and approval of the Canadian wheat board and the board of grain commissioners. It was considered by the two boards in a joint meeting. A very large amount of damp grain in farmers' hands and in elevators, the necessity of giving preference to certain wheat board shipping instructions, and the desirability of giving relief to those areas which have had a poor car supply, has made necessary the issuance of these instructions.
As indicated by this announcement, the suspension of the car order book was an emergency measure made necessary by the unfavourable harvest last fall and the necessity of carrying out a very unusual and complicated shipping program. For example, it was necessary after the close of navigation on the great lakes to ensure that loadings for the lakehead be confined to damp grain. It was necessary that shipments of wheat to the Pacific coast should be confined to grades of wheat which could be disposed of at the Pacific coast. It was thought advisable to route certain low grades of tough and damp wheat to interior terminals for drying. These are but examples of the unusual movements which were necessary as a result of the wide variation in grades in the 1951 crop and the fact that so much grain was harvested with an abnormally high moisture content.
It was felt by the transport controller, the wheat board and the board of grain commissioners, that a more effective shipping program from country elevators could be carried out if such shipments were based upon the co-ordinated direction of the three authorities which I have mentioned, rather than upon the ordering of cars at local delivery points by individual producers.

The abnormal circumstances which caused the transport controller to suspend the car order book still exist and the suspension remains in effect. However, I can assure the house that the suspension of the car order book will not be continued longer than necessary; and it will be noted that the order of the transport controller expires on July 31 next.



STATISTICS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). Will the minister say when a ruling will be given which will permit the dominion bureau of statistics to issue lists of manufacturing industries when requests are made by responsible organizations such as chambers of commerce, boards of trade and the like?


Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I wonder if the hon. member would let the question stand until tomorrow. It is a matter of finding out whether the information sought comes within the prohibition of section 15 of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics Act. I shall have it looked into, and will probably be in a position to answer tomorrow.



REVISED STATUTES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. How soon will the new edition of the Revised Statutes of Canada be published and distributed?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I cannot say offhand. I think I had better check, in order to give an accurate statement as to when it will be. However, I can say it will be some little time yet. An extensive printing job is involved. I should think it would be some months.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I understand we are to proceed today with the item of business appearing at page 15 of the order paper, which is Bill No. 7, for the control and extirpation of foot-and-mouth disease.
Foot-and-mouth disease ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES



PROVISION FOR CONTROL AND EXTIRPATION OF FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 4, consideration in committee of Bill No. 7, for the control and extirpation of foot-and-mouth disease-Mr. Gardiner-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 2-Compensation for animals.
The Chairman:: Shall section 2 as amended
carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall subsection 1 carry?


Percy Ellis Wright: No; it was my understanding that the hon. member for Lake Centre had moved a second amendment, and that it had not been disposed of.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall subsection 1 of section 2 carry? The hon. member for Melfort has the floor.


Percy Ellis Wright: The hon. member for Lake Centre had suggested that he was about to move a second amendment. The first amendment was accepted by the Minister of Agriculture, and it is incorporated in the bill now before us. Then the hon. member for Lake Centre moved a second amendment, and it was my understanding that when the house rose last night that amendment had not been ruled out of order.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it was. The chairman ruled it out of order.


Percy Ellis Wright: If that is so, we are discussing the second amendment suggested by the hon. member for Lake Centre. When that is disposed of I shall, as I indicated last night, offer a second amendment to section 2(1) of the bill. I should like first, however, to have some indication whether the second amendment offered by the hon. member for Lake Centre has been ruled out of order by the Chair.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The second amendment was ruled out of order, as indicated at page 133 of Hansard.


Percy Ellis Wright: Then, that amendment having been disposed of, I should like to offer a second amendment. I would hope that the Minister of Agriculture might see fit to do as he did with the first amendment offered by the hon. member for Lake Centre, in which event the amendment would be accepted and incorporated in the bill.
In our opinion the second amendment offered by the hon. member for Lake Centre did not extend the bill to the point where it

Foot-and-mouth disease would be of real benefit to the people within the quarantined area. I say that because as I read the bill, and as the Minister of Agriculture has explained it, at the present time the only compensation that can be paid is that paid to people whose stock is destroyed, or whose buildings, fodder or other actual property is destroyed as a result of action taken by the government.
It has been pointed out by the hon. member for Assiniboia and a great many other hon. members that there will be many losses within the quarantined area to people whose property may not be destroyed or whose herds may not be destroyed as a result of this condition. The minister indicated yesterday that that matter would have to be considered in co-operation with the provinces to decide just what might or might not have to be done.
It is our contention that this is entirely a federal responsibility, and any costs incurred as a result of quarantine placed upon an area, through the operation of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, which is a federal act, should not be passed back to the municipalities and provinces. It would cause considerable financial outlay on the part of the municipalities involved. In our opinion it is not reasonable to expect that they should have to bear the cost of something which would be the direct result of the actions of this government. Therefore we suggest to the minister that he should accept our amendment.
The amendment would add after the word "slaughtered" in subsection 1 the following words, "or to others for losses sustained." The subsection would then read:
Notwithstanding anything in the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. the Minister of Agriculture may order that fair and reasonable compensation be paid to the owners of animals slaughtered or to others for losses sustained by reason of the existence in Canada of foot-and-mouth disease . . .
And so on. In this amendment I am not suggesting that the government should be held responsible for economic losses which may occur in the livestock industry right across Canada. Some may say that under this section such action could be taken by the government. However the legislation itself is in general terms, and I have framed my amendment along the same general lines, so that it is entirely at the option of the minister so far as the payment of compensation is concerned. He may confine it to the quarantined area, just as he has stated he intends to do. He could also apply it to other parts of Canada, where we would hope the disease would not develop but where it
might develop, with the result that there would have to be quarantine provisions.
It is only fair that the legislation should be broadened so as to enable the Department of Agriculture to compensate properly. I am not so much worried about the compensation the minister will recommend under the measure. As I said before, I should think the department would pay reasonably adequate compensation, and more particularly as this may be an election year in Saskatchewan. I have never known the government to be niggardly in an election year. However that may be, I still think the principle contained in the measure is not wide enough as at present stated. Losses may be heavy for those whose herds are not directly affected, or whose herds and property might not be destroyed. Those losses should not be passed back to the municipalities or provinces, with the result that they would have to make some reasonable compensation for them.
I have asked the minister to accept this amendment, Mr. Chairman, because I realize that if I move it as a private member you will probably make the same ruling that you made with regard to an amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre and rule it out of order.
The amendment was ruled out of order.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think it would be wise to give the board to be set up as a result of this legislation the added enormous task involved in trying to settle all the many problems that may arise as a result of slaughtering animals in that area. We are most anxious to get this part of the job over with. The safety of producers of livestock all over Canada depends upon our getting it done in the shortest possible time. I do not think we should add obligations to the board or to those who are dealing with the situation. I am afraid that even though the amendment were in order I would have to ask the committee to vote it down. In his last few words the hon. member for Melfort left no choice to the chairman but to declare the amendment out of order. He has indicated that it would broaden the activities of the organization to be set up to put this bill into effect.


Percy Ellis Wright: It would not be out of order if the government saw fit to accept it as they did the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre. That amendment was simply to clarify the section; it did not add to or subtract from the provisions of the bill.
Therefore I move:
That subclause 1 of clause 2 of Bill 7 be amended be inserting therein immediately after the word "slaughtered" the following words: "or to others for losses sustained."


Mr. Coldwell:: In view of what the minister has just said as to the undesirability of loading any further responsibility upon the board of evaluators, may we hope that the persons to whom the hon. member for Melfort has referred, namely, those who may otherwise suffer losses, will be given some consideration by the government? I am not going to reiterate what the hon. member has said as to the kind of people who will suffer losses, but I do point out that this bill is not sufficiently comprehensive to meet the needs of those who will incur serious losses although they do not have cattle slaughtered.
A few minutes ago a telegram was placed on my desk giving me some details of layoffs in the packing plant. Where a province has taken steps to prevent the flow of cattle, and has thus affected the activities in these plants, the responsibility is on the province. However, in Regina where the lay-offs already number 225, the situation results from the quarantine. The suggestion that these men will be covered by unemployment insurance is not satisfactory. I am not saying that the other packing plants not in the quarantine area are a federal responsibility because the provinces have taken their own action, but the fact is that already there have been 1,500 lay-offs in the packing plants in the prairie provinces. This indicates the seriousness of the situation and the validity of the point made by the hon. member for Melfort, particularly with regard to farmers in the area who will be affected. The whole matter has many ramifications.


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member heard the ruling I gave last night which appears on page 133 of Hansard. Perhaps I should repeat citation 453, which appears at page 171 of Beauehesne's third edition. It reads:
The tendency has been in the Canadian House of Commons for the past twenty-five years to rule out all motions purporting to give the government a direct order to do a thing which cannot be done without the expenditure of money.
I am sure hon. members will agree that this amendment would have that effect. Citation 437 of Beauchesne's third edition reads:
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.
Therefore I must rule the amendment out of order.


Robert Fair: Has the minister given any consideration to having these payments allowed as deductions for income tax purposes?
Foot-and-mouth disease


James Garfield Gardiner: I have discussed the matter with the Minister of Finance, and I understand that that is something which would not come up until the returns are filed next year. The whole question could be considered in the light of further information.


Mr. Argue:: As has already been pointed out by many hon. members, this particular subclause does not go far enough to protect the income of farmers who are affected by this disease. I have already stated at another stage of this debate that I was pleased that the Minister of Agriculture had announced more lenient regulations with regard to hogs, but I was highly disappointed this afternoon when he informed the house that even though the weight specifications for the different grades had been changed, the premium would be paid only if the hogs met the old specifications with regard to width of fat, condition, and so on. What the minister has said means that for some time I have been giving him credit for having been much more generous than he has been. I was under the impression that the premiums would be paid irrespective of the weight of the hog. Anyone knows that when a hog reaches three or four hundred pounds it is certainly not going to come within grade B-l specifications. Therefore in my opinion it is all the more essential-


James Garfield Gardiner: I presume we want to get on with the discussion, and I submit that the remarks of the hon. member are not relevant to the discussion at all.
Section 2, subsection 1, as amended, agreed to.
On section 2, subsection 2-Compensation for articles destroyed.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to obtain some information in connection with the operation of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, because I gather there is some doubt in the minds of those whose cattle have been destroyed under the provisions of the act. If a herd that is subject to tuberculosis is ordered to be destroyed, I understand that the carcasses are examined, and if certain organs are free from the disease the meat goes to the market and the farmer receives the commercial value, plus $40 in the case of ordinary cattle or $100 in the case of purebred cattle. However, some farmers have advised me by letter that when an animal is found to be infected with tuberculosis to the extent that after slaughtering the meat cannot be used, the commercial value of the carcass is not paid.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not right.
142	HOUSE OF
Foot-and-mouth disease


John George Diefenbaker: If that be so, it reveals a serious situation. Before I proceed to deal with one other phase I want to ask the minister what is the proper interpretation, based on the experience of his department.


James Garfield Gardiner: The proper interpretation is just as I stated two or three days ago. Where the government orders the destruction of the carcass, then the commercial value of the animal, on the basis of the return that would have been obtained for it had it been delivered to market, is paid by the government.


John George Diefenbaker: I come now to the question of regulations. After all, if this bill is passed in its present form it is merely a framework granting to the valuators wide powers of interpretation and practical application. Those powers will be restricted only to the extent that the regulations may restrict them. I would ask the minister whether the regulations have been drafted, because without having seen the regulations we shall be vesting very wide powers of uncontrolled discretion in the board of valuators and in the minister. I realize that the regulations cannot be issued until the bill is passed, but in view of the necessity of giving them the widest possible circulation should they not, under the peculiar and extraordinary circumstances. of this emergency, be incorporated in1 Hansard so that all will become aware of them and so that they will be perfectly clear to those who may be affected by them?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has not been possible to complete the drafting of the regulations because those concerned with them have been tied up in the house for the last three days. As I think my hon. friend said, the legislation has of necessity been rather hurriedly drafted, but just as soon as the regulations are drafted I will see that they are tabled in the house and published in Hansard.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one other matter that really does not come within the section, but it has to do with the desire on the part of many producers of cattle throughout the country for more information than they have received so far. I have been reading one or more farm journals today, and the minimum estimated period for the continuation of the embargo is one year. If that be so, something must be done with a view to finding markets. One of the larger farm producers on the prairies-


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the United States embargo?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes-has requested on behalf of his association that I bring to the attention of the minister a fact that he already knows, namely, that the British contract with the Argentine for the purchase of beef will expire during the coming summer, and that according to the latest report the Argentine government intends at least to double the previous price. This representative of the cattlemen has asked me to secure a statement from the minister that might bring a measure of hope to an industry which, having lost the market in the United States, is fearful today as never before. I therefore ask the minister what has been done toward re-establishing the market in Great Britain. Events of the last few days have again shown that while the proponents of agricultural trade with the United States claim it is our best market, it is subject not only to such events as have occurred recently but also to the results from time to time of change in government. I should like the minister to advise the committee what has been done and what is being done to reopen the question of the extension of the British market, which, if a surplus of beef is built up in this country, will be about the only market available for that surplus.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are only two reasons that I know of why we are not shipping meat to the United Kingdom. The one that is emphasized continuously is the fact that they feel they have not the dollars to buy certain food products here, one of which is meat. They will buy our wheat, for example, but they do not buy meat. They have also been buying a little cheese, but they feel they are short of dollars no matter what they might have to pay for the product. The only other reason is that they can buy meat elsewhere at lower prices than they can buy it here. I am sure my hon. friend has not in mind that we should put down the price here. Up until now we have been able to dispose of all our meat products at the prices we have been receiving. We have not taken any action which would tend to lower that price. We have to depend upon supply and demand to take care of that. So far we have been able to obtain that price. It has been said that the Argentine is going to double the price in their contract. I understand that even if they were to double it, it would still be lower than the price being paid for meat in Canada. Whether or not that is correct, it is very close to that point. Up to now there is not much which could have been said with regard to that. What may develop as a result of the difficulties we are having at the moment. I am not in a position to say.

I can assure all the members of the house that the government will be putting forth every possible effort to sell any surplus meat we have in any market that is available. We will be more anxious to sell it in the British market than in any other.


Major James William Coldwell: As a matter of privilege, may I say that a moment ago I quoted from a telegram I had received. I just gave it a quick glance, and I said I was giving the number of packing house workers laid off. I should have added, "or to be laid off" according to the estimates of the packing house workers. I want to correct that so that I shall not mislead the house.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Can the minister state whether the embargo imposed against Canadian meat by the United States includes cooked canned meat? In connection with this section, can he give any indication as to how long farmers in the quarantine area who have their herds destroyed will be required to remain out of business before they will be permitted to purchase healthy stock and continue in the cattle or sheep business? Will the compensation paid have any relationship to the length of time those breeders will be required to remain out of business?


James Garfield Gardiner: The answer to the first question is that boneless hams cured in a certain way will be admitted into the United States; the only meat admitted other than that is cooked canned meat. The two things must apply: it must be cooked and it must be canned, otherwise it is not admitted.
As to the other question, I am not sure that I fully understood it.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: May I point out that a dispatch appeared in the press to the effect that the Yukon Territory has been cut off from meat supplies as a result of the embargo imposed by British Columbia. I wonder if the minister could not tell us that there are ample supplies of meat in the Peace river country contiguous to the Alaska highway. This supply is sufficient for the Yukon and Northwest territories, so there should not be any hardship in the Yukon as long as the Alaska highway is open, and it is open every day of the year.


James Garfield Gardiner: I noticed the article in the press this morning, Mr. Chairman, and' it was reported to me earlier that action had been taken by British Columbia to make it impossible to truck meat over the Alaska highway through their territory. I am not sure whether at this time of year much meat goes in that way, but that is a question with which my hon.
Foot-and-mouth disease friend would be more familiar than I am. If it does go up that way, it goes right by his door.
According to my experience in that part of the country, they have not been as much concerned about price as some of us are. There is nothing that prevents meat being flown from Edmonton to Whitehorse, and I am quite sure there are people there who will find a way of doing that. They fly a lot of things into that part of the country, and particularly into places like Dawson city, because at certain times of the year there has been no other way of taking in supplies. I think they will get meat in, but I can quite understand that it will be more expensive than if they could truck it. However, that is not our doing, it is the province's.


Mr. Brooks:: I do not know whether the question I have is altogether relevant, but down in the maritimes the farmers were afraid that the shipment of feed grain from the western provinces might be stopped because of this foot-and-mouth disease. Can the minister state whether that would follow?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are no reasons why one should be concerned about that at the moment, and I doubt very much if that condition will develop. A great deal of grain can be secured outside the area. As a matter of fact, not very much feed grain would accumulate in the area under quarantine.


John Angus MacLean: The minister did not see fit to answer the question I asked him in the form in which it was asked, but perhaps he could answer another question.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps the hon. member did not hear me, but I said I did not understand the question.


John Angus MacLean: I am sorry. My question was this. Can the minister give any indication as to how long farmers who have their herds destroyed must remain out of business before they will be permitted to purchase healthy stock and pasture them on the same land? That was the first part of the question. The second part was, will the compensation paid to those farmers have any relationship to the length of time they will be required to remain out of business?
The form in which I was going to ask the question now is, when the quarantine is eventually raised will that mean that there will be no restrictions whatever on the farms where this disease has been known to exist?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know whether the hon. member was in the house last night when we discussed this question. The statement I made then was to the effect that our actions in connection with the whole matter would

Foot-and-mouth disease conform very closely to those of the United States. I was not able to give any definite time, but the United States say that they will not permit our meat or livestock to enter the United States until at least sixty days after they are satisfied the disease has been entirely wiped out; that is as simply as I can put it.
If we are going to attempt to get our meat and livestock back into the United States at the earliest possible date, the more closely we follow United States practice the quicker we will gain entry to that market. Therefore, that will be approximately the practice that will be followed, and that applies to the second part of the question concerning how long these farms will be affected by regulation. They will certainly be affected until our officials are absolutely certain there is no possibility of the disease developing there again as a result of anything that has happened in the past. I am told that probably takes about sixty days. I would not like to say that is binding upon future actions.
As to the other part of the question concerning what the board will do, I am not in a position to state what they will do. All I can say is that I am quite satisfied that those who are making the estimate of the value of the animals will take into consideration all the facts that ought to be considered.


Major James William Coldwell: Then the minister does not agree with the rumours or the reports that are widespread, and which I have already received in correspondence, that because the virus may remain in the soil that land should not be pastured for a period of at least one year after the all-clear is given. Is there any truth in that rumour? I think that is what the hon. member had in mind.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am fold that our officials do not feel that that is necessary, but we should not like to be bound in certain cases to not putting on some special restrictions. As a matter of fact, what they do is put animals on the land. We actually secure animals, and when we get to a certain stage in the program we put those animals on the land and we have veterinarians check them all the time over a certain period of time. If it is then found that the disease does not develop, it is taken for granted that it is not there.
Section 2, subsection 2, agreed to.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Clause 3.


Hazen Robert Argue: Before you call clause 3, Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Abbott:: It has been called.


Hazen Robert Argue: -I have a further amendment which I wish to suggest as subclause 3 of clause 2 of the bill. As I said last night,

when we were discussing the matter in the house with the minister, I feel that this bill overlooks an important aspect of this whole problem, namely the need for some payment or some consideration to those 2,000 farmers or more within that quarantined area who are now affected by the quarantine regulations. I had asked the minister if stock would be permitted to move within the quarantine area from the farmer's homestead site to the summer pasture, and the minister said that would not be allowed. I then asked him if the government were considering-and I think this is an extremely important matter-some assistance to the 2,000 farmers many of whom will have to provide feed for their livestock on their homestead sites, throughout the early part or perhaps even all of the summer. I think that is one important aspect of the matter that the government has entirely overlooked. I asked the minister if he was going to solicit from the government of Saskatchewan any financial aid in moving feed and fodder into that quarantined area, and the minister replied as follows, as reported at page 129 of Hansard:
I am not saying I am going to solicit it. I say it will be discussed with them. I do not know what the outcome of the discussion will be.
From that statement it seems fairly clear to me that the minister is going to attempt in Regina to unload at least part of the government's responsibility in dealing with this disease in that quarantined area. There is going to be terrific expense for the 2,000 or more farmers within that area who will have used up their winter supply of fodder in the spring and who will have to bring feed and fodder from outside of the area in order to maintain their cattle throughout the summer months. I believe this is a federal responsibility because of the regulations that have been applied to that area. These regulations stem directly from a federal act, the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. When this government applies those regulations, as it must, then I think the government should see to it that any undue hardship, caused to farmers within that area because of the disease and because of the regulations, is properly dealt with. Apart from the problem of compensating those farmers whose livestock are slaughtered, I think there is no problem which is more important and naturally it is a matter which will affect far more farmers than are affected by the compensation provided in this act. In the hope that the minister and the government will accept this responsibility I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), the following amendment:
That clause 2 of Bill 7 be amended by adding thereto the following subclause (3):

",R' The Minister of Agriculture may also order and make provision for the supplying of feed and fodder to the owners of animals in any area quarantined by reason of the existence in Canada of foot-and-mouth disease."
That amendment, Mr. Chairman, would make it clear that this is the federal government's responsibility and that, under this legislation, the minister would have power to deal with, order, and make provision for the supplying of feed and fodder. It is different from the last amendment which was suggested when the minister raised the objection that the board of valuators already has enough to do and that to give further powers to it would make it difficult for that board to function. This additional subclause I propose having inserted in clause 2 of the bill would not give to the board any further powers or duties but would give the Minister of Agriculture himself more power.
I do not think the Minister of Agriculture is a man who in the past has shunned the accepting of additional authority and power. He seems to like to deal with as many phases as possible with respect to agriculture, particularly in western Canada. While we do not always agree with what the minister does when he gets some of these powers, I have seldom heard anyone objecting when the minister is given additional power. I would therefore ask the minister to consider whether or not this further subclause might be accepted so that he would have the power to order and to make provision for the supplying of feed and fodder throughout the summer months within that quarantined area. I believe it will be an important problem. I believe the minister should have this power. With such power I believe he would be in a position to render a real service to all the farmers within that quarantined area.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just to keep the record straight, I think what I said last evening was something to the effect that right at the present moment the farmer would not be permitted to move his livestock from his home farm to a pasture which may be two, three or four miles away. If the pasture is contiguous to the land he is operating otherwise or where his home is, of course he can move them from one farm to another. But that is not saying what we will be able to do in June. It is not saying what he will be able to do in the early part of May. At this moment I am not in a position to say what the position will be then. Many of these restrictions which we now have on may be off, and the farmers may be able to do something quite different from what they are able to do at this moment. I am therefore not in a position to judge with regard to that matter.
Foot-and-mouth disease
I would, however, point out that anything which has been suggested by the hon. member as being possible under this proposed amendment could have been done under the amendment which we just declared to be out of order. In other words, in substance they really mean the same thing, namely that the minister can do nearly anything he likes with regard to the expenditure of money and with regard to what he spends the money for. I am quite sure that if the one is out of order, the other is also. The one has already been declared out of order. To come to the practical question, I think all we have to do during this session is to keep on wasting as much time on every other piece of legislation as we have on this one up to date, and we will still be here to deal with any of the things that happen any time during the period that this area is under quarantine.


Hazen Robert Argue: Before you make your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say I resent the insinuation of the minister that members of parliament have been wasting the time of the house in discussing a matter so important as compensation for this dread disease. As long as I am a member of parliament and as long as I see something in government legislation that I think should be improved on behalf of the people I represent I will keep on wasting time that way.


Mr. Tremblay:: What a man!


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister has said that it may not be necessary to have power like this, even though he should accept the amendment. He says cattle may be moved at the end of May, or they may be moved to pastures in June. I think that statement proves that the minister does need power like this in the event that these cattle cannot be taken to summer pasture until June or some later date. It would be a service to the farmers within that area, and they would appreciate the minister's accepting this suggestion, particularly if they knew that the Minister of Agriculture was taking the responsibility of assisting them in their great need.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I refer hon. members to citations 437 and 453 of Beauchesne's third edition. I declare the motion out of order.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Money to be appropriated.


John George Diefenbaker: I have one other question which has just come to me today in the mail. It is from farmers in the area with dairy herds, the destruction of which they
146	HOUSE OF
Foot-and-mouth disease tear. They ask me to place this question before the minister. Under this legislation, has the minister power to order the replacement of cattle of a kind and quality as nearly equal as possible to that of the animals destroyed, in place of compensation in cash? The reason they ask that is that they want to continue in business at the first opportunity. I think that the request they make is reasonable. They want to continue in the dairy business when replacements can be had. My final question is this. What happened to exhibit A, the German immigrant, and the examination of that man as to his responsibility for this disaster?


James Garfield Gardiner: To answer the last question first, we have not yet a report on the immigrant who has come across; we have read only what is in the newspapers. I do not know just where they got their information, but no report has been made to us on the man.
On the question of buying herds, this provides only that we supply the man with compensation for the animals that were destroyed, and on a fair and1 reasonable basis. He will have money, and we really think that he can buy new stock for himself to better advantage than we can buy them for him and distribute them to him. Whatever the authority may be under this legislation, it is not our intention to buy and distribute stock under it. If it is undertaken later it will be done in some other way.


John George Diefenbaker: I hold in my hand an editorial from the Regina Leader-Post, two excerpts from which indicate support for an option being granted to the farmers in question. They say:
Would it not be possible and reasonable to offer the farmers the option of having the government itself actually replace the animals destroyed?
Then later on they say:
... by offering the farmers this option, there might be a tendency for more of them to remain in the livestock business, which is an important point, and at the same time it might get them back into the livestock and dairying business more quickly than through merely paying cash compensation.
Two farmers wrote to me in connection with that, and it is certainly supported by the Regina Leader-Post, which is never inimical to this government. I thought the questions were worth placing before the minister with a view to ascertaining whether or not the legislation comprehended that.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a suggestion which is worthy of consideration, of course, but I do not think it could be dealt with under this bill.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have a question with reference to the United States embargo against our animals. Does it include other farm products besides animals? Not long ago I read an article which said that hay and straw from the area are sometimes included. If it were included in the restricted area, would the United States embargo also include the whole of Canada, in so far as the export of hay, straw and farm products of that kind is concerned?


James Garfield Gardiner: The question is, does it include other things besides livestock, meat and so on? It does include other things. It includes hay and straw. It also includes hair and wool and quite a list of animal products other than just meat. It includes secondhand bags and any grain that is in secondhand bags. That is not a full list, but it is the kind of thing that is included.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would it be just from the quarantine area or from the whole of Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; it is not allowed into the United States from Canada. It was suggested in an article the other day that perhaps this disease came to this country in dishes that were packed in straw. Well, it could, but whether it did or not I do not know.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


James Garfield Gardiner: Now.
Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved the third reading of the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to review any of the facts in connection with this bill. But certainly the events of the last two or three days have revealed a situation serious, indeed tragic, in its consequences, and fantastic by reason of the fact that the government failed to act last November, when it should have acted.
It is strange that, realizing the terrible danger of this virus, realizing too how similar were the symptoms to those of the foot-and-mouth disease, the only diagnosis taken was a more or less superficial one, and one which did not take into consideration the need for the fullest, most exacting and most careful examination so as to give the assurance that the disease was not in fact the foot-and-mouth disease.

The hon. member for Brant-Wentworth (Mr. Charlton) has shown conclusively that had the government acted properly it would have exhausted every possibility, instead of relying upon agreement, however general -it may have been, among several veterinarians, none of whom took the tests which resulted finally in the discovery of the disease. How terrible the consequences will be of the failure of the government to act will become apparent only with the passing months. Already however there have been results indicating why it is that every precaution should have been taken, and why delays from November 17, on, cannot be excused.
Last night the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) read from the Year Book of Agriculture, a publication of the United States department of agriculture. I now refer to page 268 of the same publication where it says that in the United States extreme caution is used in making a diagnosis. It there refers to the terrible danger to the economy of livestock production when there is failure of a government to act.
However the government may endeavour to excuse delay, the unfolding of the record reveals apathy, postponement and, indeed, indifference to the tremendous danger and the awfulness of the probabilities connected with incorrect diagnosis, or the failure to recognize the difference between vesicular stomatitis and the disease in question.
However, all this is past. What we are now concerned with is to give assurance to those affected within the area-and all of us hope the condition may be restricted to that area-that everything possible will be done for them. One must keep in mind, however, the fact that animals were in the stockyards in Regina for a period of time under a state of semi-quarantine. All of us know that the pens in question are adjacent to the general yards; and the possibility that the disease may have spread is one that deserves at least the closest examination and the fullest investigation, particularly in respect of the destination of each and every one of those cattle.
In my view the bill is misnamed. We see it is entitled "an act for the control and extirpation of foot-and-mouth disease". It is nothing of the sort. It is an act for the payment of damages resulting to individuals in consequence of the destruction of their herds or any of their animals, with a view to controlling and extirpating the disease.
What we are now trying to do is to give proper compensation. Last night I moved an amendment which I realized would be out of order, were the minister to say that it would mean an extra expenditure on the part of
Foot-and-mouth disease the crown over and above that comprehended by the legislation. Very properly the minister admitted that such was the case. Up until that moment there were many who felt that the compensation would be greater than the commercial value, plus the allowances for which provision is made under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
When the minister made that statement, however, it established absolutely the contention of those of us on this side of the house whose view it was that the provisions of the measure offered by the government would not cover the economic value of the loss the farmers would suffer in consequence of the destruction of their herds. As hon. members have said this afternoon, however much we want to compensate the farmers within that area for their losses, both direct and indirect-and I think Canadians generally want to give that compensation-no private member in the house may so move. That is provided under our constitutional procedure.
In order to bring the matter to a head, and because it is clear to me that the farmers who suffer damage are not going to receive compensation on the basis of their economic losses, or the economic value of the animals destroyed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth (Mr. Charlton):
That Bill 7 be not now read the third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering an addition to section 2, subsection 1, to provide that in no case shall such compensation be less than the economic value of the animal or animals at the time the said disease was diagnosed.
I submit, on the authorities, that this kind of amendment has been moved frequently in the past. It gives the house an opportunity of making the recommendation that consideration be given in committee of the whole to assuring that in the event that the consideration becomes acceptable, the economic value of the animals destroyed will be paid, instead of placing the farmers in the position of relying upon the nebulous expression, "fair and reasonable valuation", an expression which is capable of so many interpretations.
The minister himself is reported at page 43 of Hansard as having used these words:
The act now says "fair and reasonable value," which could be even higher than the commercial value, or lower as the case may be.
But we want to give the assurance that the farmer whose animals are destroyed will receive compensation for the economic value, which includes within its terms those intangibles to which reference has already been made and which are not by any stretch of the imagination comprised within the words "fair and reasonable value".

Foot-and-mouth disease


Mr. J. J. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about this foot-and-mouth disease. I am not going to defend the government or condemn it. I think those of us who have the responsibility of representing constituencies in this house will have an opportunity of doing that when the officials of the government come before the committee the setting up of which was requested by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and agreed to by the minister.
There are only two things we will be doing by carrying on this debate much longer. We will either be crying over spilt milk or trying to make political capital out of this disaster. Each and every one of us owes a service to his constituency to try to get together in order to deal with this situation.
I was interested in the comments last evening of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). His remarks were quite practical, which is nothing new. He referred to the embargoes which have been imposed by the different provinces, including Manitoba. No matter what constituency we represent, I think we will all agree we should get together and do whatever is possible so that farmers and consumers will not suffer any further. It seems to me we would be doing a service to the farmers of Canada if we concluded this debate shortly and let the minister deal with the situation. This morning I wrote a letter to the only member of the Manitoba legislature whom I know personally, and I should like to place it on the record. It reads:
Ottawa, March 5, 1952
Mr. John Pitt,
Legislative Assembly,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Dear Mr. Pitt:
For the last two days here in the House of Commons, the time has been solely taken up with the foot-and-mouth disease, and I presume it will go on all day today.
Some of us members here feel quite disappointed in the action taken by some of the provinces, including your own, in placing an embargo on the movement of stock from other provinces. Personally, I feel this may have been warranted at the time it was done, but I hope that the Manitoba government is giving serious consideration to having this embargo removed.
In my constituency the only outlet for meat products is in the city of Winnipeg and through the Union stockyards-either that or to eastern Canada, but with this Manitoba embargo we are now cut off from all markets.
I would suggest that as far as Manitoba is concerned that they are running no more risk, in fact not as much, in allowing meat products into the province from down the Estevan line, as taking it, say from Reston or Virden. I agree that it would be a mistake to allow any stock to go from the quarantined area of Saskatchewan, which takes in about 25 miles running each way from the city of

Regina, and there is also what is called a buffer zone, taking in another 15 miles around this. This being the case surely the government of Manitoba in some way will make it possible in the very near future to allow the stock to go to Winnipeg from the eastern part of Saskatchewan, as this has been our main outlet for at least the last 50 years.
Mr. Gardiner, I understand, is flying west at the end of the week to discuss this problem with the officials of the Saskatchewan government, on an invitation from them, and I am sure that if the Manitoba government requested, he would also stop in Winnipeg to discuss this very important problem.
I do not need to explain any further the position that many of us in Saskatchewan are placed in by the Manitoba embargo. I am sure you know and realize what the facts are.
Trusting you will do what is possible regarding this matter, I remain
Yours sincerely,
I would make a plea to all hon. members from Manitoba, and it could apply also to those from Alberta and British Columbia. It seems to me that it is important that we get together to have these embargoes taken off if at all possible. Someone suggested last night that the federal government could overrule the provinces but as a supporter of the government I should not like to see that done. The provincial governments have imposed the embargoes and they should be the ones to lift them.
I should like to make another plea to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Souris. Let us do all possible to bring this debate to a close this evening.


John George Diefenbaker: Right now.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: We are ready now.


John James Smith: Then I am finished if you are ready to do that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, not to speak in the debate. The amendment reads:
That Bill 7 be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering an addition to section 2, subsection 1, to provide that in no case shall such compensation be less than the economic value of the animal or animals at the time the said disease was diagnosed.
That is the same amendment as was moved in committee. As I understand the rules of this house, if anyone questions a ruling given by the chairman in committee he has the right to require that the Speaker come into the house and divide the house. That not having been done, it would appear that the house agreed unanimously with the decision of the chairman at that time. To bring up the matter now would be to determine a second time something which has been considered and

determined already by the members. I doubt very much if it is proper that we should go on to a discussion of this question a second time and divide the house when this matter has been dealt with already during this session.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which I moved last evening and which appears at page 133 of Hansard suggested the addition of the following words:
-but in no case to be less than the economic value of the animal or animals at the time that foot-and-mouth disease was diagnosed as such.
Immediately the minister said that that might imply the expenditure of money and for that reason could not be moved in committee. A number of almost identical motions have been moved which were based upon citation No. 708 in Beauchesne's third edition, which reads:
When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular. The motion for third reading is debatable under standing order 38. Or the bill may then be ordered to be reprinted or committed to a select committee.
I submit that the motion I move is in accordance with the citation and the practice of the house, and I ask that it be upheld.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if I may say a word on the point of order raised by the Minister of Agriculture, he seems to claim that because an amendment is out of order at one stage of the house's proceedings it follows it is out of order at some other stage. I suggest that is not the case. There are amendments that are out of order at one place but in order at another place.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is an amendment that is always out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Finance suggests that this is an amendment that is always out of order. I suppose he has in mind the fact that if the amendment were carried and we went back into committee of the whole and the committee of the whole wrote the amendment into the bill it would involve the expenditure of money.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It could not do it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I point out to the Minister of Finance and to you, sir, that the amendment to the motion for third reading which is now before the house in the name of the hon. member for Lake Centre is not *operative in effect. It merely refers the bill back to the committee of the whole for the committee to reconsider whether or not it will write these terms into the bill. I confess
Foot-and-mouth disease if that were done the committee could not write in those terms unless a minister of the crown could give the royal recommendation for it. But at this point all the hon. member for Lake Centre is moving is a motion which is abstract in effect and is not legislative or operative. It merely refers the bill back to the committee for reconsideration. I submit he is correct in basing his right to do so on citation 708 and also on citations 709 and 710 of Beauchesne's third edition.
I would call your attention, sir, to the fact that there have been a number of precedents. My notes do not include all the precedents that my memory tells me there are but I have notes here of two of them, and interestingly enough the Minister of Finance was involved in both of them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They must be good ones.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At least they were' his measures that were being considered. I am glad to hear the Minister of Finance say they must be good because they were amendments to bills of his. He did not object to the propriety of the amendments although he voted against them. The first one that I call to your attention, Mr. Speaker, was on February 24, 1948, as recorded at page 1560 of Hansard. The house had before it third reading of Bill No. 3 respecting emergency measures for the conservation of Canadian foreign exchange resources. The then leader of the opposition, Mr. John Bracken, moved an amendment to the third reading of the bill to the effect that it be not now read the third time but that it be referred back for the purpose of amending it in certain particulars. It is a long amendment in small type taking up about three inches of space so I shall not take the time to read it all. I should like to say, however, that it is quite clear that it had a financial effect.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Had it been moved in committee?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe it had.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Are you sure?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not sure. I am sure that was the case with respect to the other one I am going to refer to in a moment, and I think it was so in this case. I would have to check.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You should be sure. Do not rely on your memory too much.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit it has no bearing on the point raised by the Minister of Finance, that a motion like this seeming to involve abstractly the expenditure of money is out of order at any time. A motion involving the expenditure of money moved by a private

Foot-and-mouth disease member is only out of order if moved at a time when it has an operative or legislative effect, and that is not the oase with the amendment moved at this time. The amendment moved at that time by the then leader of the opposition, Mr. John Bracken, was debated briefly by him, and by the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), whereupon it was voted on by the house and, incidentally, defeated.
The other precedent to which I wish to refer occurred on June 8, 1948, when we had before us the third reading of Bill No. 333 to amend the customs tariff. That too was a bill of the Minister of Finance. I am looking at pages 4889 and 4890 of Hansard for that year. On that occasion I moved an amendment to the third reading of that bill which asked that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of deleting a clause which gave certain powers to the governor in council regarding the tariff on certain British goods, obviously having an effect on the balance of ways and means. Nobody raised any question as to the propriety of the amendment because, even if it had passed at that point, as I have said with regard to the other case, it would not have had operative or legislative effect but would have required further action in the usual way by the committee.
Therefore I submit that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lake Centre is perfectly in order. The proposal to which I have just referred had been voted on in committee and was likewise submitted to the vote of the house upon third reading. As I have already indicated, our rules and procedures provide for this kind of motion, namely reference back from third reading to committee of the whole house. As members on the government benches know, it is a procedure that is frequently employed by private members of the house when we do not feel satisfied with the results of an attempt in committee of the whole. It gives us an opportunity to test the house on the general idea even though it does not have an operative or legislative effect. Last night when the hon. member for Lake Centre indicated that he was going to do this on third reading I thought the Minister of Finance nodded his head as if it were a perfectly proper course for him to follow.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was after eleven o'clock and he wanted to get home to bed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I imagine the minister would like this little argument to come to a conclusion too so I will oblige him and simply


say that I feel that it is a right of members of this house to move this type of amendment on third reading which should not be abridged on the basis of the kind of arguments put forward by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance. I submit that any argument that the passing of this amendment involves the expenditure of money directly is not relevant because it is not that kind of amendment. It is not operative, it is not legislative, it is in a sense abstract, a chance to express the opinion of the house on the point that further reconsideration should be given to a certain matter and I am certain it is in order.


Gordon Graydon: Sound reasoning.


George Alexander Drew: I wish to direct my comments particularly to the contention that has been made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In order to save further argument, I might say that I am inclined to agree at the moment that the amendment is in order. I should like to hear further reasons as to why it is not in order.


Gordon Graydon: You are very sound, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I had given consideration to the matter before the question of order was raised. It seems to me that if the amendment were a direction for the payment of money it would undoubtedly be out of order. Similar amendments have been declared out of order but in each instance, so far as my recollection goes, there has been an instruction to the government. I should like to refer to page 735 of the Journals of 1947 where the following appears:
Mr. Bentley, seconded by Mr. Green, moved in amendment thereto:	That Bill No. 413 be not now
read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole-*
I would ask hon. members to note these words.
. . . with instructions to amend the said bill so as to extend to merchant seamen the provisions accorded to veterans in the said bill.
Mr. Speaker ruled the proposed amendment out of order on the ground that it involved an expenditure . . .
Hon. members also recall that quite frequently private members' notices of motions propose that the government should take into consideration certain questions which would involve the expenditure of money. Those private members' motions are invariably allowed to stand. The amendment before the house, so far as I see it, is to refer the bill back to the committee so that the committee may reconsider a certain addition which undoubtedly would involve the expenditure of money.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not want to interrupt Your Honour, but if you are going to give a ruling, I should like to have another word before you do so.


Mr. Speaker:: I was just going to point
out that it seems to me that if an amendment to the section is proposed in committee it would have to be proposed by a member of the government. If the amendment were proposed in committee by a private member, it is my understanding it would be out of order. I believe that is the ruling the chairman of the committee made. However, far be it from me to decide what the chairman of the committee should do. I feel that if the expenditure of money is proposed as a result of this matter being referred back to the committee, the amendment would have to be proposed by a member of the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: The question I raised, Mr. Speaker, I do not think had any real bearing upon what is now being discussed. The position which I was taking-I am sorry that I have not had time to look up any citations upon which to base the position, but I am simply basing it upon long practice in the house-was that when an amendment is proposed to a piece of legislation in committee and a ruling given by the Chair as to whether or not it is in order, the procedure that is provided for dealing with the decision if it is questioned is that the Speaker returns to the chair and there is a division upon the question of whether or not the ruling by the chairman was a proper ruling. A ruling is made with the Speaker in the chair, the Speaker having agreed or disagreed with the decision made by the chairman. He usually agrees, and then a decision is taken on the matter by the house or he simply submits the decision to the house.
My submission was that this question was considered by the committee last evening. The chairman gave his ruling and no one in the committee questioned that ruling after it was given. I took that to be agreement that the matter did not require to be submitted back to the house. It was agreed by all the members of the committee at the time that it was a final decision. No appeal to the house was made. In other words, the question we are now being asked to refer back to the committee has already been considered by the committee and declared out of order. I was just raising the question as to whether we would not get a little out of line with our own procedure in the house, and was not questioning the contents of the resolution.
Foot-and-mouth disease


Major James William Coldwell: I am surprised at the line of argument-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The chairman of the committee of the whole made a ruling which in my opinion was correct and it was accepted by the committee. If it had not been accepted by the committee, there would have been an appeal to the house, and not to the Speaker.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I understand it, the
general rule is that you cannot reconsider a question which has already been decided at the same session without the unanimous consent of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I interrupted the leader of the opposition, and I do not know whether he wants to continue.


George Alexander Drew: If there are to be any comments upon this, then I naturally do wish to pursue the comments I was going to make. I was on my feet, and I would wish to continue. On the other hand, if Your Honour has come to a decision that the motion is in order I would not like to delay the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: I accept the ruling, whatever it is.


Mr. Speaker:: My only concern is that the ruling I make at this time is sound. There is a motion before the house to refer this matter back to the committee. Under our procedure it is within the power of the house to refer the bill back to the committee to consider the whole bill or to consider any section in the bill, even if the committee has already considered the section in the bill. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is correct when he says that when the house has come to a decision upon the matter, then it cannot be considered again during that session without the proper motion. However, with respect to reconsidering sections in a bill after it has come from the committee, that procedure does not prevail. Generally speaking, the Minister of Agriculture is right, but that applies to the bill after it has passed.
As I say, this is a motion to refer the bill back to the committee, and under our procedure the house has a right to refer the matter back to the committee. It is true that the matter proposed to be considered was considered in the committee, and the chairman of the committee ruled the amendment out of order because it was made by a private member. If the house decides to send this bill back to the committee, and a private member again makes this motion, I would think that the motion would be out of order. However, when the bill goes back to the committee the motion to amend it can be

Foot-and-mouth disease
made by a member of the government, if the government feels it should do so, and it would be in order.
In my opinion, the wording of the amendment is not to the effect that it is an instruction to the committee to do anything which would involve an expenditure of money. It is merely referring the bill back to the committee so that the committee can reconsider certain questions which have already been considered, but which the committee has power under our procedure to consider again. Accordingly, I shall allow the amendment to stand.
Is the house ready for the question? Those in favour of the amendment will say "yea".


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will say "nay".


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Murphy:: I was paired with the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Blair:: I was paired with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McCubbin:: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, before the house gives final consent to the passage of the bill I should like to make a few remarks, following which I shall move

an amendment. I believe no real purpose can be accomplished at this time by going over all the events leading up to the introduction of the present bill. Although I believe there has been the greatest negligence, and an indication of absolute incompetence on the part of departmental officials, the farmers affected throughout Canada are now interested in what kind of treatment they will receive, if the disease should break out in their herds.
Why it took so long for departmental officials to cope with the disease, I cannot say. Perhaps they thought that the risk in announcing that the disease might be foot-and-mouth disease was so grave that they then engaged in one of the greatest gambles this country has ever known by delaying so long making the proper tests in order to ascertain the nature of the ailment.
Not only in order that the farmers within the quarantined area should receive some additional consideration, but for the further purpose of protecting livestock herds which might be affected by the disease at some time in the future, I feel parliament should provide assistance to those people to maintain their herds until such time as the quarantine may be lifted.
In addition, the picture today for farmers across Canada outside the quarantined area looks very discouraging, indeed. Because of the provincial embargoes, and because of the disease itself, involving as it does the loss of the United States market, there has been a drastic fall in hog and cattle prices in many provinces over the last week. The Calgary Herald of March 1 reports that in the preceding week-that is last week-feeder steers and heifers on the Calgary market dropped by $5 per hundredweight. Bulls dropped $8 per hundredweight, while feeder steers going into the killing pen dropped from $6 to $7 per hundredweight. In spite of the floor the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) placed under hog prices, those prices dropped in Calgary last week to $22 a hundredweight for grade A, while the price of sows dropped to 11 cents per pound, live weight.
The government should consider the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease as a national emergency, an emergency just as great as the emergency that faced the prairie farmers last fall when they were unable to deliver their grain to the elevators. When at that time the government was faced with transportation difficulties it had the foresight to appoint a controller. For that action I offer them my praise. Up until that time many members on the opposition side of the house- and there have been some complaints since-
Foot-and-mouth disease complained that the Canadian Pacific Railway was not distributing box cars on a fair basis. However, when the controller was appointed he was able to direct the railway to allocate those cars more fairly.
I say that at this time the cattle industry in Canada needs a controller; the hog industry needs a controller. The government has floor price legislation, but we need a controller in Canada to direct the packing houses to pay nothing less than the government's announced floor prices. So I trust the government may yet consider the appointment of a controller and the establishment of fair cattle and hog floor prices throughout Canada. I would hope that it would give the controller the necessary power to direct packers in Canada from one coast to the other to pay adequate floor prices to the producers. Packers should not be permitted to use the foot-and-mouth disease as an excuse for lowering the price of hogs to a point below the floor price announced by the government, so that they may gain a large speculative profit when the transportation restrictions are removed.
As I have repeated on a number of occasions, one of the most important problems and one of the chief worries of the farmers within the quarantined area is the provision of feed and fodder to maintain their herds throughout the summer months when, ordinarily, those herds would be moved to pastures off the farm sites. Because I believe such action should be taken, and because I believe parliament should express an opinion as to whether the government should take such action, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), the following amendment:
That Bill 7 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering an amendment thereto which would give the Minister of Agriculture authority to order and make provision for the supplying of feed and fodder to the owners of animals in any area quarantined by reason of the existence in Canada of foot-and-mouth disease.
If the government adopted the suggestion contained in the amendment the minister would be in a position not only to provide feed and fodder within the present quarantined area but, should the disease spread to other areas, the minister would be in a position to provide feed and fodder for the affected herds within such other areas.
In view of the fact that the cost of carrying out the suggestion would not be great and the further fact that this is a national emergency during which the farmers should be assured that the government will stand by them when they face hardship in feeding

Foot-and-mouth disease
their herds in the coming months, I feel such an amendment should be given the support of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubts as to whether the amendment is within the scope of the resolution, which is in these words:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure for the control and extirpation of foot-and-mouth disease and to provide in connection therewith for the payment of compensation, out of moneys appropriated by parliament, to the owners of animals slaughtered, and also in respect of any buildings, fodder, grain or other things ordered to be destroyed.
I have some hesitancy in allowing the amendment to stand.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. As you know, I am not an authority on the rules of parliament. As I understood the resolution preceding this bill, it indicated that the government intended to do certain things to deal with the outbreak of this disease and the results therefrom. The bill provides for certain compensation, but this amendment would give the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the government the further power to provide compensation in the way of feed and fodder to farmers within the area affected by this disease.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think the point raised by the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue) answers the question raised by Your Honour. The resolution preceding the bill contemplated among other things that compensation would be paid in respect of fodder, grain or other things ordered to be destroyed. Surely what my colleague is asking for is a form of compensation for feed and fodder in the areas where it is needed as a result of the minister exercising the powers set out in the bill. I recognize readily that it is a difficult point, perhaps a borderline case, but it does seem to me that as this amendment relates to feed and fodder it comes within the scope of the resolution which had royal recognition.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened to what the hon. members have said. I have reread the resolution and I have reread this bill. The bill refers to the slaughtering of animals and to compensation to owners of animals so slaughtered. In my opinion the amendment goes far beyond the provisions of the resolution and of the bill and for that reason I shall have to rule it out of order.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, if the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) is out of order, I am quite sure that the amendment which I am going to propose will be in order because it deals exactly with the bill. I shall not take any time to cover ground that has been covered so well already by so many hon. members. This matter of providing compensation of some kind to people directly affected, although their stock may not have been destroyed, is most important to the people in that area. We hope that it may not happen, but if this disease should break out in any other area and quarantine be made necessary this matter will be of great importance to the people in such areas. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That Bill 7 be not now read1 a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering an amendment thereto which would provide for the payment of compensation to any persons suffering losses of income by reason of the existence in Canada of foot-and-mouth disease.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this amendment also is beyond the scope of the resolution. The amendment asks that the bill be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering an amendment thereto. Under the provisions of the amendment any person, whether he be a farmer, whether he be a workman, whether he be, as someone has suggested, a lawyer, no matter who he was, if his income was affected as a result of this disease he would be compensated. I do not think I can allow the amendment to stand as it is far beyond the scope of the resolution and the terms of the bill. I must declare the amendment out of order.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull) moved: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Tomorrow we will resume the debate on the address.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 5.50 p.m.

Thursday, March 6, 1952