1953-03-20

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1953, was presented by Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: On Wednesday last I directed1 a question to the Secretary of State. I wonder whether he has an answer to it.


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: The selection of our representatives of veterans' organizations being sent to the coronation was made by the Department of Veterans Affairs in consultation with veterans' organizations, two representatives being chosen by the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League and two by the National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada. Included in the above named organizations are veterans of all three services.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to give further consideration to the Saskatchewan brief regarding the South Saskatchewan project? If so, has a decision as to construction been arrived at yet?


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: There has been no day since I got that brief that I have not spent some time considering the data that deals with the South Saskatchewan project, but no decision has yet been reached.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue? Can the minister tell me whether it is the intention of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to build a television transmission station in the municipality of Burnaby in British Columbia?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: The hon. member was good
enough to give notice of his question, and my answer is that negotiations are going on between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Burnaby municipal council regarding the possibility of locating a transmitting station in Burnaby.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: I
should like to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries. Are all ropes, cables and so on used in the fishing industry exempt from duty, whether they are manufactured from wire, vegetable fibre, nylon, or any other material?


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: I would suggest that is a question that might be directed to my colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann).


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest that the
question be put on the order paper.



STEPS TO CONSERVE ATLANTIC SALMON IN LABRADOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: May
I ask the Minister of Fisheries if he has an answer to the question I asked yesterday.


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, I was not in the house when the hon. member asked his question. There has been a very substantial amount of commercial salmon fishing in Labrador for some years, but because it was so remote there was very little sports fishing in the streams.

Income Tax Act
' The building of military bases and the iron ore development in Labrador have greatly increased the population, and resulted in quite heavy sports Ashing in the streams. The department is now taking action to protect and conserve the Ashing. This summer we are sending in a party consisting of a salmon biologist and salmon protection ofiAcer with experience in salmon conservation in the maritimes, and two enforcement ofHcers from Newfoundland to set up a system of control similar to that in Newfoundland. This program will be under the direction of the chief supervisor of Newfoundland Asheries.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Income Tax Act and to provide, amongst other things:
1.	That for the 1954 and subsequent taxation years the graduated rates of tax at present applicable to income of individuals be reduced by substituting therefor the following graduated rates of tax: (a) 15 per cent of the amount taxable if the amount taxable does not exceed $1,000; (b) $150 plus 17 per cent of the amount by which the amount taxable exceeds $1,000 if the amount taxable exceeds $1,000 and does not exceed $2,000; (c) $320 plus 19 per cent of the amount by which the amount taxable exceeds $2,000 if the amount taxable exceeds $2,000 and does not exceed $4,000; (d) $700 plus 22 per cent of the amount by which the amount taxable exceeds $4,000 if the amount taxable exceeds $4,000 and does not exceed $6,000; (e) $1,140 plus 26 per cent of the amount by which the amount taxable exceeds $6,000 if the amount taxable exceeds $6,000 and does not exceed $8,000;	(f)
$1,660 plus 30 per cent of the amount by which the amount taxable exceeds $8,000 if the amount taxable exceeds $8,000 and does not exceed $10,000; (g) $2,260 plus 35 per cent of the amount by which the amount taxable exceeds $10,000 if the amount taxable exceeds $10,000 and does not exceed $12,000;
(h)	$2,960 plus 40 per cent of the amount by which the amount taxable exceeds $12,000 if the amount taxable exceeds $12,000 and does not exceed $15,000;
(i)	$4,160 plus 45 per cent of the amount by which the amount taxable exceeds $15,000 if the amount taxable exceeds $15,000 and does not exceed $25,000;
(j)	$8,660 plus 50 per cent of the amount by which the amount taxable exceeds $25,000 if the amount taxable exceeds $25,000 and does not exceed $40,000;
(k)	$16,160 plus 55 per cent of the amount by which the amount taxable exceeds $40,000 if the amount taxable exceeds $40,000 and does not exceed $60,000;
(l)	$27,160 plus 60 per cent of the amount by which the amount taxable exceeds $60,000 if the amount taxable exceeds $60,000 and does not exceed $90,000; (m) $45,160 plus 65 per cent of the amount by which the amount taxable exceeds $90,000 if the amount taxable exceeds $90,000 and does not exceed $125,000; (n) $67,910 plus 70 per cent of the amount by which the amount taxable exceeds $125,000 if the amount taxable exceeds $125,000 and does not exceed $225,000; (o) $137,910 plus 75 per cent of the amount by which the amount taxable exceeds $225,000 if the amount taxable exceeds $225,000 and does not exceed $400,000; (p) $269,160 plus 80 per

cent of the amount by which the amount taxable exceeds $400,000 if the amount taxable exceeds $400,000.
2.	That for the 1953 taxation year the graduated rates of tax applicable to income of individuals be the average of the present graduated rates and the rates set out in paragraph 1.
3.	That with respect to income of corporations earned on and after January 1, 1953, for the present rate of tax of 20 per cent on the first $10,000 of taxable income and 50 per cent on taxable income in excess of $10,000 there be substituted the rate of 18 per cent on the first $20,000 of taxable income and 47 per cent on taxable income in excess of $20,000.
4.	That for the 1953 and subsequent taxation years the 10 per cent deduction from tax at present allowed in respect of dividends received from a taxable corporation by individuals resident in Canada be increased to 20 per cent.
5.	That the deduction from tax equal to 5 per cent of the taxable income of corporations earned in a prescribed province be increased to 7 per cent of taxable income earned in the province on or after January 1, 1953, by corporations that are not subject to certain special provincial taxes.
6.	That	for	the	1953	and	subsequent	taxation
years the deductions at present allowed in computing taxable income of individuals in respect of medical expenses that exceed 4 per cent of income of the individual be allowed in respect of medical expenses that exceed 3 per cent of income of the individual.
7.	That	for	the	1953	and	subsequent	taxation
years the deductions in computing taxable income of individuals at present allowed in respect of dependent children under 21 years of age be allowed in respect of dependent children of the taxpayer over 21 years of age if they are attending a university.
8.	That for the 1946 and subsequent taxation years the provision that excludes expense allowances from income of a member of a provincial legislature be made applicable to expense allowances of elected members of the governing bodies of incorporated municipalities.
9.	That the special deduction from income allowed to taxpayers whose principal business is production, refining or marketing of petroleum, petroleum products or natural gas or exploring or drilling for petroleum or natural gas, for expenses of exploring or drilling for oil and natural gas in Canada, be allowed for expenses incurred in the calendar year 1956; and that in addition a similar deduction be allowed to corporations whose principal business is mining or exploring for minerals, for expenses of exploring or drilling for oil or natural gas in Canada incurred in the calendar years 1953 to 1956 inclusive.
10.	That the special deduction from income allowed to corporations whose principal business is mining or exploring for minerals, for expenses incurred in searching for minerals in Canada be allowed for expenses incurred in the calendar year 1956; and that in addition a similar deduction be allowed to taxpayers whose principal business is produption, refining or marketing of petroleum, petroleum products or natural gas or exploring or drilling for petroleum or natural gas, for expenses of searching for minerals in Canada incurred in the calendar years 1953 to 1956 inclusive.
11.	That the special deduction from income and taxes allowed to taxpayers whose principal business is production, refining or marketing of petroleum or drilling for petroleum, for expenses incurred in respect of deep-test oil wells be

allowed to those taxpayers and to taxpayers whose principal business is mining or exploring for minerals, for expenses incurred in respect of deep-test oil wells in 1953 operations.
12.	That for the 1953 and subsequent taxation years a taxpayer whose principal business is production, refining or marketing of petroleum or petroleum products or exploring or drilling for petroleum or natural gas or mining or exploring for minerals and who, having entered into an agreement on or after January 1, 1953, to pay an amount, other than a rental or royalty, to a government to acquire the right to take oil, gas or minerals from land in Canada, has paid all or part of the amount and before a well or mine comes into production on the land surrenders the right without receiving consideration therefor or repayment of any part of the amount so paid, be allowed to deduct the amount so paid in computing income for the year in which the right is surrendered.
13.	That the exemption of income from metalliferous or industrial mineral mines for the first three years of production be extended to mines coming into production during the calendar year 1956.
The Chairman:: We are now dealing with
paragraph 6 of the Income Tax Act amending resolutions.


Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Chairman, I presume
the parliamentary assistant will assure us that the basis of calculating the period in question in arriving at the amount of medical expenses will be the same as at present, namely a 12 months' period ending in the calendar year in question?


Mr. Lesage:: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure the committee
welcomes this proposal. It is one that can claim popularity in all parts of the House of Commons, although it does not go as far as the house indicated it would have liked in a memorable vote a year ago. Nevertheless this is a step in the right direction and one which I am sure will be welcomed.
However, because it is not complete in that respect I should like briefly to renew the plea that has been made by others and by myself in other years with respect to categories of medical supplies and those other things that are admitted under the present regulations and the present act within the definition of medical expenses.
I say to the parliamentary assistant, as I have said to the minister for some years, that I cannot see any justification for treating hearing aids as deductible medical expenses but denying a similar recognition to aids to seeing. There is no distinction in principle at all. I renew the plea that aids to sight, namely eyeglasses, should be included within the scope of allowable medical expenses.
Then I should like to renew the plea that was advanced in other years in regard to drugs. At present the number of drugs 68108-199i
Income Tax Act
treated as allowable medical expenses is narrowly limited. If it be proper to admit some drugs within this category, then I fail to see on what principle other drugs should be excluded. We in the house are familiar with the distinction that has existed for some time as between drugs prescribed by medical practitioners in the country and those prescribed in the city. We realize that in the country a prescription is usually filled by the medical practitioner and the cost included in his bill. In cities the practice is to have medical practitioners' prescriptions filled by pharmacists; and in that case it has been the practice for many years to reject claims based upon such expenditures.
I am urging that where drugs are used- and in many cases these are extremely expensive drugs-they should be permitted as deductions. A year ago four drugs were admitted within the charmed circle of allowable medical expenses. Some of us mentioned other extremely expensive drugs which are required by persons who are chronic sufferers from certain diseases. Notwithstanding the heavy medical expenses they have to pay, and regardless of the extent of the expense they may incur for drugs prescribed for their use, no allowance whatever is made for them. I think that is a situation which is not only unfair but highly discriminatory.
Last year in the amendments to this act the principle was admitted that at least the expenditures on four drugs should be regarded as deductible medical expenses. I suggest the same should be done in connection with expenditures made on other drugs, particularly those in the expensive category such as are required by chronic sufferers.
Let me say in conclusion that while we welcome this as a step in the right direction, in that it is a reduction from 4 per cent to 3 per cent of taxable income as the amount permitted to be subtracted for medical expenses before arriving at the net taxable income, nevertheless it is only a step, and there are anomalies still existing which I think it is the duty of this parliament to remove.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I say that I concur in the remarks of the hon. member for Eglinton. We are happy to see the reduction from 4 per cent to 3 per cent, but of course we are not satisfied with that. We think the floor should have been removed, and the house hoped and suggested it would be removed when the vote was taken some time ago.
I do not propose to go over the arguments again, but I do say that I hope as time goes on this floor will be removed. In fact I hope that sooner or later, and the sooner

Income Tax Act
the better, we shall have a national health plan so we will not require legislation of this kind to either lower or raise the floor under medical expenses.
The burden of health services, particularly medical aid, is becoming so great that the average individual cannot carry the load. I am not blaming the medical profession; I am not blaming the hospitals; I am not blaming the nurses or any of those others who are engaged in giving the services required by those who are ill. They do an admirable job, as I have good reason to know. But of necessity the cost is going up. I know that some of the equipment used in hospitals and by medical men in their offices, but used infrequently, requires a heavy investment. That heavy investment has to be retired, or has to be considered when charging for the services that are rendered through its use.
Then with regard to drugs and other necessary pieces of equipment such as eyeglasses, I agree with what the hon. member for Eglinton has said. It is true that in the larger centres those who buy expensive drugs cannot deduct them under the present system, but those who live in the country are able to do so when the drugs are provided by the medical man.
We welcome this reduction in the floor, but we would have liked to have seen it wiped out completely. I believe that in the not too distant future all forms of health services will have to be made available to the individual whether he can afford to pay for them or not. In other words, this should be part of a general social security plan. Of course it would be set up by this parliament but be administered by the local authorities. No one wants to centralize this and put the whole thing under the control of the federal authorities. It must be on a co-operative basis, much as the old age pensions were brought in in 1926.
The hon. member for Peace River will probably make his annual plea in connection with vitamin E. I do not want to trespass on his territory but to say that we are warmly in support of any representations he may make in that regard.


Mr. Fraser:: I should like to support the last two speakers who have requested that special drugs and eyeglasses be included in the deductions. I should like also to make a plea in connection with charges for ambulance service. I understand that if the doctor pays for the ambulance and puts the charge on his bill it is deductible. In my riding there are a number of people who must be taken to Toronto at least once a month for special treatment, and when they go by ambulance they are faced with a charge
[Mr. Coldwell.l
of $25, $30 or $35, with the same thing for the return trip. There are other places even farther away from any large medical centre. I think consideration should be given to allowing legitimate ambulance costs as a deduction, and provision therefor should be made in this resolution.


Mr. Low:: First I should like to indicate my support of what has been said by all three of the speakers who have preceded me. Nothing has been said with which I could disagree. The appeals made to the minister and his assistant have been good and to the point. I do hope we are coming to the time when the government will give favourable consideration to the appeals being made by members on every side of this house to remove completely the floor under medical expenses. We do not want to see this 3 per cent provision continued at all. People from one end of this country to the other want to be able to deduct all medical expenses from their taxable income.
As was mentioned by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, for several years I have appealed to the government to place on the tax free list such medicines as di-alpha tocopherol which have now become of general use in the treatment of heart diseases and certain circulatory troubles. Year by year the use of this drug has been extended and it has proved to be of great benefit to a large number of sufferers.
But the cost is rather high. Sometimes it runs to as much as 75 cents a day for those who are suffering from certain types of heart trouble.
I should like to have the parliamentary assistant indicate what is the government's policy with respect to the placing of medicines on the tax free list. How does a medicine get there? We have been making appeals in connection with these substances for some years. If the criteria is widespread use and widespread recognition by medical practitioners that the substance is valuable, then it seems to me that these vitamin E products should have been on the tax free list long before this. Can the parliamentary assistant give us some idea just what is the policy, and how we would go about getting this substance on the tax free list?


Jean Lesage: I was going to wait until all hon. members who wanted to say something had spoken. I do not want to go over all the arguments that have been given time and again by the Minister of Finance and my predecessor. The policy of the government as given by the minister will be found no later than January 12 of this year, as reported on page 900 of Hansard.

The list of drugs and other deductible items is constantly under review in the light of administrative difficulties that would be encountered. Rome was not built in a day and this list, along with many others, is getting longer all the time. While I am speaking only for myself and am not announcing government policy, I am sure that the list of drugs will be added to as time goes on.
There are certain administrative difficulties in connection with these vitamin E products and as to what should be exempt. Shall we exempt just the pure vitamin E or anything that contains vitamin E? It would be easy to put out a product containing just a little vitamin E. If the hon. member for Peace River has some way of resolving that difficulty I am sure the officials of the department will be only too delighted to discuss the matter with him.


Solon Earl Low: I appreciate the statement made by the parliamentary assistant. I may say that he is doing a good job and I am sure he will listen when I tell him of a very easy way by which this could be done. I should like to see him give this his earnest and early consideration. I do not suggest allowing into Canada free of duty any drug that contains vitamin E, but there is one substance known as concentrated di-alpha tocopherol which is manufactured only in Rochester, New York. This substance is distilled from wheat germ and comes into Canada in concentrated form. It is not an oil at all. It is extracted from the oil. It can easily be identified; and since it comes from only one corporation and is brought into Canada by not more than three or four importers-


Jean Lesage: But we are not talking about duties now.


Solon Earl Low: -it would be a simple thing to deal with it on a tax free basis. If it is not an oil product and only comes in as concentrated tocopherol then it should be easy to deal with as such. There are only three or four companies in Canada that are importing it and that incorporate it into capsules for administration to sick people. It should not be any more difficult to deal with than the substances that are being used for the treatment of arthritis and which are on the tax free list.


Jean Lesage: I thank the hon. member for
all the information he has given us, and I assure him that the officers of the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue will take up the matter with the officers of the Department of
Income Tax Act
National Health and Welfare and study it very carefully.


Solon Earl Low: Thank you very much.


Mr. Hansell:: I rise to support the hon. member for Peterborough West in his plea for some latitude with respect to what is included in medical expenses. He mentioned particularly ambulance services. I am interested in that by reason of the fact that a year or two ago I had a case which I brought to the attention of the government but in which the claim was not allowed. This gentleman's wife was ill and had to be taken to a specialist. The specialist was in Calgary and this man lived in the Crows-nest pass area. The ambulance had to travel a distance of almost 200 miles. I know that if the doctor had included the ambulance account in his bill and had paid it, it might have been exempt, but doctors are reluctant to include such accounts in their bills when they have to pay them from their own pocket and take a chance on getting the money from the patient.
There is another point that is of importance here. Ambulance bills are bills that have to be paid. Otherwise those running the ambulance companies would go broke. An ambulance is a piece of machinery involving the use of gas and oil to operate it and the wages of the operator and perhaps an assistant. These charges have to be paid. While I think the medical profession is sometimes pretty well paid, yet I will say that generally speaking they are quite magnanimous in their attitude toward poor people who cannot always pay their bills. Very often doctors will reduce their bills. I know of one case where a doctor had to perform an operation on an old age pensioner and the bill for the operation was in the neighbourhood of $200. I got in touch with the doctor and told him that this person was an old age pensioner and there was not a chance in the world of him paying the bill. The doctor said he did not know that the individual was an old age pensioner, and he cut his bill in half.
By the way, that was not in Alberta. It happened to be in another province. Doctors often do cut their bills to patients, but an ambulance company will not do that because it is a somewhat different type of service. Nevertheless it is absolutely necessary sometimes for patients to have ambulance service, and I believe the bills for such services should be included in the medical expenses that are exempt.
Before the parliamentary assistant replies I should like to ask him one further question. I am in full agreement with other people

Income Tax Act
who have spoken that all medical expenses should be exempt. We have supported that. However, the government has only seen fit to bring in this measure reducing the floor from 4 per cent to 3 per cent. Has the government given any thought to a graduated scale of exemptions on the basis of income? I ask this question because I think a fairer method could be worked out. Sickness is no respecter of persons. It comes to rich and poor alike.
I know the government will say that is why they have it on a percentage basis, but let us look at it this way. Take the case of a single man. He has a certain income and of course there is the chance that he will be taken ill and have to undergo an operation with the result that at the end of the year he will have a medical bill. On the other hand, let us consider the case of the married man, of course with a wife, who has four children. In that family there are six people. We will say that this man receives the same income as the single fellow. But the chances of sickness in that home and the chances of incurring medical expenses are six times as great as in the case of the single person receiving the same income.
I am wondering whether the government has given any consideration to a graduated scale, for example, let us say 1 per cent for incomes up to $2,000, 2 per cent for incomes from $2,000 to $3,000, 3 per cent for incomes from $3,000 to $4,000 and 4 per cent for incomes from $4,000 to $5,000, something after that fashion. I do not necessarily mean that those should be the figures. It would be fairer to a man in the lower income bracket, particularly a married man with a family, to have a larger exemption for medical expenses than the more fortunate individual. Has the government given any consideration to that? When the parliamentary assistant replies I should like him to give an answer with respect to the two questions, ambulance services and the matter of a graduated form of exemption.


Mrs. Fairclough:: It is not my intention to go over the ground I covered the other day when I spoke on the budget, but I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant if the department will give consideration to three main points. One of them has some relation to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Macleod. I think the question of a graduated scale could be covered very easily, and without using a graduated scale, by the application of the floor. Therefore I should like to make my first request the matter of such application and ask the parliamentary assistant if the department will consider

applying the 3 per cent floor to the taxable income of the taxpayer rather than to the net income. In that way the taxpayer will reap the benefit of his marital status and dependents, as the case may be.
The second request is that the department give consideration to permitting deduction of medical expenses expended on behalf of a deceased dependent for a reasonable period of time after the death of the dependent. I would suggest perhaps two years.
The third request is that the department also consider permitting taxpayers to make deductions for properly vouched medical expenses on behalf of relatives who are not properly classified as dependents of the taxpayer.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member for Macleod and the hon. member for Hamilton West that consideration is constantly being given to the problems they have just mentioned; and more attention will be given since they have brought them up in the house.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall we pass on to
paragraph 7?


Ernest George Hansell: No, Mr. Chairman. I would
like an answer about the ambulance question.


Jean Lesage: I just gave it. I said that these items are constantly under review in the light of administrative difficulties, but that greater consideration would be given since the matters have been raised by the members of the house at this time.


Mr. Huffman:: I would like to bring to the attention of the parliamentary assistant and the department a problem which has been drawn to my attention. It is that a cerebral palsy centre which provides training for such unfortunate children is not known as a registered hospital. The expenses of treatment of a child taking training at a centre like that are not allowed for income tax purposes and subject to the medical floor allowable, because the institution is not classified as a hospital. I trust the department will give serious consideration to allowing expenses connected with cases of that kind to be deducted, subject to the floor that is now in effect. We do know that the Department of National Health and Welfare of this government, as well as the government of Ontario, contribute to centres such as I have mentioned, but the contributions are not sufficient to take care of the patients. For that reason I hope serious consideration will be given to this request.


Jean Lesage: I thank the hon. member for
drawing that particular matter to the attention of the department. You may rest

assured that we shall look into it. I was just discussing the situation with our good friend the Minister of National Revenue who, being a doctor, knows much about the matter.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall we go on to the
next paragraph?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-René Beaudoin: No. 7.


Mr. Adamson:: This deals with expenses
for higher education and I am glad to see it included in the resolutions. In my opinion, however, it does not go far enough.


Jean Lesage: May I interrupt the hon.
gentleman and tell him that I was going to ask the Minister of National Revenue to move the following amendment:
That before the last two words of the resolution, "a university", there be inserted the words "a school or".


James Joseph McCann: I would so move.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The committee has heard
the amendment. Shall it carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is a slight help, but the point I wish to make concerns something on which I have spoken in this house before.
A taxpayer putting the members of his own family through a university, particularly in medicine, engineering, law or any of the other sciences-which take about a seven year course nowadays-is required to expend very, very considerable sums on that education in the higher echelons of the education process. I have always thought it was most unfair that a taxpayer should not be allowed to deduct those expenses from his income in computing his income tax.
If a taxpayer gives a scholarship to a university, up to 10 per cent of his total income, that scholarship is allowed as a deduction. On the other hand, if he obligates himself to the very much more essential job of educating his own children, in the field of higher education, up to now he has received no allowance for it.
I would assume that this provision means that an exemption of $400 is allowed per child or per dependent going to a school, university or place of higher learning, after the age of 21 years. I am not complaining or saying that it is not some help; but with respect to university education there are fees and, frequently, the expense of a dependent living away from home. A taxpayer today undertakes a very considerable financial burden in order to put his children through for any of the professions. It is my contention, Mr. Chairman, that everything should be
Income Tax Act
done to encourage the taxpayer to undertake this onerous duty toward his own family.
I would like to see this regulation enlarged in the future so that the total expenses, fees charged at the university and fees charged at the school, would be deductible from income for taxation purposes. I most earnestly make that plea, Mr. Chairman, to the parliamentary assistant.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I support the previous speaker in his request, and I am very happy to have heard the amendment that has been made just now. The term "school", however, can be interpreted in a very wide manner, and I hope it is interpreted to embrace as wide a scope as possible. I would like the minister, if he can, to elaborate on just what is meant by the term "school", as I have had one or two requests in that regard. Perhaps because I happen to be one of the trustees of a theological institution, when this was first brought out in the budget speech I received quite a number of requests for some explanation. Does this apply to theological seminaries? The institution with which I happen to be connected is not affiliated with a university, but it does give a course that is equal to any theological course given in a university, and it also grants a degree.


Jean Lesage: Is it a night school?


Ernest George Hansell: No, it is a day school. I should like to ask if this section would apply to young people who are supported by their parents while they are training for the ministry or for missionary work.


Jean Lesage: Is it on a full-time basis?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes.


Jean Lesage: Then it is covered.


Ernest George Hansell: If they are going out in the
profession, is that the general principle?


Jean Lesage: It covers bona fide students on a full-time basis in theological schools.


Mr. Gillis:: What about vocational schools?


Jean Lesage: What is a school? It is a place of learning. Is not a theological school a place of learning?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes.


Jean Lesage: Well, it is included. To avoid further questions, I would say that nursing schools are included in the definition of a school. This question has been asked by many members.


Clarence Gillis: What about vocational schools?


Jean Lesage: They are covered.


Ernest George Hansell: This clause covers any school that is giving a full-time course?

Income Tax Act


Jean Lesage: Exactly, and for full-time
students. The student has to be a full-time student.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Would that include a school for the teaching of chiropractics?


Jean Lesage: If the student is a full-time
student and it is a place of learning, yes.


George Matheson Murray: I think the hon.
member should study this principle carefully. On the one hand we hear members wanting a reduction in taxation, and on the other hand they want to subsidize students so that every young man of 21 may go to school full time and the government will subsidize him. It is a good principle, but it is beginning to slop over. Why should anyone in Canada have to subsidize a school for preachers in Los Angeles? I cannot see it. I think we should go carefully along this line and not injure the cause we have before us by being overgenerous.


Mr. Knight:: I disagree with the member for Cariboo, who has just spoken, in so far as he considers this assistance to the student as being subsidization of schools or education generally. I just want to say that as I go along, because I suppose someone in this group would be expected to say a word on this particular clause. I have nothing to say on it except a word of commendation. I think I will be credited in this house with having made efforts on various occasions to get grants for education, as such, from any source whatever, so perhaps I would be expected to compliment the government upon clause 7, which I welcome. I believe I may welcome it on behalf of the complete group of which I form a part.


Mr. Nowlan:: There should not be any
confusion about assisting schools or universities through this measure. It is obviously something for the assistance of the poor parents of the dependent child, and has no reference to a university or school whatever. As a matter of fact arguments could be advanced for assistance to universities and schools, but they could not come within the scope of this resolution.
What limitation is placed upon the word "dependent"? We have cases of boys who earn money during the summer, and we are all interested in that. Some of us have boys going into the north country working in the Labrador iron mines, or British Columbia or somewhere else, who are earning fairly substantial amounts as compared with 10 or 15 years ago, and yet not nearly enough to meet the cost of education. If a boy earns $400 or $500, does he cease to be a dependent for the purposes of this measure?


Jean Lesage: The Minister of Finance
announced in the budget speech that from now on a dependent can earn up to $750 and still be considered a dependent.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I ask, then, if that means all dependents or just those attending schools?


Jean Lesage: It means all dependents.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Will that be covered by
regulation?


Jean Lesage: It is covered by regulation;
the regulation has already been amended.


Mr. Green:: Would it include the case of
a dependent mother?	.


Jean Lesage: It would, of course, because "dependent" covers the case of all dependents.


Howard Charles Green: That is unless-


Jean Lesage: We are now discussing the
regulation which says that a dependent is still a dependent even if he earns up to $750. This regulation is completely distinct from this resolution, which is confined to dependent children.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: I should like to refer the parliamentary assistant to his definition of a school. I presume that anyone attending an institution that would give training equivalent to that of a university would be covered by this section. I am referring to the schools of creative arts such as music and singing, which were recognized by the Massey commission investigating the arts and sciences as being equivalent to universities in recognition for scholarships and fellowships. I should think they would get the same recognition here.


Jean Lesage: A full-time student of a conservatoire-you know what that is, a place where they teach singing and music-would fall within the scope of this resolution.


William Joseph Browne: That might not be an apt definition, because the student could not be there all day getting lessons. He would get perhaps one or two lessons a week, and then he would spend the rest of the time practising.


Jean Lesage: This covers a full-time student. Each case will have to be examined in the light of its particular circumstances. I am sure the officials of the government want to be fair, and we will do whatever is possible to carry out the intention that is behind this resolution. It will be applied with the utmost fairness.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I should like to ask a question about the amendment allowing members

of municipal councils to deduct their expense allowances from income for taxation purposes, as well as members of provincial legislatures-


Jean Lesage: They were covered in 1946.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Can the parliamentary assistant tell me whether all provinces have expense accounts for their provincial legislators?


Jean Lesage: I cannot answer that question.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: What is the proportion of the total money received that can be regarded as expenses in this case? Is it one-third of the total amount?


Jean Lesage: Of the money received?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Of the total money received, what proportion of it can be assigned as expenses as opposed to straight salary; shall we put it that way?


Jean Lesage: It cannot be divided if it has not been paid as an expense allowance. It has to be paid as an expense allowance, and the amount of expense allowance which is deductible must not be more than half the salary or indemnity which the councillor or mayor receives. It is the same rule as the one we have for members of parliament. Our indemnity is $4,000, and we are entitled to $2,000 tax free expense allowance. The rule is the same, and it is the same for the provincial legislators.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: To clarify it, I was directing my original statement to the fact that it could be up to one-third of the total amount, including salary plus expenses.


Jean Lesage: If it is paid as such, yes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Some municipalities
describe the remuneration which is paid to councillors in different ways. In some instances the term used indicates expenses or some sort of an amount to indemnify the councillor for expenses incurred. In other cases it is different. I do not believe we have any places in Ontario, at any rate, where it is actually called a salary, though it may be called an indemnity in some instances.
As I understand it this clause must be adopted by the municipality itself in conjunction with provincial regulations. Is it possible for the municipality so to amend its laws or its regulations to bring them into conformity with this clause? In respect of indemnities paid from 1946 on, must they be specifically named? Must they name the amount paid as expense money in 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950 in order to qualify, or can they say now that a portion of that 68108-200
Income Tax Act
amount was considered to be expense money in those years?


Jean Lesage: The hon. member is correct in her assumption. It must have been paid as an expense allowance and not be more than half the amount received as salary or indemnity.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I presume, then, it is a matter for the local administration to decide as to what portion was considered to be expense money in those years?


Jean Lesage: No, that is not enough. They cannot change what has been done. For instance, if the mayor received $1,000 indemnity and $500 as an expense allowance which was not admitted by the income tax administration, he can now have the $500 in question admitted and he may be reimbursed for his income tax which he has already paid; but it had to be paid to him at that time in the form which I have just mentioned, namely $1,000 as salary, indemnity or whatever you call it, but $500 specifically as an expense allowance.


Mr. Brooks:: I should like to ask this question. Let us take county councils. They have their travelling expense which is different for different councils, and they have other expenses. Would they get credit for half of that?


Jean Lesage: If the council reimburses
them for their expenses they could deduct them at any time as ordinary expenses. Well, they were reimbursed; they do not have to claim them. The money received was not income. If they have expenses connected with going to the meetings of the council, if they are considered as expenses by the council, clearly council will reimburse them.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Just on that point, I have
some difficulty in understanding the exact meaning. If a municipal body pays its mayor or reeve a certain fixed sum as indemnity and then allows him a certain fixed sum, say 50 per cent of that, as expenses, you may run up against this situation. The mayor may have to come to Ottawa to see the federal government, and he is reimbursed. That is all right. That is not charged against him in his income tax.


Jean Lesage: That is not an expense for
him; it is an expense of the municipality. It does not go into his return at all for income tax purposes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is fine; that is the answer I want to get.


George Matheson Murray: An indemnity paid
to a legislator is not a salary. It is a sum

Income Tax Act
of money paid to indemnify him against expenses incurred attending the legislature. We seem to assume now that it is a salary and that it is subject to income tax. If the indemnity is too high it should be reduced; but I do not see any sound reason why an income tax should be imposed upon an indemnity paid to a member of a legislative assembly, or any other parliamentary body. It is false, wholly false. The premises are not sound. If the member is paid too much by way of indemnity then it should be reduced, but to tax the indemnity is to suggest that the man receives a salary when attending these places. That is not sound and it is not a fact.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What would be required to show the amount of expenses paid to a member of the provincial assembly or to a member of council? Would there have to be a minute of council or part of a civic act or what?


Jean Lesage: A certified extract of the bylaws of the municipality.


Louis-René Beaudoin: We shall now deal with paragraph 9.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Would a minute of the council itself be sufficient?


Jean Lesage: Well, a copy of the document that authorizes the payment, whatever it is; a bylaw or resolution, as long as it is certified.


Clarence Gillis: This is going to be a rather tangled up piece of legislation to administer. When I listened to the parliamentary assistant first I thought it was all right. Take a town that pays its mayor $3,000 a year as salary. It is a part-time job. When he is obliged to leave town his expenses are paid by the town, apart from that $3,000. As I heard the parliamentary assistant's first explanation I assumed that that mayor would receive that amount of money by way of salary and that he could automatically write off up to 50 per cent of the salary as an expense account as an offset for taxes. In that way it would be very simple to administer.
You are going to find a thousand municipalities with a thousand different ways of remunerating their mayors and their councils. How the inspector of taxes in any district, who has fifty different decisions to make on that particular item, is going to work it out,
I do not know. If you are correct in your answer to the hon. member for St. John's East that the town or the municipality must have a minute of the council authorizing a certain amount by way of expenses, if it is going to be administered in that way then it is impossible of administration. For the 
provincial legislature it is all right, because a certain percentage of their indemnity is tax free. That is clear. Under this act they can write that off as an offset to income tax.


Jean Lesage: No, they do not mention it at all in their income tax returns, any more than you mention the $2,000 that you receive.


Clarence Gillis: That is all right; that is clear.


Jean Lesage: It is easy; you do not mention it.


Clarence Gillis: Now you are going into municipalities with it, and you are going to get all kinds of different administrations. I gave you an example of a mayor who draws $3,000 a year as salary; but in addition to that he is paid his expenses if he is obliged to be on the road away from home, or any expenses he may incur in or around the town. I judge from the first explanation that when he is filing his income tax return that sum is the same as the indemnity of a member of the House of Commons or of the legislature. He can omit 50 per cent of his income by way of salary.


Jean Lesage: No.


Clarence Gillis: Then I say that the thing is impossible of administration.


Jean Lesage: No, I am sorry. The hon. member has not got it right. If there is a bylaw of the council of the municipality under which the person is entitled to a lump sum as an expense allowance, this sum cannot exceed half of any remuneration he gets. If he has no remuneration and no salary he cannot claim a sum for expenses.
The example given by the hon. member is where there was an indemnity or salary of $3,000. If the council decided to allow him an additional $1,500 as expense allowances, the mayor will report the $3,000 he has received and, in lieu of reporting the $1,500 he has received as expense allowance, he will attach to his return a certified copy of the document which authorized the municipality to pay him the $1,500.
There are always difficulties, but surely in this instance they are not insurmountable. This is a relieving clause so that all the elected representatives of the people in Canada will be placed on the same basis, and I am much surprised that there should be criticism of it.


Clarence Gillis: It is not a relieving clause at all, the way the parliamentary assistant explained it. It is an encouragement to dishonesty.


Jean Lesage: No.


Clarence Gillis: That is exactly what it is.


Jean Lesage: I will not enter into that field of discussion. I will not accuse any mayor or councillor of dishonesty.


Clarence Gillis: All people in this country are human beings. If the parliamentary assistant is going to write into the Income Tax Act a provision that enables a city council or a municipal council to say, "We are going to authorize an addition of $1,500 a year"-


Jean Lesage: That is, if he already gets $3,000.


Clarence Gillis: That is not relieving him of any tax on the $3,000. It merely means that the council has to pass an additional minute authorizing an additional $1,500 which the town will spend, and for which he will give the department an itemized account and receipts. He will have to do that.


Jean Lesage: No.


Clarence Gillis: It is still wide open, then, to all kinds of manipulation. You are not relieving him of anything on his $3,000 income. You are merely asking that town to set up another iniquitous minute which provides a loophole for anyone who wishes to take advantage of it to get a $1,500 offset from his taxes.


Jean Lesage: I shall try to convince my hon. friend, then. We do not force the municipality to vote another $1,500. After all, these people are elected, and if the electors are not satisfied they will throw them out. In order to have its mayor benefit under this resolution, the municipality does not have to add $1,500. It just passes a new bylaw which will say, "From now on the mayor will receive $3,000 as indemnity and $1,500 as an expense allowance." And that will be all.


Clarence Gillis: That sounds better.


Jean Lesage: Both can be done. I do not want to put ideas into the heads of municipal councils. But they are elected; they are responsible to their electors, and they can pay their mayor whatever indemnity or salary they wish.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Can they make it retroactive for six years?


Jean Lesage: No, they cannot. I explained, in answer to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough), that they can claim an exemption if it was paid to them as an expense allowance under these conditions. They will be exempt from the moment they pass a new bylaw or resolution.


Agar Rodney Adamson: But can a municipality pass a bylaw making it retroactive to 1946?


Jean Lesage: They can do it; but it will not be allowed.
Income Tax Act


Tom Goode: I must say I am a little confused. A couple of days ago the reeve of Burnaby wrote me a letter in which he said, "Kindly explain this new regulation." I have come here this afternoon to find out so that I can, in my own way, treat his inquiry with a certain amount of intelligence.
Because he has written me this letter, I can talk about his salary. He gets $6,000 a year, and a car is provided for him. I might say that we have a big municipality. As I understand it-and the parliamentary assistant will correct me if I am wrong-the council of the municipality of Burnaby can say, in their good judgment, "All right; our reeve is getting $6,000 a year. We have decided among ourselves"-whether the decision is made in council chamber or somewhere else-"that his expenses are $3,000 a year". That is 50 per cent.
I can be wrong in my understanding, but I am addressing this to the parliamentary assistant. Then the Burnaby municipal council, according to what I have heard this afternoon, can say to the reeve, "Your expenses are considered by this council for the year 1953 to be $3,000". That would not be right. The council might have a different opinion. They might consider his expenses to be higher than I do. Nevertheless they have that right.
When I answer the reeve, which I shall do in the next two or three days, when I get these facts clear, with my limited mental power, can I tell him that the council, in their own good judgment, can allow the reeve of Burnaby $3,000 for expenses on a $6,000 indemnity?


Jean Lesage: If the council decides to vote for him an additional $3,000, it will be deductible. But if they want to vote for him an allowance of $3,000 out of the $6,000, not more than $2,000 will be deductible. He will be in the same position as my hon. friend, with his indemnity of $4,000 and his expense allowance of $2,000. I hope it is clear in my hon. friend's mind now.


Tom Goode: It is not. May I say to the parliamentary assistant through you, Mr. Chairman, that it will be most difficult to get a member of parliament to come from Burnaby to this House of Commons. They will all be running for the reeveship.


Howard Charles Green: Will this provision be wide enough to cover members of school boards and parks boards?


Jean Lesage: No, it covers only elected representatives. The expression used is, "elected members of the governing bodies of incorporated municipalities".

Income Tax Act


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That would include school boards.


Howard Charles Green: Surely school boards and parks boards would be included in "governing bodies"?


Jean Lesage: They are not governing bodies of incorporated municipalities; they are governing bodies of school communities.


Tom Goode: To pursue that question further -because I, too, am interested in it-the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and I know something about school boards in British Columbia. I expect he has served on them, and I certainly have. School boards in British Columbia are allowed only those expenses voted by themselves, and the expenses are very small. A school trustee is out of pocket to the extent of $400 or $500 a year in a large municipality. Are we not going to allow anything for them at all, when we allow the reeve $3,000 a year?


Howard Charles Green: I do suggest some further consideration should be given to that point. The ordinary person reading this resolution would consider a school board or a parks board as coming within the meaning of "governing bodies". I do not see why they should not be entitled to exemption, as well as members of a council.


Jean Lesage: I do not know of any member of a school board in my constituency who receives remuneration. It was not intended to cover school boards but only municipal councils.


Mr.   Coie@Verdun-La Salle: I should like to raise my voice in support of the representations made by the last two speakers. This matter has been brought to my attention by members of school boards in my constituency who feel that they should receive similar exemption to that being granted to members of municipal councils.


Jean Lesage: Do they receive salaries?


Mr.   Coie@Verdun-La Salle: Yes. I should like this matter to be considered further by the department.


Mr. Fair:: If I understand the explanation aright, you are going to have a whole lot of trouble with members of school boards. In my province the meetings sometimes last for two or three days, and many of the members must travel considerable distances. We have anywhere from 70 to 90 small school units embodied in one large unit, and those men are certainly entitled to some exemption in connection with their expense accounts.


Jean Lesage: Consideration will be given to the representations made by the various hon. members who have spoken.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: I was going to suggest that perhaps resolutions Nos. 9 to 13 inclusive be taken together because they all deal with the exploration for petroleum and natural gas and mining development.


Jean Lesage: I agree.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean Lesage: I will ask the Minister of National Revenue to move an amendment to paragraph No. 11.


James Joseph McCann: I move:
That paragraph 11 of the proposed resolution to amend the Income Tax Act be amended by inserting therein immediately after the figures 1953, the word and figures "and 1954''.


George Matheson Murray: I should like to commend the government upon its decision to encourage the drilling for oil and natural gas and also the development of mining properties. In my community there are probably 20 drilling operations going on at this time within a short distance of my own home. I understand that the program for the year ahead calls for the drilling of 154 wells north of the Peace river within British Columbia. A large field of natural gas has been brought into being, and oil has been discovered on a commercial scale within British Columbia. A great investment is required, and very often a well proves unprofitable. Under these clauses the operator will be given some encouragement to go on.
Mining is also carried on extensively in the Cariboo country. For every new mine that is brought into being in British Columbia there are probably 50 prospects which are explored and then abandoned. Large sums of money are spent on the development of these unprofitable prospects in the payment of wages, the purchase of supplies and equipment, and the building of roads and trails. It is a step in the right direction to encourage these mining and oil corporations and others in the work they are doing.
Pacific Petroleum will spend in the neighbourhood of $1 million per month right around Fort St. John in the Peace river country during the coming summer. Some of these wells will cost $750,000 or even more. It takes a very courageous man to stand at the edge of a hole that has been drilled a mile into the ground at tremendous cost and realize that it is totally unprofitable-and carry on. If this government wants to continue prosperity in Canada it should encourage in this way the investment of capital in mining and oil development, as well as in the development of other natural resources which in my part of the country are almost inexhaustible.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Except for the change in the date, I gather that resolution 11 is the same

as the resolution that has been in force for the last two years?


Jean Lesage: Exactly. Through an oversight the word and figures "and 1954" were omitted.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is understandable. The only other suggestion I have to make would be to increase the period beyond what it is.


Jean Lesage: It is three years.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I would like to have seen it increased to five years. Mapping out any exploration is a long-term project, and there are many programs involving $10 million or $20 million to be expended on exploration over a five or ten-year period. It is pretty obvious that these five resolutions are a definite part of a national policy for any Canadian government, but it would be of greater assistance if the period was increased to five years.
The only other suggestion I have to make in connection with income tax and to encourage the investment of capital in mining and the development of oil is that the depreciation allowance to shareholders be restored to the 30 per cent which was in effect prior to the war. Otherwise I think these five resolutions are satisfactory.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to raise a point connected with these resolutions which was raised two years ago by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who I am sorry to see is not in his seat. At that time it was discussed by him and the minister. I should like to read briefly from the remarks made at that time by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni as well as from the remarks of the Minister of Finance. During the course of my remarks I shall point out that at that time the Minister of Finance said he understood that the Minister of Resources and Development would be discussing the matter. I have been in touch with the minister and he tells me that he has discussed the matter.
At page 3177 of Hansard for May 18, 1951, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni said:
It is a rather curious thing that the only natural resources receiving exemptions are oil, gas or mining and exploring for minerals. These commodities, of course, produce a great deal less revenue than the most important thing we have in Canada, our forest resources.
Then I skip to page 3178 and continue:
The way the matter stands now, a taxpayer can deduct his expenses so far as forestry and silviculture are concerned on the particular piece of property from which he is taking logs at the present time. No incentive at all is given to any of our great forestry corporations, large or small, to try to provide a supply of wood for the future. As a matter of fact, the government seems to have a negative approach to the whole question. They
Income Tax Act
say, "Yes, we realize it is a desirable thing that forests be put on a sustained yield basis". But on the other hand, they do not give any encouragement at all to people to invest money in growing trees. I am wondering whether there is any possibility of the minister giving some definite consideration to this problem within the next year, with a view to encouraging people to invest their money in growing timber.
Actually, the government seems to feel that someone might make a capital profit out of growing trees. It is that negative approach that annoys me. The minister will say: It is desirable to grow trees; on the other hand, if we encourage anyone to grow trees he may make a capital profit and I would not get anything out of it.
I believe that is a negative approach to the matter. I think something should be done to encourage people to invest their money in the future timber of this country. We allow people to lay up treasure in heaven by permitting them to deduct their charitable donations up to 10 per cent.
The minister and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni discussed treasure in heaven for a moment or two; then they came back to earth again and the minister said:
I do not know this of my own personal knowledge, Mr. Chairman,-


Jean Lesage: I do not like to raise a point of order. I did not come here briefed to discuss forestry or what should be done for the forest industry, but might I mention-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is this a question of privilege?


Louis-René Beaudoin: A point of order.


Jean Lesage: A point of order. I want to inform my hon. friend that in the last four or five months forest management has been licensed on a sustained yield basis. The cost of acquiring licences is a capital cost, and the cost of maintaining sustained yield is allowed as an expense against income. This arrangement is satisfactory to the industry. The matter has been settled since the debate to which my hon. friend has referred, but the whole thing is out of order anyway.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I had a slight suspicion that the parliamentary assistant might rise on a point of order, and I began by pointing out that there was a good precedent for this discussion, that this exact course was allowed two years ago. Incidentally, I am nearly through, but I should like to be allowed to finish my case. Actually I was about to read what was said with respect to the Minister of Resources and Development.


Jean Lesage: All right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The Minister of Finance said:
I do not know this of my own personal knowledge, Mr. Chairman, but I understand my colleague the Minister of Resources and Development is discussing the question which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has raised, not only with the provinces but with an interdepartmental committee he has formed in his department.

Income Tax Act
The parliamentary assistant has indicated -and I am aware of it-that certain steps have been taken in the last two years. The Minister of Resources and Development informs me there is an arrangement with some of the provinces to stimulate reforestation under an agreement whereby the federal government will pay 20 per cent of the cost of reforestation of crown lands. That of course is something very different from the point raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Further, the Minister of Resources and Development has pointed out that there are other tax allowances made.
It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is not here, because he has an intimate knowledge of the industry which I do not possess. I have raised this matter because it was raised and considered two years ago, at which time the minister indicated that he was interested in it and would pursue it further. It seems to me not irrelevant to find out exactly what has happened. I hope there are others here at the present time who may know more about the actual facts than I do. It seems to me it is an important matter and it should not take much time; so I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will allow the debate to continue.


Jean Lesage: On that point, the only thing I can say is that I am informed that discussions with the industry have taken place and that the industry is reasonably satisfied with the arrangements that have been made.


Howard Charles Green: I believe that is not the case with British Columbia.


Jean Lesage: I did not come briefed to discuss reforestation. The industry mentioned has nothing to do with the resolution we are studying now. If hon. members want to raise the question on the bill when the minister is here, I am sure he will be delighted to deal with it, but this matter is not included in the resolution and I am not prepared to discuss it. I have given the only information I have, namely that there was an understanding with the industry and that it is working satisfactorily. Beyond that I cannot go, and since the discussion is out of order I do not feel that it should be allowed to continue.


Howard Charles Green: We should not be prevented from making our submissions, because it is our hope that the question will be given further consideration and that some steps will be taken to meet the difficulty by means of legislation. After all, these resolutions are designed to aid in the development of our Canadian resources. The development of our forest resources is in exactly the same category, and we are merely asking that steps
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) J
should be taken to help further the development of that great natural resource. The parliamentary assistant has gone so far as to claim that the problem has already been met.


Jean Lesage: I said I was informed.


Howard Charles Green: Certainly the information I get from men in the industry in British Columbia is that it has not been met at all. They are asking that the costs of reforestation be allowed as an operating expense.


Jean Lesage: They are now. You have not been home since Christmas.


Howard Charles Green: I would ask the parliamentary assistant to have the question looked into further so that we may have an answer when the bill is being discussed.


Jean Lesage: I shall do that with pleasure.


Mr. Winters:: Perhaps I might say something. I agree with the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance that the discussion is out of order and I would leave it to you, Mr. Chairman, to decide whether or not we should pursue a discussion that is clearly out of order. If it is the wish that I say something on this point, I shall be very glad to do so.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In for a
penny, in for a pound; you had better do so.


George Matheson Murray: I think it would be in order to state that the contribution of the government of British Columbia to the lumber industry was to slap another 10 per cent tax on it a couple of weeks ago, as well as 10 per cent on the mining industry.


Louis-René Beaudoin: That is definitely not relevant. Since it has been suggested on two or three occasions that perhaps I might say something, may I do so now. Some have said that it is clearly out of order, and others have said that it is clearly in order, to discuss encouragement of the logging industry. In my humble opinion it is a borderline case and as long as hon. members carry on the debate in a reasonable manner, as they have so far, I think it should be allowed.


Mr. Herridge:: I shall be very brief. In fact any remarks I wish to make on this subject I will make primarily on second reading of the bill. This subject has come up before. The parliamentary assistant said that the matter had been taken up with the industry and that the industry was satisfied. I am of the opinion that there is a nigger in the woodpile in this situation because I do not know of a member of the industry in the interior of British Columbia, from where I come, who knows of any such provision in the act or of any allowance being made for reforestation.

So I trust, Mr. Chairman, that when, we are in the committee stage of the income tax bill the minister will make a statement about what is being done.


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps I might say, as the hon. member for Greenwood stated, that this matter was brought up some time ago. The Minister of Finance then said it was under discussion by the Minister of Resources and Development. Following that, a committee was set up to study the best means of achieving sustained yield in Canada. Certain steps have been taken, among them agreements with provincial governments as to inventories and reforestation.
The approach to it from the taxation angle had to do with expenses incurred in achieving sustained yield. To that end British Columbia, among other provinces, was visited and the problem was discussed with those who are concerned with forest operations.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The big ones?


Robert Henry Winters: It was discussed with the industry generally and a basis was arrived at for allowing those expenses which are normal expenses incurred in logging and forestry operations, and which are aimed at achieving a sustained yield of forestry resources.
The parliamentary assistant was quite right in what he said about the expenses being allowed as a deduction for income tax purposes. While it might not be that the entire industry is satisfied, I have had occasion to talk with representatives of the industry and they are aware of what has been done by this government in that field of taxation toward the end of sustained yield operations.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister this question? Was the change made in connection with forest management licences in British Columbia?


Robert Henry Winters: The answer to that, Mr. Chairman, is yes.


Howard Charles Green: Forest management licences are only held by a few, and are nearly all held by extremely big operators. The smaller people apparently are not in a position to get the benefit of this provision.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is the point.


Howard Charles Green: That is where the whole complaint arises.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Special Committee on Broadcasting INCOME TAX ACT
James Joseph McCann: for leave to introduce Bill No. 228, to amend the Income Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


BROADCASTING
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, March 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. McCann that a select committee be appointed on broadcasting, to consider the report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to review the policies and aims of the corporation, etc.
Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, at the time this debate was adjourned I was making a few observations on the resolution to set up the committee. I have no desire to delay the setting up of that committee, but I was pointing out that I thought the policy pursued by the government so far, in setting up the C.B.C. as a regulatory body to allocate the air waves, was the proper kind of development for a country like Canada. The proposal by the government that television should be handled in the same way is, in my opinion, absolutely sound. The principle has already been proven in the case of Trans-Canada Air Lines, for example, where the government undertook to retain under their control the main airways, and where they established cross-country air lines and basic air lines with a proper organization. Trans-Canada Air Lines has proven one of the most effective and one of the safest air lines in the world.
Despite the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway is used as the yardstick, I think the Canadian National Railways is a sound development even though they have had some handicap in their operations, particularly in respect of financing. As members of parliament, we will next week have the right to examine the operations of the Canadian National Railways and then be in a position to assure the Canadian people that the railway is not only sound financially but is doing a reasonably good job for the people of Canada.
Canadian Arsenals Limited is another example of what is proposed now for television. That corporation is the basis for the munitions industry and they too are pioneering, setting a pattern and developing regulations that should guide private industry. If we are to judge by international tensions at the present time the munitions industry is going to be a very important industry
3150	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting in the future. I am only sorry the government did not follow through in the case of pipe lines, where they have farmed out the natural resources without retaining the main lines as common carriers. I think they departed from their policy there, but they may get back to it later.
With respect to television there was the accusation the other night, and I heard it from several members of the house, that it added up to a straight monopoly. Well, we certainly have not had a monopoly in the case of radio broadcasting. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) dispelled that illusion a few nights ago when he put on record the fact that on the trans-Canada network which the C.B.C. operates at the present time there are only 10 C.B.C. stations and there are 17 privately operated stations. On the dominion network the hon. gentleman pointed out that there are 26 privately-owned stations as against one C.B.C. station. In the whole field, on both networks at the present time you have 36 private stations as opposed to 18 C.B.C. stations.
I think those figures, put on the record by the Leader of the Opposition, proved pretty conclusively that there is no such thing as a monopoly being developed there. It is the other way around. The C.B.C. has only half of the total number of stations on both networks. The charge of monopoly, or potential monopoly, in so far as radio is concerned, does not hold true. It adds up to the fact that somebody has not thought the problem through or checked the facts very carefully.
I think the government's policy of retaining the main television stations in this country is a sound one. If we establish television stations in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Halifax, Vancouver, Winnipeg and Calgary, being the main projected stations, in my opinion that will be sound. It is only reasonable to suppose that the basic stations in this country will be built in large centres of population, though I am not unmindful of the fact that there is a broad field for private operators, just as there was in the development of radio. I do not suppose, for example, that Newfoundland will get television for a long time. I think that in that end of the country television will develop as the C.B.C. did. For example, in Cape Breton and in Newfoundland we had private stations for 20 years before the C.B.C. came into that area.
The proposal to establish a main station at Halifax, which is 360 miles west of Cape Breton island-and Newfoundland is about 90 miles further-is going to have the result of delaying television in that part of the country for a long time unless the private operators enter the picture in those sparsely


settled sections. The servicing of those areas is not economic at this time under the regulations laid down for the setting up of the basic stations. I was glad to hear the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) or the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), I am not sure which, announce that an application for a private station had been made by CJCB at Sydney. This station will develop television in that part of the country. I believe that station will be well equipped, perhaps as well equipped as the C.B.C. stations. In that way Newfoundland might get television across the 90 miles of water from Sydney.
I assume that some private stations will be established in the area between Halifax and Sydney to carry the regular programs from the main station at Halifax to Sydney and across to Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. I believe the attitude that the whole development should be exclusively in the hands of the C.B.C. and under government control is unrealistic when you think of the great spaces and concentration of population that you have in the centres where the government is establishing stations at this time. Someone has to serve the outlying sections. If the pattern developed by the C.B.C. in connection with radio, which I think was a very realistic one, is followed in television there is some assurance that while the government is doing the job in the main centres, the private stations will be doing the same kind of job in the fields that are less lucrative at this time.
There is just one observation I should like to make now, and that concerns the 15 per cent that is being charged on television receiving sets to replace the old radio licence fee. I am thinking now of the sections that will be developed by the private stations. I feel that it is unreasonable to put a 15 per cent tax on television sets in those areas which are not going to be served by the C.B.C., because the private stations will not receive any benefit from that.


James Joseph McCann: The C.B.C. will be supplying programs to all those private stations.


Clarence Gillis: I hope they will; but as I pointed out a moment ago the distances in my own section-I took that as an example because I am familiar with the geography there-will cause long delays before Halifax will be able to send programs through to Cape Breton, 360 miles away. There will be a period of some years during which we are going to have to pay a tax of 15 per cent on television sets, and that revenue will go to the organization that does not give us any service. That is something that can be considered, and perhaps some modification can

be made by way of exempting areas which do not receive any service from this organization.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is about all I want to say. With reference to C.B.C. policy, I want to say that while I agree with what they are doing, and the job they are doing in developing radio as well as the job I expect they will do in developing television, there is one part of their policy that can be criticized. When the Canadian Congress of Labour visited the cabinet here on March 6 they made strong representations concerning the C.B.C.'s approach to labour relations. When a number of the C.B.C. employees were seeking, through legitimate channels, the right of collective bargaining as set down in the national labour code, there was some intimidation and interference by management.
I think that is a bad policy for an organization that has to come to the government for appropriations, and which depends upon the taxpayers for financing. It should have the good will of all members in this house. It is not a big problem. I believe government or crown companies should be the first to show the way to the average industrialist who may be a bit selfish. I think it is a bad policy for the C.B.C. to do anything in a public way that would cause the Canadian Congress of Labour to offer criticism on the matter of their labour relations.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) made a very heated appeal to the government for the establishment of a television station in Saskatchewan. He pointed out that that province, jammed in between Manitoba and Alberta, would not get a basic television station. I know that results in discrimination in many ways. If there were a basic station established immediately in each province, it would create a demand for television sets. You see, the merchant in Saskatchewan is being discriminated against in that he cannot sell television sets because there will be no television. I think he had a legitimate complaint, because all the television sets will be sold in Alberta and Manitoba.
While the hon. member was speaking, it struck me that perhaps the province of Saskatchewan may do something about that. There is a government in power in that province which believes in the policies laid down by the C.B.C., and there is no doubt in my mind but that they would go along with the policy now being pursued with regard to television. If this government cannot see its way clear to establishing a station in Regina, Prince Albert or some other central spot, could the provincial government of Saskatchewan obtain a franchise to set up a station
20, 1953
Special Committee on Broadcasting and operate it? Perhaps that is a way out. It would remove the discrimination against the merchants in the matter of selling television sets, at a time when there is going to be an increased demand for television sets in other provinces in this country.


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: I wish to say a few words about this resolution. I was prepared to add something to the debate last Wednesday, when I intended to make some extended remarks. I know the government is in a hurry to establish this committee, so I shall be rather brief today.
This important resolution should have been proceeded with two months ago, when it came up on January 27. Then it was sidetracked until March 17. Even at that date I am sure it would have gone through in a very short time had it not been for the speech of the Minister of Transport. I am sorry he is not present today. He carried the question so far afield when he spoke on behalf of the government that it looked like a real red-hot political appeal and campaign propaganda. That speech on that occasion aroused such antagonism across the house and all sides that the debate continued, and that is the reason why the passing of this resolution has been delayed and the committee has not been set up. That delay in the setting up of the committee is wholly accounted for by the actions of the government itself.
When I rose the other night to make a few remarks someone called out: "Why cause a delay?" Before I make my main remarks may I say that there is no delay caused by the opposition. The whole delay in the setting up of this committee rests entirely upon the government itself.


Robert Henry Winters: How many speakers did you have?


Mr. McLure:: No one can dispute that fact, after listening to the speech made by the Minister of Transport a few days ago.


Mr. Sinnott:: You kept interrupting him.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I wish that hon. gentleman would keep quiet or else speak loud enough so I can hear him. He is just growling.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You heard it all right.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: He did not say anything, anyway.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: He is silent now, is he?
I want to refer to a few of the remarks that the Minister of Transport made. He started out with a very fine lecture on how the union of Canada was obtained. He took first of all the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I intended to elaborate on

Special Committee on Broadcasting this, as he has done, by referring to history, but I am not going to subject the house to these long remarks. However, I do wish to make a few remarks on one of the points that the minister mentioned, namely, the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway. If the real history of that project is looked into carefully it will be found that credit for it must go to some far-seeing men of British Columbia. That great railway was to link the Atlantic with the Pacific. There was considerable opposition to it. Several reasons were advanced why the railway could not be built on Canadian soil from coast to coast. When British Columbia learned this they had not completed their contract of union with the Dominion of Canada, and they said: "We will not complete our contract until the Canadian Pacific Railway is built, and built on Canadian soil to reach Vancouver." Instead of making a detour through the United States to get into Vancouver the road was built on allCanadian soil. Therefore I say that the far-seeing minds of some of the people of British Columbia of that time deserve all the credit, instead of giving it to anyone else, for the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway on all-Canadian soil through to Vancouver.
I will not deal with other matters taken up by the Minister of Transport but I shall mention one point that he dealt with with regard to union. It was very pleasant to me and I am sure to others to hear mention made of a number of outstanding Canadians who had a great deal to do with issues leading up to radio and television. The Minister of Transport referred to some of them while he was speaking, and as he always does, he said they belonged to the Tory party. He also used the words "Conservative party". I was very glad to hear the names of such men as Sir John A. Macdonald, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, Viscount R. B. Bennett and Sir R. L. Borden. He could have gone a little farther and mentioned some other names in this connection, but their names have been left off Hansard and perhaps I shall leave them to their record.
I listened to and afterwards read the speech of the Minister of Transport, and I must say this: If that speech was the voice of the government, all I can say is that I cannot realize that the Liberal party has sunk so low in its political propaganda as to acknowledge it as being the voice of the Liberal party. Some of the remarks were admirably described by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) in his speech of March 17, as reported at page 3013 of Hansard, when he said:
That is the most shocking kind of demagogic claptrap.
[Mr. McLure.l
I wish the minister were here. It is unfortunate that a speech of that kind should be made just at the time when we are nearing an election, because it brings up a racial issue that is not so evident as one would think on reading the speech of the hon. gentleman. However, that is all I will say with regard to this at the present time.
I am not a member of the committee, but I was a member of the committee in 1932.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The minister is here now.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Growling again; say it louder.


James Joseph McCann: He heard you.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I am glad he came in. The unfortunate part of this debate is the very strong words that have been used against private interests. That is something that should be dealt with by someone. In our province of Prince Edward Island we have a number of private enterprises that are good concerns. We have three outstanding ones, namely, the Maritime Central Airways, the CFCY Radio Company, and, in the field of transportation again, the Northumberland Ferries Limited. In some of the speeches made with reference to private enterprise very strong remarks were made. I understood the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) to say that the business activities of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters were subversive of the interests of the Canadian nation. The hon. member for Spa-dina (Mr. Croll), as reported at page 3021 of Hansard, and speaking in support of the government, said, with respect to the observations of the hon, member for Rosetown-Biggar:
In the main I share his views, and I hope they will prevail.
This condemnation of private enterprise in radio has brought forth protests. Members are receiving them every day-protests saying that those who are operating private radio broadcasting stations have been slandered by the speeches made in this debate.
And this brings me to the situation in respect of radio in my own province. As hon. members know, we are served by radio station CFCY, which is known throughout Canada as the "Friendly Voice of the Mari-times". This radio station is one of the best examples to be found anywhere of true private enterprise and public service. It is owned and operated by the Island Radio Broadcasting Company. The station not only gives a service to Prince Edward Island, but also has the largest coverage in the maritime provinces of any radio station.
I would hope that those hon. members who have used such harsh language when refer-

ring to private enterprise in radio will be men enough either to withdraw or to modify their remarks at the earliest opportunity. Station CFCY has operated as an independent radio station for 33 years, and has given a first-class service not only to Prince Edward Island but to the maritime provinces. The company operating the station has developed some of its own programs, one of which, the Merry Islanders, will be known to many hon. members. This program, which is broadcast across Canada, has been the production of that private company; and it has several more to its credit.
During its 33 years of operation station CFCY has spent its own money. It has never received in all that time one single nickel from public funds. Right at this moment they are investigating and doing their own research work in regard to the television which undoubtedly will come to the maritime provinces, and to Prince Edward Island as well.
I have nothing further to say at this time.
I am pleased to see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) back in his seat. As I said earlier, I thought his speech on March 17 -and I say this with the respect I always have for him-was one which I had not believed a man in his normal senses would make, and one which was most detrimental in times such as these, when across Canada we are trying to live in peace and harmony.
I thank the house for this opportunity to say a few words with respect to station CFCY.


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker,
I can assure you my remarks will be brief.
I sat here the other day and listened to the speech by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). Since that time in this chamber I have heard from the official opposition on many occasions the statement that, had it not been for the minister's speech, this matter would now be placed before the committee.
It would seem to me that the official opposition have made up their minds that this is a debating society with only one team, and they would appear to hold the view that when anyone on the government side of the house mentions government policy he is held responsible for the holding up of proceedings of the house.


An hon. Member:: What are you doing now?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am talking, and I wish you would keep quiet until I am through. It is only a short time ago when, sitting where I sit now, I heard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) taken to task because he would not make a statement in the house. If ever there was a problem in the House
20, 1953
Special Committee on Broadcasting of Commons, then it is the problem today of trying to please the official opposition.
When the senior member for Queens (Mr. McLure) rose to speak today his first statement was that the speech by the Minister of Transport was a real, red-hot political campaign speech. Well, I have been listening to those since last November; if ever I saw an election campaign fought in the House of Commons, it has been fought here since last November.


Robert Henry Winters: By the official opposition.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: By the official opposition. And if they think government members will sit in their seats and let this be a one-sided debate, with no contradiction from government members, then they are making a big mistake.
I believe the speech made by the Minister of Transport must have hurt the official opposition just a little bit. They were told the truth, and they did not seem willing to accept it. I can assure members of the official opposition that no one in the Liberal party was embarrassed by what the minister said.
I can assure the official opposition that from now until the time the session closes this will not be a one-sided debate. And if they have any idea that this is a debating society with only one team, then they will have to change their minds before the end of the session.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, before the minister speaks I wish to correct two statements that have been made with respect to broadcasting. The first was made by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) when he said that private stations would not give time for the expression of opinions which were not their own or, presumably, not those of capital.
Let me say this, that if there was one station that gave time to the communist party in this country, it was station CKEY in Toronto owned by Jack Kent Cooke, who owns newspapers and a baseball team, who is certainly a capitalist, and one whose opinions would be farther from the ideologies of the Labour-Progressive party than any other man I can think of in Canada. Yet he considered it a public service to allow them to use his radio station.
I understand that, because of the many complaints about his allowing the vehicle of his radio station to be used by interests with which he so violently disagreed, they have now been stopped from broadcasting. But that is only because of the protests that were received. When anybody says that a private station will not be host to opinions
3154	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting which are not their own, I give him the direct lie and say that that is not so.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) gave an exhibition of a well-fed sea gull flying away when he spoke last St. Patrick's day on the question of radio. His remarks have been dealt with adequately iby other speakers on this side and I shall not delay the house any further in that connection.
There is one thing in connection with television that I wish to bring to the attention of the house. In the Toronto area the great majority of television users are tuned in or videoed in, or whatever expression it is, to the Buffalo station. The area between Toronto and Hamilton is to be blocked out from receiving the Hamilton station because the C.B.C. Toronto station is to have .a monopoly. I disagree most strenuously with that policy. Incidentally, I do not have a television set, but I live in the area and I think this is just another example of the dictatorial methods adopted by the C.B.C. to make a competitive station beam its waves away from an area served by the C.B.C.
With regard to the policy of having only one station in the community, I understand that television channels, while more limited than radio channels, are able to extend only a short distance. A television station in one centre will not interfere with a television station in a centre 500 miles away. With a single television station in the Toronto area the people there will be precluded from viewing any other station but the United States stations. In other words, the people in Toronto who do not wish to view CBLT will be driven to viewing United States stations. I think that is faulty reasoning; I think that is faulty policy and I suggest it should be considered by the committee.
A number of universities in the United States have established television stations and they have been found to be of great value both to the university and to the community. Despite the fact that there may be stations owned by private companies or by the chains, the university stations have proved to be of great value. Should the University of Toronto wish to establish a television station it would be precluded from doing so under the regulations. I feel that that is a defect in the policy.
That is really all I wanted to say as I do not wish to hold up the debate any longer.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) to be a little more specfic when replying as to the C.B.C.'s television program, construction program and 

installation program for Saskatchewan. It has already been stated that Saskatchewan is not on the program. We are a province in Canada and naturally we would like to have television as quickly as possible. I am sure that the people of Saskatchewan are reasonable. We know that our population is such that it does not warrant our having priority over other more populous centres in Canada, but I think it is fair to ask the minister what the C.B.C. has in mind for Saskatchewan; where a station may be located, and when such station can be expected to be constructed.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, it is almost five o'clock and the time for private bills and it will be readily understood that ordinarily I could not make any extended remarks. Perhaps I could have unanimous consent to be given five minutes so that I can say something with reference to the matters that have been brought up in the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Joseph McCann: This has been a most interesting and informative discussion although it has taken longer than we anticipated. There may be some good reasons for that and I do not think that it has been time lost. My understanding of setting up a committee to do the work of parliament is that it will expedite the business of the house, but that has not proved to be so in this instance.
The discussion has ranged over a good deal of territory and has been participated in by members of all parties on all sides of the house. We know where we stand; we know where the different members of the different parties stand with respect to the C.B.C. and broadcasting in general. I am glad that that particular stand has been taken. If one were to attempt to answer all the matters which have been raised it would take much longer than the time I have at my disposal.
The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) was concerned about the fee for radio sets and the manner in which television was going to be financed. Those two matters were cleared up pretty well by the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in his budget speech. Both these matters have given us considerable concern. The hon. member for Eglinton has brought them to the attention of the government on a number of occasions and we have had them in mind for this past year. As we were approaching the

end of March when licences were renewable, we considered that that would be the proper time to take this action.
I have pointed out on other occasions that the development of television in this country is very expensive. Although we have been criticized by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) for not going faster, I have no apology to make for having counselled the C.B.C. to go slowly in this development.
The excise tax on television receiving sets should help to finance this organization for the next few years. There are something like 200,000 sets now in Canada and even on a conservative estimate it is expected that the payment of excise taxes over the next few years at the rate of 15 per cent on the sets to be produced will bring in considerable revenue. At this time at least the average television set costs about $200 in the manufacturer's hands. Fifteen per cent of that is $30. I am told by people in the electronics industry that a set will use one tube a year. These tubes cost approximately $63 and the tax on that will be fifteen times six or approximately another $9. Therefore all told, when a person starts out and wants to be a television viewer, he will contribute to the national treasury something like $39 or $40.
I have figured out that that is equivalent to paying a licence fee of $15 in advance for two and a half or three years. Therefore I think that answers the question of the hon. member for Eglinton.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) referred to his own particular community when he expressed doubt about the fairness of the excise tax being payable on receiving sets that would be used in his community because of the fact that he thought that the people there would have no C.B.C. service. They will have C.B.C. service because part of the program is that by recordings what we call sustaining programs will go to the private stations. He took it for granted that there would be a private station in that locality.
With reference to the hon. member who has just spoken about the policy in Saskatchewan, that is a matter concerning which I am not prepared to give him a definite answer at the moment, but it can be brought up in the committee when the officials of the corporation will be present and I am sure they will give him the correct answer.
I was particularly interested in the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). He went back a long way and quoted in part from Hansard of May 18, 1932, at which time the Hon. Mr. Bennett, then prime minister, moved second reading of
20, 1953
Special Committee on Broadcasting Bill 94 respecting radio broadcasting. Of course it is his right, if he so wishes, to quote whatever parts of a debate he chooses to quote, but I should like to point out that on that occasion, as found at page 3035 of Hansard, Mr. Bennett used these words:
Private ownership must necessarily discriminate between densely and sparsely populated areas.
I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he would have given a much clearer picture to the house of the history of the development of radio if he had gone back a little further in the debate, which I intend to do for the purpose of pointing out briefly the reasons that were given by Mr. Bennett for having the set-up that we have today. At page 3035 Mr. Bennett said:
First of all, this country must be assured of complete Canadian control of broadcasting from Canadian sources, free from foreign interference or influence.
That is exactly what we have been contending. Then he goes on to say:
But it seems to me clear-


Mr. Drew:: Was that why you installed the microwave relay to Buffalo?


James Joseph McCann: I will deal with that later. Mr. Bennett went on to say:
But it seems to me clear that in Canada the system we can most profitably employ is one which, in operation and control, responds most directly to the popular will and the national need. In this stage of our national development we have problems peculiar to ourselves and we must reach a solution of them through the employment of all available means. The radio has a place in the solution of all those problems. It becomes, then, the duty of parliament to safeguard it in such a way that its fullest benefits may be assured to the people as a whole.
Then he goes on to give his second reason:
Secondly, no other scheme than that of public ownership can ensure to the people of this country, without regard to class or place, equal enjoyment of the benefits and pleasures of radio broadcasting.
Then he went on to say, as was quoted by the Leader of the Opposition:
Equality of service is assured by the plan which calls for a chain of high power stations throughout Canada. And furthermore, the particular requirements of any community may be met by the installation of low power stations by means of which local broadcasting service may be obtained.
That reason was definitely outlined at that time. Then he went on to give his third reason and said, as found at page 3036:
Then there is a third reason to which I might refer, and one which I believe must commend itself to every hon. member in this chamber. The use of the air, or the air itself, whatever you may please to call it, that lies over the soil or land of Canada is a natural resource over which we have complete jurisdiction under the recent decision of the privy council. I believe that there is no government in Canada that does not regret today that

Special Committee on Broadcasting it has parted with some of these natural resources for considerations wholly inadequate and on terms that do not reflect the principle under which the crown holds the natural resources in trust for all the people. In view of these circumstances and of the further fact that broadcasting is a science that is only yet in its infancy and about which we know little yet, I cannot think that any government would be warranted in leaving the air to private exploitation and not reserving it for development for the use of the people ... I think, Mr. Speaker, that that is a third and adequate reason why we should proceed with the bill.
I think it might be interesting to the house to get a little bit of the background. In 1928 the Aird commission was set up and they laid down the principles on which policies could be made by any government thereafter with reference to radio broadcasting. They made their report on the 11th of September, 1929, to the Hon. Mr. Cardin, who was then minister of transport. Let us recall what took place. The report was presented. In 1930 the parliament was dissolved, an election was held, and Mr. Bennett came into power. It was not until two years later that he implemented the recommendations of the Aird report and set up the Canadian radio broadcasting commission. At that time the recommendations of the Aird commission report were followed. Yet we on this side of the house are criticized because we have followed the recommendations of the Massey commission, which presented its report not very long ago.
After Mr. Bennett had finished his speech in 1932 Mr. Lapointe spoke, and I want to quote part of what he said to show the consistency of the position of the Liberal party. On that occasion he said, as found at page 3036 of Hansard for May 18:
I just wish to endorse the views expressed by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and to say that I am in full accord with the principle embodied in this bill. I have been supporting this principle from the first, more particularly after the work of the Aird commission, but I knew the difficulties in the way and the strength of the propaganda carried on to prevent the work of that commission from having the results which we witness today.
I am pleased with the work which was done by the committee which has been studying this question, and I congratulate the members of that committee on the excellent work which they did. I congratulate the house upon having this bill introduced at the present session, and I congratulate the people of Canada on the principle which is represented in the bill.
The leader of the C.C.F. party at that time, Mr. Woodsworth, said, as found at page 3037 of Hansard for the same date:
I should like to associate myself with the last speaker in congratulating the Prime Minister on his promptness in bringing down this bill to implement the report which has been unanimously adopted. May I further express my own very great appreciation of the admirable statement which the Prime Minister has made.


I quote these remarks, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that the Liberal party and the C.C.F. party have consistently supported the policies and the principles that were laid down at that time, and do so today. What has been the policy of the Tory party in the last fifteen or sixteen years? Under Manion, under Hanson, under the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), under Bracken and under the present Leader of the Opposition they have vacillated from year to year. The other day in the speech which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) made, he wants to get back on the bandwagon-because he believes in public support in this country for the publicly-owned, publicly-operated and publicly-controlled broadcasting system; but he is only half-way on the bandwagon, hanging on. He is for public support of radio broadcasting but not for public support of television. That is the stand which he has taken. He wants to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.
Until he spoke on March 18 we had not had an open declaration of the policy of the Conservative party in reference to this great public utility.
I am not going to take time to go as deeply into this as I might, but I want to put on the record part of an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal, which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered a paper which is favourable to the Liberal party. It has been the chief standby of the Conservative party in this district during my lifetime. Here is an editorial which should open the eyes of the leader of the Tory party. It is headed "No private rights to the air".
The Journal always has taken the position that there must be strict control by the public, which of course means control by an agency of the dominion government, over radio broadcasting in Canada. Exactly the same arguments apply-more so indeed-in the case of television.
The Journal believes it would be a grave blunder, and in fact irretrievable, to let TV escape into private hands for private exploitation and private profit.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier)- ... in the Commons, spoke of Canada's traditional policy in radio matters as "based on the coordinated efforts of public and private enterprise", and to that statement we take no exception. But the private element in the effort must not be permitted to acquire any inalienable right to use of the air channels and the air waves for its own purposes-there must be always the overriding authority of the public interest.
In the field of radio broadcasting there are large numbers of stations privately owned and operated, but they are subject to general regulation by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and they cannot acquire, by usage or use, any vested right to a place in the air. That is as it should be. It is only by constant vigilance, and resistance to the plausible importunities of private broadcasting

interests, that this position has been maintained. Time after time the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has returned to the assault, bent on depriving C.B.C. of its statutory rights-always so far it has been defeated. They have in recent years been demanding television rights.
Television today, at least in Canada, is in the stage of trial and experiment, and nobody knows quite what it will become. Already millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money have been spent, and many more millions will go into the enterprise before it is established on any secure and national basis.
Enthusiasts contend that TV will revolutionize our way of life, and change our social picture as drastically as the automobile has altered it. Others recall that a few years ago just such things were being said about radio-and that nothing much has happened. It is clear, however, between these conflicting views, that television must be developed in this country with care and restraint, taking advantage of such lessons as we can learn from TV in Britain and the United States, taking the best of both systems and avoiding, if we can, the worst features of both.
Our task will be simplified if we refuse flatly to let private interests get a foot in the television door-especially at this stage. A time may come, the uncertainties of today reduced, and a fluid situation become stable, when we shall want to see TV shared between public and private stations -as radio is shared-but always with public control beyond question. That time is not yet visible. But today and always, in television as in radio, the public interest must be the governing factor.
I could go -on, Mr. Speaker, and give lots of press notices and lots of public opinion with reference to how the C.B.C. should be handled. This is an important transitional point in the development of both sound broadcasting and television, but more particularly the latter.
I infer from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition that he makes this more or less a political issue. We welcome it as a political issue because we know where the public of this country stands. When he is talking for private interests in television, what does he in effect say? He says that the few hundred who wish to engage in television shall get into the cities and get the commercial advertising and have the gravy; and you, the rest of Canada, the 99 per cent, shall pay the shot.
That is his policy and if he wants to make that a political issue in the not too far distant future-well, he had better review it, because I am sure that the heat of the summer is going to sweat a lot of the water out of that particular policy.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a question of
privilege-


Mr. Chevrier:: There is no privilege there.


George Alexander Drew: I simply wish to state, so that
the record may not be distorted-


Lionel Chevrier: Who wants to hear you?
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited


George Alexander Drew: I simply want to say that at
no time was such a policy enunciated. The minister is just as far away now as when he-


James Joseph McCann: You are about as accurate now as you were the other day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: As it is after five o'clock the house will consider public and private bills.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Larson for the second reading of Bill No. 189, to incorporate Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited.
Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, I have not before taken part in any discussion of a pipe-line bill because I considered it purely a matter concerning the west or, at any rate, a matter on which I was not familiar or competent to speak. However, the question of pipe lines has now become one which has a tremendous effect on the whole Canadian economy. As one who is interested in mining I do not feel that I can allow this bill to pass without saying something about it.
The Canadian economy is divided geographically by three main north and south barriers. One is in the maritimes, roughly New Brunswick and the Gaspe peninsula, which separate Nova Scotia from the industrial lower St. Lawrence and Montreal. The next is the great Canadian shield which comes down on the barren shores of lake Superior and which, up to now, has been one of the great obstacles of trade between the east and west of Canada. It is nearly 1,000 miles across and its potential wealth is only just now being understood. The third north and south barrier is, of course, the Rocky mountains.
The first barrier is being filled in by the new ore discoveries in New Brunswick and the very large copper deposits on the Gaspe peninsula. The Rocky mountains are also benefiting by a tremendous boom in Alberta and, despite the physical obstacle, their terror is being lessened. Northern Ontario, with its small settlements, still remains the major gulf separating the east and the west. It is an area about which we have a primary duty to do something.
Now, this barrier is, we think and we hope, minerally rich but deficient in fuel. I want to say something in this connection about electricity and gas. While electricity is

' Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited a primary source of power it is not, except in special circumstances, an economic source of heat because it is more useful as a source of power. Canada has a policy with regard to the export of electricity. Electricity has only been exported under licence, and great restrictions have been imposed upon its exportation. I think that is wise, because once electricity is exported and the continuous flow of electricity across an international border has been established it is almost impossible to stop it. The experience of the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario is a case in point.
I feel that if we once export natural gas we may find that natural gas would suffer a fate similar to that of electricity. In other words, dependent industries will be built up, and it will be impossible to stop the flow of gas once export has been started. I would, therefore, certainly be very careful in granting any right to export natural gas. There may be special circumstances. There may be areas which are gas deficient, and it may be possible to work out a quid pro quo with the United States. However, our dealings in this regard have not been very successful in the past. Consequently I would hesitate to approve any bill which sought the exportation of natural gas when we have an area in northern Ontario which is so deficient in fuel.
The situation in the northern United States-I am a small shareholder in a gas utility company operating in the United States and this is what the directors say-is one in which they look forward to a tremendous expansion in the development of industry through the enlargement of the natural gas flow from Texas and the midcontinent field. If we export our gas into this market, surely they are going to increase their industries and their economy through the use of what must be, in my opinion, a basic Canadian raw material. I know that is so from the reports I get from companies in which I have a small interest. Let us, therefore, be very careful about what we do with this asset.
It has been said that it will be more expensive to send gas across northern Ontario than it would be if we could possibly work out a quid pro quo with the United States. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the working out of any agreement such as that with the United States is virtually an impossibility. We have spent nearly 50 years trying to work out an agreement with regard to the St. Lawrence deep waterway. Are we any more likely to work out an agreement on a basic matter of energy, and do we expect that we could do it in a short period of

time? I do not believe that this house would be justified in thinking that we could.
I come now to the potentialities of northern Ontario. I have said that northern Ontario remains the great barrier, and the desolation of northern Ontario is the great geographical barrier to our whole national development. To what can we look forward in northern Ontario? Today it is virtually a wilderness, but it is a wilderness largely because it is deficient in fuel. Mineral deposits have been discovered, and one was discovered just a month or so ago at a place called Emo which is about 20 miles west of Fort Frances. This is right in the area where the development of minerals is needed. This is a nickel and possibly copper- although that I do not know-deposit. So far big widths of sulphides have been discovered. Over 10 feet of massive pyrrhotite was found in one drill hole. May I say that sulphides are the host ore of both nickel and copper. The companies interested are the major companies in Canada, Noranda, Falconbridge, Ventures, Prospectors, Airways and many others.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the development of sulphide ore can be attained with the use of natural gas in the smelting operation. It is most important that if we are to develop an area such as Emo, which has only recently been discovered, there must be some form of cheap fuel and it must be there constantly and in great volume. I mention Emo just as an example of what can be done if we have cheap fuel in northwestern Ontario. Emo may remain a moose pasture or it may become a prosperous community. Natural gas could be the deciding factor.
I turn now to Steep Rock. Unfortunately, natural gas cannot be used, so far as I know, in steel making. Coke and coal are needed for the smelting of iron. A chemical process is one in which natural gas cannot do the essential job of reduction. It requires a carbon dioxide gas and some method by which the oxygen can be separated from the ore. I mention that because it is one of the great problems of research in this country to find out some way in which natural gas could be used in the steel process. As I say, I am not a steel man, and I am not a chemist, but it seems to me that is one of the problems on which a great deal of active research needs to be done.
I now come to Sudbury. Here the greatest benefit of all for mining is likely to take place. Nickel ore can be economically reduced by a process entailing the use of natural gas as a fuel, or at least that is the opinion of the experts of the Sherritt-Gordon mine and of the people who are

building the great petrochemical industry in Alberta, particularly at Fort Saskatchewan, who are going to use the Lynn Lake nickel ore for treatment by natural gas. The Sudbury basin, the north rim of which is just now coming into its own, has the possibility of adding to the known great mineral store; one of the great assets of the free world an unknown but incredible increase in ore reserves. Can we as Canadians do anything else except see that that natural Canadian fuel gets taken to this tremendous mineral storehouse? Even if it costs more to bring it there, Mr. Speaker, can we deny the development of this district the use of this natural fuel? In my opinion it would be almost treason to do so. Here again, as I have said, the chemical process, the reduction and leaching processes are new. The cost of reduction, the costs of bringing out the metal are not known, but the best opinion, the best engineering opinion and the best chemical opinion in Canada is that it will tremendously aid in the refining and production of nickel. In my opinion we cannot allow this fuel to bypass the Sudbury area.
I now come to Toronto. The Toronto market for gas at the present moment is comparatively small. It is small because of the high cost of gas made from coal, artificial gas. The cost of gas in Toronto to the consumer is, I understand, $1.60 per thousand cubic feet; but the other disadvantage is that artificial gas has a heating value of only 450 B.T.U.'s; whereas natural gas has a heating value of 1,000 B.T.U.'s. Natural gas could be brought to Toronto for approximately $1 per thousand cubic feet. The Toronto market, as I say, must be developed, and it can only be developed by natural gas. At the present time the Union Gas Company, and I gather one of the subsidiaries of the Imperial Oil, are providing Toronto with part of its gas; but the Union Gas Company has very limited or comparatively limited reserves. To build up the Toronto market by taking the Union Gas Company's reserves would be to deplete the assets of that company and would be an unfair thing to ask it to do. Therefore the gas market in Toronto cannot be built up unless there is a definite promise that an adequate supply of natural gas will be available to that metropolis. The only way that an adequate supply of natural gas can be made available to that city and the whole surrounding area is by an all-Canadian pipe line of quite considerable size running from the gas and oil fields of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
I want to emphasize one thing more about the Toronto market. When I say "the
20, 1953	3159
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited Toronto market" I mean the metropolitan market of Toronto, Hamilton and Oshawa, that whole industrial area. It is likely that once the St. Lawrence deep waterway is completed we can expect a population of five million people living in the industrial area between Oshawa and Hamilton, a distance of about 60 miles. I have never seen any place in the world where an industrial expansion looked so promising as it does in that area at the present time. The Delaware basin from the sea past Philadelphia to the new huge U.S. Steel mill at Trenton and the area around Toronto and Hamilton, if the latter is given cheap water transportation and cheap fuel, can duplicate each other in a comparatively few years. However, the Toronto market is just one.
It is essential that this gas, this national Canadian asset, must also be used by the province of Quebec, the metropolis of Montreal, and also, Mr. Speaker, by the base metal producers in that province who would also benefit, because of the fact that their sulphide ore can be treated by the use of natural gas for their smelting and refining processes. The problem is one which cannot wait much longer. We have the natural barrier of northern Ontario. We have to fill up that area; and the only way we can fill it up is by developing a large and prosperous mining industry. The potential has already been shown to us. We have the huge nickel belt at Sudbury crying out for an adequate supply of cheap fuel for smelting purposes. We have the Toronto-Hamilton-Oshawa market with a potential of some five million people waiting to develop their industries through the use of natural gas. We have the Quebec smelters, and we have the great port and metropolis of Montreal.
On the face of that can we, Mr. Speaker, countenance the export and the loss of this great natural asset? I do not think we can. And I would hope that the policy in developing or granting charters to pipe-line companies for the transmission of natural gas would be such that it would not grant permission for the export of gas.
I realize there are certain places in the United States that are gas-deficient and power-deficient-and I am thinking of parts of the state of Washington and of Oregon. I think, too, of the heavy water plant either in the state of Washington or in the state of Idaho, I am not sure which.
But that is not the problem which arises under this bill. As I said, it is a technical problem I am not fully competent to discuss. However, I do suggest to the house that, like electricity, natural gas belongs here to fuel

Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited the furnaces and provide the smelting facilities of our great base metals industry. It is needed to fill in the blanks on the map of Canada. It is needed in northern Ontario which some day, we hope, will be industrialized through the development of its mineral riches. It is needed for industrial use in the great and growing metropolises which, just as sure as night follows day, will come, once the St. Lawrence deep waterway is built, and our great lakes ports become tidewater ports.
I would be almost a traitor to this country if I did not see to it in every way I can that Canadian natural gas is used in Canada. I realize that today in Alberta wells have been drilled and capped. Well after well is sitting there idle, the gas not being used; and I understand that in many cases even the oil is not being used because, while the potential production is there, the market has not been developed.
The challenge to us today is to see to it that the market is developed, that the gas is allowed to flow-and that it is allowed to flow for the use of Canadians.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) a week or so ago in this debate perhaps it is not now as urgent as it might otherwise have been to require from the sponsors of the bill now before us the definite assurance for which those of us who have stood for the principle of Canada first have always asked, before we have been willing to let bills of this kind pass, namely the assurance that the main line for the transportation of gas would be built through Canada before crossing into the United States. We have also asked for the assurance that Canadian needs, wherever they might exist and wherever they might be served potentially by the gas transported in the pipe line, would be served, before any export was permitted to the United States.
Nevertheless, while the Minister of Trade and Commerce has now enunciated clearly the policy that he will not grant a permit for the export of natural gas which comes to the east until the needs of eastern Canada are met, I still think there are certain things that should be drawn to the attention of the house in connection with the bill, and there are certain assurances we should still ask from the sponsors of the bill before it is allowed to .pass.
I submit to you, sir, that the position of British Columbia members as related to this bill is as vitally affected as in connection with earlier bills before the house which had for their purpose the incorporation of IMr. Adamson.]

companies to transmit natural gas from the Alberta fields to the Pacific -coast. As I shall show a little later in my remarks, I believe there is a real danger that if the gas from the Alberta wells which is moved eastward by way of pipe lines, instead of going to Ontario and Quebec, is diverted to supply the American market at Chicago, Minneapolis or some other point in that area, not only will Ontario and Quebec be deprived of any supply of gas, but the interior portion of British Columbia will find itself in a similar position and, as a result, will never have a supply of Canadian natural gas.
I suggest to you, sir, that the interests of British Columbia members, like those of most hon. members, are not only bound up in the broad general principle of Canada first, for which those of us in this party have never hesitated to fight, but are also immediately concerned with the welfare and the economy of our own province.
Before developing that argument however I should like to make it clear that, in respect of this matter of the eastward movement of gas, the party to which I have the honour to belong takes the same position it has taken throughout the years, the same -position it has taken since the incorporation of gas and oil pipe line companies came before the house in 1949. Our position is that parliament must ensure that the Canada first policy is pursued, so that the needs of Canada will first be served. If I may say so without offence, even although I think he may not altogether welcome the compliment, I am glad to be able to record the conversion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to that policy.


Mr. Howe:: That has been government policy since 1907.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is not the policy which the minister has enunciated on one or two earlier occasions when we were discussing the incorporation of pipe-line companies.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is absolutely untrue.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the minister challenges that statement I shall quote later from what he said on those earlier occasions. While we think that all hon. members should take the position of Canada first, I think the interest of British Columbia members in this measure is the same as their interest in the measures which we previously had before us to incorporate the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited, the Alberta Natural Gas Company and the Prairie Transmission Lines Limited.
In those cases we tried to ensure that before Alberta gas moving westward went into the United States it should go through Canada-in those instances the portion of

Canada affected was British Columbia-and we take the same position here. Perhaps I should complete the picture by reminding you that we have been successful. It appears now that the only company which is going to get a permit to export Alberta gas to the Pacific -coast is the Westcoast Transmission Company which is going to build its line through British Columbia to serve the southern interior of that province before reaching Vancouver, and then if its present application to Washington is successful it will proceed into the United States to serve the Pacific northwestern states of Washington and Oregon.
Here we have an extension or, if you like, a counterpart of that policy. I think that, as a measure of gratitude for the co-operation a few eastern members gave to British Columbia in that connection, we are bound to take the same position with regard to the bill before us and insist that Alberta gas moving east should serve Canadian needs before being exported to the United States.
So that there may be no misunderstanding, let me reiterate that the policy of this party is not and never has been a Canada only policy. In other words, this party would not deny the export of surplus gas or oil to the United States. That has never been and is not now the policy of this party. The policy rather is that Canadian needs must be served first before the surplus, if any, is exported beyond our borders.
In this connection I must confess that I found the position of the Social Credit party as enunciated by their leader in this house a little difficult to understand. I must say also that I found their position, during the earlier controversies when we were fighting in connection with the westward movement of gas on the basis that Canada should be served first before the line entered the United States, a little difficult to understand.
If I understood him aright when he spoke on Friday night, the leader of the Social Credit party in this house put forward the proposition that as long as the gas eventually reached Toronto or the main industrial area of Ontario it made no difference whether the line went northward around^he north shore of lake Superior or southward through the United States and then back into Canada.


Solon Earl Low: I imagine the hon. member for
Kamloops would like to know exactly what our position is so that there can be no misunderstanding. I meant to convey this: If an Ontario market is essential to the success of any pipe line, then the economics of the route selected would have to be considered carefully or otherwise we might not have a line. I think I indicated also
20, 1953	3161
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited quite clearly that we would prefer to see an all-Canada route if that was economically feasible to reach the one market that would guarantee the success of the line. I did say that it might possibly be found that economics would dictate that the line go through the United States and, if so, the gas could be carried in bond without being released in the United States.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to have that statement from the hon. member. Perhaps I would be accurate if I summarized it in this way. While he would prefer, other things being equal, to see the line go entirely through Canada, apparently, in order to reach this main market in Canada, he is not prepared to take a strong stand at the moment that that is-


Solon Earl Low: That that is the only way.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He says that that is the only
way. I believe that so long as there is an unserved market in Canada which, if the line is not built through Canada to reach the few areas that might lie on the potential route of the pipe line from Alberta, would never be served by Canadian gas if the pipe line goes through the United States, and the potentialities of that market are sufficiently investigated and established to indicate it would be an injustice to the area to deny them in perpetuity, as we would be doing, the use of Canadian gas, then the policy should be that the line be built through Canada first before it enters the United States.


Solon Earl Low: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but at this point it might be useful to ask a question if he will permit it. Would he say that economics should not be a factor to be considered in determining that the route must be through the northern area in order to be sure that Sudbury would not be overlooked? Do you say that economics would not be a factor?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I certainly did not, nor would
I think that any sensible man would say that economics should not be a factor. Perhaps I could conclude this portion of my remarks by saying that the same principle should govern here as governed when the Canadian Pacific Railway was built. Economic arguments were advanced for the building of part of that line through the United States, but those economic arguments were resisted. I think the same principle should apply with respect to the building of a pipe line to transport Canadian gas.
On motion of Mr. Fulton the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Coastal Fisheries AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


FISHERIES
James Sinclair: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 44, to protect the coastal fisheries.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps I should point out that this bill has been carefully considered by the standing committee on marine and fisheries and has been reported to the house with amendments.


William Joseph Browne: There is
only one point that I wish to draw to the attention of the committee, the question of when the regulations which the government has the power to make under this measure will be put into effect so far as Newfoundland is concerned. Foreign ships have been coming to Newfoundland and getting supplies continually for so many years that it would not be desirable that the practice should be stopped without giving adequate warning. I understand that in the committee the minister did say that there would be a year's grace before these regulations would be drafted as far as Newfoundland is concerned.


Mr. MacNaughl:: The hon. member for St. John's West is perfectly correct in that respect. This question was brought up in the committee and at that time it was pointed out that the arrangements with Newfoundland on entering confederation were that no change would be made and no changes are made as a result of the passing of this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Howard Charles Green: Clause 2 is the definition section. The parliamentary assistant will remember that when the bill was before the house on second reading there was some discussion about the definition of Canadian territorial waters. Under the bill the definition is in effect left wide open. I am not clear whether or not any change was made in the committee, although I believe no change was made with regard to the definition of Canadian territorial waters. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to explain why no such change has been made in the bill.
He will remember that during the debate on second reading the hon. member for Nanaimo and I dealt with the question of territorial waters on the Pacific coast. We suggested that Queen Charlotte sound and Hecate strait should be included in Canadian territorial waters, which they are not at the present time. Since that time I have had representations from the Queen Charlotte islands to the effect that there has been extensive crab fishing by United States fishing vessels in the Hecate strait, and there is some concern that the crab fishery may be entirely depleted because of the fact that the Americans have moved in there in such numbers and are catching so many crabfish.
I asked a question on the order paper about the total catch of crabfish in Hecate strait off the Pacific coast during each of the last five seasons, and also what proportion of the catch had been made by (a) Canadian fishermen, (b) American fishermen and (c) fishermen of other nationalities. In reply I was told that the government had no information about the catch by United States fishermen. I was given figures for the Canadian catch, and according to the best knowledge of the departmental officials no other nationalities were engaged in that particular fishery.
But this is a serious question and I believe that Hecate strait should be considered as Canadian territorial waters. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to explain why it is that Canada does not take any stand with respect to this question.


John Watson MacNaught: In reply to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra may I point out to him that when this matter came up in the standing committee on marine and fisheries the Minister of Fisheries made a statement. He pointed out that at the present time an interdepartmental committee is making a study of the whole question of territorial waters, and that when that committee makes its report its recommendations will be studied by the government and, if deemed advisable, will be adopted and acted upon. I agree with the hon. member that it is a very important question, and for that reason the government has seen fit to set up an interdepartmental committee to make a thorough study of all aspects surrounding the problem.


Mr. Pearkes:: While not pursuing the general question of territorial waters and whether or not Hecate strait should be declared to be Canadian water, surely the three-mile limit must apply around the Queen Charlotte islands and the mainland of British Columbia bordering Hecate strait. My understanding is that the type of crab found in that part of the Pacific ocean is a crab

which exists close to land and is quite different from the deep water king crabs of Bristol bay. Would any United States fishing vessel have the right to come within the three-mile limit of Queen Charlotte islands and fish for the inshore crabs?


John Watson MacNaught: In reply to that question, I should imagine that no United States vessel would have the right to come within the three-mile limit to fish for crabs.


George Randolph Pearkes: To your knowledge are there any of the deep-sea crabs in Hecate strait? As far as I know there are none.


John Watson MacNaught: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think it is rather important. If there has been crab fishing by American fishermen in the Hecate straits I think that those fishermen must have been fishing for inshore crabs. If the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra has information that the Americans have been catching crabs off the Queen Charlotte islands, then I think they would be catching crabs within the three-mile limit, which must be territorial waters.


John Watson MacNaught: Well, Mr. Chairman, if American fishermen were fishing crabs within the three-mile limit I am sure the protective vessels on the coast would have noticed this and stopped it, because they certainly have no right to be so fishing.


George Randolph Pearkes: Have you had any reports from your protective vessels about whether the American vessels have been fishing within the three-mile limit?


John Watson MacNaught: Two or three days ago we answered a question from the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra to the effect that we had no knowledge of the amount of crabs the Americans had caught. At that time, the officials of the department did not tell me that they had received any reports of any American vessels catching any crabs within the three-mile limit.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would it be asking too much to ask the parliamentary assistant to try to obtain that information-whether any American vessels have been fishing for crabs within the three-mile limit and what action, if any, has been taken by our protective vessels?


John Watson MacNaught: I will ask our officials to make such an inquiry and bring in the answer at a later date.


Howard Charles Green: When the parliamentary assistant is doing that, would he also try to find out what amount of crabfish has been caught by the Americans in Hecate strait. Surely that information can be obtained in one way
Coastal Fisheries
or another; and it brings up this whole question of what are Canadian territorial waters. Could the parliamentary assistant get that further information?


John Watson MacNaught: If it is possible to get that information I will get it. I will have our officials make an effort to get that information and if it is available I am sure they will get it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall section 3 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On section 7-Offences.
Mr. Robichaud:: Might I ask the parliamentary assistant to tell us what amendments have been made to section 7?


John Watson MacNaught: Section 7 was amended in the standing committee as follows:
-subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) be amended by inserting, at the beginning of the first line thereof immediately preceding the word "fails'', the words "without lawful excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him".
That amendment was suggested by the hon. member for Gloucester and was agreed to by the committee. It was thought desirable to make this amendment to protect the interests of Canadian fishing vessels which might be apprehended or charged with a violation of this section. Paragraph (d) was amended as follows:
-by deleting, in the first line thereof, the first two words "opposes or" and substituting therefor the words "resists or wilfully".
Now that paragraph will read:
(d) Resists or wilfully obstructs any protection officer in the execution of his duty.
That language is more in line with the language used in the Criminal Code of Canada, and for that reason it was thought desirable to insert that amendment.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall section 7 as amended carry?


Gordon Francis Higgins: I want to say a word on section 7. I do not expect that any amendment would be agreed to but, having discussed the matter with interested parties, I feel I should bring this forward. It is a question of foreign trawlers making themselves liable to seizure. As it is now, I believe you have a very heavy penalty land you have seizure of the vessel as well. The point I would like to bring forward is, I think, a fair one and my suggestion is that you make the captain liable rather than the vessel owners unless it can be proved that the captain is acting under direct orders of the owners.

Coastal Fisheries
It does appear that these foreign trawlers are very valuable ships and if the captain, for some reason of his own, takes some rash action and makes the ship liable for seizure, I suggest that it would be advisable to make the captain primarily liable. If he is acting under the orders of the owners, then make the ship liable to seizure.
I merely offer that as a suggestion.


John Watson MacNaught: I think that the remarks of the hon. gentleman would more properly apply to the next section, section 8.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is section 7 as amended carried?
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 8-Penalties.


John Watson MacNaught: In connection with section 8 there were a few amendments made. It was thought by some members of the committee that the language:
-to a fine of twenty-five thousand dollars . . .
might be confused by a lay magistrate. For that reason it was made to read:
-to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars . . .
Of course the original language meant that, but for greater certainty it was decided to insert the words "not exceeding" and those words were inserted wherever "fine" appears in section 8.
In relation to what was said by the hon. member for St. John's East, I want to point out that in the statute, which this bill proposes to consolidate and amend, the only penalty was forfeiture. It was thought that that was too extreme a penalty and for that reason fines were inserted in lieu of forfeiture. It was made not to exceed $25,000 and that figure was fixed to approximate the present-day value of trawlers.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I still think that fine is too high.


John Watson MacNaught: It is a maximum fine.


Gordon Francis Higgins: You can very well have both. It is certainly not commensurate with breaches of the act. It has got to be a very serious breach indeed to fine a man $25,000; but he could be fined $25,000 here for a very technical breach.


Albany M. Robichaud: As the parliamentary
assistant will recall, I raised this very same point in the committee, about the excessive amount. I repeat that I hold no brief for foreign vessel owners who may break this law but, as the parliamentary assistant will realize, there are possibilities within the

ambit of this law that certain Canadian vessels and Canadian masters may be involved. For instance, if a Canadian master or sailor, under section 7(d), resisted or wilfully obstructed a protection officer in, the execution of his duty he would immediately become liable for the fine provided by subsection 2 of section 8:
(a)	upon conviction on indictment to a fine of ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of one year or to both fine and imprisonment, or
(b)	upon summary conviction to a fine of two thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of one month or to both fine and imprisonment.
If we compare, Mr. Chairman, the penalties provided under the Criminal Code, as it now stands, for resisting and wilfully obstructing a peace officer on land, we find that under section 168, when the offence is triable by indictment, the offender would be subject to a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment. If the offence is tried summarily, the offender would be subject to a term not exceeding six months' imprisonment or to a fine not exceeding $200. It seems to me that there is a wide margin between the two offences which are, in effect, the same offence in the eyes of the law, except that one is committed on land and the other on the sea. When we consider that the penalty under the Code of $200 for the same offence is increased fifty times, that is up to $10,000 under the bill which we are now studying-furthermore, the penalty provided under the old section 13 of the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act, which the present bill is to replace, was $800, and this penalty is being increased twenty-five times under the present statute- then, I submit, these increases are far-reaching.
Again I say that, were it not for the fact that some of our Canadian seamen and masters would be liable under this section, I would not stand up and raise these objections. It is in order to protect possible offenders, Canadian seamen and masters, that I rise to bring this to the attention of the parliamentary assistant. When we increase a penalty by fifty times or by twenty-five times, we are certainly going some. I submit that these penalties should be revised, especially so far as they may relate to Canadian seamen or masters.


Mr. Applewhaite:: I think the purpose of this bill is to protect Canadian coastal fisheries and to protect Canadian coastal fishermen, not to protect the law-breaker whether or not he be a Canadian coastal fisherman. If you are going to have small fines in these sections, they could become nothing more or less than licence fees for breaking the law. With the modern fishing vessels that are in

use today, a fine of $200 or $300 would be just another small item of expense which might be cheerfully charged up in connection with an infraction of the law which would enable them to make an illegal catch worth thousands of dollars.
If it is a fact that the penalty has gone up from twenty-five to fifty times what it used to be, I would point out that the catch of the modern fishing vessel has gone up twenty-five to fifty times over the small hand-operated dories that were at one time in use on the east coast and to a lesser extent on the west coast. We have heard so many complaints, time after time, in connection with the administration of laws of this kind, that we do not put teeth in them so as to make them a deterrent to the law-breaker. Here is a section with ample protection in the words "not exceeding", and the high penalties are only imposed after a trial on indictment which means a trial by jury. If we are going to endeavour to administer that law with such small penalties that anyone can cheerfully break the law, pay the penalty and still be money ahead, our law is not going to be effective at all.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Fournier, Hull (for Mr. Sinclair) moved the third reading of the bill.
George Randolph Pearkes: May I ask
one question on third reading? Under section 3, subsection 2, of this bill, there is the following:
No person, being aboard a foreign fishing vessel or being a member of the crew of or attached to or employed on a foreign fishing vessel shall in Canada or in Canadian territorial waters
(a) fish or prepare to fish,
In committee we asked whether or not that would apply to a sportsman coming up from the United States and fishing in the waters off the coast of British Columbia. At the time it was stated that the matter would be looked into and that it would be covered by a regulation. Have regulations been prepared to cover these sportsmen who, by these words, would appear to be prohibited from sport fishing?


John Watson MacNaught: In
connection with that question I cannot possibly state whether or not regulations have been prepared, but I know the matter is
Coastal Fisheries
being looked into and I am sure that regulations will be prepared in due course.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I should like to make a very brief comment on this bill before it passes. I did not have an opportunity of being present when the bill was discussed in the committee stage, but as I view it the most important element appears to give the government the power to extend what we ordinarily term the three-mile limit. This power is, I think, written into the bill in such a way that the limit, I trust, will not be extended in any arbitrary fashion because the consequences of dealing with it in that manner can be very dangerous indeed. We have seen what happened in Iceland recently. The Icelandic people decided to extend their three-mile limit to four miles and block off the British trawlers. As a result, the British refused to buy any fish from Iceland. The fish from Iceland was then sent to the market in the United States in considerable quantit'' and as the parliamentary assistant knows even at this special season of the year there is a glut of fish. The fish from Newfoundland cannot be sold at the present time except at a very great loss.
I point this out for one reason only. Because of the action the Icelandic people took, without a proper discussion with the British people and others engaged in that fishery, this situation evolved. Now, the fishery with which Newfoundland is primarily concerned is the Grand Banks. At the present time there is grave danger of the banks being depleted. A wish has been expressed in this house, I believe by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick), that the limit be extended. I want to suggest to the parliamentary assistant, and through him to the minister, that no action of this kind be taken without a very full discussion with all those engaged in that type of fishery. At the present time you have the various nationalities, and if you start imposing this kind of rule you may very well start some kind of chain reaction the same as occurred in Iceland. I merely pass that along for the consideration of the parliamentary assistant. I would not like to see all the Portuguese and Spaniards prevented from fishing. They are old historic markets, and a lot of trouble could be made for various Canadian fisheries by any ill-considered action of this kind. While the power will be in this act, I feel sure it will be exercised in a very sensible manner.


Mr. T. G. W. Ashbourne (Grand Falls-While Bay):: In endorsing and supporting third reading of this bill I should like to point out that in addition to the cod fisheries, which have just been mentioned by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins),

Coastal Fisheries
on the east coast of Newfoundland, we have a very important seal fishery, which is being prosecuted by vessels from Newfoundland at the present time, ana also I believe, one from Halifax and several Norwegian steamers as well. I should like to point out to the house the importance of this seal fishery. These seals, hundreds of thousands of them, some think there are millions of them, or a million anyway, are very important to Newfoundland and Canada. They constitute a very important industry. To protect such an industry as the sealing industry as well as the cod fishery it is important that the government should take powers to conserve this very important fishery primarily for the Canadian people. Around our shores these fish are found in vast numbers. We readily understand of course that other people have to eat as well, and when we see the Spaniards, the French, the Italians and the Portuguese, as well as others, coming over seeking food, we know they are looking after the requirements and the needs of their people. But I speak particularly at this time because quite a few Newfoundlanders are out on the stormy deep tonight prosecuting the seal fishery. I am glad to say, aided by the aeroplane which the operators have hired to go out, they have been able to locate two or three patches of seals.
These seals are sometimes found in the gulf of St. Lawrence, but owing to the mildness of the winter this year I understand there are very few seals in the gulf. Some of the ships that sailed from St. John's that were going to operate in the gulf went through the strait of Belle Isle, and I have been informed that they have struck one or two of the patches, or probably the main patch, on the east coast. These seals whelp on the ice early in March and they are in the main in two patches. There is the hood seal, which is a very valuable seal, and also the harp seal. The young harps have white coats on them and long hair, and they are sought after for their hides as well as the oil in them.
In the past it has been a very remunerative source of income to Newfoundland. Many years ago as many as 600,000 seals were obtained in a season, tout in the last few years not so many have been obtained, although in my time from 150,000 to 200,000 seals were brought in during one season. I just mention this, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize the importance of this fishery, particularly as the seals come down from the coast of Labrador, and gradually are brought down nearer the Grand Banks on the ice floes.
When we realize that it pays the Norwegians to send their ships over to prosecute this fishery, naturally its importance is quite evident to us here in Canada. The government has done well to introduce the legislation which has been passed through the house tonight, and which was considered in committee. When the regulations are drawn up and they can be readily used to protect our people I believe that they will be a very strong bargaining point, and through them we shall be able to do more trade with the Spaniards and the Portuguese, and with the Portuguese particularly, because the amount of fish they have bought from Newfoundland this year is under 50,000 quintals; whereas last year they purchased something over 100,000 quintals and the year before that about 170,000 quintals. Therefore I congratulate the government on bringing down this legislation and believe that it will be very helpful to the people of Newfoundland and to the people of the rest of Canada.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, before this bill receives third reading I should like to say a word or two in connection with it. I understand that fishermen on the west -coast made representations to the Department of Fisheries in regard to this bill. My understanding is that the only section of this bill to which they took exception was section 4(d), which gives the government the right to designate territorial waters for the purpose of this legislation. They do not of course object to the government taking this power, power which the government has, I imagine, without the passing of this legislation; but I think they took the fairly logical position which was that in many parts of the world today the three-mile limit, which was the territorial limit of all countries at one time, was no longer accepted as the territorial limit set by nations for purposes such as this legislation.
I was wondering whether the government has taken any action to set the limit, for the purpose of this legislation, other than the three-mile limit as it formerly was. It has been drawn to my attention that, according to United States laws, all water between islands off the United States and the mainland, regardless of its width, is considered territorial water of the United States. If that law were applied on the west coast, all fishing in the Hecate strait would be reserved for Canadian fishermen. I am sorry I was not in the house when the bill was being considered in committee or I would have raised this point. I wish to raise it now, and think the government should give immediate

attention to the designation of territorial waters so that in Canada we shall be in conformity with the laws of other maritime countries in this matter. I see no reason why we should have territorial limits of a lesser distance than other countries. If they wished to reciprocate, that would be an altogether different matter. I do hope that the government will give attention to that matter.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


MERCHANT SEAMEN
Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 46, to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act.	-


Howard Charles Green: May we have an explanation from the parliamentary assistant?


Mr. Paul E. Cote (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for amendments to the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act, which was passed by parliament in 1946. That act replaced and largely embodied the provisions of the merchant seamen compensation regulations of 1945, passed under the authority of the War Measures Act.
The act provides for payment of compensation to seamen who are injured in the course of their employment, and to dependents of seamen who are killed in the course of their employment, and who are not covered in respect of the accident under any provincial workmen's compensation act.
A seaman who cannot claim compensation under any provincial compensation act is eligible therefore to claim for benefits under the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act, if he is employed on a ship of Canadian registry, or one under charter to a person resident in Canada or having his principal place of business in Canada if the ship is on a foreign or "home trade voyage". I might explain that a home trade voyage covers coastal trade voyages and is defined in the Canada Shipping Act, but does not include a voyage on inland waters in Canada; a foreign trade voyage is a voyage extending beyond the limits of a home trade voyage.
The amendments are very simple. They provide for an upward revision in the scale of benefits payable under the act, having regard for the changes in the seamen's earnings and changes in living conditions which have occurred in the past several years since the passage of the act.
Merchant Seamen Compensation Act
Under the present provisions of the act, claims are not considered where an accident does not result in disabling a seaman from earning full wages for seven days. We propose to reduce this period to four days. It is also proposed to raise the ceiling of yearly earnings for use in the computation of compensation from $2,500 to $3,600.
The significant changes in cash benefits which are provided in the bill are as follows:
1.	The maximum payment towards the funeral expenses of a deceased seaman is increased from $125 to $200;
2.	The amount of the monthly allowance or pension to the widow of a deceased seaman is increased from $45 to $50, and the same increase applies in the case of an invalid husband who was dependent on the earnings of a deceased wife employed on a ship;
3.	Where there are dependent children as well as a widow or invalid husband, the monthly payment for each child under 18 years of age is to be increased from $10 to $15 and, in the event of the death of the widowed mother or invalid father, the monthly amount paid to the dependent children is increased from $20 to $25 for each child;
4.	In the case of a deceased seaman who leaves no widow but leaves dependent children under 18 years of age, the monthly payment to each child is increased from $20 to $25.
I should explain at this point that the act provides that the total compensation payable to the widow and children of a deceased seaman is not to exceed in any event the average earnings of the seaman prior to his decease.
5.	The minimum amount of compensation to which an injured seaman is entitled for temporary total or permanent total disability which is now fixed at $12.50 per week or the sum equivalent to the seaman's earnings if less than that, is increased to a minimum of $15 per week, or a sum equivalent to the seaman's earnings if less than that.
On January 1, 1950, the responsibility for administering the act which previously had been vested in the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) was transferred to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) by virtue of an order in council passed under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act. This transfer of administration is given statutory effect in the amendments to the act contained in this bill.
Since the act came into force, or I should say since the regulations of 1945 were made effective, there have been 578 accidents reported as coming under the regulations or act. The number has been declining year
3168	HOUSE OF
Merchant Seamen Compensation Act by year because the employing shipping companies covered by the act have decreased in number from 102 in 1947 to 66 in the last fiscal year. Their number has now increased to 90 as of this date.
Our act covers seamen on ships of Canadian registry or operated by companies or persons with chief place of business in Canada. There has been a switch from Canadian to other registry to account for the decrease I have mentioned. This decrease has been counteracted in the current fiscal year by an influx of new registrations, mainly from Newfoundland.
As hon. members will know, we do not pay any compensation from federal funds. By the act, shipping companies are required to place the necessary liability insurance to cover the risks of compensation arising under the act. Payments of compensation by a company under the act are covered by the insurance policy.
The claims for compensation arising under the act are adjudicated by a board known as the merchant seamen compensation board composed of three officers of the public service.
Cost of administration was $3,463 in the fiscal year 1951-52. Every employer coming under our act pays $25 a year, and there is an additional assessment on companies whose employees suffer accidents. This is an amount based on the number of such accidents, and equals the balance of cost of administration over and above that collected through the annual $25 assessment.
We think this is a worth-while amendment to the act, even if it does apply only to relatively few people. It is necessary for the protection of our seamen and their dependents. I am sure it will commend itself to the house.


Mr. P. C. Black (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I think all members will be in agreement with the purpose of the bill before the house, and no part of Canada more in agreement with it than Nova Scotia. Years ago Nova Scotia had the reputation of being one of the great shipping areas of the world. Ships from Nova Scotia sailed the seven seas, and were known as the wooden ships manned by iron men.
Unfortunately there has been a continuous reduction in the amount of shipping originating in Nova Scotia. This was pointed out once again by the parliamentary assistant tonight when, as I understood him, he said that at one time 578 ships were affected by this legislation, most of which had come from the maritime provinces.
[Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle) .1


Paul-Émile Côté: If I may correct the hon. member, I said there were 102 employing shipping companies. That was the maximum in 1947 covered by the act.


Percy Chapman Black: I understood the minister to say there were 578 at one time.


Paul-Émile Côté: That was the number of accidents reported to the board.


Percy Chapman Black: Anyway, this tells a story of a reduction in the number of ships coming under this act. Most of the ships have their home ports in Nova Scotia or the maritime provinces, which would now include Newfoundland. Shipping operating in canals and rivers comes under provincial legislation. If I have any criticism to offer of this legislation it is that the compensation is not as large as it should be.
We all realize that this is a hazardous occupation. My information is that the compensation to be paid is not as great as that paid under workmen's compensation acts in some of the provinces, notably Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta. In order that these sailors may have proper protection they should receive maximum compensation for themselves and their families, equal to what is paid in any part of Canada. I should like to have an explanation from the parliamentary assistant as to why the basis of compensation is not on a scale equal to that paid as compensation anywhere else in Canada. This is especially important when we have in hand the responsibility of protecting men who sail the seas and carry out this hazardous occupation. On the whole, we are in sympathy with the purposes of this legislation and are pleased to give it our support.


Albany M. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, in his concluding remarks the parliamentary assistant said that these amendments are important and I agree with his statements. He said also that the bill before the house would apply to a relatively few people, and again I agree. I deprecate the fact that this bill applies only to a few people. In my submission legislation of this nature should apply, not only to seamen but to fishermen engaged in deep-sea fishing in Canadian registered vessels. I notice that by section 2 the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act defines a seaman as being any person except a pilot, an apprentice pilot or a fisherman.
I have already drawn to the attention of this house and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) the fact that there exists in France a law of assistance for merchant seamen and fishermen. The French law covers both the merchant seaman and the fisherman. Several of us from the maritime provinces have advocated in this house a system of assistance for

fishermen. I submit that our fishermen should come within the ambit of a law of this kind so that in case of accident or death they or their relatives would receive compensation.
Unfortunately, to date our fishermen have been neglected by the federal authority although I understand from the Minister of Fisheries that there is now under study some plan to assist the fishermen. I do think that in this bill provision could have been made to provide compensation for deep-sea fishermen or fishermen operating in Canadian registered vessels.


Angus MacInnis: 
Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the greater the number who can be benefited by this legislation the better it will be for those engaged in this type of work. On the Atlantic coast line about the only protection the fishermen have at the present time is the sick mariners' benefits which come under the Department of National Health and Welfare. That provision has been of great assistance to all engaged in the fishing industry. The only limitation with respect to eligibility is that the man must have a boat of 10 tons or over, and most of our boats today are of greater tonnage than that. For a fee of $2 a year these fishermen are given free hospitalization and care by doctors. I know of friends of mine who are in the hospital at the present time being treated under the benefits of this legislation. It has been of great assistance. In southern New Brunswick the fishermen receive treatment at Lancaster veterans hospital in Saint John. They get the best of hospital care and the best of treatment by doctors.
Another question that has been discussed to some extent is unemployment insurance.
I realize the obstacles that have to be faced in trying to provide some sort of unemployment insurance to cover fishermen. Weather conditions in different parts of the country make it possible for many fishermen to work only six or eight months of the year. That is all they plan to work, and in many localities it is impossible to do any type of work in winter because of the freezing. I realize the difficulties and the enormous cost that would be involved in connection with a question of that sort. Loss of life in the bay
3170	HOUSE OF
Merchant Seamen Compensation Act of Fundy is very small, but even though it is very small those who would be benefited would need such help greatly in many cases and if the legislation could be broadened to take in a larger group it would be appreciated.
I will want to ask a few questions when we get into committee on the bill, but it would appear to me that many seamen who are covered by it are seamen who are hired by large companies and that they might be able to provide this protection themselves. The seamen I have in mind are those who go out on their own, and in the event of an accident there is no way that they can claim benefits of any kind. I hope that some day we may be able to devise some sort of regulation that will extend to fishermen the benefits of unemployment insurance and so that they may also benefit from the legislation before the house at the present time.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I should like to say is, I wonder if the parliamentary assistant, when he is closing the debate, would be good enough to tell us if any ships operating out of ports in Newfoundland have their men insured. He says that they are supposed to be insured in accordance with this legislation. I should also like to know if any claims have been made by seamen on these ships because I am sorry to say this is the first time I have heard of this measure and I doubt very much if it is any better known than the other scheme to which the previous speaker referred under which fishermen are supposed to be covered if they are sailing in a ship 10 tons or over by paying two or three dollars a year. I have found that the fishermen of Newfoundland do not know anything about that scheme and I am wondering if the same thing does not apply to this legislation.
The hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) has brought up the question of fishermen. In the province of Nova Scotia fishermen are covered by the Nova Scotia workmen's compensation act and in Newfoundland I believe they are covered by the new workmen's compensation act introduced there. But if a Newfoundland fisherman goes to work in Nova Scotia and loses his life on a ship sailing out of a Nova Scotia port no compensation is paid under the law of either province. Therefore he is not covered. The hon. member for Charlotte referred to the difficulties with respect to insuring fishermen. There is no difficulty about insuring fishermen or providing compensation for fishermen
IMr. Stuart (Charlotte) .1


Paul-Émile Côté: I will reply in committee.


William Joseph Browne: The reason I mention that is that there is an increase from $2,500 to $3,600, which is over 40 per cent. So far as the question of compensating a widow is concerned, I believe that an engineer or a captain would be covered by this legislation and their salary might be $400 or $500 a month. If he loses his life his widow gets the handsome sum of $50 a month. I suggest that that is not adequate compensation. A person who has been accustomed to living a fairly comfortable life should not be expected to have her income so suddenly reduced to such a small amount. The parliamentary assistant has told us that there is an increase from $45 to $50 for such a person, but that is only a little over 10 per cent since 1946, whereas the actual cost of living has gone up 100 per cent since that

time. Therefore it seems to me there is justification for a much higher rate of compensation than is provided by this legislation. I hope that before the bill is passed a greater rate of compensation will be granted those concerned. When the parliamentary assistant is closing this debate I hope that he will be good enough to tell us who the members of this board are and where they are located.


Clarence Gillis: 
George Matheson Murray: Mr. Speaker, as we are told from time to time, Canada is the third trading nation in the world and our merchant marine should be made stronger. I think this bill is a very good step along the way but it is a very meagre step.
I have observed the situation on the west coast and I notice that the wheat from the prairies often goes to the markets of the world in Japanese, Norwegian, Danish or other foreign bottoms. That is true of lumber also.
I suggest to you that, if Canada is to come to its full size as a nation, its merchant marine should be strong; we should take care of the men in the merchant marine; and we should treat those merchant sailors as well as we do sailors who are actually engaged in combat. Every consideration should be given to these people and to the building of ships and ports. Otherwise, our economy is going to be a very lop-sided affair.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I have only a few brief comments. I believe that last night in St. John's the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) said that transportation was the lifeblood of Canada. I may not be exactly stating his words but I think something of that nature is what I read. Efficient and proper transportation is very necessary indeed for a country such as Canada, and, of course, transportation by water for parts of the country is a prime essential.
As one who has been associated with seamen for a great number of years, I welcome the bill in that it increases the disability and death benefits to seamen, but I question whether, in view of the increased earnings and the increased cost of living, the benefits are sufficient to meet the present scale of expenses. Also, looking over the act, reading carefully but as quickly as I can, there does not appear to be any particular board that takes care of the money. There is an insurance board or a compensation board, but there is no person to ensure the proper handling of the fund. So far as I can see, the administration of this fund is handled in a careless manner. I am not in a position to criticize too closely, because as I say I have not had an opportunity of studying the
fMr. Gfflis.]

bill as carefully as I should like. At the moment, however, it would appear that the payment to the fund is more or less voluntary on the part of the employer.
The position we are considering is this. If the company which is supposed to insure its seamen does not do so and the ship is lost in the venture, what is the position then? There is nothing in this bill that would, provide compensation for those who are left behind, or in case of accident there is no fund to which the seamen would have recourse. Now, the parliamentary assistant may be able to point out in a much clearer fashion what the position is, but certainly a cursory examination of this bill seems to indicate that that is the position. I do not think that is the way we should have it. I think that the seamen, particularly in a country such as this with a tremendous coast line and with a great need for shipping, should be amply protected beyond any question of doubt.
In closing, I should like to add my voice to that of the member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) for the extension of the insurance principle to cover fishermen. I believe the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) made a survey and reported that it is impossible to do so. In Newfoundland we have run into a very awkward situation in connection with these deep-sea trawlers. Because unemployment insurance does not cover these fishermen, the owners of these trawlers cannot get crews and the ships have been tied up for some period, as the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) will inform you. Surely some way can be found to extend insurance to these crews; otherwise we are going to be faced with the position in which we are now, that is that the owners of the trawlers cannot get crews. Some of the owners of these vessels are seriously considering bringing in a colony of Portuguese to operate the trawlers for them. I pass that information along to the minister for what it is worth. I should like him to clear up the doubt which I have in my own mind about this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Paul-Émile Côté: Before we proceed with an examination of this bill clause by clause, I might answer immediately the more important questions which have been raised during the debate on second reading. In the first instance, I should like to assure the hon. member for Cape Breton South that it is not optional for a ship owner

to get protection under the act. Under section 29, which is not being amended by this bill, we find the following:
Every employer shall cover, by insurance or other means satisfactory to the board, the risks of compensation arising under this act.
The measure of control that the board has is exercised through the collector or other chief officers of the customs department who, upon notification, by the board, shall detain the ship complained about until he receives a notice from the board that he may release the said ship. I believe, therefore, there is full protection.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What happens, may I ask, if that is not done, the ship owner does not insure, and the ship goes to sea and is lost?


Paul-Émile Côté: The ship is detained at port.


Gordon Francis Higgins: But if she goes to sea and is lost?


Paul-Émile Côté: I think, judging from the experience of the past, that we can expect fast enough action by the board.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Would it not be possible for that particular angle to be handled through the customs department? They could refuse the vessel clearance until the insurance was in order. It could be handled very easily through the customs and, if the insurance were not in order, they could refuse to give clearance.


Paul-Émile Côté: There are penalties provided in the act, and I would assume it is not very difficult for the board to enforce the provisions for penalties in case of an infraction of some of the provisions.


Albany M. Robichaud: There are no penalties provided in this bill, are there?


Paul-Émile Côté: I think there are penalties provided in the act. There is one, for instance, under section 25 of the act which has to do with notification by a ship owner of an accident. There are others, but I would suggest that we might restrict our discussion to the amending features we have under consideration. I have no objection to covering the points which have been made during the discussion on second reading, but if you think it preferable, Mr. Chairman, I may wait and make my remarks when each section is called. I had no intention of covering the whole act in the discussion tonight, but only those clauses which are being amended.
There was a question raised as to the minimum compensation per week payable, and the amount of $15 which is being provided in the amending bill. That is not necessarily
20. 1953
Merchant Seamen Compensation Act the minimum. The amount paid may be less than that if the wages or the average earnings are less than $15 per week, but in any other event the minimum is $15 per week.
I should like to mention now the $3,600 ceiling on annual earnings. One of the members who participated in the debate misinterpreted that clause of the amending bill. This means that the average yearly earnings should be used as a basis for the computation of the compensation, but the compensation is not necessarily calculated on $3,600. It will be calculated on the average earnings during the twelve months preceding the accident.


William Joseph Browne: But if they do exceed $3,600, you are brought down to $3,600?


Paul-Émile Côté: Yes, that is so.


William Joseph Browne: Well, that is what I said in the first instance.


Paul-Émile Côté: If it was not
the hon. member, perhaps it was somebody else.


William Joseph Browne: You told me I was wrong when I was speaking. You shook your head.


Paul-Émile Côté: So far as government employees are concerned, their protection is derived from the application of the Government Employees Compensation Act, so there must not be any misunderstanding on that particular point. Much has been said about the relatively low proportion of the increase which we are making in the compensation. I wish to remind the committee that the field of workmen's compensation is one which primarily falls under provincial jurisdiction. It is only in an incidental way, to supplement the provincial legislation, that we have under federal authority the Government Employees Compensation Act and the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act.
Our officials have thought that the scale of benefit which would compare reasonably well with the scale of benefits prevailing under provincial legislation in that field should be a fair one. In this particular instance, when one refers to the monthly payment to a widow being raised to $50, one should recall that in all provinces, except Saskatchewan and British Columbia, the monthly payment to a widow is $50 or less. Only in Saskatchewan is it above that amount, namely, $60 a month, and in British Columbia where the monthly payment to a widow is $75. Therefore this rate does compare well enough with the rates in effect in the provinces.
While I am making comparisons with the provisions of provincial workmen's compensation acts, I might say that the ceiling on
3174	HOUSE OF
Merchant Seamen Compensation Act annual earnings which we are setting at $3,600 does compare with $3,000 in Newfoundland, $2,500 in Prince Edward Island, $3,000 in Nova Scotia, $3,000 in New Brunswick, $3,000 in Quebec, $4,000 in Ontario, $3,000 in Manitoba, $4,000 in Saskatchewan, $3,000 in Alberta and $3,600 in British Columbia.
Another point made has been the advisability of including fishermen in the coverage of this act. The matter has been raised several times.


Clarence Gillis: 
Paul-Émile Côté: 
Percy Chapman Black: Why does the department accept the lowest percentage of benefit that is paid in any province, and does not accept the 70 per cent paid in some of the provinces and 75 per cent paid in four of the provinces?


Paul-Émile Côté: I may say, in reply to that, that the provisions of the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act apply mainly to transportation in the lower St. Lawrence, in the maritimes and in Newfoundland; and if anyone will compare the rates that we are setting up with the rates prevailing under provincial legislation in that part of the country I think he will agree that we are doing well enough.


Percy Chapman Black: I would point out that in the province of Quebec, with respect to the St. Lawrence river, they are paying 70 per cent. Four of the provinces have 75 per cent. The province of Quebec, with respect to the St. Lawrence river, with which the parliamentary assistant compares the legislation before us, is based on 70 per cent.


Mr.   Coie@Verdun-La Salle: Yes, but on other points our legislation provides a better base than exists under the Quebec Workmen's Compensation Act. In some other points they are in a better position, but generally I think if one will examine the whole situation one will see that we have made an attempt to strike a reasonable medium.
I was about to mention the advisability of including fishermen under the coverage of the act. The matter has been studied thoroughly but there is a fundamental difference in the fishing industry and in the


transportation industry which we are covering in this act. In the fishing industry the ships do operate out of ports in their own province and back to the ports where they originated. It is not a matter of communication by water from a province to a province or out of a province abroad to another country. In the matter of the fishing industry, most of the provinces have already extended reasonable coverage to the fishermen. For instance, the commercial fishermen are fully covered by provincial legislation in the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia. The Quebec legislation applies to commercial fishermen if more than six persons are employed. In New Brunswick the legislation covers commercial fishermen if more than fifty persons are employed; in Saskatchewan commercial fishermen are excluded by the legislation. In Alberta coverage of commercial fishermen may be obtained by application, and under the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland acts fishermen are not covered in the same manner as other employees, but employers are required to carry liability insurance to provide assurances of payment of compensation. The field of protection to the fishermen is already occupied by the provinces.


William Joseph Browne: To what act of Nova Scotia is the hon. gentleman referring, because the act has been amended from year to year? I think they have coverage in Nova Scotia now.


Mr.   Coie@Verdun-La Salle: I could not reply to my hon. friend on that matter; I have not the reference here at hand, but I shall send the material to him privately later. I do not think there are any other important points. If I have forgotten any points, as the clauses of the bill are called, I shall complete my explanation.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: When the parliamentary assistant was making his explanation he said that the fishermen in the province of New Brunswick could receive the benefits of unemployment insurance through our provincial legislation.


Paul-Émile Côté: Not unemployment insurance.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: What was the term used?


Paul-Émile Côté: I was referring to the bill that is before the committee just now for coverage against accident or injuries as the result of their work.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: You mean the compensation board?


Mr. Cole (Verdun-La Salle):: The Merchant Seamen Compensation Act.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I noted one other statement in the remarks of the parliamentary assistant. He said that boats plying in foreign waters, interprovincial or international, could be considered for this type of protection, but boats that operated in and out of their home ports could not be considered. In the particular section from which I come a great percentage of our fishermen are travelling internationally every week. They are working and selling all their products in the United States. They travel back and forth over the international boundary every day. Would that give them any greater bargaining power, if they were to come under the terms of this legislation?


Charles Delmar Coyle: No. In my
hon. friend's province the legislation applies to cases such as the one he has mentioned, provided at least 50 persons are employed on the fishing boat.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That is, 50 on each boat.


Charles Delmar Coyle: Fifty persons as a minimum of staff on the boat. Perhaps that act could be improved. The fact remains however that the legislature of New Brunswick already occupies the field which covers fishermen in respect of accidents which may occur during the course of their work. So we feel there is nothing we can do in that respect.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I think at this point we should proceed section by section, in order that we may have orderly discussion. We are now having questions asked which really are related to the sections in the bill. It would seem to me that the questions could more properly be asked under the sections.
On section 1-Minister.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The question I would ask could be asked only on this first section. Are there, any companies already covered by a provincial workmen's compensation board which would govern the home ports of the ships, and which would also fall within the terms of this act? Does the parliamentary assistant know of any companies already covered by a provincial board either on application or through compulsion?


Paul-Émile Côté: The basis of application of the act is that no coverage shall be afforded by provincial legislation or by our own Government Employees Compensation Act. This act applies only with those two reservations. There is no alternative.
Merchant Seamen Compensation Act


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am not thoroughly familiar with the provincial acts of all the provinces, but I know that in Ontario it is possible for a company to obtain coverage in many instances on application, even though it does not fall within the strict application of the act. It seems to me that some of the larger shipping companies may have made application to a provincial board for coverage for their employees, and still fall within the scope of this act. Can the parliamentary assistant say whether he has knowledge of the existence of any such dual coverage?


Paul-Émile Côté: I do not know of any such applications.


Albany M. Robichaud: Does the parliamentary assistant know of any coverage for four or five seamen employed on a privately-owned dragger in New Brunswick?


Paul-Émile Côté: I am not aware of that. However, I shall check on it.


William Joseph Browne: Who constitute this board? Where are they located? Do they make an annual report?


Paul-Émile Côté: The chairman of the board was, until recently, Mr. A. H. Brown, who was assistant deputy minister of labour. The members were Mr. B. J. Roberts of the national harbours board, who acts as vice-chairman, and Captain G. L. C. Johnson, assistant supervisor of nautical services in the Department of Transport.


William Joseph Browne: Where are they located?


Paul-Émile Côté: In Ottawa. They are civil servants living here.


William Joseph Browne: Do they make any report on their activities?


Paul-Émile Côté: They report to the Minister of Labour.


William Joseph Browne: Does the Minister of Labour make any report on their activities? Where can people find out what they have been doing?


Paul-Émile Côté: Their report is contained in the annual report of the department. I would refer my hon. friend to the one tabled for the last fiscal year.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: I realize that this act has been in effect actually for a comparatively short time, and that the amounts set out for burial expenses compare favourably with similar expenses in some of the provinces. However, it is still an extremely low figure.
3176	HOUSE OF
Merchant Seamen Compensation Act In these days, when all costs are very high, funeral costs in particular, it would seem to me that the amount set out here is a ridiculously low figure.
Much has been said about the high cost of living, but not much said about the high cost of dying. It has almost reached the point where one cannot afford to die. Will the parliamentary assistant say whether the department has taken into consideration the costs in the various provinces when arriving at this figure, or whether it simply increased the amount by an amount comparable with increases in other respects? I notice that the old amount was $125, and I believe it was placed in the act in 1946.


Paul-Émile Côté: And in the
regulations in 1945.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: While some living costs have doubled and others have 'trebled, I think funeral expenses have reached an alltime high. Were those facts considered when arriving at this figure?


Paul-Émile Côté: One of the purposes behind this measure was to take into account the rise in the cost of living. That is why the main feature of the bill is an upward revision of the scale of benefits. The basis upon which these rates have been established has been, to a great extent, comparable figures prevailing under provincial workmen's compensation acts. We have taken inspiration from the rates applied by provincial boards. As there are ten provinces, and the rates vary from province to province, we have tried to strike a happy medium and, in the over-all picture, promote a worth-while improvement in the act.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It seems to me that since the administration of the act has been moved from the Department of Transport to the Department of Labour, and since the Department of Labour receives the benefits of its own Government Employees Compensation Act, which is really paid for by the department and administered by the provinces, it might have been well to have adopted the same type of procedure in this instance.


Percy Chapman Black: Does the parliamentary assistant consider that the provision for $50 a month for a widow, as set out in section 3(2)(d), is sufficient? It states that where the widow or an invalid husband is the sole dependent, there shall be a monthly payment of $50. It seems to me that is entirely too low a compensation at today's living costs. Upon what standard did the department base that figure? What standard do they accept in order to establish $50 as being adequate compensation for a widow under these conditions?


Paul-Émile Côté: I agree with the hon. member that this amount is certainly not excessive, but it compares with the monthly pensions to widows in all provinces except Saskatchewan and British Columbia where the amounts are $60 and $75 respectively.


Percy Chapman Black: Could not the minister, the department and the federal government set a standard for those provinces which the parliamentary assistant admits make too low a payment? If that is the basis on which they have established this payment of $50, why should not the federal government and this parliament set a standard for those provinces which are considered to be too low?


Paul-Émile Côté: Workmen's compensation legislation is under the jurisdiction of the provinces. This is intended to be supplementary to the workmen's compensation coverage. If our rates compare favourably with those of the provinces I think under those circumstances we could hardly be blamed.


Percy Chapman Black: I understand that under the British North America Act shipping and navigation is the responsibility of the federal government and therefore we should be setting a standard, by providing adequate compensation for these widows, for those provinces where the payments are admitted to be too low.


Angus MacInnis: I think the rate of $50 is
too low. The $45 which was paid in 1946 was really a larger amount than the $50 being suggested here. However, I must agree with the parliamentary assistant that the payments provided in the bill are not out of line with the average payments in the provinces. In Saskatchewan the payment for a child under sixteen years of age is $25, and this bill provides for a payment of $25 for each child under the age of eighteen years.
Perhaps a better way of providing for compensation to be paid for merchant seamen would be to put it on the basis of what is paid in the province where the ship is registered. That would give seamen on ships running out of Vancouver or Victoria a slightly better compensation than is provided under this bill. However, the difference would not be so great. I insist again that $50 today has much less purchasing power than $45 in 1946.


William Joseph Browne: I do not
think the parliamentary assistant has answered the argument. If $45 was considered by the dominion government in 1946 as being suitable compensation, how can it justify a payment of $50 today? The cost of


living has increased at least 90 per cent and I submit that there should be a higher payment for widows.
Take the case of a ship that goes down with all hands. The captain may be getting $500 a month, the first engineer $400 a month and so on down the line; yet the widow of every man lost will receive the same amount, namely, $50. Is that compensation for the loss which she has sustained? In times of war many ships have gone down and the widows of all the men who are lost are paid the same $50. I suggest that that is most inadequate. If the federal government is the supreme authority in the country it should set a good example.
It would take at least $75 to equal the $45 that was paid in 1946. It would not cost the federal government anything because they are going to be insured. It must be obvious to everyone that this is only a sideline for the Department of Labour or whatever department is handling it. Nobody seems to know what department is really handling it because there is one man from the Department of Labour and another man from the maritime commission. It is not receiving the attention that it deserves.
I admit that it is a good thing as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. I suggest that greater attention be given to this in the coming year with special attention being paid to the amount of compensation to widows and to those who are engaged in this arduous occupation.
When replying to the hon. member for Charlotte reference was made by the parliamentary assistant to fishermen who go out from their home ports to the fishing grounds and then back in again and also to those fishermen who undertake long voyages to the north pole or to the south pole or into waters where they are more apt to meet with violent storms. It is not possible for them to run for a safe harbour when they receive a weather report that is unfavourable.
I have seen 60 or 70 vessels coming off the banks at one time because foul weather was reported. But when you are crossing the Atlantic to Liverpool or on some other long voyage you cannot do that; you must face what comes. Therefore they should receive a higher basic compensation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Albany M. Robichaud: Could I ask the parliamentary assistant a question with reference to section 29 of the act which this bill is seeking to amend?


Paul-Émile Côté: Section 29 is not being amended by this bill.
68108-202J
20, 1953	3177
Merchant Seamen Compensation Act


Albany M. Robichaud: But the act is being
amended.


Paul-Émile Côté: The only sections that are being amended are those referred to in the printed bill.


Albany M. Robichaud: I am asking whether I would be permitted, to ask a question relating to section 29 of the act.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Louis-René Beaudoin: We are discussing the amending clauses. As there are only two more sections perhaps I might ask hon. members if they are prepared to carry them in order that the bill may be reported.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On section 4-Minimum compensation.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The wording of this section seems to be a little ambiguous where it says:
-shall not be less than fifteen dollars per week or, where his average earnings are less than fifteen dollars per week, the amount of such earnings,-


Paul-Émile Côté: Perhaps it would be clearer if before the words "the amount of such earnings" the words "shall be" were added.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Should it not be, "except where his average earnings are less than fifteen dollars per week"?


Paul-Émile Côté: That would be another way of arriving at the same thing.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It seemed to me that it was a little ambiguous.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall this bill, by leave, be read the third time now?


An hon. Member:: By leave.


Milton Fowler Gregg: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: On Monday we will consider the resolution in the name of the Minister of Resources and Development to revise and consolidate the Yukon Act. On this resolution it is intended to discuss the interpretation of standing order No. 60 and other standing orders relating to the debate in the house on such resolutions. Then we

Business of the House will move to go into supply and call four departments, defence production, privy [DOT]council, public works and resources and development. The items will stand. Then we will take up the resolution respecting the Emergency Powers Act, and Bill No. 105, respecting the liability of the crown for torts and civil salvage. If we should be fortunate enough to dispose of these matters we could always consider Bill No. 37, to amend the Indian Act, and Bill No. 47, to amend the Territorial Lands Act and to
appeal the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is this Monday or next week?


Alphonse Fournier: I am in the hands of the house.


Mr. McCusker:: The Ontario fellows may not be back on Monday and we will get through a lot of business.
It being five minutes after ten o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Monday, March 23, 1953