1954-02-18

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
BEING THE 96™ SESSION FOR THE PERIOD 1867-1954

[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 18, 1954

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Croll.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West) presented the first report of the joint committee on capital and corporal punishment and lotteries, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I wish to inform the house that the Australian government is undertaking a measure of relaxation in its import restrictions upon canned salmon. This news is important because it signifies the partial reopening of the Australian market to a Canadian export product which has been excluded from there in recent years. Further details on this matter will come from the Australian government.
While the total quantities involved may not be large, this renewed opportunity for trade will undoubtedly be welcomed in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada as evidence of progress in returning to more normal conditions of world trade. Canned salmon is one of our major export products. Immediately before the war Canada had a market for canned salmon in Australia which amounted to $1J million or $2 million per year. Since then these exports have been much reduced, until in recent years the quantities have become negligible. The Australian decision will, therefore, permit the Canadian industry to return once more to this traditional market.
The house is aware of the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), accompanied by a delegation of senior officials, attended the commonwealth finance ministers' conference in Sydney, Australia, last month.
Following that conference the Canadian representatives took advantage of the opportunity of discussing trade questions with the Australian government in Canberra.
I desire to extend my vote of thanks to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the minister whether he can tell the house how much salmon is involved in the deal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We were asked by the Australian government not to disclose that information at the moment. It will be released in Australia.



NEW SELLING PRICES AT VANCOUVER, FORT WILLIAM AND CHURCHILL

Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Is it the intention of the Acting Prime Minister to make any announcement today with regard to the reduction in the price of wheat and the particular circumstances in which that reduction has been made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to do so, if
it is the wish of the house. I thought there might be a question asked with respect to the matter, and that I would then make a statement.
The new prices that have been issued do not really represent a lowering of the prices. We have three marketing points. One is Vancouver, another is Fort William-Port Arthur and the third is Churchill. It has been our policy to price our wheat for export the same at all three points. In other words, the price at Vancouver is also the price at which grain is sold at Fort William and at Churchill. Owing to higher rail rates within Canada and lower ocean freight rates outside of Canada, the effect of that policy has been that the comparative Vancouver rate has been very much lower than the Fort William rate. While the port of Vancouver has been working to full capacity-in fact we have even exceeded the record of this time last year in shipments from Vancouver-we have

Wheat
lost business in the east owing to the fact that our selling prices on the east coast were out of line with world markets.
There has been no change in the selling price at Vancouver; there has been a slight increase in the selling price at Churchill, and there has been a reduction in the selling price at Fort William.
I can give the relative figures. These sales are based on United States funds. The Vancouver price today, in United States funds, is $1.92$; at Churchill the new price is $1.94$; and the new price at Fort William is $1.85$. I have here the prices of the various grades. If the hon. members wish me to do so I can put the table on Hansard. I am satisfied that the new pricing is realistic and will allow grain to move in the normal way.
The effect in the country was that while producers in Alberta are being enabled to fill their five-bushel quota, the same privilege has not been afforded to producers in Manitoba and in eastern Saskatchewan. If the
old pricing had been continued, that would have been the effect for a considerable period.
The board has perhaps been a little slow in moving in a situation that was becoming more and more difficult all the time.
Britain has been buying nearly all her wheat basis Vancouver, bringing it through the canal and enjoying a price reduction in London by doing so. This will permit Britain to buy basis Vancouver, Montreal or Halifax and get the same delivered price in the United Kingdom no matter from which port they wish to buy.
I might point out that these prices are the prices of this day. The prices I have given were issued by the board as being good until noon today. Tomorrow's price lists may be different, and if the demand strengthens there is a distinct possibility that prices may be increased. But to have a price at Fort William that is not effective because no wheat is being sold at Fort William is hardly a situation that any member of the house, I think, would wish to have continued. The list of prices is as follows:
Canadian Wheat Board Prices February 17, 1954 (until 1:15 Winnipeg time Feb. 18/54)
I.W.A. - Domestic - Class II Based in Store
Grades-	Fort William/Port Arthur Vancouver	Churchill
U.S. Can. U.S. Can. U.S. Can.
No. 1 Northern	
1.85 S/8	1.79	1.99 5/8	1.86	1.94 5/8	1.88No. 2 Northern	
1.81 1/4	1.75	1.88 S/8	1.82	1.90 1/2	1.84No. 3 Northern	
1.77	1.71	1.8S 1/4	1.77	1.86 S/8	1.S0No.4 Northern	
1.70 7/8	1.65	1.77	1.71	1.80 1/8	1.74No. 5	
1.67S/4	1.62	1.67 8/4	1.62No. 6	
1.66S/4	1.61	1.66S/4	1.61Feed	
1.62 1/2	1.57	1.62 1/2	1.57
Note: These are the second day's prices under the new pricing arrangement. The changes from the previous day are as follows:-
(a) All prices up 1/8 cent, except
(f>) Spread widened 1 cent on No. 3 and 4 Northern basis Vancouver only.
Conversions made at . 96 19/32.


George Alexander Drew: Then the new policy, and it is a new policy, is mainly directed toward encouraging the shipping of wheat east from Fort William instead of letting the preponderance of shipments go by Vancouver, as has been the case in recent months. As I understand it, up to January 27, 65 million bushels were shipped from Vancouver and 49 million bushels from the eastern seaboard. This is not so much a question of commercial pricing as a question of seeking to redirect the movement of wheat by the price. Is that not the case?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would hardly say the purpose is to redirect wheat. It is to equalize the various outlets, to set the prices at these ports in a way that will give the buyer the option of buying from the port which he usually uses, without a price penalty. That is the real situation. I think it will have no effect on the Vancouver movement. In fact the port of Vancouver is booked well through March at the present time. But we are losing business to other countries that the port of Vancouver is incapable of handling, and I think this correction of the price

differential will correct that situation and result in the sale of more Canadian wheat.


George Alexander Drew: Will this have the effect of bringing about a different price to the producer in the eastern part of the western provinces compared with the producer in the western part of the western provinces?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


George Alexander Drew: The price will remain the same?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to ask the minister a question. Will the effect of the announced change not be to reduce by 7 cents a bushel, in respect of the quantity of wheat that would otherwise have gone through Port Arthur and Fort William, the funds going to the wheat board, and consequently bring a reduction in the return to the producer not of 7 cents a bushel but of part of the 7 cents?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no grain through Fort William and Port Arthur. You cannot decrease nothing.


Hazen Robert Argue: There were 45 million bushels this crop year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was last summer, when the freight rate situation was somewhat different.


Hazen Robert Argue: You cannot get through on account of the ice?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, the wheat goes down by rail. When water movement is free a new look will be taken at the situation. These differentials are not fixed. Today grain has to be moved either from Fort William and Port Arthur or from the Georgian bay by rail to Halifax and Saint John, and the change in pricing is realistic in view of that situation.
("Later;]


Howard Charles Green: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with his statement. Is there in contemplation any increase in facilities for the handling of grain at the port of Vancouver?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have had no information of any contemplated increase in facilities.



VITAMIN PREPARATIONS


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 
Mr. Maclnnis:: I think this question is of considerable importance, and if the answer is not too long I would ask the minister to put it on Hansard.


Mr. Claxton:: Let us stick to the rules.


An hon. Member:: Let him read the answer.


Donald MacInnis: We did that a moment ago with the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think it could be put on
Hansard if I table it. If I table it, it would go on Hansard with unanimous consent.


Mr. Knowles:: Tabling does not put it on Hansard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It will go on if we agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the answer tabled or is it. to be printed in Hansard?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Tabled, and it will be printed in Hansard. I think that was the request of the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Fulton:: They are two different things.


Mr. Speaker:: Tabling is one thing and having a document printed in Hansard is another. If it is to be printed in Hansard I will have to ask hon. members if they will give their consent. Is it agreed that it be printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The answer is as follows:
A comprehensive survey by the food and drug divisions of the Department of National Health and Welfare of over 250 manufacturers representing practically the entire trade has shown that those companies supplying the bulk of pharmaceutical vitamins now have products which meet their label claims. Products of manufacturers with inadequate controls were not as satisfactory but these-have been checked and considerable improvement has been shown.
The food and drug divisions analyse samples taken from the market and those not meeting, the strength declared on the labels are withdrawn from sale. Checks are also made by the department of the labels and advertising, of these products to make certain that they are honestly presented to the public.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Green:: 1.	What is the nature of the escrow fund under the replacement plan administered by the Canadian maritime commission?
2.	How many ships have been sold under this replacement plan?
3.	What is the amount of the total deposits now in. this escrow fund and to whom does this money belong?

Questions
4.	In what manner have funds drawn from this escrow fund been used?
5.	How much is now available in the fund for acquisition of new tonnage?
6.	Were funds permitted to be used for building other than ocean-going replacements for the vessels sold?
7.	Have any ocean-going dry cargo ships been acquired under the plan to date?
8.	If not, what is the reason?
9.	Have any proposals for acquisition of more modern dry cargo tonnage been made to the Canadian maritime commission since the inception of the replacement plan?
10.	If so, what were the proposals and when were they made?
11.	Have any such proposals been accepted?
12.	If not, why were they not accepted?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	Owners of ships subject to the covenant restricting such ships to Canadian registry xnay obtain relief from such covenant in order to sell to foreign registry if the proceeds [DOT]of sale are deposited in escrow, in the name of the ship owner, for replacement purposes. These deposits constitute the escrow fund.
2.	85.
3.	(a) $7,723,686.50; (b) to the depositor.
4.	(a) For the cost of the construction and acquisition of ocean-going ships; (b) for the cost of the modernization and improvement of existing units of our ocean-going fleet; (c) for a part of the cost of the construction


Mr. Robertson:: Family Allowances	
1946-47 	
$ 2,192,044	001947-48 	
2,256,477	001948-49 	
2,295,286	001949-50 	
2,411,291	001950-51 	
2,467,257	001951-52 	
2,495,987	001952-53 	
2,522,830	001953-54 (to Jan. 31)	
2,130,160	00$18,771,332	00Grand total	
$29,719,253	14
* Old age assistance payments.
of modernization of tonnage for use in our domestic trades such as the canals and great lakes.
5.	See answer (a) to No. 3.
6.	Yes; see answers (b) and (c) to No. 4.
7.	Yes.
8.	Answered by No. 7.
9.	Yes.
10.	Many and varied proposals were made from 1948 onwards for: (a) the building of tonnage in Canadian shipyards; (b) the building of tonnage abroad; (c) the acquisition of existing tonnage; (d) the acquisition of tonnage for Canadian registry; (e) the acquisition of tonnage for registry other than Canadian.
11.	Yes.
12.	Answered by No. 11.



SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

Mr. Kickham:: How much money did the province of Prince Edward Island receive each year since 1946, in connection with the social security program, including old age pensions, family allowances, blind
pensions, etc.?		
Old Age	Blind	Old AgePensions	Pensions	Security$ 350,808 13	$ 24,211 44	478,924 19	29,423 60	593,070 14	30,928 72	865,299 30	40,336 10	945,051 64	43,342 92	745,143 45}	38,353 93	$ 754,720 00* 6,532 45 f	* 66,313 41	26,680 54	3,155,700 00* 63,491 88	20,929 30	2,668,660 00$4,114,634 59	$254,206 55	$6,579,080 00
HEIGHT-WEIGHT SURVEY Mr. Follwell:
What is the nature and purpose of the height-weight survey which has recently been carried on in Canada?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Because overweight is
deemed to be a factor in disability or early death from diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure or heart disease the problem 
of overweight is receiving much attention. To determine whether a person is overweight requires comparison with some standard table. However, the standard tables at present in use were derived from limited studies on small groups of people scattered throughout various countries.
Therefore the world health organization and other interested bodies have recommended that each country consider carefully

the standards in use, with a view to preparing one representative of its own population. Canada is one of the first countries-if not the first-to meet this recommendation and to conduct a height-weight survey on a representative sample of the population of the whole country.
Under the direction of the [DOT] chief of the nutrition division of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the guidance of the dominion bureau of statistics, the staff of the nutrition division has weighed and measured 22,000 persons throughout Canada. These measurements are now being averaged according to sex, height and age. A new standard' table will
Questions
soon become available giving the average weight of Canadians in each category. While this average weight may not be the ideal weight for an individual (this only his doctor can decide) it is the considered opinion of medical experts that the average weight can serve as a guide to everyone in eating with a view to adjusting his or her weight to that which will help to ensure good health.



CANCER CONTROL GRANTS

Mr. Follwell:: By provinces and by years, how much money has been expended by the federal government under the cancer control grant since the national health grants program was inaugurated?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Expended	Expended	Expended	Expended	Expended	Approved 1953-541948-49	1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	1952-53	(to Feb. 1)$	$	$	$	$	$Newfoundland	45,415	54,309	41,746	40,730	52,308Prince Edward Island	.... 5,010	10,582	9,365	9,306	8,070	11,036Nova Scotia	.... 30,380	61,158	67,733	45,165	62,755	83,338New Brunswick	.... 121,742	29,925	82,863	75,865	100,949	131,184Quebec	. ... 170,418	246,069	646,083	951,404	885,472	928,785Ontario	.... 56,750	174,346	206,828	242,780	256,329	350,000Manitoba	.... 38,336	42,111	57,886	78,861	137,029	135,431Saskatchewan	.... 214,671	232,444	228,705	227,186	214,785	210,244Alberta	.... 154,979	206,821	227,096	231,942	242,600	241,917British Columbia	.... 48,355	86,466	112,238	137,837	178,159	195,126Northwest Territories	-	-	-	-	400	1,128Yukon	-	-	-	-	-All Provinces	.... 866,041	1,135.337	1,693,106	2,042,092	2,127,278	2,340,497



CANADIAN VESSELS ON U.K. REGISTRY

Mr. Green:: 1.	How many applications have been received frcm Canadian owners of ocean-going vessels for transfer to United Kingdom registry, since the government announcement of November 12, 1953?
2.	How many have been approved?
3.	How many are pending?
4.	At completion of the present transactions, how many Canadian-owned vessels subject to government control will be on United Kingdom registry?
5.	Under what conditions can the transfer agreement between the Canadian and United Kingdom governments be terminated or the vessels returned to Canadian registry?
6.	What plans, if any, has the government in hand to man and operate these vessels if they should be returned to Canadian registry?
7.	What plans, if any, are in hand for modernizing and replacing the Canadian-owned vessels now on United Kingdom registry?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1. 21.
2. 11.
3.	10.
4.	This will depend on the outcome of such transactions; at present there are 91 such ships, plus 5 stores-issuing ships remaining on loan to the United Kingdom government.
5.	At the request of either government.
6.	In the event of the return of any or all of these vessels to Canadian registry their Canadian owners, operators or managers would man and operate them as they did in the past.
7.	As has already been done, Canadian owners of such vessels seeking to modernize or replace may sell under the replacement plan.



FOOD AND DRUGS


Mr. White (Waterloo South):: In the case of a food processing manufacturer wishing to add a certain chemical to food as a preservative, emulsifier, colouring agent, etc., what criteria are used by the Department of National Health and Welfare in deciding whether the food


Frederick Greystock Robertson: The Food and Drugs Act
forbids the sale of a food that has in or upon it any harmful or poisonous substance. The act also forbids the sale of foods that are processed in such a way as to be deceptive or likely to create an erroneous impression as to their value, composition, or merit. The department must therefore consider these sections of the act when dealing with addition of chemicals to foods.
The following criteria have been adopted:
1.	Evidence must be produced by the manufacturer to prove that the substance he proposes to add will not be harmful in the quantities used and under the conditions of use that may arise in consumption of the food.
2.	The use of a chemical in a food must not result in any fraud being perpetrated through the sale of the food.
3.	A method must be available for determining the amount of the chemical in the food.
4.	A real need should be demonstrated for the proposed use of the chemical.
5.	It is preferable that the request for the use of the chemical be made by the food industry concerned rather than by the chemical manufacturer.
In addition, the department consults other departments which have an interest in the food in question because of legislation administered by them.



COUNTY HEALTH UNITS, ONTARIO   HEALTH GRANTS

Mr. Cavers:: 1.	Have county health units in the province of Ontario been assisted under the national health grants program?
2.	If so, what units were assisted and what was the amount of such assistance each year during the first five years the program was in operation?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Name-
Brant county	
Bruce county	
Carleton	
Dufferin	
Elgin-St. Thomas	
Fort William	
Halton	
Huron	
Kenora-Keewatin	
Kent	
Lambton	
Leeds and Grenville	
Lennox and Addington	
Muskoka	
Northumberland and Durham
Oxford-Ingersoll	
Peel county	
Porcupine	
Prescott and Russell	
Prince Edward	
St. Catharines-Lincoln	
Simcoe	
Temiskaming	
United counties	
Welland	
Wellington	
York county	
East York and Leaside	
All county health units	
1950-51	1951-52

23,711
11,082
37,500
15,000
87,293
*
1,068
17,710
2,494
1,842
10,664 23,088 16,497 788 153 3,232 340
4,043
1,701
1,377
1,379 12,397 39,823 299 1,245 3,699 15,689
161,478

2,835
4,881
2,732
14,094
32,724
14,440
3,531 7,305 2,845 15,706 7,868 3,653 11,679 4,630
2,479 10,132 57,088 1,359
13,063
18,939
232,315

2,157
7,481
8,011
9,210 20,303 14,954 2,268 4,250 5,315 4,821 14,665 7,268 3,970 12,714 6,712
6,599
10,636
35,710
9,601
6,285
16,573
25,254
2,302
237,819

1,366
10,484
675 10,118 6,161 7,616 29,318 20,839 6,846 7,356 5,707 11,747 22,050 4,509 3,907 12,709 7,212 1,940 10,597 24,100 61,501 12,242
21,178 28,752 26,145 2,075
357,150



&quot;BELMONT SPREAD&quot;

Mr. Boisvert:: 1.	Is the product labelled "Belmont Spread", manufactured at Ste. Anne de la Perade, Quebec, a food under the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act?
2.	If so, what are the components of such product and the proportion of each?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.	Yes.
2. Moisture 20-4 per cent; curd, salt, etc. 5-7 per cent; and fat 73-9 per cent. An examination of the fat indicates that it is probably lard. It also contains a trace of

the preservatives known as propyl gallate and butylated hydroxyanisole.



MARGARINE-GOVERNMENT PUBLICITY

Mr. Poulin:: 1.	Is there a publication issued by any department or agency of the government in which prospective consumers are advised to serve margarine during meals?
2.	If so, what is the name of the said publication and under what authority is it published?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.	There is no publication issued by the nutrition division of the Department of National Health and Welfare which is concerned with margarine alone or which advises consumers to serve margarine in distinction to other spreads.
2.	See answer to No. 1 above.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	How many persons have been engaged for the service of the dominion government since the commencement of the fiscal year 1950-51 to date, either as government employees or in a representative capacity (but not including temporary clerical employees, manual workers, artisans, etc., employed as such by Canadian diplomatic, trade and military establishments abroad) who (a) are not Canadian citizens, or (b) hold the nationality or citizenship of some other country in addition to Canadian citizenship?
2.	Of such persons, what are the names of (a) all who are employed in a representative capacity abroad; (b) those who are employed in Canada who have not yet filed a declaration of intention to become a Canadian citizen, indicating in each case (i) the name of the country other than Canada of which he or she is a citizen or national, and (ii) the nature of such employment or service?


BEEF AND PORK PURCHASES AND SALES
Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: 1.	How much beef was purchased by the government, during the year 1951 and the year 1952?
2.	What was the purchase price per pound in each case?
3.	How much of this has been sold to date, to whom and at what price?
4.	How much pork was purchased by the government, during the year 1951 and the year 1952?
5.	What was the purchase price per pound in each case?
6.	How much of this has been sold to date, to whom and at what price?
7.	How much was the storage and/or processing costs on the beef and pork so purchased, and to whom were these payments made?



CATTLE SLAUGHTER


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: 1. How many cattle were slaughtered under the authority of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, during the year 1951 and the year 1952?
Inquiries of the Ministry 2. What were the payments per animal to owners for purebred and/or for graded animals so slaughtered?



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister, of which I have sent him notice. In view of President Eisenhower's statement yesterday as reported by the Associated Press, to the effect that the United States government proposes to end the government's present monopoly over peacetime use of atomic energy for industrial purposes, does the Canadian government propose taking similar action in the near future?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The practice of the government has been to carry out the security regulations agreed upon among the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. Those restrictions have been relaxed from time to time, and Canada has always followed the practice prescribed by agreement among the three countries. I do not think it is fair to say that private enterprise has not been permitted to deal in atomic energy, because representatives of private enterprise are now engaged in studying the use of atomic energy for power purposes. In any case, the rules that apply to the three countries will apply in Canada.
(Translation):



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Fontaine (St. Hyacinthe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe).
Does the government intend to close the veterans hospital at St. Hyacinthe? If so, when will the hospital be closed and for what reasons?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Fontaine) for having advised me of his intention to ask this question. This affords me the opportunity of making a brief statement with regard to the St. Hyacinthe hospital for the treatment of tuberculous veterans.
For some time the number of tuberculous veterans entitled to treatment has greatly
2204	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry decreased so that the number of patients at St. Hyacinthe hospital is constantly decreasing and we expect a further decrease when the new hospital at Quebec opens in the spring for the treatment of tuberculous veterans in that district.
For the efficient treatment of tuberculous patients, we must have the necessary installations, such as clinical laboratories, X-ray apparatus, a department of physiotherapy and occupational therapy, as well as operating rooms. Owing to the reduction in the number of patients at St. Hyacinthe, it is becoming more and more difficult to find sufficient personnel to provide all those sections with the kind of services we wish to give them. But we already have the necessary installation at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, where we can adequately house this limited number of patients. We therefore propose to transfer the veterans still hospitalized at St. Hyacinthe to Ste. Anne de Bellevue hospital before October, 1954. Several persons now employed at St. Hyacinthe will be transferred to Ste. Anne, if they so desire, where they may continue to fulfil their present duties.
I wish to assure the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, who has shown special interest in this matter, that several other members on the hospital staff, whose services will not be required at Ste. Anne, will be able to keep on working at St. Hyacinthe for the Department of National Health and Welfare, which will take over the hospital when it is vacated by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
(Text):



WATER POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since he last spoke in this house about the matter, has he anything further to report on a possible solution to the pollution problem in the North Saskatchewan river?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am glad to have had notice of my hon. friend's question. I believe it will be agreed that the hon. member is perhaps one of the few in this house who 

have had an opportunity of seeing the situation, as I understand he recently visited the scene of pollution. I thought it might be useful if I just said by way of answer that yesterday, after the return of Dr. Charron from the scene of operation in Edmonton, I sent the following telegram to the minister of health in Alberta, Dr. Cross. The telegram reads as follows:
Hon. Dr. Cross
Minister of Health, Edmonton, Alta.
I understand that some progress is being made toward the identification of the offending substances. I am further informed that an intensive investigation has been launched using all available federal, provincial and industrial resources. Nevertheless there is no assurance of an early solution to this problem. Meanwhile, the distress of all of the affected communities is one of growing aggravation and I am accordingly wiring to obtain direct information from you as to what measures are being contemplated by your province towards and pending solution of this problem.
As you may be aware, from the reports of the discussions that have taken place in parliament, the federal government considers that in so far as jurisdiction is involved, the situation is one that would appear to be a matter for provincial authorities.
In order however that I may answer the various questions that are directed to me as well as knowing wherein the federal government could be of further assistance, it would be most helpful if I could know something of the measures that are being taken by your government in this connection. I have of course in mind the procedure which is provided in the public health act, whereby your provincial board of health has supervision over the source of public water supplies with reference to purity and wide authority for the investigation and determination of complaints arising from industrial wastes and other pollutants affecting such water.
I would assume that your provincial board of health has already taken active steps in this connection and that in due course it will be prepared to make such recommendations and initiate such action as may be required. Some word from you, however, on this would of course be most helpful.
Apart altogether from the correction of the present problem, there would seem to arise the overall and long-term question of the extent to which the waters of the North Saskatchewan river can reasonably be utilized to receive industrial wastes from your expanding chemical industries. I appreciate that there are a number of industries situated along this river that have for some time past used the waters for the disposal of industrial wastes. Tt may be that until the recent use of the river for this purpose by the Canadian Chemical Company the flow of water was of itself sufficient to neutralize the other wastes which were being deposited and that the recent addition has brought the matter far beyond the toleration point. If this should be so, then with the possibility of other industries seeking to use the river for di-nosal of industrial wastes, it would seem quite clear and apart from the immediate problem, that wholly different measures would need to be employed by the industries in order to permit of the reasonable use of the river for disposal purposes.
There are accordingly two problems that arise, the first relating to the measures which your government propose to Initiate to correct the present

situation, and secondly, the general problem of the overloading of this river by the dumping of industrial wastes.
I trust that you will understand my purpose in wiring you as I have done and it is not with any view of seeking to intervene in a matter which is within the responsibility of the provincial authorities but in order that I may be in a position to discuss the matter with the many parties that are concerned with the problem and to be able to offer such technical help and assistance as may be best under the circumstances.
Paul Martin
Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Walter Adam Tucker: Has the minister received any reply?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.
ILater:!


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I
should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the officials he sent to Edmonton have as yet received certificates of analysis covering the various samples of water they took along the Saskatchewan river from Edmonton through Prince Albert. I ask this because it is a long time, and one would think that an analysis would be available after 90 days.


Mr. Marlin:: Mr. Speaker, I answered
this question the other day. The analysis is under way.


John George Diefenbaker: But, Mr. Speaker, this is today, not the other day. The department certainly should know whether the certificates of analysis are available now.


Murdo William Martin: I can make no better reply than the one I have already given, that the analysis is under way. And if the analysis is under way, the certificates have naturally not been completed.


John George Diefenbaker: Ninety-six days! NATIONAL FILM BOARD
ALLEGEDLY OFFENSIVE PICTURE ENTITLED "FAREWELL TO OAK street"
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Charles Henry (Rosedale):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, notice of which I have given him. Is the minister aware that the national film board has plans to distribute a picture deeply offensive to the human dignity of many Canadians, the title being "Farewell to Oak Street"? Has the minister considered the advisability of a restricted distribution?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the minister is prepared to answer the question, I do not see the urgency of it. I think the member should put it on the order paper.



OBSCENE LITERATURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Justice? Has the minister's attention been drawn to a report of the Canadian pharmaceutical association to the effect that magazine distributors are forcing drugstores and newsstands to accept undesirable literature in packages distributed to them? Will the minister state whether any action is contemplated?


Hon. Sfuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. friend for having given notice of his question, and also for having included with it a news report in the Globe and Mail of a couple of days ago, upon which his question is based.
My attention has not been drawn to any report of the Canadian pharmaceutical association, and if the thought that it has been is based upon this news report I would point out that the report states this, in relation to my hon. friend's question:
The association executive yesterday approved a letter to the federal justice department commending the government for several recent prosecutions in the salacious literature field.
Then it goes on to say:
At the same time, the association revealed that many retail pharmacists, enlisted in the fight against crime comics, have met strong opposition from magazine distributors.
"Individual pharmacists," executive director John C. Turnbull said, "have been told they either must take the full package of magazines for sale, or not receive any."
I gather that the revealing of this information was probably made in the letter which is still to come to me. I have not received it yet. This being so, the only notice I have of it so far is in the newspaper item in question. Therefore I think that answers both the first and the second parts of my hon. friend's question.



INSTRUCTIONS TO CANADIAN DELEGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: In the
negotiations now current between representatives of the Canadian government and the government of Japan, looking to a trade
2206	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry treaty, what instructions are the Canadian delegation working under, specifically, with regard to the importation of Japanese textiles?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The delegation negotiating for a treaty are instructed to work out the best possible deal for Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My supplementary question is, are there any specific instructions in relation to textiles?


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I asked a supplementary question, and I think the minister was about to answer it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, in the negotiating of a treaty it is not customary to discuss the terms thereof on the floor of the House of Commons. When the treaty is ready for ratification, it will be presented here.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Thomas Richard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. I am sorry I could not give him notice; I just thought of it now. Would the Minister of Justice tell the house whether the Criminal Code, as revised, will include an article which would make it punishable to sell infants or children?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Replying to the hon. member's question I would say that the present Bill No. 7, which is now before the house, does not specifically make it a crime to sell infants or children. [Later:!


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: May
I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Justice? Would it be possible to have something more on the record? I can conceive of delegates from Canada at the United Nations being embarrassed about that question and answer, and that the answer might be quoted before one of the United Nations committees. Similar questions and answers, not quite as bad as that, have been asked and have embarrassed members. I, myself, suffered on one occasion from an answer somewhat similar to that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think the point raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is well taken. The answer I gave is quite correct, but I think perhaps it would be better if I were to make a fuller statement tomorrow indicating that while Bill No. 7 does not specifically make it a crime to sell infants or children, such an act might be prosecuted under other sections of Bill No. 7. Perhaps I should also make reference to the law now existing before Bill No. 7 is passed.


Walter Adam Tucker: I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if it is not correct that the sale of a baby is an offence at common law which, under the Criminal Code as it now stands, is in force in Canada when the matter is not covered by the code?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, that would be a wrong assumption. The common law is in effect at the present time, if that is what my hon. friend means, and will be in effect until Bill No. 7 is passed. But Bill No. 7 itself will be comprehensive of the whole field of criminal law, in the sense that it will abolish all common law offences.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Can the minister say if the department is now considering a proposal to raise the rates of unemployment insurance benefits?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to answer that question at the present time.



SUGGESTED CONSTRUCTION OF DAMS ON THAMES RIVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) asked a question of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) which was taken as notice. The question had to do with flood conditions in Woodstock, and the building of dams on the upper Thames river and Cedar creek. In reply I might say that the building of the projected dams is normally considered to be the responsibility of the Ontario government.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AMENDMENT TO PREVENT INCREASE IN MAXIMUM RETIRING ALLOWANCE

Clarence Decatur Howe: the second reading of Bill No. 176, to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the amendments which are proposed in this bill are designed to continue the present scheme of pensions under this act at the same level as before by eliminating the automatic increase which would be possible as a result of an increase in the sessional indemnity.
Hon. members will recall that they have been contributing on the basis of 6 per cent of the sessional indemnity of $4,000 and would have continued to contribute until their contributions equalled the amount of the sessional indemnity, which has been $4,000. Without this amendment, the recent increase in indemnities would have increased the limit of contributions to $8,000.
A member who was eligible for pension would receive one equal to 75 per cent of the contributions he had made.
The proposed amendment no longer ties the limit of contribution to the sessional indemnity but specifies that $4,000 will be the limit and correspondingly the maximum pension will be $3 000, for the 75 per cent factor remains unchanged.
The contributions will continue at the same level, and will be taken at the rate of 6 per cent from the first $4,000 payable to a member by way of sessional indemnity in each period of twelve months commencing the day he became a member. It can be seen therefore that there will be very little difference and, if anything, it will take a member longer to become entitled to the maximum pension than would have been the case under the act as it stands at the moment.
I should like to take this opportunity to emphasize how restricted a pension scheme this is. The pension is paid to the member only and there are no dependents benefits. Moreover, the minimum requirements are such that, as a result of the last election, appointments to the Senate and resignations, only 16 members of the House of Commons at the end of the last parliament have become eligible for pensions. As a matter of interest, none of those who became senators were eligible for an annual allowance, and all received withdrawal allowances equal to their own contributions, which did not include any interest which they had paid. One of those who were eligible for an annual allowance 83276-141J
Members' Retiring Allowances has had it suspended because he is holding a position in the government service. Of the remaining 15, five are of the age of 70 or over and their allowances are therefore subject to the reduction of $480 a year to tie in with the amount payable under the Old Age Security Act.
In addition to these annual allowances, 55 withdrawal allowances have become payable in respect of members who have died or of former members who failed to qualify under the minimum requirement of having contributed or elected to contribute in respect of sessions in more than two parliaments. As I mentioned a few moments ago, the withdrawal allowances which these former members received did not include any interest which they had paid in respect of prior service. Those amounts of interest as well as the interest which was earned by the contributions of those members will remain for the benefit of the fund. Thus the relatively small number of allowances that are paid can be seen to have been paid at the expense of the much larger number of other members who will not become eligible.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister permit one question?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister made the statement a moment ago that under the new regulations now before the house it would take a somewhat longer time in order to be entitled to full pension. Has he the figures on that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not the figures, but it arises from the fact that there have been indemnities for each of two sessions of parliament in one year and that will no longer be the case.


Major James William Coldwell: One other question. Is it not a fact that not all of the 15 members who retired are entitled to the maximum pension?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is true. To receive the maximum pension would require 17 sessions of parliament. A man must have attended 17 sessions of parliament to qualify for the maximum pension and a number of those who have qualified have qualified for less than the maximum pension.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Members' contributions.
Mr. Low:: I have one question I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. I think I am right
2208	HOUSE OF
Members' Retiring Allowances when I say that under the act as it now stands members of the House of Commons are not allowed to receive the old age pension if they qualify for retirement allowance under the act. Is it not true that members of parliament will be the only group of people in Canada who will be debarred from receiving old age pensions when they reach the age of 70?


Stanley Howard Knowles: They get the old age pension, but that amount is deducted from their retirement allowance.


Mr. Abboii:: I think the answer would be this. The plan was worked out by the actuaries on the basis that when a man reached 70 his parliamentary allowance would be reduced by the amount which he received as old age pension. One might say that he is not receiving the old age pension. In point of fact and of law of course he does receive the old age pension, but his parliamentary allowance is reduced by a corresponding amount.


Solon Earl Low: Yes. I get the point; but when it is all reduced to ordinary common sense is it not true that members of parliament will be the only group in Canada who will not receive-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't forget the burnt-out pensioners.


Solon Earl Low: -the universal old age pension without having a reduction in something else?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Members of parliament who are receiving the retiring allowance would fall within that group; that is true.


Solon Earl Low: There is one other thing. Does this action affect the wives or dependents of members of parliament in any way? Does this act in any of its provisions affect the wives or dependents of members?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; as the Acting Prime Minister indicated, there is no provision for dependents. I must say I have sometimes thought that the effect of this pension is somewhat- unintentionally, of course-misrepresented in the public mind. It is a pension plan which I believe is actuarially sound. I had been assured it was before it was brought in; but comparing it with industrial pension plans or our own civil service superannuation plan, where there are provisions for widows and dependents, this is a very much more restricted plan.


Mr. Ferguson:: I am in favour of a pension plan for every man, woman and child in the Dominion of Canada, if they are Canadian citizens and they can earn and save through some method so they will not have the fear


of destitution in their old age. Before being elected to parliament I had the same opinion of members of parliament that I have now, namely that they were one of the most highly respected groups of men we have in Canada, and that being a member of parliament was something that nobody had to apologize for.


Mr. Mclvor:: Hear, hear.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: As a young man I was associated with men who chose to offer themselves as candidates for parliament. After great difficulty with the people of their own constituencies some of them finally convinced the voters that they were qualified to fill the position known as a member of the House of Commons. When the ballots were counted these people found themselves, whether or not they were capable, the representatives of constituencies in one of the greatest countries in this world, the Dominion of Canada.
During the discussion of increased indemnities some of the hon. members were a little apologetic with respect to the remuneration they were going to receive. 1 have never been apologetic. Now we come to pensions. In these pensions for the individuals who chose the vocation in which we now find ourselves we are in no different position from that of any other man or woman in Canada who chose a different vocation in life. And we have to go through an election to arrive here. But the wives and the husbands of members of parliament go with the members every step of their difficult journey in being elected to the House of Commons. Speaking for my own wife, I know the telephone in our home rings so frequently that she abhors it. She hates to hear it ring because it gets on her nerves. I think this will apply to the wife of every hon. member in this house. My wife has become a pretty fair liar, too, because I say, "You go; I am not in." I cannot take all the gaff; I put half of it on her shoulders.
Those who merit high standing in this House of Commons have given much of their lives and their time and their money to their constituencies, to the people who put them here. A man may die at a fairly ripe age after having served the people. He may have been on pension for six months, and his widow is left destitute. She is a woman who walked every step of the way with him along the path of government as laid down by the Canadian people.
People should not be able to point at the widow of a man who served in this House of Commons to the very best of his ability as she is on her way to the poorhouse after she has served her country well, after she has given unstintingly of her time to the people

in her husband's constituency. As long as the husband lives there is a mark of appreciation for the services which his wife renders, but the minute he dies his widow is aided to the door of the poorhouse.
This is the woman who kept the other home going. This is the woman who has been denied the pleasure of the company of her husband who must reside in Ottawa. This is the woman who looked after the family, who brought up children who were without a father for most of the time. This is the woman who is not being recognized under this pension scheme.
I would like to see an amendment to this pension plan so that the wives of members of parliament would be included. I apologize to no man or woman for the remuneration I receive as long as I retain my position in the House of Commons. It is the position the people vote for. If they do not see fit to send the right man here as the representative of their constituency that is their fault, not the fault of the member.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, may I say first of all on behalf of my colleagues, and I think of hon. members of the house generally, that we welcome this bill. I think the government has done the right thing under the circumstances in introducing it and placing a limit on the superannuation as provided for in the original act. I repeat that we welcome it.
There has been a tremendous amount of misinformation spread across the country relating to this particular superannuation plan. As the Minister of Finance said, it has proved to be actuarially sound from the beginning and is likely to remain so. Members contribute 6 per cent of their past and current indemnities in order to build up the fund, and of course there is a similar contribution by the government. Hon. members do not receive any pension if they retire from parliament before a certain time.
When this bill is before the house I think it should be noted, as the Acting Prime Minister has said, that it will require members of parliament to serve much longer in order to qualify for the maximum pension. For example, if I were to retire or were defeated I would be entitled to the full superannuation of $3,000 provided I could raise the amount I have to pay in order to make up the total of $4,000 and interest which I owe the government. I shall do that in time.
I have earned that right in about 14 years, during which I have been elected three times. It has been possible for me to earn the full pension in that time under the act as it is before this amendment because we had extra sessions and fractions of sessions. Altogether
Members' Retiring Allowances they enabled me-I am using my own case- to earn the maximum pension in about 14 years.
As the Acting Prime Minister has said, under this amendment a member of parliament will have to serve 17 years for the maximum pension of $3,000. Moreover, if this parliament continues and subsequent parliaments continue for the average that has prevailed since 1926, in order to get the maximum pension a member will have to be elected four and possibly five times in 17 years. The average has been four years for each parliament.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Which is crazy.


Major James William Coldwell: Consequently, in effect we are making it much more difficult for hon. members who came to this house at the beginning of this parliament to earn the maximum pension. I do not think that is understood in the country. I have had it thrown at me that members of parliament may be elected three times, retire and receive a pension of $3,000 no matter what their age may be. When this amendment passes that statement will be absolutely wrong. I think this should be brought out this afternoon in order that the public may know.
I have supported the idea of superannuation for members of parliament for the reasons I gave when the bill was before the house in the first instance, and which I am not going to repeat. I think this is the best thing we have done, far better than increasing the indemnity.
I am going to support the hon. member for Simcoe North in his request that something be done for the widows of members. I am in the position where I speak as one who has no dependents. I would like to see, not today but perhaps later on this session, an amendment introduced, or even a separate measure, to provide something for the widows of members who were entitled to some pension. I think this should be paid for by the members themselves; I do not think there should be any imposition on the public funds of Canada. If we all agreed in this house-and again I speak as one who is entitled to the maximum pension but who is without dependents-to contribute to a fund for the benefit of widows who might be left behind, that could be built up by means of a small deduction from the annual indemnities of all members of parliament. Widows could be at least partly taken care of from that fund. I think that is something we should consider.
I am not asking the government to consider it today because when the superannuation bill was introduced into this house it was not introduced as a government measure.

Members' Retiring Allowances It was introduced because there was general agreement among all parties in the house. Some member of the government might take the initiative, or some private member, as has been done before, and get in touch with the members of the house to see if something could not be worked out. But there should be no contribution from the public funds of Canada. All of us, whether we have completed our service and paid up our full assessment or not, should contribute to the fund out of which widows of hon. members who have served the country well could be provided for. As the hon. member for Simcoe North said, no wife of a member of parliament does other than serve this country well.
I know that perhaps I have gone a little beyond the scope of this bill and I hope, Mr. Chairman, you will forgive me for having discussed this matter. I believe some consideration should be given it. May I again say that we support this measure as it stands, and that we should like to see something done subsequently for the women who will .'become widows when members of this bouse die.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: First of all I wish to say I support what has been said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and the hon. member for Simcoe North. I will, however, say-and I hope it would be included in anything that might be arranged- that if the widow married again I think provision should be made that the pension be cut off immediately.
What I am on my feet for is this. When the hon. member for Peace River spoke he said he thought this pension was the only one that would be affected by the old age pension, and would be reduced. I believe the hon. member for Peace River forgets that war veterans' widows' pensions are reduced, or the old age pension is reduced according to what the pensioner gets, or according to what the earnings are. I do not object to the members of parliament having their pensions cut, but I certainly object to the veterans having theirs reduced in the way that is done at the present time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I just want to make a comment or two on this bill. As one who was not always on the side of the majority in connection with the original legislation in this case, I want to make it clear that I am not going to raise any unwelcome or controversial points at this time. However, I want to say this. I think the government is doing the right thing in introducing this amendment which will prevent the amount of the pension otherwise payable on full qualification being automatically doubled. It will also prevent what would otherwise be the result, the
[Mr. Coldwell.l

automatically doubling of the maximum contributions to be made by the treasury. My only regret on this score is that the government did not announce it as their intention at the time they introduced the bill to increase the sessional indemnity. However, it is being done now and I am sure there can be no objection.
However, in connection with what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said, I think it should be pointed out that the length of time necessary to qualify will be only four or more parliaments or 17 or more years after this amendment goes through. Unless that is made clear I think it might have been taken from what he said that that was the length of time necessary to qualify at the present time. I may say that I would not have had as many objections as I had to the original legislation had there been written into the act a longer minimum time which it was necessary to put in before a member qualified, which will be the effect of this amendment. I am therefore very much in agreement with this amendment in that regard.
I want to make this further suggestion. While there are other modifications which I think might be made to the retirement allowance legislation, such as the provision of an age floor below which a member would not receive the pension if he retired from the house at less than that age, which according to the actuaries who appeared before the committee two years ago would have the effect of substantially lessening the treasury contribution, I am not going to press that point now, except to say that I hope it will be considered in conjunction with the other suggestions which are being made, if they are to receive consideration.
One other matter I wish to mention is in connection with the provision of retirement allowances to widows of members who have retired. I think there would be a quite simple way of covering that matter, and one which would not increase the burden on the treasury. That would be to do as is done now with a number of other forms of retirement allowances, namely to put it on a last-survivor basis, under which the person entitled to receive the allowance may, at the time he begins to receive it, elect whether he will take the full pension payable to himself and stopping with his death or take a little smaller pension, the amount of which would be worked out on an actuarial basis, payable to himself or his widow, whichever may survive the longest.
If the matter is to receive consideration, that suggestion might be one that could be considered, inasmuch as it would not have

the effect of imposing any greater burden on the pension fund if it is worked out on an actuarial basis.


Solon Earl Low: I think the government is acting wisely in bringing in this bill making provision for some ceiling on the amount of the pension. I believe that is a matter every hon. member was anxious about at the time of the passing of the other bill.
I am afraid I put my first questions rather badly, or at least one of them. The purpose for which I framed the question was to get the information accurately on the record, because I knew there had been a good many misapprehensions about the members' retirement allowances and that some of the press had scattered across the country stories that were just not true.
In reply to the hon. member for Peterborough, let me say that what I meant to get on the record was this, putting it not in the form of a question but of an assertion. I think it can be shown that this is the only contributory retirement allowance scheme in Canada that has the means test applied to it as far as the old age pension is concerned. Mention might be made of some of these other schemes, as has already been done, but they are not contributory schemes. This one is. I think I am quite correct in saying that this is the only contributory retirement allowance scheme in Canada where the means test is applied so far as the universal old age pension is concerned.
With regard to the extension of the program, may I say that I think we should study a possible extension, with a view to securing some benefits for the widows of members who pass on. I believe any scheme that is worthy of enactment in the House of Commons is worthy of an extension of that kind, and I certainly would support some such arrangement. When I say that I am not suggesting by any means that the government should put up any more money; but surely we ought to give careful study to an extension to cover the widows of members of the House of Commons.
I want to say that we support wholeheartedly the amendments to the act as they are now before us.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I have supported this measure from the beginning. There is one thing the general public does not understand. When a man has qualified, as far as the number of sessions he must attend is concerned, the general public think he will get the pension. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said, he cannot get the pension until he has paid in the $4,000 or $5,000, according to the length of time it takes him. I should
Members' Retiring Allowances like to ask the Acting Prime Minister this question. If a member has served his time and is out in the open, will the government lend him the money to make the back payments?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The provision now exis.s that if a member qualifies for the pension, the government will deduct from the pension due him an amount that will cover the payments and the interest on the payments for those past services. It means that the member will have to wait a while before getting his pension but, if he lives long enough, he will get it in the end.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I thank the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might just say a few words in reply to what has been said thus far. As hon. members have said, the pension plan really originated with the private members of the House of Commons. It was brought to the government by a group of private members and was then referred to the banking and commerce committee. The government asked the committee to decide one thing in particular. Was the plan actuarially sound? We were told that it was sound. We have not had much experience with the working of the plan. Results to date show that it is rather better than actuarially sound, but that is only based on one year's operations.
I might say that to give the option to divide the pension with the wife would put quite a strain on the fund. Judges are permitted to do so, but we know something of the cost of that concession in their case. We know that it is an expensive business. That would hardly work, although I might point out that in effect the retiring allowance makes it possible for a member to provide for his wife, since he can set aside a thousand dollars each year of his pension and with it buy insurance protection for his wife.
This plan is different from most, in that a man can qualify for the pension at the age of 45 if he starts his parliamentary career at the age of 28, and we have had several members in the house who were 28 or less. An hon. member might find it desirable to marry a woman ten or fifteen years younger than himself.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Not at 28.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, but he might marry later.


Mr. Lennard:: They just do that in the other place.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nevertheless I
think hon. members will agree that with our present knowledge of the pension plan it would not be wise to attempt to revise its
2212	HOUSE OF
Members' Retiring Allowances terms at this moment. We adopted the best judgment of the group of members who originated the plan. We had it examined as presented to the committee, and we believe that the plan today is sound. If the matter is restudied by any group of members and another plan can be presented which is also sound I am sure the government will be glad to consider it, but I do not think the government would consider it unless it can be shown that it is an actuarially sound pension plan.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, probably my only reason for saying a word now is to demonstrate that now and again a subject does come before the house on which I do not find myself opposed to the government. As a matter of fact during the session when the retiring allowances bill was introduced I think the only speech I made was in support of that bill. I am still convinced that it is good legislation. However, as my leader says,
I do not think that we have done a good public relations job in regard to it. I think the general feeling in the country is that members receive the retiring allowance without making any contributions themselves.
During the recent election campaign I received a letter from a constituent who was very irate on the subject. She said that for the first time in many years she was not going to vote for me. I did not feel greatly concerned, because I had an idea that there would be plenty of votes besides hers. But after the election was over I took the time to write and give her certain figures with respect to my own account in the fund. She is a fair-minded woman, and she apologized by the next mail. I believe that feeling is fairly general throughout the country. People do not follow what we do here as closely as we sometimes think, and if they do they forget.
The hon. member for Kamloops raised the point that there should be an age limit for receiving the retiring allowance. I do not believe that we should do that. Probably it does seem rather generous to provide pensions for members who retire at the age of, say, 45, but it must be remembered that if a member is eligible for the pension at that age he has spent his life from the age of 22 or 23 as a member of parliament, and that is the period when other people are working and making provision for their own future. In my opinion such a man is more entitled to the pension than a person who enters politics at a later age.
The matter of pensions for widows is not part of the bill before us, but other members have said a word about it and I should like to say something also. If it can be


done through contributions by the members themselves I am all in favour of it. It would be a good move for the members. But I wish we could approach subjects of this kind without either feeling sorry for ourselves or for our future widows who are no more deserving of a pension than any other widows in Canada. Who is going to provide pensions for the widows of farmers in the constituency of the hon. member for Simcoe North? Who is going to provide pensions for the widows of the longshoremen in my constituency? These women have all done something for Canada. They have raised Canada's children to manhood and womanhood, and if there is any group more worthy of attention I should like to know who they are.
I say again that I wish we could approach these matters without feeling sorry for ourselves. In my opinion there is no reason why a member of parliament should feel sorry for himself or for his wife and possibly future widow. I believe the wives of members of parliament are enjoying themselves. I know my wife is, and I daresay the others are. They get opportunities that many other wives throughout the country do not get.


Mrs. Shipley:: I should like to say a few
words on this subject. I think I am particularly well fitted to speak on it. This is my first year in parliament, and it is highly improbable that I will ever be re-elected four or five times and serve some 17 years. I am a widow, so one might say that I have nothing to gain from anything that may be done here. I feel very keenly, and agree with the statements made by some hon. members, that this measure has been very poorly explained to the people of Canada. I was under the impression, as most other people are, that a member got a wonderful pension and that he did not have to do very much to earn it. But there will be a very small percentage of the members of the house who will ever earn the full pension, and if a member is not elected at least three times he gets no pension at all.
When I learned further that the widows receive nothing I was somewhat shocked. I think any pension or insurance plan to which we contribute in large measure ourselves should make some provision for the widows. After all, I think it would be fair to say that with very few exceptions the members of this house are the only wage earners in their families. As long as we are alive most of us will still be able to earn something

and support the other members of our families, but when death occurs the pension stops and there is nothing left.
I must say that I do not agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. He said that the widow of a member of parliament was no more entitled to a pension than the widow of a farmer or a fisherman. Now, the only type of pension for a widow that I have heard described here is one for which members of parliament would pay themselves.
There was a proposal made by the hon. member for Kamloops. He suggested that we should have the option of electing to take a smaller pension ourselves, thereby increasing the pension for the widow. No one is suggesting, certainly I am not suggesting, that the widows of farmers and fishermen are not entitled to pensions. This is something which it is within our power to plan to do for the widows of members of parliament. The farmers and fishermen have the same privilege of looking after their wives or dependents. I would support them in every move they wanted to make in that regard. However, I do not think the suggestion made by the hon. member was particularly sound.
I do not like this idea of the old age pension being deducted from the pensions of members of parliament. I think there is a rather unfortunate inference there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not correct. Old age
security is a non-means-test pension.


Marie Ann Shipley: Is it to be deducted?


An hon. Member:: No.


Marie Ann Shipley: I do not understand it. I am sorry I opened up that subject. I believe that is all I have to say. I do hope that, as suggested by the Acting Prime Minister, a committee of this house will be formed to consider something for the widows of members of parliament. I can only say that I hope I might be asked to serve on that committee, because I would have nothing to gain from it and I should like to see some consideration given to the widows of members.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: When I speak in the House of Commons I am here to speak for the people of Canada. When I spoke on this subject today I was not whining on my own behalf. I was not whining on behalf of my wife. I was here discussing a matter which concerns the people of Canada. I do not like the implication by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I have never needed any contribution from the House of Commons in order to weigh 210 pounds. I have eaten three meals a day and so has my wife, even
Members' Retiring Allowances before we saw the House of Commons. We shall continue to do so. We do not need the House of Commons.
When I spoke, I spoke for future generations in Canada. We are being asked to enact a change in a law which has been on the statute books for only a short time. I think it is most unfair for another member to cast aspersions on me by saying he did not like people whining about their own case in the House of Commons. No person has ever heard me whining on behalf of myself or my family.


Donald MacInnis: I did not say the hon. member was whining. I did not say any hon. member in this house was whining.


The Chairman:: Perhaps I have been a little too indulgent in allowing the debate to proceed on the question of extending the provisions of this bill to the widows of members; that is perhaps beyond the scope of these amendments. I believe we might limit our discussion more particularly to the clause before us.


Mr. Cardiff:: I do not intend to take up very much of the time of the committee. After considering the answer given to the hon. member for Fort William, perhaps there is one place a change should be made in the bill, because it does not make sense. The provision in the original bill stated a member had to win three elections and sit through 17 sessions of parliament to qualify for a pension. Those of us who have been here for 14 years qualified, but now one may not qualify for a full pension by winning three elections. You would have to win four, and sometimes perhaps five.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is to qualify for the maximum pension. You are able to qualify for a pension after two parliaments plus, but you only qualify in relation to the amount you have contributed to the fund over that period. It will take 17 sessions of parliament to qualify for the full amount.. By that time you will have paid in $4,000 and will be entitled to receive $3,000 a year.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I understand that, but we had. two sessions of parliament within one year-on two different occasions, which meant that many of the older men in the house became eligible for a full pension.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Those who will be coming into the house now cannot qualify for this full pension even in three parliaments. They would have to go on perhaps to four parliaments.
2214	HOUSE OF
Members' Retiring Allowances


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said the effect of this bill was to lengthen the time required for those participating in the scheme to qualify for the maximum pension.


Mr. Byrne:: With deference to your ruling concerning ranging just a little farther afield than the actual clause under discussion, may I say that we have heard a great deal from the opposition side but very little from members on the government side. I would beg your indulgence for just a moment to comment on some of the statements that have been made, and give my impression of this particular bill as it relates to the increase in members' indemnities.
On the basis of being a person with family responsibility, I wholeheartedly supported the increased indemnity. I shall go further and say I was somewhat cool a year or two ago to the question of the members' retiring fund. In view of the fact that it was pointed out by members of the opposition that the retiring fund would be a boon to the opposition, as was mentioned by the member for Rosetown-Biggar, I went along with it. I did not seek to create the impression mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver -Kingsway, that there have been poor public relations on this question. Let me tell the hon. member that there has been an equally poor public relations job done on members' indemnities. I know that if the members of his party spoke here as they did privately, the public relations job would not have been so poor. I feel that the $10,000 indemnity-


William Alfred Robinson: I do not think I can allow a discussion of members' indemnities on a bill which concerns retiring allowances.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I agree. The maximum pension of $3,000 is approximately, in my estimation, a little more than half what a member receives in take-home pay from his total indemnity, plus expense allowance, so undoubtedly it is a fair and reasonable pension plan. I have no quarrel with that; but I am just pointing out that the indemnity should not have received such bad publicity, after all.
It has been suggested that some provision should be made for the widows of members of parliament. One member has said that the wives of members are enjoying themselves. Well, I hope they are. I would hope that every wife in Canada, in so far as is possible, is enjoying herself. But I want to say that any member's wife who was left at home, perhaps two or three thousand miles away, and had to look after a family without any assistance because the amount paid the member was not sufficient to keep


them together, was not having too good a time of it. Those wives are doing a great service, and are working hard.
When it comes to the matter of pensions, I think they deserve the same treatment as the pensionable widows of other groups in the community. I am not suggesting only that we should increase payments made by the government. I think it should be done in the usual manner in which any pension is handled in industry, or under civil service pension plans. Under those plans the pensioner would receive smaller annual or monthly payments, and at his death the pension would be continued for his widow at a somewhat reduced rate. I do not think there should be any further contribution other than the $3,000; but some arrangement could be made to attend to that matter, and in my opinion it should be done soon.
It has been pointed out that few members have been affected by the pension plan. However, as time goes on there will be more, and consideration should be given to this matter so the widows would be cared for.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I can see now that I have been entirely too indulgent in allowing this discussion to proceed. I must say now that I shall have to rule out of order any further discussion about the extension of this provision to the widows of members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there are just two things I wanted' to say. I confess you have put me in a bit of difficulty by the firmness of the ruling you have just made. However, perhaps you would permit me to say one or two sentences; and if Your Honour thinks I am going too far, please stop me. I suppose you will do that, without my asking for it.
I think it should be noted, particularly by the press, which is undoubtedly going to report this afternoon's discussion, that all those who have referred to the possibility of any change in the plan to include a provision for widows have emphasized that if such a provision is made it should be without any additional cost to the treasury. Otherwise, no hon. member would agree to it. Some have made the statement-


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member invited me to interrupt him if I thought he was transgressing the ruling I made a moment ago. I hope he will not continue to discuss that subject. We should confine ourselves to the subject in hand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree; and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for not stopping me until I had got my point across. The other point

I wanted to say a word about is that which was raised by the hon. member for Peace River. I think it is well that we try to keep clear in our minds exactly what the situation is. I noticed that the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the hon. member for Timiskaming were not too sure, between them, just what the situation was. I think it is this-
Members' Retiring Allowances should not apply to me the ruling you have just laid down. I say I hope the suggestion made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and so admirably supported by the hon. member for Timiskaming, might be followed; that is that, failing any other arrangements regarding widows, we in this house, who are no exception to the public, might look into the matter further.


Mr, Martin:: There is no doubt about what I think.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then the minister will agree with what I am about to say.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not likely.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, I think you will. The fact is that under the act as it now stands, a retired member of parliament, even though receiving the member's pension, is entitled to draw the old age security pension when he reaches the age of 70.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Everybody is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No question about it; the minister and I agree.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what I said, and all I said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But his parliamentary pension is reduced by the amount of the old age security pension, whether or not he applies for the old age security pension.


Mr. Harris:: Has there ever been any doubt about that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, not in my mind.


Walter Edward Harris: Then why waste time about it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: But there certainly does seem to be a doubt in the minds of some members, and there is a misinterpretation being placed upon it, I think, down in the left corner. Let us have it clear, then, that there are two groups of people in the country to whom that provision applies. One group consists of members of parliament and the other group consists of recipients of the war veterans allowance. The parliamentary pension is on a contributory basis, as the hon. member said, but the war veteran has contributed something else. It should not be said that our burnt-out pensioners are in a different position, so far as that aspect of the matter is concerned.
So far as the old age security deduction from the parliamentary pension is concerned, I register no objection. But I do hope that we will soon cease making that deduction in the case of our burnt-out pensioners.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a deal with you, that for 20 seconds you


Mr. Shaw:: I wish to make this perfectly clear, and what I shall say arises out of the observations made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The hon. member for Peace River did not intend to leave any impression whatsoever to the effect that war widows had not made a contribution. He was simply referring to plans which we look upon and categorize as contributory pension or retirement schemes.


Mr. Nickle:: Members' Retiring Allowances
"The chances are that after being in parliament 17 years he would rather continue to sit here in the hope of obtaining an appointment to the Senate or to the bench, or some federal appointment, than retire on his pension", Arsenault said. "Even if he is defeated after 17 years, he has the security of knowing that he will at least have an income of $6,000 a year for life."
I raise the point, Mr. Chairman, because I feel that the hon. member who has been quoted should have the opportunity of correcting this rather inaccurate report in order that the newspaper in my home city may have the opportunity of correcting the information it has given to the public in that city.


William Alfred Robinson: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: It is quite usual in industrial pensions to take into account the old age pension at age 70 in working out the benefits. The reason this fund is actuarially sound, I am told, is that the calculations were made on the basis that when a member qualified for the old age pension his parliamentary payment would be reduced. That was the proposal of the committee; that was the basis of the fund, and that was the basis on which it was declared actuarially sound. We can attempt to devise another fund where the reduction is not made, but this one was set up on the basis that it would be made.


Ernest George Hansell: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I cannot very well see that Canada has a universal old age pension.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Acting Prime Minister covered one aspect of my hon. friend's question. The fact is that at the age of 70 the pension is paid, as a matter of right, to everyone in Canada without the means test. Therefore it is correct to say that Canada's old age security scheme is universal in character.


Mr. Hahn:: In connection with the statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I would gather that if we are going to say, to use his own words, that Canada has a universal old age pension, then we must declare that this pension-and I hope the press will take note of it-is a pension of $3,000 a year to the age of 70 and thereafter $2,520 a year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

On clause 2.
Mr. Harkness:: Can the Acting Prime Minister tell us just what changes this clause makes in regard to what the situation was previously under the old section 2, which is on the right hand side and which is repealed by this new clause? To me the language is a little confusing. I do not know exactly what changes were made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The twenty-first parliament was the parliament that preceded this one. The clause provides for the deductions made in previous parliaments, and also for the deductions to be made in this parliament and subsequently.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is still not very clear. As far as I can see, this provides that all sessions previous to the seventh session, that is up to the last session of the last parliament, will be counted as a session, and any payments made on behalf of this will count toward the pension. That is as far as the last session was concerned. The withdrawal allowances, which mean the same thing, were subtracted from the indemnity and they will count, I would take it, as one session toward the pension. What is the situation as from the date of the last parliament? Does the next period of entitlement or the next session start from the day of the election and therefore end six months after that, or what is the situation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are so many eminent lawyers in the house that I do not know why a layman like myself should attempt to say what the bill means; but as
I	understand it, I qualified under the original bill; therefore my pension is governed by the original bill. There are those here who will qualify partly tinder the original bill and partly under this bill. The extent to which they did qualify under the original bill stands, and in future they will be governed by the present bill. In layman's terms I think that is what this particular clause means.


Mr. Hodgson:: I should like it made a little clearer. What the Acting Prime Minister is saying is this. Take the class who came here in the election of 1945. They had served
II	sessions up to the last election, as I calculate it. That means that if they have paid in they will be entitled to count 11 years toward the pension. From now on they have to serve six more years to be qualified under the new legislation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is exactly the meaning of the clause as I understand it


John George Diefenbaker: 1 was wondering whether the minister might clear up this situation. Did a person who was a member of the

twenty-first parliament have to elect during that parliament? Suppose he were here during that parliament and did not elect at that time; is he in the position of being able to elect today?


Jean Lesage: No, he cannot.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, he cannot elect for that parliament today. He can elect for the current parliament, but not for the preceding parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Having elected just for the current parliament, his time does not count until the date on which he elects?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is my understanding.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.


Clarence Decatur Howe: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act to increase the authorized capital stock of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation from five million dollars to fifteen million dollars; also to require the corporation to continue the underwriting reserve to cover future losses under contracts of insurance; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, the Export Credits Insurance Act which was passed by this parliament some years ago has been of great assistance to exporters. It has fully justified its existence in that it has allowed a good deal of business to be carried out that could not possibly have been carried out otherwise. The volume of business insured under the act has been constantly expanding, and the purpose of this amendment is to provide additional capital to the corporation and to make such revisions as will permit the act to meet the needs of present-day circumstances.
This amendment affects only part I of the Export Credits Insurance Act and has nothing to do with part II under which the authority to make loans to foreign governments expired on December 31, 1947. The main purpose of the amendment is to increase the effectiveness of the Export Credits Insurance
Export Credits Insurance Act Corporation by authorizing an increase in its capital. I think it would be helpful if I were to review briefly the operations of the corporation since the Export Credits Insurance Act was passed in 1944.
Under the act-
-the corporation may for the purpose of facilitating and developing trade between Canada and any other country enter into a contract of insurance with an exporter to insure him against any risk of loss in connection with the export or an agreement for the export of goods by reason of the failure of the exporter for any cause not avoidable by the exporter to recover the selling price of the goods.
There are no private commercial concerns who provide the insurance offered by the corporation. In all other countries in the world where similar insurance protection is available, the service is provided by the government or with government backing.
The Export Credits Insurance Corporation protects against these unexpected and unpreventable losses that occur in spite of every precaution taken by the exporter. Some of the risks covered include the insolvency of the foreign buyer, cancellation of an import licence in the country of destination, and the risk of adverse changes in foreign exchange regulations. While the corporation will insure against delays in collection that are not the fault of the exporter, it does not cover trade disputes as to the quality or quantity of goods received. The corporation does not cover straight repudiation on the part of the buyer if the buyer is able to pay for the goods. However, if the exporter were to secure a court judgment against the buyer and the judgment could not be satisfied, then the corporation would be on risk. The exporter is insured against blockage of funds or transfer difficulties which prevent him from receiving payment for his goods in the currency agreed upon at the time of the sale. Such calamities as war or revolution in the country of the buyer are also covered. In other words, the policies protect against credit risks and political risks, but the protection extends just to the accounts receivable and has nothing to do with the goods themselves.
This provision of export credits insurance in no way subsidizes the exporter for he still has to compete in the markets of the world on the basis of quality, price, credit terms, services rendered, etc., and in addition pays premium for the insurance protection. By insuring one of his most important liquid assets the exporter finds it easier to obtain financial assistance from his bankers. The policy he holds gives him the benefit of advice and assistance of the corporation in recovering as much as possible of his losses in the event of default, and by being given coverage against
2218	HOUSE OF
Export Credits Insurance Act the principal forms of loss arising out of overseas trade he is able to expand his exporting business and so help in maintaining Canada's foreign trade.
The corporation does not compete with commercial enterprises in the insurance field. It is nevertheless administered on a sound and businesslike basis. In all its policies it adheres to the principle of co-insurance and will pay to a maximum of 85 per cent of the contract price, leaving 15 per cent to be borne by the policyholder.
Also in keeping with another basic principle of insurance-that there should be a broad spread of risk-the corporation requires its policyholders who export consumer goods to insure all their export sales for a twelvemonth period, excluding sales made to the United States of America or sales made against irrevocable letters of credit, but all other sales to all other countries must be insured. In the case of capital goods an individual policy is issued to cover the specific contract of sale.
It is the aim of the corporation to operate on a self-supporting basis. In the setting of premium rates, the tariff charged is expected to be sufficient to cover operating expenses and probable losses. Hon. members will understand that in a business of this kind the extent of the risk is far more difficult to appraise than in the case of credit insurance in the domestic market. That is the principal reason why it is practically impossible for a private concern to give this form of world-wide coverage. The experience of the corporation to date is encouraging, in that the rates charged appear to have been fair both to the insurer and the insured. But no doubt we still have something to learn from experience over the years under varying conditions of world trade.
The corporation has covered $235 million of goods exported to more than 100 different countries. While it is not possible to ascertain precisely the volume of business that would have been done had export credits insurance protection not been available, nevertheless we know for a fact that in many cases the exporter would not have considered taking on the risk involved in the export sale without the insurance protection. With the very evident change from a seller's to a buyer's market, competition in the export field is ever-increasing and the provision of export credits insurance helps exporters and encourages them to sell aggressively. In covering $235 million of business, gross claims paid totalled $3-9 million, the bulk


of which have arisen due to exchange transfer difficulties. Recoveries of $1-7 million have been obtained and only $138,000 has been written off as irrecoverable.
The net outstanding claims paid at December 31, 1953 totalled $2 million, of which it is confidently expected the major portion will be recovered. The average premium rate is $0.82 per $100 on all exports covered to date. This is less than 1 per cent of the selling price. The total premiums received plus the interest on the corporation's capital have covered the operating expenses and net claims paid and left the corporation with a balance at the credit of the underwriting reserve of about $1 million.
At present the corporation is working with $10 million made up of $5 million capital stock and $5 million capital surplus. It is authorized to take on risks to the extent of ten times the capital and surplus or $100 million, indicating that the capital was supposed to bear relationship to the insurance underwritten. There is no provision by which the government guarantees the policies. It is the corporation's capital and the capital alone which provides the guarantee. Therefore the board of directors must make sure that the capital is sufficient to meet any normal losses.
I should add that the premiums received have fallen short of covering operating expenses and net claims paid by some $955,000, but if our expectations in regard to recoveries are fulfilled, the corporation will have operated on a self-supporting basis, that is, will have had no need to make use of their earnings on capital contributed by the government.
In considering applications for insurance the board must exercise reasonable prudence, and it feels it cannot take on liabilities in any one foreign country which may be excessive in relation to its capital. Accordingly the present capital limits the corporation's effective scope particularly because today's pattern of sales of agricultural equipment and capital goods such as locomotives tends to concentrate large sums at risk in individual countries. While it is not practicable to determine the precise extent to which the corporation should commit itself in any one market, as an example the corporation was recently asked to consider a program involving several million dollars in one country on normal payment terms. But it was already committed in that country to the extent of about $5 million. This additional business would obviously involve too great a concentration of risk in relation to its $10 million

capital. And yet it is this type of business which the corporation was originally set up to encourage.
Section 21 of the act permits the governor in council to authorize the corporation to insure where the board of directors is of the opinion that the insurance would impose on the corporation a liability for a term or an amount in excess of that which the corporation would normally undertake in relation to any one contract, exporter, commodity or country. It is felt that this section should not generally be used to insure normal business which the corporation would be prepared to handle were the capital sufficient. It is therefore proposed that the authorized capital be increased by $10 million to $15 million which, together with the $5 million capital surplus, would give the corporation an effective government backing of $20 million. It is also proposed that the additional capital be subscribed but not paid over to the corporation unless required.
One section of the amendment requires that the corporation credit the entire excess of its revenue over expenses and losses to an underwriting reserve. The nature of the corporation's activities is such that it is impossible to measure the results achieved by an examination of its accounts on a year-to-year basis or even over an extended period. Of necessity the volume of claims it has to pay will fluctuate more or less directly with economic conditions prevailing from time to time throughout the world. Since its inception the corporation has followed the practice of crediting the excess of its revenue over its disbursements to an underwriting reserve account. The proposed amendment makes it mandatory to continue this procedure until the reserve reaches $5 million, so that as far as possible funds would be available to cover all future losses.
The other amendments in the bill clarify the position of the corporation as an agent of Her Majesty, provide for the appointment of alternates to certain of the directors, and change the title of the operating head to conform with the practice in other crown corporations.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have listened with much interest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I think he has given us a clear picture of the inception and of the course of business of this company. It is interesting to look back to the debate on August 1, 1944. I want to read just a sentence or two from it because at that time this corporation was evidently regarded as a most important cog
Export Credits Insurance Act in the machine of post-war rehabilitation. I want to read these few words from Hansard of August 1, 1944, page 5758. This is the preamble:
Whereas it is desirable to promote the revival of trade by establishing a corporation to insure against loss caused by insolvency, delays in collection and transfer difficulties in connection with the export of Canadian-produced goods, and during the period of transition from war to peace by providing for loans or guarantees to governments of other countries or their agencies;
That is the preamble. At that time the debate, which was widely participated in, made it clear that in those days of uncertainty it was regarded as an extremely useful precautionary measure. I think it has carried out its usefulness to date just as the minister has explained. I think also he indicated to us why it needs more capital.
There are one or two questions I want to ask the minister. In particular it should be noted that the increase which we have-and which I shall refer to in a moment-refers to part I of the act. Part II of the act was a different affair and the transactions carried out there were not carried out under the auspices of the Export Credits Insurance Act in the same way as were those in part I. I want to ask the minister if he will tell us the present standing of one of the transactions which took place under part II-and it is one which has often been referred to in this house-namely the Ming Sung transaction which, as I say, does not appear in the accounts of the corporation because the corporation in that respect really acted only as an agent of the Minister of Finance; and, as I understand it, these accounts were dealt with in the consolidated revenue fund and do not come into the operations proper of the corporation.
There are one or two questions I should like to ask. The minister has already indicated the vagaries of this business. I want to draw attention to them by just referring very briefly to the operating statement of 1951, 1952 and the first nine months of 1953. It is the great variety in policyholders' payments that I want to direct attention to. In 1951 the payments under policyholders' claims are only $1,703. In 1952 they were $996,000. In the nine months of 1953 they were $2,062,000. With regard to the 1952 figure, my understanding is that it was occasioned largely by exchange difficulties in Brazil. That is one of the hazards that the exports credits insurance corporation took care of. If the minister would refer to it. I should like him to tell us whether there was anything special in 1952 and in the first nine months of 1953. Perhaps I might take my
2220	HOUSE OF
Export Credits Insurance Act seat at this point, and the minister might say a word on that last question I have asked.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As far as the
Ming Sung transaction is concerned, I know my hon. friend is familiar with the situation. For a time the payments were made when due. Then when the iron curtain descended over China, the payments were stopped. There are some Chinese funds held in Washington. Perhaps we have a very good claim on them. I would not say that the possibility of ultimately collecting the balance of the payments due is hopeless. However, at the moment the responsibility of this government under the credit arrangements is being carried out and the banks are being paid the amounts due under that loan. The Ming Sung transaction involved insurance carried by the government itself, as my hon. friend knows, under part II of the act.
As to fluctuations in claims paid, that depends on the credit position of the various countries in the world. I would not blame Brazil particularly. Argentina has been slow. One or two other countries have been slow in paying their accounts. But while exchange difficulties have been accentuated in the last year or so in certain South American countries, we find that the accounts are being paid although perhaps not on the due date. For example, Brazil is catching up on its outstanding indebtedness to this country. Aside from the claim to which I referred of $138,000 which has been written off as irrecoverable, we have reason to hope that sooner or later we shall recover all the outstanding payments that have been made on account of insurance written by the corporation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister gave a figure of $235 million which somewhat surprised me by its smallness. Is that the accumulated business done over the ten years?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct, yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can the minister say the approximate amount of business outstanding at any one moment? For instance, can the minister give a rough figure as to how much business is outstanding at the present time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I could get the information by calling my officer down from the gallery, but would my hon. friend not agree that we could discuss this matter on the bill to better advantage? I will have them with me then on the floor of the house, and in the meantime I will take note of the question and make sure that I have the information here.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And at the same time I should like the minister to give us up to the minute detailed figures with regard to Ming Sung.


Mr. Thatcher:: I have a comment or two to make on the resolution and I should also like to ask the minister several questions. I think the resolution will receive almost unanimous support in the house since the corporation undoubtedly is promoting trade at a time when more trade is needed. I was rather interested to learn that the corporation is paying its way. If I understood the minister correctly, I think he said that since formed it has shown a profit of roughly $1 million. I wonder if that profit would not be somewhat greater if it were not for the fact that the corporation is only taking risky insurance policies, and leaving the others to private companies. However, I suppose that is problematical.
There is one aspect of the operations of the corporation that I should like to have clarified this afternoon. It arises from a question which the hon. member for Kamloops asked in the house yesterday. He asked the minister whether or not exporters in Canada wishing to ship to iron curtain countries would be able to come under the provisions of this act. I think most of us in this group feel that this should be encouraged. Several days ago the Russian ambassador made certain overtures to this country indicating that he would like to see trade relations between Russia and Canada expanded. He said that Russia was going to send a trade attache here and suggested that Russia might be willing to take some products we want to sell.
He mentioned wheat, meat, textiles and ships, I believe. It seems to me that there has been too much of an inclination throughout the country to write off these offers as valueless without examining them closely. I thought the minister gave a kind of negative answer yesterday. At page 2170 of Hansard he said:
... if any Canadian merchant can arrange trade with Soviet Russia, his application will be considered by the department.
It seems to me that the government should be a little more positive. I do not think anyone would accuse me of being a communist. I know that the Russians sometimes are not such good pay. Yet if there is an opportunity for us to expand our trade with Russia at this time I think we should go ahead and do it, and I think one of the first steps to do that would be to utilize this act. The applications of exporters or traders wishing to trade with iron curtain countries should be very carefully examined and the provisions of the

Export Credits Insurance Act should be made available. I think the government should give leadership. I think we should consider sending a trade attache to Russia as they have promised to do here.
I should like to see our trade relations with certain other countries, China, Czechoslovakia and Poland, examined. I do not see why we should not enlarge trade with those nations also and allow this act to apply to them. Perhaps the minister would feel like making a somewhat more comprehensive ' statement on the subject than he did yesterday.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is a business organization and my friend is a businessman. He realizes that we do not extend credit because of a certain flag. We extend credit when we think we are offered good credit risk. Our transactions are measured on that basis. I did not say we would not extend credit to the Soviet union. I did not say we would not extend credit to any other iron curtain country. It all depends on whether we think the debt will be paid on the due date. I suggest that the hon. member add that information to his broad experience of business and remember that dollars operate in that way.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Can the minister say whether the corporation has turned down any applications in the past several years from Canadians who wanted to export to Russia or China?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not know but I daresay they have. I do not know whether or not they have. As I say, it is entirely a matter of whether the insurance company believes that the paper will be paid on the due date. That is the criterion as far as the insurance company is concerned. It may have had the opinion that under the circumstances the paper of the Soviet union would not be paid on the due date. I think that might have been a reasonable conclusion as to the situation in the last two or three years, although it may not have been. I might mention the names of those who operate the corporation. The directors are W. F. Bull, deputy minister of trade and commerce, who is the chairman, K. W. Taylor, deputy minister of finance, L. C. Audette, chairman of the Canadian maritime commission, G. F. Towers, governor of the Bank of Canada, J. J. Deutsch, assistant deputy minister of finance, M. W. Sharp, associate deputy minister of trade and commerce, and H. T. Aitken, who is the general manager of the corporation.
They have the following as an advisory council:	Mr. Hector Authier of Amos,
Quebec, R. B. Buckerfield, Vancouver, R. H. Davis, Welland, James S. Duncan, Toronto,
Export Credits Insurance Act Raymond Garneau, Quebec, H. G. Hesler, Montreal, C. D. Jacox, Edmonton, L. J. Koerner, Vancouver, George W. Robertson, Regina, Fletcher S. Smith, Halifax, James Stewart, Toronto, who is president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, K. F. Wadsworth, Toronto, and F. Homer Zwicker, Lunenburg.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister is trying to dazzle us.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I would call it a strong board. In any event, it is the combined judgment of the men I have named that governs whether or not a loan will be made. If my hon. friend wants to talk international politics, he is talking outside the scope of the corporation.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am not talking politics. I am trying to get some information. Would the minister answer one more question? In the public accounts I notice that Greece is listed as a country which has owed us about $6 million for a period of twenty-five years, and yet last year the corporation accepted an insurance risk of $288,000 with respect to Greece. How could Greece be considered a good risk if they will not pay their old debt?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We believe that the Greek merchant who bought the goods in Canada will pay on the due date, and we believe that the Greek government will see that he is permitted to do so.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want, if I am not trespassing on the ground of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, to ask a supplementary question. I understood the Minister of Trade and Commerce to indicate, in answer to the hon. member for Kamloops, that trade beyond the iron curtain was strictly rationed, that it had to be done altogether by permit.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: To that extent it seems to me that the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre was justified in raising the question as to whether it could be further extended. Did I understand the minister to say that certain export credit risks had been refused on any other ground than their intrinsic merits, that there was a policy of taking only certain types?


Clarence Decatur Howe: You were quite mistaken. The only ground for turning down insurance of that kind is doubt as to whether the transaction will be settled on the due date.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I found it difficult, looking at the balance sheet of the corporation, to understand why more capital was needed.

Export Credits Insurance Act The minister made a statement on that point which seemed to me to cover it. He said that they wanted to be able to do more business and to assume more risks. From the inquiries that the corporation has, are there clear signs that more business is being offered in various parts of the world at the present time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, there is definite-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can the minister give any figures?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot give figures, but I will say that the corporation has asked the government, under section 21 of the act, to underwrite some risks that the corporation would have gladly accepted themselves had their capital been sufficient to enable it to do so. I might say that the government has done rather well out of those risks. The insurance fee was paid to the government, of course, and we have never had a loss by taking a risk under section 21 of the act that was recommended by the corporation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did they recommend Ming Sung?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That transaction was quite different; that was a transaction under part II of the act that was not operated by the corporation but rather was operated by the government.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then, if a profitable
business is offered to the corporation, do you say that is still being done under part II?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the business is beyond the capacity of the corporation to handle under part I, and is still desirable business, the corporation invites the government to assume responsibility for that particular risk.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do you think you could possibly have as good a board of directors to assume responsibility under part II as you have just listed under part I?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are the same directors.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thought it was the
governor in council who acted under part II.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The risk is recommended to the governor in council by the corporation. The governor in council need not assume it. The government has its choice as to whether or not it is willing to assume it. The governor in council does not consider it unless recommended by the corporation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Why should the corporation not be put in funds sufficient to enable the corporation to take this risk?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is what we are trying to do by this measure.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do you think this will enable them to carry the whole business?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Do I understand the minister to say that before this corporation will take one of these policies it must have been turned down by a private company? In other words, if there is any chance of a private corporation taking it this corporation will not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no private company in the world handling this kind of insurance.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 295, to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NORTHWEST ATLANTIC FISHERIES


Clarence Decatur Howe: the second reading of Bill No. 251, to implement the international convention for the northwest Atlantic fisheries.


Mr. J. Watson MacNaught (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: When this bill was in the resolution stage, the Minister of Fisheries made a very concise statement concerning the international convention for the northwest Atlantic fisheries, and how it operates. There is very little that I can add at this time to what the minister said on that occasion. Briefly, however, the purpose of this bill is to permit the governor in council to make regulations to carry out the obligations assumed by Canada under the convention.
As hon. members know, under the annex to the convention the convention area, as delineated in article I, was divided into five sub-areas. Under the provisions of article IV of the convention, the contracting governments established panels for each sub-area. The entitlement to representation on the several panels is based on contiguity and historic right. In other words, the countries bordering a sub-area are entitled to representation on the panel for the sub-area, as also are the countries who have historic rights to fish in those areas.
Sub-area 5 covers an area contiguous to the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. In this sub-area

is located the Georges bank, which is a very important fishing area. The only two contracting governments represented on this panel are Canada and the United States. As the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) pointed out in his statement at the resolution stage, Canada and the United States have had much experience in this type of convention. It is not surprising, therefore, that the first recommendation should come from this panel. After much research and scientific study a recommendation was made by this panel that the size of the mesh in trawl nets used for haddock be reduced. It was, therefore, necessary to pass legislation to permit the governor in council to make regulations which would apply to Canadian nationals in the convention area.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: should like to comment on the remarks made by the minister the other night, Mr. Speaker. He made the announcement for the first time that Dr. Bates was to be the first chairman of the commission. During my short interest in fisheries I have found that he is highly regarded, and we all consider it a great honour that he is representing us in this matter.
It was pleasing also to hear that Halifax had been chosen as the permanent site of the commission. Over my way we are partial to St. Andrews, so we are a little disappointed that St. Andrews is not included in the new plan. We are pleased, however, that the commission has a site in Halifax.
I have been going back over the story of this convention during the late forties. It was ratified by the house in 1950, but I cannot seem to find reference to the fact that the convention generally has been considered by the standing committee on marine and fisheries. I appreciate that it is perhaps not controversial, but I do think there has not been too much interest shown, either at the resolution stage or upon ratification. I felt also that members from Newfoundland, who should be concerned about one area, did not seem to be too worried over it. I feel that I should ask that this convention be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries. The request is subject to the reservation that it has not been considered before.


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I noticed when the parliamentary assistant was making his statement he mentioned the fact that, by agreement, the mesh in drags had been made smaller. Did he mean smaller or larger?


John Watson MacNaught: Smaller.
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries


Andrew Wesley Stuart: If he has the information I would appreciate his pointing out what advantage there would be in a smaller drag mesh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Perhaps the hon. member would not mind my reminding him that we are not yet in committee on the bill.


Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the concern of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) when he said that he thought St. Andrews might have been considered as a location for the offices of the northwest Atlantic fisheries organization.
The members from Halifax feel that this time we should express our gratification in the fact that, after considering the excellent locations in many other cities throughout North America, Halifax has been the chosen city. Perhaps I should reverse the order of those words and say the "city chosen"- because I think we already are the former.
We are very grateful to those other cities and universities, including Harvard, and Memorial College at St. John's, Newfoundland, that have so gracefully acceded to the final decision in favour of Halifax and Dalhousie University. In locating in Halifax, we would like to give credit first of all to Dalhousie University and its president, Dr. Kerr, where quarters and other facilities have been supplied. We would also refer in the same connection to the Halifax board of trade which, through its endeavours, showed the advantages of Halifax over many other places considered. In this connection, too, I would include the government of Nova Scotia for supplying the necessary furniture for the offices.
While the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), his deputy minister and his parliamentary assistant could not at any time show preference for one part of Canada as against another, we would like to thank them for their earnest efforts in convincing the commission that Canada is the ideal country in which to locate this set-up. The work of the commission, I understand, is under the able leadership of the noted Danish scientist, Dr. Poulsen, and the work is proceeding well. Extensive and satisfactory scientific progress is being made.
It is hoped, and I feel sure the hope will be realized, that through conservation methods introduced and carried out by the commission, stocks of fish will be conserved to such an extent and at such a level that the maximum catch will be available for many future
2224	HOUSE OF
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries generations of fishermen. Through this a more stable economy will be assured for those provinces that are largely dependent upon fish for their livelihood.
On June 1 it is planned to have a general meeting of the commission in Halifax, upon which occasion representatives of all countries in the convention will be present. Those countries are the United States, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Canada.
As I said, the choice of Dalhousie University is a happy one, in that we have many scientific libraries at hand and readily available. I have in mind the one at Dalhousie University, as well as those at St. Mary's University and at King's University. And by the way, this last named is the oldest university in Canada. It will also have available the libraries of the Nova Scotia Technical College, the well-stocked library of the fisheries research experimental station which has, I believe, the best equipped fisheries biological laboratory in the world, the Halifax Memorial library, as well as the extensive and selective libraries of the Nova Scotia research council, under Dr. H. D. Smith, and the libraries of Acadia University, St. Francis Xavier University and that of the Memorial College at St. John's, Newfoundland.
Perhaps all these universities and libraries so readily available will indicate to members of the house one reason why Nova Scotia has the largest ratio of university students in Canada. And it might also at the same time raise a question in our minds as to why it is that Nova Scotia universities receive from the Massey grants the smallest per-student grant of any province in Canada.


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, before the debate on second reading is concluded, I should like to join with others in what has been said. Obviously this is not a controversial measure, but one to which we can give general support. All hon. members realize the necessity for conservation, and the importance of the type of work contemplated in the legislation before us.
I most certainly join in what was said by the previous speaker about the satisfaction we all feel in the fact that Canada has been chosen as the country from which the commission will operate. Those of us from the east recognize the wisdom of it. Those in control of the board have been wise in choosing Nova Scotia as the province out of which they will operate. This reflects great credit upon their judgment and intelligence, and suggests that in future, if their operations are conducted as wisely, they will be very successful.
[Mr. Balcom.l

I am not sure as to what the course of procedure is to be in this instance-whether the matter is to be referred to a committee, or whether we shall deal with it in committee of the whole. And, if so, I do not know whether we will proceed with the discussion immediately after second reading has been given, or at some future date. There are however some questions one would wish to ask.
Along with the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) I did not grasp the significance of the reduction in the size of the mesh, to which reference was made by the parliamentary assistant, and which was described as a conservation measure. We do realize that conservation is necessary, but we also know that sometimes measures suggested by some organizations can impose a great deal of expense-sometimes unnecessary expense- upon fishermen engaged in the industry. I hope that the board will consider this point.
Canada will be represented on various panels, and certainly we need to safeguard the fisheries and, particularly, the interests of the fishermen engaged in the industry. At the moment the industry is undergoing economic difficulties, as was pointed out the other day by the hon. member for Charlotte; and I believe this point has been stressed at other times by other hon. members.
Reference to the size of mesh reminds me about a change in the size of rings in scallop draggers, which was brought about a year ago. I do not think this change has resulted in any safeguarding of the scallop industry, and most certainly it has put the fishermen engaged in that industry to a substantial expense-an expense which many feel was unwarranted.
In general, however, there cannot be any criticism of the principle of the bill, or of the action taken thus far. We are all in agreement on that. The only questions would be those of detail in administration, having special reference to the fish and the waters concerned, and all those other matters. I have no doubt these could be better discussed in committee of the whole.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, when I referred to the-


Mr. Pearkes:: The hon. member has already spoken, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Esqui-malt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) wishes to speak now, he may be heard.


George Randolph Pearkes: The hon. member who is standing has already spoken in this debate.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I did not speak; I asked a question.


Mr. Speaker:: In asking a question the hon. member exhausted his right to speak on second reading. The hon. member for Esqui-malt-Saanich may now speak.


George Randolph Pearkes: Far
be it from me, representing a constituency on the Pacific coast, to enter into a debate as to the relative merits of the various provinces on the Atlantic seaboard; but I do rise to support the suggestion which was made by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) that this bill be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries. A similar bill which dealt with the fisheries of the north Pacific ocean was referred to that committee a year ago, and the principle of the bill and details thereof were clarified in that committee in a way that it would not have been possible to have them clarified in the committee of the whole.
A good deal of advantage would accrue by referring this bill, although it is just a simple one, to that committee, where we could have the officials of the department give the background of the reasons why it has been introduced. We would be able, if necessary, to hear evidence from the interested parties, the fishing industry, or the fishermen of the Atlantic coast, and I believe that considerable value would be gained from having this bill referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries which is not very heavily employed at the present time.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: As a member of this house who is especially interested in conservation in all its forms I should like to take the opportunity of making a few comments on this occasion. Perhaps it is not generally realized how important the resources of the sea are. As a matter of fact, at the present time, without the products which we reap from the sea, the present population of the world could not satisfy its protein nourishment needs. As far as carbohydrates and that sort of thing are concerned, perhaps we might be able to get along without the fishing industry, but when one considers how necessary proteins are in people's diet, one realizes that already we have exhausted the available facilities for the production of protein from the land, and must turn to the sea for it.
The other day, in commenting on this bill in the resolution stage, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) said, as reported at page 1934 of Hansard:
The Grand Banks are still, after 400 years of fishing, the greatest single fishery in the world, but in
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries recent years there have been signs of depletion in one or two of the banks, which give concern to the nations which are fishing that great fishing ground.
I agree with the opinion expressed by the minister when he said that the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, and the northwestern Atlantic generally, are one of the greatest fishing grounds in the world. I think it is very much of an understatement to say that in recent years there have been signs of depletion. Actually the northwest Atlantic fishery has been tremendously depleted in the last 450 years, and many forms of marine life in that area have been exterminated. It is an historic and important source of food for the peoples of Europe, and following John Cabot's voyage to Newfoundland there grew up a great and important fishing industry on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, even in the sixteenth century.
That was understandable because when that area became known to Europe it was realized that it was an area of great abundance. There was an incredible supply of fish and other forms of marine life there, and that supply has been gradually depleted. It is very encouraging that even at this late date the nations concerned should get together and do something to preserve the resources which they have in common in that area.
I quote from a book published by Mr. Biggar dealing with the early trading companies of France, at page 18:
On the return of Cabot from his first voyage in the year 1497 an Italian envoy in England wrote home to Milan that the sea in those parts had been found so full of fish that the sailors caught them by merely lowering a basket with a stone in it and hauling it up again.
In other words, the Grand Banks of Newfoundland were teeming with fish, and the same was true of the gulf of St. Lawrence and adjacent waters. When that news spread there was much interest and great excitement in Europe and an immediate effort was made to exploit the resources that had been discovered. As a result, from about 1506 on, a large number of ships went annually across the Atlantic from France, Portugal, England and Spain to fish on the Grand Banks; and the number of ships that sailed across the Atlantic in those early days to exploit the fishery there was really remarkable. As early as 1578 as many as 150 ships went annually from Europe to fish on the Grand Banks. Of course, that number was much lower in some years. For instance, in the year that the Spanish Armada sailed against England the number was greatly reduced, because crews in the Spanish Armada were pressed from the crews of those Basque fishing ships which would normally have come across the Atlantic.

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
There was an abundance of fish not only on the banks but in other areas where they now have become relatively scarce, for instance, in the gulf of St. Lawrence areas. There were industries other than fishing which were based on marine life and which were of great importance in those days. There was a large fleet from the bay of Biscay that came across the Atlantic annually to whale in the gulf of St. Lawrence. The number of whales in the gulf of St. Lawrence has been greatly diminished. There are other forms of life that have been exterminated. In those early days the islands of the gulf of St. Lawrence were practically covered with what were known at that time as sea oxen or sea cows. There is still a place in the riding of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacNaught) that is called Sea Cow Pond, and it gets its name from the fact that two or three hundred years ago it was customary to hunt those sea cows in that area. That animal has been exterminated.
There was another type of sea cow that existed in Davis strait, and I believe they became extinct in 1768. Their existence was discovered only 30 years before, but they were the type of animal that was easy to hunt, and Russian fishing vessels came annually to hunt these sea cows in the Bering strait. They were exterminated in the course of 30 years. I point this out merely to illustrate how the original natural resources in this part of the Atlantic ocean have been reduced in the last 450 years. When Jacques Cartier arrived in the gulf of St. Lawrence in 1534 he had this to say when recording the details of his voyage:
About two leagues from Cape royall wee sounded and found 20 fadome water, and there is the greatest fishing of Cods that possible may be: for staying for our company, in lesse then an houre we tooke above an hundredth of them.
If one refers to historical references one will find many instances of an extreme abundance of fish and other forms of marine life 400 years ago in this area before they were exploited to any great extent. I make these remarks merely to point up the fact that this area has been exploited to a considerable extent and its possibilities have been reduced over the years by indiscriminate fishing and hunting of marine life.
As I have said already, there are various types of life that have been exterminated, and I refer particularly to two types of sea cow. Various types of birds, including penguins, which were very common on the islands of the gulf of St. Lawrence 400

years ago, have been wiped out. The number of fish has been reduced tremendously and the whole balance of nature has been upset.
Therefore, I suggest that it is most important that consideration be given to widening the scope of this convention to include forms of marine life other than fish. I have in mind especially whales and seals in the northern St. Lawrence and around Newfoundland. I think the protection of this form of life is very important.
I must say that I am tremendously encouraged by the indication that real progress will be made almost immediately in a co-operative, scientific study of the situation with a view to making regulations to be enforced by the various partners which will increase the potential of the resources in the northwest Atlantic.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, in closing this debate I want to make just one or two references. More particularly I want to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) to the effect that this bill be referred to the standing committee on fisheries. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by sending this bill to the standing committee.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich referred to the fact that the north Pacific fisheries convention was referred to the' standing committee, but there is no analogy between the two cases. In the instance referred to by the hon. member the convention had not been ratified by the house and it was considered thoroughly by the committee before ratification took place. In the present instance the convention was approved by the house in July, 1950, and has been ratified by the ten other countries. I cannot see what purpose would be served by having it referred to the committee at this time.
I regret that something I said appears to have left confusion in the minds of the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) and the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). What I intended to say was that the recommendation of the panel was that the mesh be standardized. Perhaps it would be more clear to hon. members if I read the recommendation, which was as follows:
That the contracting governments take appropriate action to prohibit the taking of haddock in sub-area 5 by persons under their jurisdiction with a trawl net having a mesh size less than four and one-half inches.	*

In other words, it is essential that no net with a smaller mesh be used.
I agree with what the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Balcom) said concerning my alma mater, Dalhousie University. I want to thank all hon. members for taking part in the debate and for their laudatory remarks concerning the work of our deputy minister and other officials in the department.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Chairman, this gives me an opportunity to clarify my position with regard to the statement made by the parliamentary assistant. Over the years I have found that to a great extent the criticism with regard to trawlers has been in connection with the size of the mesh used, and for that reason I asked the parliamentary assistant if he had said that the mesh would be smaller instead of larger.
The criticism in this regard has been due to the fact that a great number of the fish taken in drags are killed in the drag and when liberated are a complete loss. That has been the criticism for many years with regard to this type of fishing. Skippers of trawlers have told me that in some cases the number of fish destroyed would be greater than the number saved. There would be no comparison in poundage, of course. For that reason it has always been felt that any conservation work should be directed toward the use of a larger rather than smaller mesh. That is why I made the comment I did.
I should like to refer for a moment to the statement made by the hon. member for Digby - Annapolis - Kings, that the changes made in the scallop drag did not meet with the approval of fishermen in that area. I might say at this point that I have dragged for scallops myself and I am heartily in agreement with the change made in the size of the scallop drag. The department was convinced that the size should be increased in all areas where scallops are dragged. On the west side of the bay of Fundy beds of small scallops were found. When the fishermen went out to drag these beds, and when their catch was looked over by the fisheries inspector, it was decided that the scallops were too small and they were forbidden to drag on that particular ground. That has caused a great deal of ill feeling. In many cases the scallop beds have been practically depleted in a matter of a year or two by starfish and other marine growths. The
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries fishermen have always thought that when scallops are found they should be given a permit to drag for them. I had an example on Grand Manan island almost one year ago where a nice bed of scallops was found and the price at that time, if I remember correctly, was 60 cents a pound. That is a very good price. The fishermen were doing very well. Then the department decided that it should be closed.
In discussing this matter with the officials of the department it was suggested that if the mesh in that drag-and as we all know they are metal rings-was enlarged, it would allow the small scallops to escape. The reason that occurred was one which I will explain briefly. As to scallops, the same as with lobsters, there is a two-inch limit. There never was a barrel of clams dug which an inspector could not condemn if he wanted to because there never was a barrel of clams dug in which you could not find some clams below two inches. The same thing applies to scallops. There never was a boatload of scallops that came into dock that an inspector could not condemn as far as size is concerned. It was a headache for the inspector. It was a headache for the fishermen. That is the reason, to a great extent, that if they had small scallops they would not go in at all. They would go into some isolated place and shuck them there. That is the position in which you are placed. With the scallops that we have, if they had been taken off the beds at that time during last winter-the price has fallen this year-the fishermen would have derived greater benefits then than they will in 1954. But again that was because of a price drop. That was all. But any move by this department that increases the size limit has my support. The same thing would apply to the lobster industry. I may be getting away from the bill for a moment. The same thing would apply to all these branches of this industry that I have had anything to do with. I have found that when you increase the size limit, it is of benefit to the producer. That is why I was most anxious about the statement made by the parliamentary assistant. I felt that if the size of mesh of these drags was to be smaller than it was previously, it was a step in the wrong direction and not a step in a way that would indicate that conservation was being considered.


George Clyde Nowlan: Following the hon. member for Charlotte I should like to say a word. I think we are in substantial agreement. His fishermen are on the opposite side of the bay of Fundy and their problems and the problems of the fishermen in my constituency are common ones. I know the views he has

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries expressed on behalf of the fishermen of his area would be expressed by the fishermen on the opposite side of the bay of Fundy. I know that the matter of scallops is a most serious one. The market price is less than it has been, in I do not know how many years; I guess since the industry was first commenced. There is a real problem.
What he said about the size of the mesh in the trawls and the operation of the drag-gers generally or the trawlers is a most serious matter. I do not know whether it will come within the purview of this commission or not, but the hon. member for Charlotte pointed out the damage done by the trawlers generally and the conflict between the trawls, the fishermen operating trawls and the hand-liners, the inshore fishermen on the small operations, with his line and what-have-you, who sees that he is being ruined and his existence is being threatened by that form of fishing. Apparently the size of the trawl, so we are told, has now been standardized. But I hope that this commission-it may not come within its jurisdiction -will look into the matter. I suggest that more careful study must be given to the operation of these trawlers in the inshore waters. In so far as the high seas are concerned, I realize that the industry must be standardized, that there must be assurance of a steady flow of fish, and that trawlers operating on the high seas are necessary to maintain the industry. But in the inshore waters, in the waters adjacent to Charlotte and in the waters adjacent to Digby-these coves, bays and inlets up at the head of the bay of Fundy, where the haddock go to spawn in the fall, and where they come back along the inshore waters-the trawlers come there and catch them. Forty or fifty thousand of the big haddock are taken in those boats and the hand-liners along the shore have a poor winter. We have heard about unemployment in this chamber during the last three or four days. The situation confronting some of these fishing villages after one operation by a trawler like that is comparable to what we have heard with regard to industrial centres throughout Canada. I simply want to emphasize the importance of this commission. I agree with what the hon. member for Queens has said. We all know that conservation is necessary. We know that the waters have been exploited in the past and they are depleted in many parts today. This is an important question. It is a matter on which one must make progress slowly. Certainly the interests of the fishermen of today must be protected as well as the industry in the future.


John Angus MacLean: There is one question on which I should like to have some general information, and I know the parliamentary assistant will be kind enough to explain it. As I understand it, when this convention was signed it was before Newfoundland came into confederation and Newfoundland signed as a contracting government on its own. There are certain obligations which the convention allots to each of the contracting governments. As an example article XI, section 3, subsection (a) states:
From the administrative budget there shall be deducted a sum of 500 United States dollars for each contracting government;
And that sort of thing. It is based on the assumption that Newfoundland and Canada were two separate contracting parties. Now that they have become one country, how has this been resolved? In other words, do we take over two shares of the responsibility, one for the original nine provinces and another for Newfoundland? Or do we merely absorb the obligations which were originally contracted for by Newfoundland into our own as one contracting party?


John Watson MacNaught: When I moved the
adoption of the ratification of the convention on May 29, 1950, I referred to the problem raised by the hon. member for Queens. At that time, owing to the position of Newfoundland then, it was necessary to refer to it separately but later on it was taken in and was included in the Canadian panels and so on. In other words, Canada pays only its proportion, which proportion is based on the number of panels on which it has representation in the commission. There are five panels, and Canada has representation on four of the panels. The sub-area on which Canada has no panel representation is the area contiguous to Greenland. Does that satisfy my hon. friend?


John Angus MacLean: Yes; thank you.


George Clyde Nowlan: I should like to ask the
parliamentary assistant one question. It probably was mentioned when he moved ratification of the convention but I have forgotten it and so I raise it again now. The international convention refers to the protection and conservation of fisheries of the northwest Atlantic ocean. One would assume that would include all fish of all kinds. I notice article IV (2) states:
After this convention has been in force for two years, but not before that time, panel representation shall be reviewed annually by the commission, which shall have the power, subject to consultation with the panel concerned, to determine representation on each panel on the basis of current substantial

exploitation in the sub-area concerned of fishes of the cod group (Gadiformes), of flat fishes (Pleuro-nectiformes), and of rosefish (genus Sebastes), . . .
Those are the only three which are mentioned. Am I right in assuming that all fish of all kinds-including shall we say scallops and shellfish-are included within this convention? Then if I am right in assuming that, what representation on the panels have fish other than those mentioned in paragraph 2, namely cod, fiat fishes and rosefish?


John Watson MacNaught: I say this subject to
correction, Mr. Chairman, but I do not think any other fish are included except those in subsection 2 of article IV.


George Clyde Nowlan: Those are all that are included in this convention.


John Watson MacNaught: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Thomas Miller Bell: With respect to clause 2, paragraph (c), "convention area", I am wondering about the rights that the French fishermen have and have had for years inside the territorial waters of Newfoundland. I realize that the question of territorial waters is a controversial one, but would the rights of the French fishermen still be protected?


John Watson MacNaught: Any rights the French fishermen had under international law would not be interfered with by this convention unless they agree later on to give them up.


Mr. Power (SI. John's West):: I may be
wrong in my history, but it is my notion that the rights that the French fishermen had in Newfoundland waters were treaty rights and that these were abolished about the beginning of this century. French fishermen have no more rights in Newfoundland waters now than the fishermen of any other foreign nation.


John Watson MacNaught: I prefaced my remarks by saying "any rights that they had". I am not saying they had any rights.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Regulations.
Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to make a comment with regard to the licences that may be issued. I do not know how far the regulations will go but this is quite a broad clause and as a novice in the fisheries game I should like to pass on one suggestion. I suggest that every care be exercised in the issuing of licences to see that the people who actually do the fishing get the licences. We are having trouble now in Saint John county, 83276-142
Telegraphs Act
and I think it extends into Charlotte county. I should like to say that the fisheries department is aware of it and is giving us good co-operation, but so far as any new areas or any new licences that may be issued under the regulations are concerned we should start right from the beginning to see that those who actively work the weirs and do the fishing are the only ones who are considered for licences. I think that would be commendable.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: When shall this bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting of the house.



TELEGRAPHS ACT


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 30, to amend the Telegraphs Act.


Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple bill and 1 wish to make the following statement in order to further clarify the situation. The Telegraphs Act, chapter 262 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, applies to the province of Newfoundland since confederation. Part III of the Telegraphs Act which relates to marine electric telegraph companies was first enacted in 1875. Prior to that date there was no legislation of the parliament of Canada dealing with the control of cable companies.
Part III of the Telegraphs Act applies to every company authorized by act of parliament to construct or maintain telegraph wires or cables placed under or across any territorial waters of Canada so as to connect a province with another province or to extend beyond the limits of a province. It also applies to companies authorized to construct or maintain such wires or cables before the 8th day of April, 1875, by act of the parliament of Canada or by act or charter of any of the provinces constituting Canada in force at that time. Only companies to which this part applies are authorized to construct, maintain or use such wires or cables connecting two or more provinces or extending beyond the limits of a province.

Telegraphs Act
The act requires the company, before exercising any of its powers, to obtain the approval of the governor in council of the plan, site and location of its telegraph, the shore approaches, its stations on land and related works.
When Newfoundland united with Canada in 1949, certain companies such as Cable and Wireless Limited and Anglo-American Cable Company Limited were authorized by Newfoundland to operate cables landed in Newfoundland. Western Union and Commercial Cable Company also land their cables in that province. In particular, Cable and Wireless Limited, a company incorporated in the United Kingdom, operates a cable between the United Kingdom, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, but this company is not authorized under the Telegraphs Act to land its cables in Canada and is not a company coming within part III of that act. It is proposed to bring Cable and Wireless Limited under this part of the Telegraphs Act so that Cable and Wireless Limited in conjunction with Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation may be authorized to construct and operate certain cables in connection with the commonwealth telegraphs agreement, 1948, to which, as you know, Canada is a party.
It is considered to be within the intent of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada to have part III of the Telegraphs Act apply to companies authorized under the laws of Newfoundland prior to union to construct and maintain submarine cables extending beyond the limits of that province. The bill, as I said, is a simple one and there is no doubt that parliament has the necessary jurisdiction to enact the proposed amendment.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the parliamentary assistant that this is a routine bill but there are one or two clauses in it-I will not refer to them particularly now-which to my mind are in conflict with the Newfoundland aspect of the matter. I feel that there may be some overlapping. I do not mean that there is not authority under the constitution to pass this legislation, but there are one or two points involving the existence of Newfoundland previously and I think they should be taken into consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1.
Thomas Miller Bell: I quite realize the implications of clause 1 (c) on section 18 in the act, but there is mention there of a New York, Newfoundland and London Telegraph Company

with rights existing at this time. I do not know what their position would be under the new section.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: When you read section 18 of the Telegraphs Act, Mr. Chairman, you will note that this section only says:
"This act does not affect any franchise, right or privilege that the New York, Newfoundland and London Telegraph Company or any other company, or person lawfully entitled thereto, actually acquired and exercised or operated in Prince Edward Island before and up to the said 1st day of July, 1873, under and subject to the provisions of any act of the legislature of Prince Edward Island made and passed before the said 1st day of July, 1873" . . . etc.
This has nothing to do with the proposed amendment, since the proposed amendment does not deal with that particular company but with companies which were in operation in Newfoundland prior to the union of Newfoundland with Canada.


Thomas Miller Bell: The point I am making is that you are seeking to put in an extra section in the middle of the act, and there are other sections which make definite mention of Newfoundland when it was not a part of Canada. While section 18 has no direct bearing on clause 1 (c) and might not be in conflict with it, I am certain that section 39 is.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I hope the hon. member will indicate in a clearer manner just how section 39 comes into conflict with the proposed amendment.


Thomas Miller Bell: I appreciate that it is confusing, but you are taking a section and adding it to the middle of part III of the Telegraphs Act. I maintain that some of the other sections of the Telegraphs Act are in conflict with that section you are reading because at the time the Telegraphs Act was drawn up Newfoundland was not a part of Canada. There are instances in some sections where Newfoundland is referred to as a separate country. I feel some consideration at least should be given to these sections that are farther on in the act.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I must admit that I do not see the point which the hon. member is trying to make. The existing sections in the Telegraphs Act are not being amended, and will have the same effect as they have had since this act was put into force. Whatever is said in section 17 of the act, either in the two existing paragraphs (a) and (b) or in the new paragraph (c) which we are adding today, will be governed by whatever is said in the following sections. I should like the hon. member to explain further how these sections could come into conflict with the proposed amendment.


Thomas Miller Bell: Well, section 17 of part III of the Telegraphs Act begins by saying that this part applies to every company, and then goes on to list them. They are in the act now. You are adding paragraph (c), and that is fine, but the other sections of part III of the act which come along from section 18 onwards were drawn up at a time when Newfoundland was not a part of Canada. I maintain that there is some law in those sections concerning Newfoundland as a separate country which is in conflict with the addition you are making to the act. At least, I ask for consideration of that point. I do not want to be dogmatic about it. That is the only point I want to make on it.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: If the parliamentary assistant wishes, we could call it six o'clock, and he could answer the question later.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I do not think the hon member has clarified the point he wishes to make. However I can assure him that the law officers of our department have thoroughly considered the amendment before submitting it, and I am certain he can take it there is no conflict between the proposed amendment and the existing sections of the Telegraphs Act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean Lesage: the second reading of Bill No. 167, to amend an act respecting the national battlefields at Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Payment of $125,000 a year for four years authorized.
Mr. Power (Quebec South):: Mr. Chairman, over a very long period of years I have taken a great interest in the subject matter of the bill now before the house. For that reason I am beholden to thank the minister for the 83276-142J
National Battlefields at Quebec interest he is taking in this question-and that, notwithstanding his great preoccupation with the enormous task he has before him in the development of those great last frontiers of Canada, the new regions of our north country. I am sure that he, in the interest which he takes in the preservation and conservation of the memorials to those who have gone before us, will find inspiration for himself and his associates in the great task they have undertaken.
My interest, as I have said, creates in my imagination an almost proprietary or vested interest in the objects which are covered by this bill. Back in March of 1920 I moved in the house-
That, in the opinion of this house, the ancient walls and fortifications of the city of Quebec, having for all military purposes become obsolete, it is expedient in order to better preserve these valuable heirlooms as a historical monument for future generations, that their upkeep and control be now vested in the national battlefields commission.
This resolution was repeated on one or more occasions. But in connection with this matter let me say that, as a member of parliament, I went through almost the entire gamut of human emotions. There was fervour, crusading zeal, a certain amount of encouragement, setbacks, small successes, long years of patient waiting, and finally almost partial achievement-and, I regret to say, at the end a good deal of disillusionment.
Encouraged by the somewhat favourable comments of the then existing government, in 1920, I fondly imagined that when a friendly government should come into power what had been encouragement would become decisive action. But, like a great many of that generation following the first war, I was carried away by the slogan that the 1914-18 war had been a war to end all wars. And in my firm belief in that theory I was bold enough, and imprudent enough, to move in 1922 that the estimates of the militia department, including the salaries of the military heads, be considerably curtailed. After that, may I tell the house, the walls still remained in the control of the Department of National Defence, and my most impassioned pleas to preserve their historic interest met with brazen hearts and cold words from the heads of the department.
After a term of years, proceeding along; these lines, it occurred to me that the interest which I had intended to suscitate might better be covered by an appeal to another element of the thinking of the ministry, the political element. And I raised the question in this house of the possibility-yes, and the probability-that these walls, if their upkeep and fortifications were not kept in proper repair by the Department of National Defence,
2232	HOUSE OF
National Battlefields at Quebec might some day crumble, and fall upon the inhabitants of the quarters situated below the hill, thus wiping out a substantial Liberal majority.
In those days the Liberal party had not achieved the state of respectability which it now enjoys, and those of us who wished to be returned sought and obtained considerable support from below the hill-or "below the track", as they would put it in other constituencies. The result of these representations was that, within a short space of time, moneys were voted by the Department of National Defence for the repair of these walls. And by strange coincidence, once every four years more moneys were voted, with the result that the Quebec walls, taken by themselves, are today in a reasonable state of preservation.
But it did take over 30 years for the government, as a whole, to be moved to the point where the control of the upkeep and maintenance of these historic monuments was taken out of the hands of the Department of National Defence and transferred to a civilian department. This took place some time in 1950. It was announced that, from now on, these properties would be looked after, maintained and kept by the then department of resources. But unfortunately, I believe through some slip, or perhaps because the military mind was not existent in the civilian department, in the transfer there was an oversight in that whereas the walls themselves, that is to say, the mortar, the rock and the brick, were turned over to the department; the approaches, the fortifications, which I believe to the military mind are part of an entire fortified city, such as the glacis, the clearance made for the path of fire, and so forth were transferred to the national battlefields commission. The result is that today we appear to have two authorities dealing with what, in the opinion of many, should be exactly the same property. I am going to suggest to the minister, not for immediate action, because I realize that there will be many obstacles to overcome, that he take under the immediate control of his department both the actual concrete buildings, walls, bricks and so on and the approaches thereto consisting of the glacis, the cleared terrain which lies in front of it, and that having the two together he might proceed to the development of this great historic site of Canada in a manner which befits the government of Canada.
May I suggest to him that he has very valid reasons for undertaking this in his department. The national battlefields commission of itself has neither the facilities, the personnel nor the equipment to undertake anything like reasonably large capital expenditure such as the building of approaches and the giving


of access to the more important parts of the fortification. I would suggest to him that he do not at once abolish the commission, but that he retain it in a consultative capacity within his department, and that the one or two permanent employees-and I do not think there are more than that-be also taken over and become employees of his department.
Should he-and I think perhaps he may- meet with some local prejudice, may I suggest to him that if he looks over the debates which took place in this house at the time of the creation of the national battlefields commission in 1908 he will find that at that time there was some objection, and serious objection also, from a great leader of public opinion in our province, the late Armand LaVergne, who objected to the creation of such a commission with a constitution as laid down in the act, which I believe is still in existence, whereby persons from other countries and from other provinces could on the subscription or contribution by that country or province select a commissioner on the national battlefields commission. Mr. LaVergne raised the question in this house, and as a matter of fact divided the house on the subject. It may be that at that time there was considerable justification for the constitution of the commission as it was then formed, since the figures given to me by the department indicate that outside of the contribution of the government of the day, which was I think $300,000, there were gifts from provincial governments amounting in all to $260,000; gifts from Canadian municipalities; a gift from New Zealand; gifts from teaching institutions in Canada, in Great Britain and in other parts of the empire; gifts from historical societies, from commercial institutions and so forth, amounting to $556,787.24, which was certainly to some extent a justification of the peculiar constitution of this particular commission. But I submit, sir, and suggest to the minister that at the present time the function of this commission is restricted almost wholly to that of maintenance. There are eight or ten commissioners, I do not know which, all of whom are men of standing and prestige in the community, and it is hardly likely that men of that particular executive capacity and standing would do very much in the way of attending to the work of laying out paths or deciding which particular type of shrubbery, be it mistletoe or holly, should line the different paths, byways and roadways in this particular park.
Again my suggestion to him is that he retain the services of these very eminent and estimable persons as consulting authorities in matters relating to this great national battlefields park, and that his department

undertake to do whatever there is to be done so as to bring the national battlefields park of Quebec, which after all was the first one constituted in this country and which from the standpoint of history does represent a great deal in the early and even in the later life of this great country of ours, on a par with all the national parks throughout the country. If he were to undertake the work which should be done by his department, I am sure it would not be long before the national battlefields park in Quebec would have the facilities and the appearance which would make it at least on a par with other national parks throughout the country.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, I want to say only a few words to comment on what has been said by the hon. member for Quebec South. In doing so I might be a little embarrassed because one has to remember that he is my own member; I live in the constituency which he represents; he is also my ex-senior law partner. Therefore it might not be too easy for me to comment on what he has just said.
Of course he knows the situation and the history of this park better than I do, even if he has been living for a great number of years at one end of the park and I also have been living for a great number of years at the other end of the park.
He has mentioned the reasons why the constitution of the national battlefields commission is what it is. Since it was thought at the time that the provinces, private societies and private individuals, or even other countries, might contribute to the creation and maintenance of the park, it was felt that there should be an independent commission to administer the park. But since 1912 all the money necessary to maintain and improve the park has come from the federal government with no contribution coming from any other source. The question of whether the time has come to change the constitution of the park to bring it directly under part II of the National Paries Act is difficult to answer. I am certainly delighted to have had the views of the experienced hon. member for Quebec South on this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 250, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
Animal Contagious Diseases Act
He said: Mr. Speaker, in order to abide by the general rules of the house it is necessary that a minister move the second reading of this particular bill, but as my parliamentary assistant handled the matter at the resolution stage I am going to ask the house to permit him to make a speech in connection with this bill at this time.


Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in this amendment of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act it is intended to change the basis of compensation. Under the act as it now stands we paid, in the case of swine, $50 for purebred and $30 for grade hogs; in the case of sheep the compensation was $50 for purebred and $20 for grade types. Under this new amendment we are going to pay the market value of sheep that have to be destroyed because of any disease that may occur. We have been most fortunate over the years in not having many diseases in sheep, but other countries have not been so fortunate and we may be faced with this problem in this country.
In the case of hogs, for many years these animals have been afflicted with cholera, particularly in the province of Ontario where we had a serious outbreak last year. The government feels that it would be in the interests of hog producers to increase the compensation to be paid. For that reason, instead of the $30 paid formerly for grade animals and $50 for purebred animals, we are now going to pay the market value of hogs when they are slaughtered.
I may be asked, What is meant by market value, slaughter value or any other term that I might use? Anyone who is a farmer will understand that in the case of small pigs they might be worth $10 or $12 when they are six to eight weeks old. If such pigs were slaughtered, $10 or $12 would be paid.
A pig ready for market might be worth in the neighbourhood of $50, and $50 would be paid for such a pig when slaughtered. A brood sow might be worth in the neighbourhood of $75, $80 or more, and if she were slaughtered, $75, $80 or more would be paid.
By this means we hope to help to eradicate any disease that may occur. We feel confident that this legislation will be favourably received by the producers and they will appreciate what we are trying to do to help them.


Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brani-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago Tuesday night the debate on this legislation to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act was commenced and at that time I was careful to have the parliamentary assistant describe what v/as meant
2234	HOUSE OF
Animal Contagious Diseases Act by market value. The definition he gives tonight is different from the definition given a week ago last Tuesday. I should like to quote from page 1933 of Hansard of February 9, where the parliamentary assistant is reported as having said:
The market value of a cattle beast may be the value that the farmer, in sending that cattle beast to an inspected slaughterhouse, is able to obtain.
As appears on the opposite page, I was careful to have the parliamentary assistant say that he did not mean the replacement value; he said that it was the slaughter value. In that case, I think it was most unfair for purebred sheep and swine breeders. However, the definition has been changed tonight and the parliamentary assistant is now defining market value as the actual market value of the swine or sheep.
That being the case, I submit that the principle of this bill is not good either way you look at it. If the definition was right a week ago Tuesday night it was not good lor the purebred sheep and swine breeders. Tf it is right tonight, it is not good for the purebred cattle and horse breeder.
This is government legislation and it is the duty of the opposition to point out any discrepancies. So far as I know, the only case where the actual market value was paid lor animals was during the outbreak of the foot-and-mouth disease in Saskatchewan two years ago. That was covered by special legislation. It was only right that the market value was paid in order that breeders might be more apt to report the disease.
If that principle was fair in connection with foot-and-mouth disease, is it not just as fair that it should apply in the case of t.b. reactors? The government takes the t.b. tests. The other evening the parliamentary assistant said that this was done at the request of the farmers. That is partly true. The first test in a county is taken at the *farmers' behest if they want the county to be a restricted area.
However, these animals are now t.b. tested every so often and the farmer has nothing to say as to whether a reactor is kept in the herd. It must be tattooed, or tagged and taken to a slaughterhouse and slaughtered. What is fair for one is fair for the other. If a fair market value is to be placed on cattle in the case of foot-and-mouth disease, and is to be placed on sheep and hogs in the case of cholera or any disease for which they have to be killed, then I say it is just as fair that fair market value be placed on purebred cattle and purebred horses in case they have to be slaughtered by government officials. The action taken in both cases-whether it be as a result of hog


cholera, foot-and-mouth disease or any other disease such as tuberculosis-is taken to protect the cattle breeders of this country-and, incidentally, the health of Canadians all across the country-and the economy of the country as a whole. Why should cattle breeders and horse breeders be put in a much less desirable position than that of hog breeders and sheep breeders?
I will go so far as to say this. I would suggest to all hog producers and sheep producers across this great Canada of ours- anyone who is breeding purebred animals- that they be sure to get their registration papers in order in case there is an outbreak of hog cholera or of any other disease as a result of which these animals have to be slaughtered. For instance, in the case of a registered bull, a herd sire, the owner probably has gone out and paid $500, $1,000 or maybe $5,000 for it. Then the veterinary inspector comes along, puts a tag in that animal's ear and that animal goes to the slaughterhouse; the breeder gets $100 plus the value of the carcass. With the price of hogs today, in my district not more than two weeks ago, two sows due to farrow shortly, two grade sows, brought $190 apiece. Does the government think it is fair to pay $190 for those grade animals, for instance, when a purebred herd sire that probably cost the owner $1,000 or more should bring only $100?
I want to point out this consideration, Mr. Speaker. We cannot ever place ourselves in a position so as to tolerate the subsidization of disease in this country; nor can we allow disease to become profitable, as was the case back in the 1930's. I would strongly urge the government to consider this argument. If it is fair for one, it is fair for the other. As the situation is at present, there is gross discrimination against the purebred-cattle breeders. If it is fair to pay the fair market value to one group-and I am not saying it is not; I think it is fair to pay the market value-then it is fair to pay it to the other.
You are placing the inspectors in an extremely embarrassing position. Someone who has a herd of purebred stock, developed over a period of 20 years or 25 years, probably representing the work of a lifetime, can have that lifetime's work wiped out in one day by an inspector. It can be wiped out just as fast for tuberculosis as for hog cholera, and just as effectively. I would seriously urge the government to give this matter consideration. I am saying that it is proper that sheep and swine should get all the consideration in the world and should be paid for on the basis of actual market value. But if that be so, I think it is just as fair that cattle breeders should receive the same consideration.	,


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: should like to make a strong recommendation to the minister with regard to this bill; but first I should like to ask some questions of the parliamentary assistant to the minister because I think before we vote on this bill we should have some clarification as to just exactly what is meant by certain terms in the bill.
First I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant to define quite clearly to us what is meant by "market value". As the preceding speaker has indicated, there is definitely a misunderstanding on this conception as to what is meant by the word "market". I for one think that the market value should be the sale value. In connection with that matter, I am going to wait until I hear what the parliamentary assistant has to say.
Then again, in the act respecting infectious or contagious diseases affecting animals there is no definition that I could find which would actually indicate the complete classification of animals as pertaining to this bill. I know that in one place it refers to cattle. Then of course the act refers purely to animals. I should therefore like to have clarification of those two points before I speak further, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I should
point out to the hon. member that we must not anticipate committee stage. On second reading we must discuss the principle of the bill. The hon. member should not expect the parliamentary assistant to answer his questions now, because when the parliamentary assistant speaks again on second reading, he will be closing the debate.


Edward George McCullough: Then, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make quite clear my stand on this matter. First, I want to say that I agree that an amendment was quite essential in order to bring some justice to the producer of livestock in this country. As has been indicated by the parliamentary assistant, under the original bill, in the case of swine which were designated for destruction, there was payable a maximum of $50 for purebred animals and $30 for grade animals, and in the case of sheep, $50 for purebred animals and $20 for grade animals. The import of the amendment would be to strike out the clause of the bill which makes that limitation, and then there would be no ceiling payable under the original paragraphs (c) and (d) of the section of the act.
Of course it is rather difficult at this stage to make any definite recommendation because I am not sure as to what market value actually means, and there seems to be some
Animal Contagious Diseases Act confusion in the mind of the parliamentary assistant. I want to say to the house that I think that market value should mean the sale value. If we are taking into consideration the removal of the ceiling on payments to purebred sheep breeders and hog breeders, then of course the market value, if it is to be fair, must be the sale value which those animals so destroyed would bring on the market in a purebred sale.
In that connection I want to make a case for all our purebred livestock breeders because, from the standpoint of the producer of livestock and that of the people who consume our livestock products, it is quite essential that they get the best possible type of product. By so doing, the breeder, of course, gets a greater return on his produce and the consumer gets a better quality of meat. I think it is in the interests of the economy and in the interests of the country that this government should promote an increase in the production of purebred cattle because in that way we produce a better quality of livestock all along the line.
I should like to bring to the attention of the house the fact that there has been a tremendous increase in registrations in certain lines of livestock while in other cases we have had a marked decrease in the registration of various types of livestock produced in Canada. I find that according to the Canadian national livestock records registration of swine pedigrees totalled 17,686 in 1945 while in 1953 the figure was 15,019, or a decrease of 2,667 registrations in swine alone. If we turn to the registration of pedigrees of sheep we find that in 1945 there were 16,141 and in 1953 there were 13,550, or a decrease of 2,591. In view of the figures I have just given I think there should be encouragement all along the line. If the words "market value" in the bill as drafted mean the sale value of registered sheep and swine, then I think it will be a very fine thing.
I should like to bring to the attention of the house the rather outstanding increase of pedigree registrations in some of the cattle breeds, and I want to refer to Hereford cattle. There has been an increase of about 126 per cent from 1945 to 1953. In 1945 there were only 14,818 pedigree registrations and in 1953 there was a total of 33,537, or an increase of 18,719. In my opinion the producers of purebred livestock, whether they be sheep, swine or cattle producers, should be protected. It is only on unusual occasions that it is necessary for the government to step in and compensate producers under this legislation, and our Canadian people and the livestock industry should be protected.

Animal Contagious Diseases Act
I want to urge very strongly that the government should accept the principle I am trying to put forward here, namely, that when the government decides under this legislation that livestock must be destroyed in the public interest and in the interest of the livestock industry compensation should be paid on the sale value prior to the animals being condemned. While I am not able to move an amendment under the rules of the house, I want to suggest to the parliamentary assistant and the minister that in order to make the legislation fair for all livestock producers there should be an amendment to the bill. A period should be placed in the twelfth line of clause 1 after the word "act", and all the words thereafter from line 13 to line 22 should be deleted. There would also be quotation marks after the word "act". The implications of such an amendment would be that all producers of livestock who had animals condemned under the legislation would be eligible for compensation on the market or sale value at the time the animals were ordered to be destroyed.
I think that is pretty well all I want to say, but may I emphasize my point that breeders of purebred livestock have every reason to expect justice and equality from the government in the administration of the act. I suggest first that the inclusion of the words "or sale", so that it would read "market or sale value", would clarify the meaning, and then I have also suggested the deletion of all the words I have indicated. I think I should read the new subsection to the house as it would then be.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have allowed the hon. member to indicate the amendment that he contemplates moving in committee, but since he must not refer to the sections when discussing the principle of the bill I would ask him to wait until the house resolves itself into committee at which time he can move his amendment and read the section if he wishes, but not now.


Edward George McCullough: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall have a number of questions to ask when we are in committee, but I think that is all I have to say at this time.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, to some extent I am at a loss to add anything to what I had to say at the resolution stage. At that time we did not have the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) here. We did have his parliamentary assistant but we were not able to get from him the definition of "market value" that we wanted. On that occasion the discussion seemed to run along exactly the same lines


that it is running tonight. At that time I made a plea, as did the other hon. members who have preceded me, to have compensation for purebred animals paid on the basis of their actual market value, and when I say "actual market value" I do not mean the value that would be paid for them at the slaughterhouse.
Purebred animals have cost the farmers of this country a lot of money. The federal and provincial departments of agriculture have been advocating the improvement of livestock, but you cannot have that without breeding and importing purebred livestock. For that reason I believe that those who have gone to a lot of trouble and expense in building up their herds should not have to pay the penalty of selling their good purebred livestock at the same price at which scrub livestock are sold at the slaughterhouse. Until we can get some further explanation from the parliamentary assistant or the minister-they are both quite qualified to give it-I do not think I have very much more to say. In the interests of maintaining and further improving the quality of our livestock I think this legislation should go further than it does. I believe that a proper definition of "market value" would do away with some of the handicaps under which we are working at the present time. I hope the minister will give us a satisfactory explanation before the bill receives second reading.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I think this bill should be sent to the standing committee on agriculture for discussion. In my opinion there is discrimination in it against cattle breeders. If you are going to give compensation to one you should give it to all. I would suggest and move that the bill be sent to the standing committee on agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: I presume that the hon. member is merely making a suggestion and not moving that the bill be now referred to the committee because a bill cannot be committed until it has received second reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Amount of compensation.
Edward George McCullough: I
wonder if the minister would now define for the committee what is meant by "market value"?


Robert McCubbin: Market value is the sale value at the time the animal is destroyed. If a hog were worth so much at that time, that is the value that will be paid for it.


Edward George McCullough: I
should like to ask the parliamentary assistant it he would be prepared to take the suggestion that the words "market value or sale value" be included in the bill?


Robert McCubbin: I do not see that there is any need to put in market or sale value. It is the market value at the time of slaughter. It is well understood by the committee, I believe, and I think it will certainly be understood when the payments are made for the hogs or sheep.


John Alpheus Charlton: Would market or replacement value be acceptable? The replacement value of an animal might be more than the sale value. It is going to be difficult enough for an inspector to arrive at a price just on the market value, but perhaps if it were defined in a slightly more practical way by saying market or replacement value it might be a little more definite. The other night the parliamentary assistant thought it was the slaughter market value only. In the bill it is definitely the market value, and I think the definition is correct when the parliamentary assistant says it is the sale value or value of the animal before slaughter. At any rate, it is not the slaughter value.


Robert McCubbin: There is no difference of opinion between the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand and me. A hog that goes to market has a slaughter value. If it were a little pig, then a little pig has no slaughter value of any kind. However, it has a value to the farmer, and it is that value that is placed upon it. The same is true of a sow. There might be a sale in the district and sows would be selling in the neighbourhood of $100 or, as the hon. member says, $190. That is the value that would be placed on a sow of the same calibre.


Edward George McCullough: I
think the minister could save a lot of arguing as to what market value means if he could just accept my suggestion. One hon. member has just spoken in favour of replacement value, but replacement value could mean a lot of things and start a lot of argument. I think that if you had market or sale value in the bill a man would know what he had paid for a purebred bull or any other animal, and on that basis there could be a fair and just settlement.
As the bill stands, it is up to the minister or someone appointed by him to make a decision as to what the market value is. I, for one, would feel more at ease and think we had a better basis for giving satisfactory compensation to the producer if we had market or sale value rather than just market value in the bill.
Animal Contagious Diseases Act


Robert Fair: Are we to understand that there will be no extra compensation paid on purebred sheep or swine, but that they will be paid for on the basis of slaughter or sale value? Would that be correct?


Robert McCubbin: No; it would depend on what the market value would be for comparable purebred sows or boars at that time.


Edward George McCullough: The
Animal Contagious Diseases Act relates also to infectious diseases. There is a definition in the act which includes certain infectious diseases. In the west today we have deer, and because they are cloven-footed animals they may be carriers of diseases which could be transmitted to our domesticated animals.
I was wondering if this amendment covered other infectious diseases than those outlined in the act.


Robert McCubbin: Just those diseases that are outlined in the act. Perhaps new diseases will occur, but there are diseases to which our animals are subject. I think the hon. member realizes full well what they are.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am by no means clear as to just what this market value is going to be, as a result of the statement made by the parliamentary assistant. We will take the case of a man who has just bought a purebred Hereford bull for $5,000. We will say that a month afterwards it takes infectious haema-titis and is condemned to be killed. As I read this, the farmer would receive the market value of the carcass plus $100. Is that correct? If it is not correct, would he receive the $5,000?


Robert McCubbin: We may be talking at cross purposes in respect to this provision. So far as t.b. is concerned, the farmer would receive $100 plus the slaughter value of the animal at that time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That was not the question I asked you. I said that if this particular bull were to take infectious haematitis, as I read this act the farmer would only receive $100 plus the slaughter value, or the value of the carcass, or what the value of the carcass would be if it could be sold. Is that correct or is it not? If it is not correct, what would the farmer receive?


Robert McCubbin: It is rather difficult to say what he would receive. The matter is left to the discretion of the minister or anyone he may appoint to value the animal at the time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Under what act is it left to the discretion of the minister? This bill says the compensation which shall be paid for an animal slaughtered shall be the market value
2238	HOUSE OF
Animal Contagious Diseases Act of the animal in the opinion of the minister or some person appointed by him. That is the value it would have immediately before slaughtering. Then it goes on to say, except that the compensation shall not exceed, in the case of cattle, $100 for purebred animals. If the sale of the carcass is unlawful there will be an additional amount for purebred and grade animals equal to the value the carcass would have if the sale were lawful. It seems to me that is definite. In the case of the $5,000 bull which I mentioned that has been condemned for any of these diseases, and I took infectious haematitis as an example, under this act the amount that could be paid is the value of the carcass plus $100. If the farmer could get any more, under what authority is he paid it?


Robert McCubbin: Under the act as it reads, the amount that he could be paid is left to the discretion of the minister or anyone appointed by him. If there were some outbreak that was going to be dangerous or harmful to the industry, special legislation might be put through to take care of it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the question is being evaded. I have asked a very definite question. Under what authority would the owner of this particular bull we are taking as an example be paid more than the value of the carcass plus $100? The parliamentary assistant says that that would depend upon a lot of circumstances. It also must depend upon some parliamentary authority. So far as I have understood our parliamentary system, money cannot be paid out unless authority is given by parliament for doing so. Certainly, as I read the act, there is no authority for paying out more than the value of the carcass, plus $100. If there is authority to pay out more than that, where is it? That is my question.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary assistant has been giving the proper answers to the questions that have been asked. The discussions which took place in connection with the act itself were not heard by him, and, in view of the fact that I did hear those discussions, perhaps I should say something about it.
I have voiced opinions that have been expressed here with regard to some of these matters, when the question of drafting the act was up. And what I am told is

and this is on the authority of our best legal advisers -that "market", as used in this particular legislation, is not confined to the markets in a stockyard or a packing house. The word is not used in that sense at all, nor would it be interpreted in that sense. It is the market on which these animals are usually sold.


The hon. member for Moose Mountain as well as the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose defined it as clearly as it could be defined, when they said what they thought ought to be in the bill. They defined it very clearly. And that is what the word "market" in this bill actually does mean.
Let me state a case as an illustration. Where registered stock is slaughtered payment should be made on the basis of the last sale of registered hogs and sheep that have been sold in that district. Those are the market prices of that particular kind of animal. That type of animal is not put on the market to be slaughtered; it is put on the market for breeding purposes. And those amounts would be paid under this bill, so far as hogs and sheep are concerned. Payments would be made under this bill on that basis.
Then my hon. friends say: what about cattle? Well, we have a record, in connection with cattle, of the diseases they are likely to take. Hog cholera is pretty prevalent on this continent, and has been coming into Canada periodically over a long number of years. We have set up a method of dealing with hog cholera which has been very much less helpful to the producer of livestock than what is provided in this bill, so far as hogs and sheep are concerned.
But when it came to the matter of having to deal with foot-and-mouth disease, which came to Saskatchewan in 1952, and which we had never before had in Canada, we immediately established a policy, so far as the government was concerned, of taking hold of that situation through special legislation, and making it possible to make payments in connection with cattle, and hogs as well, that could not be made under this bill. We made much more liberal payments than could be made under this bill; and the policy of the government in connection with that kind of thing is to deal with such situations under special legislation that would be brought down to meet the circumstances-we not knowing at the present time what those circumstances might be.
Coming back to cattle, as dealt with in this bill, the disease that is in the mind of those who have been drafting the bill is the one upon which by far the greater number of payments have been made, in connection with the slaughtering of animals-and not only the greater number of payments, but greater amounts in payments to farmers which might be claimed by them.
In view of the experience we have had, we think that we should go on dealing with t.b. and similar diseases on the same basis as we always have, with this exception, that two years ago, I believe it was, we amended the legislation in order to make it possible to

have higher payments than those for which provision had been made, in cases where the animal's carcass is entirely destroyed.
Up to that time we just paid on a carcass the amounts mentioned in the bill, whether the carcass was entirely destroyed, or taken to market and a fairly high price received for it. For example, dealing with a case such as has just been referred to, at a time when prices of animals were very much lower, one could buy a registered bull for possibly $125 or $150. I bought one for that myself. I had to have him slaughtered because he reacted for t.b. I took him to market and got $105 for him. In addition to that I could have collected the allowance. Because I was a minister in the government I did not think I should, and so I did not collect that amount. But anyone could have collected it; I could have collected it-the additional amount provided for here. That is another $100 on top of the $105, which would have been a reasonable return for that animal. Perhaps under the circumstances that then prevailed, it was a little more than reasonable.
So I suggest that we are proposing here to go ahead on the same basis in connection with diseases of that kind. But in this case, where cholera comes along quite regularly into this country, and does take livestock from our farms, we should be in a position to make higher payments on those hogs and sheep than we have been able to do in the past.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I must say I am glad to hear the minister in such good voice. I agree with a considerable amount of what he said. But he still has not answered the question I asked at the beginning. Perhaps I might now put it a little differently.
As I understand this legislation-if I may take an example which I believe is comparable to the one he mentioned-a man goes out and buys an extremely good Yorkshire boar and pays $1,000 for it. This boar develops hog cholera a month later. As I understand the bill it will be possible to pay that man $1,000 for that boar? Is that correct? And if the market value as mentioned in the first part of clause 1 is taken, he would be paid that $1,000.
But, to take the example I took previously, of the man who has paid $5,000 for a Hereford bull, and it dies a month later from any of these diseases: the most he can collect, as I read the bill, is still the market value of the carcass-which, we will say, is $150-plus $100, making $250 altogether. That is all he can collect, although he has had a more valuable animal than the boar.
It does not seem to me that that is reasonable. The minister says, "We will meet any 83276-143J
Animal Contagious Diseases Act of these special circumstances by legislation." As a matter of fact something along these lines can develop when parliament is not in session, when special legislation cannot be passed. What reason is there for not placing those animals on all fours, so far as payments are concerned, cattle, swine, sheep and horses.
I would say at this point that I think the owners most discriminated against are the owners of purebred horses; because, so far as purebred horses are concerned, the maximum that can be paid is $200 for a purebred animal. A purebred horse of any sort of breed at the present time is worth considerably more than that. They are probably discriminated against to a greater extent than the owners of any other sort of animal.
To keep on the subject of cattle, the minister has not yet answered the question with respect to the suggestion put forward by the parliamentary assistant that the-owner of this $5,000 bull could be compensated more than the value of the carcass, plus $100 except by special legislation. Is. that not the situation? Perhaps I can get am answer to the two or three questions I have-asked.


James Garfield Gardiner: In view of the fact that the hon. member addressed his questions to me in the beginning, and as a result of what I have just said, I would point out that when a breeder buys an animal at a very high price he is not always paying for the animal. There are times when he is paying for good advertising. I have been at sales where animals were being sold and when the price that was paid for the animal was very much higher than would have been paid by the man who bought it had he just been thinking about the animal himself. I would not like to say on the floor of the house that if a case of this kind came up before me as minister I would declare that no matter what the gentleman paid for the animal that he had we would be committed under this bill to pay him that much for it. We would pay him of course what he probably would have been prepared to sell the animal for himself after he had used him for a short time. Many things have to be taken into consideration besides just the fact that he paid that much for the animal, and all those things would be taken into consideration.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is entirely on the question of market value, which the parliamentary assistant said a little while ago was absolutely clear and understood by everybody. As I understand the minister's remarks, the market value is anything but clear. The market value essentially comes down to what the minister, or the person whom he appoints

Animal Contagious Diseases Act tor the purpose, thinks is the value of that animal. In other words, it puts the thing on an entirely arbitrary basis. If it happened to be one of my boars which had been condemned and was killed I would think perhaps the minister might not think it was nearly as valuable as if it were a boar belonging to his parliamentary assistant, for example. I would think that is a highly probable thing and I doubt very much whether it is a reasonable basis on which to leave the matter. If we are going to say "market value", then the term should be defined; otherwise it should be on the basis in any event of the most recent sale of that animal or a similar animal. If that is not done, I would say it is entirely an arbitrary matter in the opinion of the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I say that it is the general practice of people who are in the class just referred to by the hon. member who buy $5,000 bulls to insure the bull for the full amount long before they take him home, and there is not so much risk in connection with that. All the facts in connection with it would have to be considered when we are determining how much money we are going to take out of the treasury of Canada, paid in by the taxpayers, and pay to the individual on account of what happened.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: There should be some uniformity with respect to the price of these purebred animals. Although there are not many bulls bought at $5,000, or worth $5,000,
I remember 18 years ago the minister of agriculture in Ontario, Duncan Marshall, went to Europe and bought a bull for $14,000. If that bull was worth $14,000 18 years ago, with the depreciated dollar it would be worth somewhere around $30,000 today. Some figure should be set or the sky would be the limit.


Edward George McCullough: We
have come all the way from the high-priced $5,000 bull suggested by the hon. member down to the kind that the Minister of Agriculture purchases, apparently, for $150. We are debating a bill here which deals with four types of livestock, namely, horses, cattle, sheep and swine. I say that there is no equity in the suggestion put forward. All these producers should be compensated on a fair and equitable basis.
The explanatory note says:
The purpose of the amendment is to remove the limits on the compensation payable in respect of swine and sheep, and to provide for payment of compensation on the basis of market value.
We have had two explanations of what constitutes market value. As far as I am concerned, neither the explanation of the


parliamentary assistant nor that of the minister is satisfactory. They must be confused in their own minds because they have given conflicting answers to our questions as to what does constitute market value. The minister points out that when a person goes out to purchase an animal he may be paying for a lot of publicity rather than for line breeding or for the quality of the purebred animal. That statement is hardly justified, because when livestock producers go out to buy such an animal to head their herd they are going to purchase the type of animal that they want in their line breeding, and they will pay a big figure for it. Therefore on that basis, as I said earlier in the resolution stage of the bill, it is in the interests of the Canadian people, the consumer and the producer of livestock, that compensation be paid on the sale value, which would be just and equitable.
I would suggest an amendment to the bill, and I would ask the minister and the parliamentary assistant to consider it on the basis of justice. To make this more equitable to all livestock producers, I would suggest that after the word "act" there should be a period, and all the words from line 12 to line 21 should be deleted. The bill would then read:
The compensation ordered to be paid under this section for an animal slaughtered under the provisions of this act shall be the market value that the animal, in the opinion of the minister or some person appointed by him, would have had immediately before slaughter if it had not been subject to slaughter under the provisions of this act.
I want to make reference to the statement which the minister just made. He said that in the case of hog cholera the department now has the right to compensate producers, who unfortunately have to slaughter their swine under this act. If the bill is left as proposed, the swine producer and the sheep producer might be compensated fairly and equitably for the slaughter of their animals. But if you leave out the cattle producers and put them under special legislation, as I see it, you are going to have this situation. If you do not have an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, as we had a while ago, you will have isolated cases where cattle will have to be slaughtered and special legislation will not be set up and each producer of livestock will have to stand his loss or take what is now provided, a small additional amount for the purebred animal.
I suggest that the minister give further consideration to the suggestion I have made. Can the minister or his parliamentary assistant state how much has been paid under this act since 1945?


Robert McCubbin: I have not the figures going back that far, but from April 1, 1953, to February 5, 1954, a total of 3,075 hogs were slaughtered.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: After listening to the arguments pro and con, I still think that this bill should have been sent to the agriculture committee. A year or so ago I asked why the agriculture committee of this house did not meet more often and I was told it was because nothing was sent to it. This is an important piece of legislation that should have been sent to that committee where it could have been threshed out better than in the committee of the whole, because many members are not here tonight. Even yet I think the minister should send it to the agriculture committee.


John Alpheus Charlton: The parliamentary assistant specifically mentioned t.b. In my previous remarks I stated that I did not see why special consideration should be given in the case of foot-and-mouth disease as compared with hog cholera, or foot-and-mouth disease as compared with t.b. The parliamentary assistant seems to have the idea that just because it is t.b. the farmers should get less. I would point out to the minister that when the increase was brought about it was actually a decrease. Previous to that time the compensation paid for purebred cattle was $150 instead of $100. You lowered the compensation from $150 to $100 and you paid the carcass value. Actually there was not much of a difference there; there was no appreciable difference in the amount paid when the carcass value was added even although it went to the tank.
This question of market value is not at all clear. As the hon. member for Calgary North has pointed out, the parliamentary assistant and the minister have each given a different interpretation of market value. If it is to be left entirely with the minister or his inspector, as I pointed out in my previous remarks, the inspector will be placed in an unenviable position when there is no restriction as to the amount to be paid.
I come back to the old story: if it is fair for one it is fair for the other. Whether it be hog cholera, whether it be t.b., whether it be foot-and-mouth disease, when cattle or sheep or swine have to be slaughtered there should be no difference. Hog cholera is just as serious to the swine breeder as foot-and-mouth disease was to the cattle or swine breeders of Saskatchewan. Just because we are one of the few countries in the world which slaughter for hog cholera is no reason to blame it on the farmers of this country.
Animal Contagious Diseases Act
A week ago Tuesday night, the parliamentary assistant stated that we were the only country. He told us that the United States did not pay anything. Of course the United States do not pay anything because they do not slaughter. They live with the disease. They have hog cholera there all the time. But this government demands the slaughter of any hog affected with cholera and it should be willing to pay. It is for the good of the country that the hogs are being slaughtered.
The same is true in the case of t.b. in cattle. The cattle are slaughtered for the good of the health of the country. If you are going to pay the market value for sheep and swine it would be just as fair to pay the cattle breeders and the horse breeders the market value for their animals. Could the parliamentary assistant or the minister give any other definition of market value in order to make it more clear?


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, our discussion so far has been very unsatisfactory. The explanation given by the minister and his parliamentary assistant is no answer to my suggestion that the bill should be amended. Can the minister state whether any farm organization made representations to the government suggesting that cattle should be put on the same basis as sheep and swine?


Robert McCubbin: I do not want to go into a long discussion of the slaughter of cattle for t.b., as I do not think it is necessary. It is a long story, but it is worth telling. The eradication of t.b. has certainly helped the livestock industry of this country because we are now able to ship cattle all over the world. After the amendment was brought in in respect to t.b. in cattle we paid $40 for grade animals and $100 for purebred animals, plus the carcass value. I discussed the matter with farm organizations and we came to an agreement on this.
Before this bill was brought in, discussions took place with respect to it and they were satisfied with the amount that is provided. As the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand has said, we are one of the few countries-if not the only country-that pay for hogs that go down for hog cholera. Where hog cholera is discovered in a herd all the swine are destroyed. However, in the case of t.b., there may be only one or two cattle in a herd of 50 that have to go down.
The amount we pay is the amount that was asked by the farm organizations. We are one of the countries that are to the fore in this connection. I would like to go

Animal Contagious Diseases Act further and tell the committee that the United States has now stopped paying for t.b. reactors. They also do not pay for hogs affected with hog cholera. They live with the disease. But we in Canada are paying the amounts mentioned and I feel that all in all this government and the department are being fair to the livestock industry of Canada.


John Alpheus Charlton: What farm organizations
were approached with regard to this matter?


Robert McCubbin: An organization that my hon. friend knows quite well, the federation of agriculture.


Edward George McCullough: Will the provisions of this bill be made retroactive?


Robert McCubbin: Until May 1, 1953.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Operation.
John Alpheus Charlton: This is the clause containing the retroactive provision. I think the parliamentary assistant made some mention of the fact that as the statutes are being revised as of September, 1953, that date is mentioned here. Is that true? Would he explain that again?


Robert McCubbin: The act was to have come into force on September 15, 1953, but owing to an outbreak of hog cholera in the province of Ontario prior to that date we moved it back to May 1 so that it would take in those people who had their hogs destroyed by hog cholera in that period from May 1 to September 15 of 1953.


John Alpheus Charlton: A week ago Tuesday night when the resolution was up for consideration I asked the parliamentary assistant another question. It was with regard to animals, in the case that the animals died prior to the official diagnosis of the disease. Are those animals going to be paid for?


Robert McCubbin: That question was asked of me the other night and my answer was no. But if the hon. member has a case that he feels we should investigate, we shall be glad to investigate it.


Frank Exton Lennard: There is nothing definite about that.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is very indefinite. In the case of foot-and-mouth disease, for instance, the animal does not die and in the case of tuberculosis, the animal does not die, but in the case of hog cholera the pig is dead before the veterinary gets there to tell the farmer what it is. Just because the pig dies is no reason for the farmer not to get compensation if it is proven that the pig had hog cholera. I think it is only fair that he should get it.


Robert McCubbin: I can only repeat what I said before. If there is some definite case to which the hon. member can refer, we will certainly investigate that case.


Frank Exton Lennard: What will you do about it after you investigate it?


John Alpheus Charlton: Has the minister or the parliamentary assistant any idea how many animals there were which came under this act, as far as hog cholera is concerned, in Ontario last year and how many sheep have been slaughtered in the past year or so under this act?


Robert McCubbin: According to the record I have, Mr. Chairman, no sheep have been slaughtered under this act but-to repeat the figure I gave a little while ago-there have been 3,075 hogs slaughtered up to February 5 of this year.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, if it met with the unanimous wish of the house, I might move the adjournment until tomorrow. Tomorrow we shall take third reading of those bills that are now ready, followed by the Salaries Act and then by the Criminal Code.
On motion of Mr. Harris the house adjourned at 9.35 p.m.

Friday, February 19, 1954