1954-02-09

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short announcement. I am glad to be able to announce that confirmation has been received from London that the West Indies token import plan is being continued for 1954. I also have word that a number of commodities of importance to Canadian trade are being added to those on open general licence in the West Indian colonies.
The list of commodities on open general licence will include: newsprint; kraft paper; dried, smoked, pickled and salted fish; onions; potatoes; cheese; powdered and canned milk; split peas; meats; canned fish. Animal feeds are also on the list except in British Guiana.
Several of these items were previously traded under token import plan vouchers in the colonies. They will now be unrestricted and vouchers will not be needed for them.
The West Indies token import plan is playing a valuable part in keeping Canadian brand names before the public in the colonies, and in holding a place in those markets for Canadian goods until the trade need no longer be restricted. The transfer of commodities from the plan to open general licence is an encouraging sign for the future.
Full details of these changes are being given to the trades concerned by my departmental officers.



THE ARCTIC


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement on the Arctic weather stations.
On March 4, 1947, announcement was made in the house that the Canadian and United States governments had decided to establish weather stations in the Canadian Arctic which were to be operated jointly by the Canadian meteorological service and the United States weather bureau. It was then announced that
the Canadian government would supply the required establishments and that the United States would furnish necessary water and air transportation.
That year a United States task force, sailing from Boston on July 15 and consisting of two icebreakers and a supply ship, made their way to Resolute bay on Cornwallis island and to Eureka sound on Ellesmere island. Weather stations were established at these two points. Since then three additional joint Arctic weather stations were established and have been in operation on a 24-hour day ever since. All these joint weather stations are located in the area now designated as Queen Elizabeth islands. For the first few years, the resupply of these Arctic stations was carried out from Resolute by the United States army air force but this airlift has gradually been taken over by the R.C.A.F.
With respect to transportation by sea to these Arctic outposts, Canada has been able to supplement the work of the United States task force during the last two summers. In 1952 the Department of Transport's Arctic supply ship, the C.G.S. C. D. Howe, delivered considerable supplies to Resolute; and last summer the department's new icebreaker, the C.G.S. d'Iberville, contributed greatly to the resupply of this main weather station.
It is my pleasure to be able to inform the house that this year, Canada will be able to assume full responsibility for the resupply of all but one of the joint Arctic weather stations. My department will, this summer, send up a task force consisting of two icebreakers, the department's Arctic supply ship, the C. D. Howe, a commercial dry cargo vessel and a commercial tanker.
The departmental vessels will be carrying out this special work in addition to their regular duties in Arctic and sub-Arctic waters. The icebreakers used will include the d'Iberville, N. B. McLean and Edward Cornwallis.
The C.G.S. C. D. Howe will carry out, as in previous years, the supplying of government outposts along the coasts of Baffin island, lower Ellesmere island as well as Resolute where she will rendezvous with the task force.
C.G.S. d'Iberville will be the commodore ship of the task force and will accompany the commercial dry cargo vessel and tanker

Fisheries
to Resolute. Last year this new icebreaker opened a new R.C.M.P. post at Twin Glaciers, half-way up the eastern shore of Ellesmere island. This year, ice conditions permitting, d'Iberville is scheduled to travel up the west coast of Ellesmere to Eureka sound and will also carry out resupply work to other Arctic posts, including Craig harbour.
The joint Arctic weather station at Alert on the northernmost tip of Ellesmere island will be resupplied by the United States task force which will be servicing American establishments in Greenland.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the minister a question arising out of his statement? Are there any other Arctic weather stations in contemplation?


Lionel Chevrier: None other than these five.



FISHERIES


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement on the sale of Canadian canned salmon to the United Kingdom. Before the war a large part of the annual British Columbia pack was sold in the United Kingdom. During the war years almost the entire pack was sent to Britain. In the post-war years, however, the British found it increasingly difficult to find the dollars necessary for such purchases and so sales declined. In 1952 the British bought no Canadian salmon, and it looked as though there would be no British purchases in 1953.
When the Right Hon. R. A. Butler, Chancellor of the Exchequer, was in Ottawa last spring, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and I raised the matter with him. He eventually agreed to allocate $4J million for salmon purchases, which bought 205,000 cases. At the time he expressed the hope that the fishing industry would try to buy more British goods to enable Britain to earn the dollars to finance such purchases.
I repeated his words here in the House of Commons last spring, and I am glad to say that the fisheries association of British Columbia took immediate action on this suggestion. A committee was formed which canvassed every branch of the industry to see how British purchases could be increased. By August of last year this committee had prepared an order for $4) million of new British purchases of tin-plate, mechanical equipment for plants and boats, and fishing gear.

The committee felt that there might be more equipment available in Britain than they knew about, so early in September Mr. Kenneth Fraser, manager of the Imperial Cannery, was sent to England to visit the British manufacturers. At the end of September a trade delegation consisting of Mr. H. R. MacMillan, chairman of the board of B. C. Packers, Mr. John Buchanan, president of B. C. Packers, Mr. Roger Hager, president of the Canadian Fishing Company and myself went to London.
We found that Mr. Fraser had done a splendid job and had found a great deal of other first-class British equipment, competitive in price. Mr. MacMillan was so impressed that he wired back to Vancouver to have the purchasing agent of his logging enterprises come to Britain for a similar survey.
The delegation had wisely decided not to try to link their British purchases with any conditions for the sale of salmon, so there was no suggestion of barter or any quid pro quo arrangement. We did feel, however, that the British government should know of the way the industry was trying to help the British earn dollars. We first met the Right Hon. Lloyd George, minister of food, and found him most sympathetic. He told us that he had great demand from the British people for much more British Columbia salmon and would be happy to provide it if the dollars could be found. We next met the Right Hon. Peter Thorneycroft, president of the board of trade, who was most impressed with the action taken to increase the sale of British goods in Canada. He was pleased too that the delegation had found so wide a range of first-class equipment available at competitive prices. He felt it was the first time that a whole industry had made a deliberate effort to help the British to earn more dollars.
Finally, our high commissioner in London, Mr. Norman Robertson, and I met the chancellor. He was frankly delighted that his suggestion of the spring should have brought such positive results. He told us that, while it was not possible for him to allocate dollars for salmon purchase in the fall months because of other commitments, he would try to make dollars available in the spring.
I went on to attend the Colombo plan meetings in New Delhi, but the rest of the delegation spent another three weeks in Britain arranging for purchase of this equipment. The British press gave very favourable comment on the purpose of the mission. Perhaps I can quote one paragraph of a

speech made on December 2 by the Right Hon. Derick Heathcoat-Amory, minister of state, to show the impression made on the British cabinet. He said:
We welcomed very much a mission that came over here recently from the fishing industry of British Columbia. Here is a case where a whole Canadian industry recognized in a very practical way the value of increasing trade between our two countries. They came to see what the United Kingdom could offer in the field in which they were interested. When they went away, they seemed to be impressed with all they had seen-the wide range of goods that were of interest, from ships' chandlery to diesel engines, and they found us to be up to date and our prices competitive. They returned full of enthusiasm and important orders look like materializing which may run into several millions of dollars. Here I suggest is one more pail in the coffin of the myth that the United Kingdom only produces luxury goods at high prices. We would welcome immensely other missions of the same kind.
Two weeks ago the British government informed us that a bulk purchase of salmon would be made this month. While the amount was not made public, it is considerably larger than last year's purchase. A representative of the British ministry of food is now in Vancouver negotiating the purchase. In view of this happy outcome I can assure you that the fishing industry of British Columbia will continue to press its "Buy British" campaign.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I feel sure that all members on both sides of the house will welcome any evidence showing that trade can be increased with Britain, which has been both an exporter to Canada and a customer of ours for so many years. I also feel sure there will be many members of the house who will welcome whatever action the government has taken although it was limited in this particular case because it was primarily the industry that carried out the negotiations. Nevertheless hon. members will welcome such participation of the government as has taken place because of the fact that we have been urging for some considerable time that the government should do this very thing, and this is the first evidence we have seen that they have followed the advice we have given them.



REPORTS AND PAPERS


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a return about fertilizer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Knowles:: Is that from the Liberal platform?


Mr. Fulton:: I can think of no more fitting source for a return of that kind.



RIPPLE ROCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the national research council recently received a report from the engineers who are examining the possibility of a tunnel under Ripple rock in Seymour narrows on the west coast? If so, could the minister make a statement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the direct answer is no. However, the situation is that, as originally planned, a drill hole has been made from the shore to directly under the rock. The drill cores are now being examined by government geologists. A preliminary report merely showing the location of the drill hole has been received by the national research council. No information has been received on the results of the examination of the cores. It is expected that the examination will take the better part of two months and at that time we expect to have a report on this aspect of the problem.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the government taken any steps in the present unemployment situation to implement the promise it made in August, 1945-I refer to the green book proposals-to look after employable unemployed not covered by unemployment insurance or whose unemployment insurance has been exhausted?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: The question of the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway opens up a subject that has caused a great deal of discussion in days gone by. Although I was not here in 1945 I do know, as I am sure my hon. friend knows, that the proposals in the so-called green book were never incorporated in agreements between the federal and the then nine provincial governments. I am not going to discuss that topic at all. But since 1945 a great deal of water has run under the bridge with

Inquiries of the Ministry respect to this question. For instance, in my own department we have since that time improved the benefits of unemployment insurance. We established supplementary benefits. We improved those supplementary benefits, extended the period of time, and in other ways have done things to help to cope with seasonal unemployment periods such as we are now experiencing.
[Later:I


Angus MacInnis: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Labour. Without questioning what he has said, when he spoke here on Monday, the 26th of January, I think it was, he said that there was a residual problem and that the most effective way of solving it was through the joint efforts of the provincial and municipal governments and the federal government. Are any such efforts being made at the present time? Has the federal government taken the initiative in the matter?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Offhand, Mr. Speaker, I can think of one which has been announced by my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and which will have the effect of helping to relieve the burden of unemployment in municipalities. I refer to his federal-provincial pension plan devised to help unemployable or disabled persons.



SUGGESTED PLACING OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS IN SURPLUS LABOUR AREAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister's department familiar with defence mobilization manpower policy No. 4 of the United States? If so, has any study been given to placing industrial and government contracts in areas where there is a surplus of labour, as is being done in the United States?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The hon. member kindly sent me notice of his question. Officers of my department are familiar with defence mobilization manpower policy No. 4 of the United States, and have discussed with the officials of the office of defence mobilization of the United States the way this policy has been operating both before and after their revised policy which was issued in November, 1953.
Hon. members will appreciate that there are important differences between the defence production programs in the United States and in Canada, the extent to which the facilities for defence production are distributed throughout the country, and other factors,

and there are definite limitations to the extent to which such a policy could be applied in Canada. The general question of decentralization of defence production has been raised in the house on a number of occasions, and has been discussed by my colleague, the Minister of Defence Production.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, in view of the fact that the minister feels the policy being followed in the United States cannot be implemented in this country, can the minister tell the house whether or not the government is considering extending the available unemployment insurance benefits to workers in those areas or in industries such as textiles or farm machinery where unemployment is more than seasonal in nature?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The unemployment insurance benefits are applicable to those industries which the hon. member mentioned just now.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of his statement with reference to West Indies trade which we were very pleased to hear. Will the Canadian National P.ailways boats that formerly operated between the West Indies and Canadian ports be again put into operation on this trade route?


Lionel Chevrier: Last year or the year before we decided to withdraw the "Lady" boats, but I think it is the intention of Canadian National Railways to operate the ten or twelve cargo ships still remaining in 1954.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The "Lady" boats are not being put on again?


Lionel Chevrier: The "Lady" boats have been sold.



WEATHER SHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of the statement he made. Will Canadian weather ships maintain their operations at station "Peter"

in the Pacific, although United States weather ships are reported to have withdrawn from that Pacific station?


Lionel Chevrier: The question which the hon. member asks me, Mr. Speaker, has nothing to do with the statement I made earlier. However, I shall be glad to answer his question. The question has to do with a weather ship in the Pacific ocean, and I was dealing with weather stations on the Queen Elizabeth islands. The answer to the question is that we have not decided to withdraw the operations at station "P" in the Pacific. On the contrary, it is our intention to carry on that operation and I think, although I speak from memory now, provision is made in the estimates for this fiscal year for the operation of that station.



ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: Has
the attention of the Minister of National Defence been drawn to a statement by Arthur Blakely in today's Montreal Gazette that a top secret report outlining methods for reforming the reserve army may eventually be made public? Can the minister inform the house as to the date on which this report will be tabled?


Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Minister of National Defence):: Yes; I have seen the statement and I can tell the hon. member and the house that it is not likely the statement to which he is referring will eventually prove to be true. This was the subject of a statement I made to the house on January 25, 1954, and a press release, to which I have nothing to add at this time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the minister of external affairs. Did the parliamentary assistant state that Canada is not possessed of full and complete sovereignty, as indicated in a report of his speech in Montreal on Friday night? If so, in what respect do we lack sovereignty?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member should reply to questions in this house concerning statements he has made outside
Inquiries of the Ministry the house. If the question related to a statement made by a cabinet minister it might be different, but I doubt very much whether we should initiate a procedure here whereby a member is to be asked whether he made certain statements in speaking outside this house at a public meeting. If the hon. member wishes to reply, of course, I leave it up to him.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the point you have raised, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it is not like asking a private member, which I agree would not be in order. This is a question directed to a parliamentary assistant to a minister in connection with a matter which touches on the responsibility of the department to whose minister he is assistant. I believe the house is entitled to information on the subject with which the parliamentary assistant was dealing.


Mr. Pouliot:: The Tories have a colonial mind.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, without in any way transgressing the ruling which you made a moment ago when the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) asked his question, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) whether the speech in question of his parliamentary assistant was brought to his attention, and what if anything the government intends to do in order to achieve what the parliamentary assistant described as full Canadian sovereignty.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member should look at Beauchesne's third edition, citation 295 (z) which states:
A question, oral or written, must not refer to speeches made outside the house; but in the case of cabinet ministers it is permissible to ask Prime Minister whether such speech represents policy of government.
The hon. member is quite right in asking the question he asked, but I think he ought to put the question in a different way, and ask whether or not the policy of the government is to such and such effect.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may speak to the point of order, I think the rule was made before we had this system of parliamentary assistants. I can scarcely believe that it would ever have contemplated that they speak without responsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member is quite right, but I suggest his question might be directed to the minister to whom the hon. member is parliamentary assistant, and that it might be in the following terms: Was the

Inquiries of the Ministry parliamentary assistant, speaking on such a date, speaking with the authority of the minister, or was he stating government policy?


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I find difficulty in drafting the question properly. May I ask the minister this question. Did the parliamentary assistant to the minister speak with the authority, connivance or knowledge of the minister?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would
assume that that is a quite improper question, but possibly I might reply in this way: The parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs remains a private member, and has all the rights of a private member, and spoke as a private member in making this statement.


Jean-François Pouliot: That should be interesting to the advocate of the four freedoms.



WATER POLLUTION


Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Baillefords):: Has
the Minister of National Health and Welfare received a reply from the minister of public health in Alberta to the telegram which was read in the house yesterday? If so, will he indicate the nature of the reply?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question. About an hour ago the deputy minister of health in Alberta acknowledged receipt of the telegram in a telephone conversation he had with the deputy minister of national health and welfare, and on behalf of the government of Alberta he expressed his appreciation of the further offer of cooperation which had been projected by the federal government. Since that time we have made arrangements to send out additional officers, notably in the chemical division of the health engineering division of the department. I may say also that I was talking to the minister of health in Saskatchewan, who expressed similar appreciation.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Is the Minister of Veterans Affairs in a position to say whether or not it is the intention of the gov-


ernment to set up a special committee on veterans affairs at this session of parliament?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The matter is being considered at the present time. I hope to make an announcement in the near future.



RESEARCH INTO RELATION BETWEEN SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? My question is based on a press report published recently, a copy of which I sent to the minister, referring to Dr. Alton Ochsner's statement as to a definite association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Can the minister say whether his department will consider having research in Canada conducted into this question directly rather than on the side, as he indicated to me on December 16 last?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That consideration is now under way.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY INQUIRY AS TO PROVISION IN ESTIMATES FOR COMMENCEMENT OF WORK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport? Will the minister comment on the report in the Montreal Gazette this morning to the effect that the government is making no provision in the estimates for starting work on the St. Lawrence seaway this year? I sent the minister a copy of the report.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the hon. member for sending me notice of this question. I saw the report in the Montreal Gazette, and as usual, or, perhaps to be fair, as sometimes happens in the case of this reporter, it is inaccurate. In December, 1951, this parliament passed an act, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act, authorizing the expenditure of up to $300 million. This act is not yet proclaimed, but will be proclaimed when the time comes; and the expenditure is provided there, so an item in the estimates is not required for that purpose.



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS


[Stage Direction]
Righl Hon. C. D. Howe (for the Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 171, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I hear expressions of impatience on the part of those members who have indicated their impatience on earlier occasions in regard to this same measure.
I rise now simply to deal with two statements which I could have dealt with on a question of privilege but which, it seems to me, might properly be dealt with at this time. Our position in regard to this measure was fully, clearly and definitely stated in the debate on second reading, where we have dealt with this subject by vote. But I do wish at this time to deal with two statements that have been made.
I read in one periodical publication a statement that prior to the presentation of this measure in parliament I had privately indicated my support of the measure. I wish to say with the utmost emphasis that the statement made in the periodical containing that statement is wholly untrue. I wish to make it definite and to say with the utmost emphasis that I have never at any time, in private conversation or by any private exchange of opinions, taken any position different from that which I took when the measure came before the house.
Then I find also it has been said that I was consulted in regard to this, and that because of certain considerations I withdrew from a position I indicated I might take. Under the rules of parliament it is difficult to deal with a statement of that kind in adequately effective terms. Nevertheless I simply wish to say again with the utmost emphasis that this statement that has been made, and has been repeated, is utterly untrue.
I thought it had been disposed of by the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when he made it clear that the government had taken full responsibility, and that there had been no discussion of any kind in regard to this measure. I wish to place it on record very definitely that until I was informed by the Prime Minister, as a matter of courtesy, just before the motion
Senate and House of Commons was placed on the order paper, that it was going to be done, I had no idea what this bill contained. And I am perfectly certain that the leader of the C.C.F. party and the leader of the Social Credit party are in precisely the same position.


Mr. Coldwell:: The Prime Minister said so.


George Alexander Drew: The Prime Minister made that clear in the house, and made it definite; but I wish to go still further and say that I did not, either directly or indirectly, discuss this matter with the Prime Minister, with any member of the government or with anybody acting on their behalf or purporting to act on their behalf.
I hope this will dispose of the kind of smart statements that seem to be regarded as appropriate reporting by some of those who fail to take note of definite statements made in parliament with the degree of seriousness they deserve. Those statements should not be made unless these people are prepared to check the facts and to afford to both sides an opportunity to indicate what the facts really are.
I hope I have made this perfectly clear. Without reservation of any kind I wish to repeat what I said to the Prime Minister when he was here. At no time had he indicated to me in any way what the contents of this bill would be until he informed me of the general provisions just before the motion was placed on the order paper. And even at that time I did not see the bill, nor did I know the exact details it contained.
My position in this matter was stated clearly on second reading, when the principle of the measure was voted upon. I wish to point out again that at that time we were not voting merely on any one particular increase in allowances; we were voting on the principle of the increase in all the allowances contained in the measure. I made it clear that it was to that rolled-up package I objected. I still object; I still am opposed to this bill and for the reasons I have fully stated. I regret very much that the government has not seen fit to accept either of the two suggestions I made that this bill should be referred to a royal commission or to a select committee appointed for the particular purpose of dealing with this measure, which would have no power, no authority in either case, except to inquire into the facts and to make its recommendations to the government for subsequent submission to parliament.
Since I have dealt with this on principle and have stated my position, I wish to indicate that I do not feel there is any occasion

Senate and House of Commons to add anything further to what I hope will leave no doubt at any time about my position in regard to this measure in the way in which it has been presented to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), who is absent because of illness, asked me to record the fact that he would have voted against third reading of this bill.



POST OFFICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, February 8, consideration in committee of Bill No. 168, to amend the Post Office Act-Mr. Cote-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 2-Coming into force.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose previously we were considering an amendment proposed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Shall the amendment carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I submit to you that the amendment moved by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is clearly out of order. I base my submission on two main grounds. The first one is that it contravenes the rules concerning amendments. The second ground is that, as this bill is a money bill, the amendment, which I submit will possibly result in the imposition of a charge on the Canadian people, should have been contemplated by the terms of the resolution which was considered in committee of the whole before the bill was introduced, and that the present amendment clearly exceeds the terms of the resolution which received the approval of the committee of the whole.
In connection with the first ground, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the amendment offends in three ways the rules regarding amendments. First, it offends in that it is not really an amendment; second, it is not relevant; and, third, it offends in that it raises new matter which can only be raised by a distinct motion after notice. We have not had any notice.
I would direct your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that what we are asked to do here is as follows, and I am reading from the amendment as reported at page 1902 of Hansard:
That clause 2 of Bill No. 168 be renumbered as clause 3, and that the following clause be inserted as clause 2 . . .
Then follows the detail of that proposed clause 2. I shall not read that at the moment although I shall have occasion to do so later. I submit to you that that is not, in fact, an amendment to clause 2 at all. I think it is important for us to realize the position we are in or were in prior to the moving of this amendment. The question before the committee was "Shall clause 2 of the bill carry"? Clause 2 reads as follows:
This act shall come into force on the 1st day of April, 1954.
That is clause 2. The question before the committee was that clause. The amendment does not seek to amend clause 2. It seeks to delete it altogether and to substitute some other proposition. In that connection I would refer you to Beauchesne, third edition, page 129, rule 48:
When a question is under debate no question is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; or for the adjournment of the house.
Then there are laid down clear rules as to what constitutes an amendment and it is stated that a mere negative does not constitute an amendment. What we are asked 83276-121
Post Office Act
to do here is not to amend clause 2 of the bill in order to substitute some other date for the coming into force of this act; what we are asked to do is to delete clause 2 altogether and to substitute something else for it.
Turning to the other grounds in connection with this matter of whether or not it offends the rules with regard to amendments, Mr. Chairman, I refer you to citation 344 of Beau-chesne's third edition, at page 136, which reads as follows:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject-matter with the original motion, they are admissible, but not when foreign thereto. The exceptions to this rule are amendments on the question of going into supply or ways and means.
This not being a motion to go into supply or ways and means, that exception does not apply. I therefore submit that this amendment clearly contravenes that rule on the relevancy of amendments which says that if they are on the same subject matter with the original motion they are admissible, but not when foreign thereto. What we are asked to do here is to substitute for clause 2, which concerns the date of the coming into force of the act, a new clause which deals with the question of postal rates applicable to magazines and newspapers. There could not be anything much more foreign to the subject matter of the original proposed clause 2. It therefore seems to me that the amendment is clearly out of order on the ground of relevancy.
May I also refer you, Mr. Chairman, to citation 354 of Beauchesne's third edition, which reads as follows:
An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.
Again the motion before the committee is: "Shall clause 2 carry?" The Postmaster General now asks us not to carry clause 2 dealing with the subject of the coming into force of the act but to change it altogether and to carry an amendment which deals with the question of postage rates on magazines and periodicals.
Then the third ground on which I say the amendment offends the rule regarding amendments is that it raises new matter. In the first place, I have submitted that it is not an amendment at all. In the second place, I have submitted that it is not relevant. In

Post Office Act
the third place I now come to the proposition that it raises new matter which can only be moved by a distinct motion alter notice. I refer you, Mr. Chairman, to citation 355 at page 139 of Beauchesne's third edition which cites the precedent as follows:
An amendment was ruled out because it raised a new question which could only be considered on a distinct motion after notice.
Beauchesne there cites as his authority the Commons Journals, volume LXVI, pages 109-11, where the proposition was laid down in the house in February, 1929. I am not going to read the lengthy record as it appears in the Journals at pages 109 to 111, but I respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if you will refer to that authority you will see that the proposition there set forth-and, I might say, always since accepted by the house-is authority for the point that I now put forward in opposition to this amendment.
I realize that from time to time amendments have been made in this manner in committee on a bill. For instance, I recall the amendment made just recently to the Senate and House of Commons Act where a new section was included; but I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that that was done by unanimous consent. Here unanimous consent was not asked for and I want to make it quite plain that unanimous consent is certainly not being given.
Then I should like to deal for a moment or two with the logic behind the situation. Here, for nearly a week we have been considering amendments to the Post Office Act which are confined to the question of letter mail. The reason for the rule that new matter can only be raised by a distinct motion after notice is to avoid the house's being taken by surprise and being asked to make up its mind on a question which has never been before it and about which it has had no opportunity for reflection.
That is exactly the ground on which the original authority was decided, the case I have referred to at pages 109 to 111 of the Journals of 1929. Here we were asked to consider the question of letter rates, an increase in the postage on letters. It is true that we dug out of the Postmaster General yesterday that there was also going to be an increase on postcards. But, sir, we had no indication at any time previously that the house was going to be asked to amend the Post Office Act with respect to the facilities extended to those who use the post office for posting periodicals and newspapers. There is indeed some question in the government's mind as to whether this provision will extend to newspapers.

I am dealing with the logic of the situation. We are asked to deal with a new matter which was introduced at five minutes to ten last night. The government itself does not even know what the effect of the amendment will be, as is obvious from the interchange which took place as recorded in Hansard for yesterday. I am not going to deal with that at length. I expect that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will have something to say about it. But it does establish clearly that there is disagreement between the ministers as to the effect of this amendment.
Furthermore, I can only suggest, if this matter was so late in coming to the attention of the government that they could not deal with it until five minutes to ten last night when they presented us with an amendment of which they only had two copies, with the result that the Leader of the Opposition and the Postmaster General were the only ones who had one, that nothing could establish more clearly that it not only is a contravention of the rules regarding amendments to present this to us at that time, but that it would most definitely and improperly take the house by surprise to be asked to deal with it. Apparently it was a last-minute decision on the part of the government to introduce it. They did not mind springing it on the house as a surprise, but I want to make it perfectly clear that we are fed up with the way in which this bill has been handled and the way in which we have been confronted with a constant series of surprises.
Although in some circumstances we might have been disposed to give unanimous consent to introducing this amendment at this stage, it has now been made clear that the government is exceeding the limits of all propriety, and we are going to insist that for a change the government abide by the rules which are in force for the conduct of the business of the house.
I come to the question of the second ground upon which I claim the amendment is out of order. What we have before us is a money bill, and an amendment to enlarge its terms is out of order unless it was contemplated in the terms of the resolution which preceded the bill. I am not going to go into the arguments, which are quite extensive, as to whether or not it is a money bill. I simply point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that the government has itself accepted the proposition that it is a money bill because they introduced it by way of a resolution. I accept that proposition. I point out further that a money bill is not only one which deals with ways and means but, for the purposes

of this rule, is one which imposes a charge upon the people. Because this measure raises the postage rates and thus imposes a charge upon the people, I assume it was on those grounds that the government decided it was a money bill and dealt with it as a money bill. I quite agree that that was a sound decision.
This proposed amendment was not hinted at in any way, shape or form in the resolution which preceded the bill. I should like to read that resolution. It is as follows:
That it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act to increase the rates of postage on letters posted in Canada from the first day of April. 1954,
(a)	on each letter for delivery within the postal area in which it is posted, from three cents to four cents for the first ounce or fraction of an ounce . . .
(b)	on each letter posted within one postal area for delivery in another postal area from four cents to five cents for the first ounce . . .
The resolution is confined exclusively to the rates of postage on letters. By the terms of the resolution the government has asked us to consider the expediency of introducing a bill to increase the charges for letters. There is no reference anywhere to the question of charges to or facilities available for those who use the post office for the postage of magazines and newspapers, which is the subject of the proposed amendment now before us.
The government may have sought to cover this point in the last clause of the proposed amendment. After stating that the Postmaster General may make regulations dealing with this matter, it provides that he may do so on the following terms:
. . . that the application of this section to the newspaper or periodical when so posted will not adversely affect the postal revenues.
It might be contended that since this will not upset the balance of ways and means it is not an enlargement of the terms of the resolution; but I point out that it is quite possible that the effect of this amendment would be to increase the charges made against those who use the facilities of the post office for posting magazines or newspapers. In that respect not only does it exceed the terms of the resolution which the house passed but it contravenes the rules on dealing with money bills. Here I should like to quote the authority of Beauchesne's second edition, citation No. 791, at page 225, which reads as follows:
The committee-
The reference is to the committee of the whole, which is this committee.
-cannot agree to any clauses involving payments out of the public funds, or imposing any tax or charge upon the people unless such clauses have been previously considered by resolution in committee of the whole.
83276-121J
Post Office Act
In other words, this proposed amendment should have been included as one of the subject matters in the resolution which preceded the bill and which was adopted by the committee of the whole house. I should also like to refer to Bourinot, fourth edition, which I might point out is an authority referred to throughout by Beauchesne. At page 503, after having dealt at some length with the general provisions regarding bills involving public aid or charges, he says:
The rule just cited also applies to the imposition of any state tax or charge upon the people or any class thereof.
As I have said, it is quite clear that the proposed amendment may well involve a charge upon those who use the mails for the purpose of posting magazines and newspapers. They are a class of people who would be subject to a charge, and therefore on the basis of the authority of Bourinot, page 503, the proposed amendment is clearly out of order.
There are a number of other citations which might be read in support of my submission, but I think for the time being I will let the technical case rest there. I would again like Your Honour to consider the logic and common sense of the matter. As I have said already, we have been exposed to a number of surprises in the course of our dealing with this bill, and last night this one, at five minutes to ten, was the last in a long series of surprises of the sort which the rules of the house were clearly designed to prevent. I suggest to you, sir, that in fairness to the committee, which is part of the House of Commons, the committee should not be asked to allow the government to continue to spring surprises on it in this improper manner, but that the government should now be required to abide by the rules of the house and should withdraw this amendment. Indeed, I suggest that while they are doing it it would be as well, and highly proper, if they would withdraw the whole bill, which in general has been dealt with by them in this same improper manner.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I congratulate the hon.
member for Kamloops, Mr. Chairman, on the excellent case he has made against the propriety of the amendment which was moved last night. My remarks will be much briefer than they might otherwise have been, owing to the fact that the member for Kamloops has quoted most of the citations that bear on this point. I have been checking off the ones I had, one by one, as he read them. However, there is still one important citation which he either overlooked, or perhaps out of his generous nature he left for me.

Post Office Act
I want to say that I recognize the possibility of someone from the government side answering some of the arguments the member for Kamloops has advanced. I say this, even though I am supporting the position taken by the hon. member, not to weaken any of his arguments but to make it clear to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or anyone who speaks from that side that an answer to one of the points or even two does not demolish the third one. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration holds up three fingers, but he cannot demolish the third one.


Mr.   Cole@: You are expecting demolition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With regard to the first point made by the member for Kamloops, I would say he is correct in stating that the amendment proposed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is not a proper amendment to clause 2 of the bill. He made his case well, and I think it stands.
However, it is true that the government could get around that by withdrawing the amendment, as an amendment to clause 2 of the bill, and introducing it as a new clause. I believe that could be done under citation 670 of Beauchesne's third edition. I suggest that, as I say, not to weaken the case of the member for Kamloops but to let the other side know they are not going to get anywhere by trying to make anything out of that argument. Technically, the member for Kamloops is correct, but it could be done in this other way, provided the other arguments the member for Kamloops has put up were not in the way.
The second argument which the member for Kamloops has made is again one that the government will try to attack, and of course, they will be satisfied that they are attacking it successfully, but in my view they will not. I refer to his argument that this is a money bill, and that it is not proper to introduce an amendment to a money bill which goes beyond the scope of the resolution preceding the bill itself. The government will argue, as the member for Kamloops has already pointed out, that in the very words of the amendment the government proposed to put in the bill there is the suggestion that the power given to the Postmaster General shall not be exercised if it would result in an adverse effect upon the postal revenue.
I point out, however, Mr. Chairman, that it is possible, under this proposed amendment, for certain periodicals or magazines to find that the amendment's provisions are to them an advantage. As a result of that advantage they might well increase their circulation, and as a result of that draw a greater subsidy

from the federal treasury. Every magazine or newspaper that is posted today is posted in part at public expense. There is an element of subsidy there. If the circulation of any newspaper or magazine is increased, a result of this subsidy is that the loss to the treasury will be increased to that extent. My contention is that even though the Postmaster General may say that this is not to result in any loss of postal revenue per unit, it could result in a loss in this other way. I submit the amendment could have the effect of upsetting the balance of ways and means of the treasury as a whole, and therefore the point the member for Kamloops made in that connection is valid. This amendment should not have been made since it goes beyond the scope of the money aspect of the resolution that preceded the bill.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I come to the third point raised by the member for Kamloops. I submit that on this point the government has not a leg to stand on. It has been made crystal clear in the house time and time again, especially when members of the opposition violated this point, that a bill amending one section or one part of an act does not open the whole act. What the government did in this case was to introduce a bill amending section 10 of the Post Office Act. Nothing could be clearer, because it was stated in the resolution that it was to be a bill dealing only with rates of postage on letters. When we got the bill based on the resolution, to all intents and purposes it was a bill of one clause. Clause 2 had to do with the date it comes into effect. There was just the one operative clause which amends section 10 of the Post Office Act, and nothing else.
I insist, Mr. Chairman, that by virtue of the ruling that has been made from the chair of this committee as well as from the chair of the house time and time again, the amending of one section of an act does not open the whole act. If such action does not permit members on this side of the house to discuss other sections of an act, certainly it is equally clear it does not permit the government to open up other sections of an act by an amendment of this kind. This amendment now before us does just that. It opens up section 11 of the Post Office Act, to which there was no reference in the original resolution, no reference in the bill and no reference in the speeches or announcements on this matter made by the government. I submit the amendment goes far beyond what is allowed by the rules of the house, and far beyond the rulings that have been made in this house time and time again. Whatever satisfaction the Minister of Citizenship and

Immigration may get out of trying to worm around the first two points made by the member for Kamloops, he is up against it when he comes to the third one. He cannot answer it at all.
The one citation which the member for Kamloops left for me is citation 671 in Beau-chesne's third edition. It is also citation 792 in Beauchesne's second edition, and follows citation 791 which the hon. member read a few minutes ago. This citation reads:
A new clause will not be entertained if it is beyond the scope of a bill . . .
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment clearly goes beyond the scope of the bill which was laid before us, and the government has no right to introduce it in this way. The government has the right to give notice in the usual way, to announce the Governor General's approval and deal with it in a proper parliamentary way. I do not deny that for a moment. But I do deny the government's right to play fast and loose with the rules just because of their majority; I deny their right to try to do things in this way.
I shall have something more to say about the substance of the amendment if it is allowed to stand. I shall have something more to say on the kind of explanation that was made last night by the Postmaster General in the light of information I have received since, if the amendment stands. However, such an argument would be on the substance rather than on procedure. I could continue, but it seems to me that on the one main issue the case is so clear you have no alternative, Mr. Chairman, but to say to the government that the amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill. It opens up a section of the Post Office Act which was not opened up by the original resolution, or by the bill, and therefore is not in order as an amendment moved in committee of the whole in this way.


Mr. Harris:: I think I could dismiss the first two reasons advanced by the hon. member for Kamloops by using the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You should agree with the member for Winnipeg North Centre on the third point, too.


Walter Edward Harris: Because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre occasionally shows some sense of wisdom is no reason why I should agree with him on every occasion.
However, before I accept his argument about the first two points I should point out one difference. The hon. member for Kamloops said that a precedent, if you will, or a practice, if you will, was followed the other
Post Office Act
night by unanimous consent. It was not done by unanimous consent. I have read the record since he spoke and I see in it no reference to unanimous consent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What I had in mind was- perhaps I should have used the words-that there was no objection taken. Therefore is not unanimous consent automatic? It seems to me that would follow.


Walter Edward Harris: I would not want my hon. friend to feel that in future he could not agree with a procedure we adopt here. I hope that on many occasions he will do that. So we will just note that he did intend to say that there had been no objection taken at that time to the procedure, and assume from that that he had some reservation about it. And now he has made that known on this particular point.
But I do wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that it seems to me we have on more than one occasion done what my hon. friend has referred to. I shall not try to cite examples of it. But all of us have been here long enough to know that it has been done on several occasions, where the final clause of a bill has had to be renumbered, or where many clauses have had to be renumbered because of the insertion of one which was not there in the first instance.
If the arguments made by the two hon. members are valid, then we never should have dene this at any time, on any occasion, in the manner we are now proposing here, namely to renumber subsequent clauses and introduce new ones.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is all right, so long as it is within the scope of the bill.


Walter Edward Harris: I will come to that.
The first argument therefore is, I suggest, entirely out of court for the reasons I have given.
Then, the second argument is that, this being a money bill, therefore we should not amend it and thereby, as I take it, add another burden to the public charge of Canada. That of course is a matter of opinion-as to whether the result of this bill would be a public charge. Indeed, if I remember correctly, during the course of his explanation last night, in referring to the amendment the Postmaster General said that we would save money in doing this, rather than spend it. I am paraphrasing this, because he did not add the latter part of what I have said. However, he did say that we would have a saving. I do not think he added the additional negative-that we would not spend any more. However, I think that is what he meant.

Post Office Act
That being the case, I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that there is not an additional charge, and that it is not necessary that this should have been covered in the original resolution. Practically every bill presented to parliament has some effect with respect to a public charge. Even the cost of printing it is one, in itself.
The whole point we are to determine, of course, is how remote the charge is, and as it becomes more remote, then it does not come within the requirements of the resolution. And as both hon. members have pointed out, they have to argue that it is possible that there might be a charge, despite the care with which the amendment was drafted, to impose upon the Postmaster General certain obligations to see that a charge did not in fact occur. Now it was not entirely an oversight that this was drafted in that way-though I am not suggesting that we had in mind bringing this in at that time.
Let me make some brief references to additional material supplied by the hon. member for Kamloops about the supposed motives we might have had under these circumstances. This amendment-and I frankly confess it-was not available at the time the resolution was drafted. I do not suggest that, if it had been, it might necessarily have been included in the resolution. But we desire to put this in at this time for the very obvious reason that the Post Office Act is now being amended, and it is more convenient to do it in this manner-subject to what I shall say in a moment-and that it is proper to do so, in order to avoid duplication of debate in the house.
The question of surprise is the only one upon which I have anything to say, or concerning which 1 have any sympathy in respect of the arguments made by my hon. friends. You can amend bills in committee. There are ever so many citations in Beau-chesne which were not read by my hon. friends. In fact, I think there is a citation which goes so far as to say that you can amend a bill to the point where it is scarcely recognizable at all, and that when you have passed that point possibly the government should withdraw it and start over again.
But there is no suggestion that it is not proper to amend in this way in committee. The only qualification is the case that has been mentioned, namely, that it is desirable, for the sake of the expedition of public business, that hon. members in the house should not be surprised or, if they are surprised, that they should be given ample opportunity to consider what position they wish to take.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And it has to be within the scope of the bill.


Walter Edward Harris: I will come to that. And under these circumstances, as I pointed out last night, we were prepared to make this amendment any time clause 1 was carried, and to allow any reasonable time there might be for the consideration of it. The fact that it happened at five minutes to ten was pure coincidence. It could have happened at five minutes after eight. And if hon. members had wanted to delay it, they would have got the delay that they got at five minutes to ten.
We have now had the time since last night to consider the amendment, and it seems to me the surprise has gone. They have had ample time to consider it, if they chose to do so.
And now as to the constantly repeated request for an opinion as to whether this is within the scope of the bill. The scope of the bill is not to amend the Post Office Act generally. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on that point. The scope of the bill deals with certain portions of the act, namely rates and the like.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On letters.


Walter Edward Harris: Rates-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On letters.


Walter Edward Harris: Rates and the like.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Where does the minister get "the like"?


Walter Edward Harris: We will come to that. The principle involved in the bill is not violated by the amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is your opinion.


Walter Edward Harris: My opinion is no better than yours in this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That at least is a correct statement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Certainly it is no worse.


Walter Edward Harris: And, Mr. Chairman, it is not suggested by either speaker, except by a very remote argument, that this alters the public charge. It is stated by both of them that it is not within the scope of the bill. I submit it is. I submit there is nothing in the amendment to which my hon. friends could not now make a logical argument, if they so chose.
For that reason I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that you might consider it within the competence of the committee to consider the amendment. And if anyone wanted to quote any authority for what I have been saying, he could go over all the references that have been made and point out that they are followed by somewhat contradictory

references. In particular we can start with the one numbered 347 at page 138, which says, very generally:
Amendments may be made in every part of the bill, whether in the preamble, the clauses or the schedules:
And so on. Then we move on to the one that was referred to, namely, No. 671 on page 232, and I refer to No. 673, which reads:
When a member intends to move an important amendment in committee of the whole to a public bill, he is not required, according to Canadian practice, to give notice of such amendment.
The rest is as I said a moment ago:
It has been found expedient, however, in some cases, to give notice where the member desires to call special attention to his proposal.
And then, I go to citation 681, which is the one I referred to, which says that you can amend it out of all recognition of what you contemplated in the first place.
Then I come to the ruling which is found on page 568, which is rather an old one, I admit; but the headnote of it reads:
Any amendment can be made to a bill in committee of the whole provided it is relevant to the subject matter of the bill, or pursuant to instructions.
An amendment restrictive of the expenditure of public money is in order.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made one point when he spoke of the fact that he was not permitted to discuss other sections of the Post Office Act on the amendment. For example, when you make an amendment to section 11, you confine your discussion to section 11. That is quite true. There is nothing being done here which alters that. You may indeed discuss the section that we are proposing to amend, but that seems to me to be the limit of the discussion. I do not understand the distinction, however. Obviously, you would not want to discuss a section of the bill that was not being dealt with.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I reply very briefly to the minister on this point of relevancy? I do not accept the argument on all the other matters, but he was prepared to agree that the matter of relevancy, the question of whether it raises new matter outside the scope of the bill, was the point of substance, the main point. I state, sir, that he has not dealt adequately with that point. He has simply said that in his opinion the subject matter of the proposed amendment is relevant to the bill. In support of his argument he alluded to a citation in Beauchesne which says in effect that the bill could be amended almost beyond recognition. In passing he then referred to the opening words of the citation which sets out that proposition. I draw his attention and yours and also that
Post Office Act
of the committee to the fact that the minister did not read the succeeding words which are italicized. I am going to read the whole of that part of the citation because it is the nub of the matter. Citation 681 reads:
The committee can so change the provisions of the bill that when it is reported to the house it is in substance a bill other than that which was referred. A committee can negative every clause and substitute new clauses,-
And these are the words in italics:
-if relevant to the bill as read a second time.


Walter Edward Harris: That is correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Now, what do we have here? We have a proposed amendment to the bill with respect to section 11. Section 11 deals with matters relating to newspapers. What was the bill that was read a second time? The bill was a short bill of two clauses. Section 1 said:
Section 10 of the Post Office Act, chapter 212 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Then there was the new section 10 which dealt exclusively with the increase in rates of postage on letters. Clause 2 of the bill dealt with the date of coming into force. How can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration expect you, sir, as a man of common sense, and expect this committee or any person in or out of the house, to accept the proposition that a clause dealing with the rates of postage or facilities available to people using the post office for magazines and periodicals is relevant to the bill as read the second time, which contained only the one clause dealing with letters and the other dealing with the date of coming into force?
I regret that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration did not deal more adequately with the points that were raised, but I think the reason is obvious. It is that it is not possible in this instance to advance seriously the proposition that this amendment is relevant to the bill as read the second time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I will not take any time to discuss further the first two points that were proposed by the hon. member for Kamloops, and on which I commented later, and to which the minister replied. I do not suggest, though, that I concede that the minister's arguments on those points are valid, but we will not take any more time on them. I do submit, however, that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is really stretching logic and stretching a few other things when he suggests that it is possible to argue that by amending this bill to bring in an amendment to section 11 you thereby make in order a discussion on the

Post Office Act
things that are referred to in section 11. To begin with, section 11 is not referred to in the bill.
If it is possible by this method to propose a change in section 11 of the act, I draw your attention, sir, to the fact that there are 77 sections in the Post Office Act. Only one of them was amended by the proposed bill. If it is in order for an amendment to be moved altering sections other than section 10, then it is possible for us to go down the line and have 75 more amendments amending other sections of the Post Office Act itself.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration argued that the purpose of the bill-I am trying to recall the words he used-was to deal with postage rates on letters and the like. Let us not try to kid the troops that way, Mr. Chairman. There is nothing else in the bill but a reference to the rates on letters. Not only is there the exact wording to which the hon. member for Kamloops has made reference, but I draw your attention, sir, to the explanatory notes on the right-hand side of the bill which say:
The purpose of this amendment is to increase the rate of postage on letters posted in Canada for delivery in Canada.
That is all the bill deals with. Yesterday when we got into a discussion on postcards the Postmaster General argued that that was not a matter that needed to come before the house, because it was covered by another section of the act. So far as periodicals and newspapers are concerned, they are in a section of the act that is not touched by the bill. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that if this is going to be allowed, then it is possible for the hon. member for Vancouver East to rise in his place and accept the invitation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to move an amendment cutting out free postage for newspapers in certain instances. And it is possible for me to rise in my place and move an amendment to section 6(d) of the act.
To argue, as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has done, that this bill deals with postage rates on letters and the like, and that this amendment is within the scope of the bill because it comes under "and the like," is really begging the question. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that we need to rest our case only on what we have delineated as the third point, namely, that this amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill. That fact is crystal clear and on that basis the amendment should not be allowed.


William Alfred Robinson: I find myself in considerable difficulty with respect to the points of order

made by the hon. member for Kamloops. I am required to consider the principle of the amending bill, and I should like to refer to a ruling of Mr. Speaker Macdonald on November 14, 1949, in which he said in part:
On the second reading of an amending bill-hon. members will notice that this is an amending bill- it is the principle of the amending bill, and not the principle of the act to be amended, which is the "business under consideration".
Similar circumstances apply here, and I am particularly concerned about the question of relevancy. I was wondering whether the minister could be of more assistance to me on that phase of the matter, and could devote some attention to the question of relevancy in an attempt to aid the Chair.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I deprecate these lengthy arguments on points of order. I have made my submission. I do not think the house need, if I may say so with respect, take any more time on it, and I for one would be content with whatever ruling you may make, and I certainly would not appeal.


William Alfred Robinson: This bill was preceded by a resolution in the following terms:
Resolved that it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act to increase the rates of postage on letters posted in Canada from the first day of April. 1954.
According to the bill its purpose is as follows:
The purpose of this amendment is to increase the rate of postage on letters posted in Canada for delivery in Canada.
That purpose, it will be seen, has been carried out in clause 1 of the bill. My attention has been drawn by the hon. member for Kamloops to three points of order. I will deal only briefly with the first two, because I do not think I could possibly rule the amendment out of order with respect to them.
Citation 670 of Beauchesne's third edition reads in part as follows:
In committee all the clauses of the bill are considered before any new clauses are brought up and added to the bill.
That procedure has not quite been followed in this case, but I rather think the procedure which has been followed is perhaps a quicker procedure and I think it would be agreeable to hon. members.
With regard to the second point, that is that the amendment should have been preceded by a resolution, I do not think I can rule thereon in view of the remarks of the Postmaster General last evening. I do not believe that particular phase of the matter has validity. However, I am considerably troubled as to whether this amendment is relevant and I cannot help but feel that it is beyond the scope of the original measure.

I would like to draw to the attention of the committee citation 671 of Beauchesne's third edition, which reads as follows:
A new clause will not be entertained if it is beyond the scope of a bill, inconsistent with clauses agreed to by the committee, or substantially the same as a clause previously negatived.
I would also like to draw to the attention of the committee citation 678 of the same edition, which reads as follows:
Amendments cannot be moved which are based on schedules or other provisions, the terms of which have not been placed before the committee.
And then in citation 679 of Beauchesne's third edition there appears the following:
Amendments are out or order if they are (a) irrelevant to the bill, or beyond its scope, governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived:
The minister has drawn my attention to citation 681 and in his remarks he mentioned the wide powers for amendment in committee. However, a careful reading of citation 681 reveals that these wide powers can only be exercised if relevant to the bill as read a second time. Then again, we have in May's fifteenth edition at page 530, under the heading "inadmissible amendments":
(1) An amendment is out of order if irrelevant to the subject matter (a) or beyond the scope of the bill.
I have examined the amendment carefully and the amendment deals with section 11 of the Post Office Act. I cannot find -that it is relevant. I do feel it is beyond the scope of the bill. I therefore must rule the amendment out of order.


Walter Edward Harris: As I said in advance, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept your ruling. But having reached this point where we now are and where we were at five minutes to ten last night, I propose to ask hon. members opposite if, following the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops and subject to what he said they could agree on, on a previous occasion, they would grant unanimous consent to proceed with the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not know what the hon. member for Kamloops is going to do but I would not give consent. I am opposed to the substance of the proposed amendment.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, last night there was considerable confusion at the time when the minister introduced this amendment. In this regard I would refer you to the end of page 1901 of Hansard which reads as follows:


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?
Post Office Act
And it continues on page 1902:


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree with this version of Hansard. I was in the house, as were a great many other hon. members, and we all shouted "no". Some of us had other remarks to make to clause 1 and it was some surprise to me that-
William Alfred Robinson: Order. Clause 1 was carried last night.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I do not like to disagree with the chairman or with Mr. Speaker, but I wish simply to put on record that I cannot agree with that version.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No.
Clause 2 agreed to.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall I report the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed to.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, are you not
going to put the motion for third reading?


Mr. Cote moved: the third reading of the bill.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I guess I can now say what I had intended to say on the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Tustin:: They cannot read the bill if you object to it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes they can.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There were several matters which were discussed yesterday with reference to employment and to the manner in which the provisions of the 40-hour week would be implemented with regard to the employment of casual labour. At that time the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) remarked that the liquidation staffs which had been

Post Office Act
handling the carriage of mail during the liquidation time of the letter carriers would be absorbed into the letter sorting department.
I rather doubted that. I doubted that they could absorb these people, and I made some inquiries. So far as I can tell, from the information which is available to me, they will not be able to absorb anywhere near the number of men who have been serving on the liquidation staffs. I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the maximum hourly rate now earned by letter carriers is $1.33 an hour, and that under the new regulations with respect to the 40-hour week the maximum rate earned by letter carriers will be $1.47 an hour. Yet these are the men who are being asked to volunteer to come back on Saturdays for a dollar an hour, to do their own work.
Mr. Speaker, all during this whole debate I have consistently objected to the passage of this bill, the manner in which it was brought in, and the blame which was being placed on the changed working conditions of letter carriers and others in the department. Now I must say once more that in my opinion this is a most deplorable situation, when men who have established working conditions and have established their procedure over many years are being asked, in effect, to work extra time at about three-quarters of their regular rate.
I doubt very much whether there is any industry in the country which would have the temerity to suggest to its employees that they should come in and work overtime at 75 per cent of their regular rate. I do not think the Post Office Department has any right even to make this suggestion to its employees. I think it is a despicable thing to try to undermine the working conditions of your own employees by making this suggestion, trading on the possibility that there might be a few employees, here and there, who would do practically anything to earn a few extra dollars per week. There are people who will do that; they are desperately in need of money, for one reason or another, and they will take whatever offers.
The idea of bringing in casual labour, mixing them up with the regular postal employees; the idea of saying to the postal staff that it is understood that if the occasion arises the postmaster has the authority to order any employee to work on Saturdays if he fails to volunteer, and to say further that absenteeism will not be condoned- these things practically amount to a threat, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the thinking in a department which will make such suggestions to its employees.

There are other things which should have been brought out on clause 1 of the bill, and if I was not quick enough to catch the intent of the chairman then I must accept the blame for my shortcomings. I would have liked to ask the Postmaster General some questions, but I cannot do that now on third reading. However, I understand that T.C.A. is carrying mail not only in its luggage compartments but in passenger seats. I understand that there is carriage of papers and magazines in passenger seats, and that there is some sort of arrangement between the post office and T.C.A. to do that very thing. These are matters that should have come out at the committee stage of the bill; they are matters on which I have notes and had intended to raise. That is why I was so anxious to have this matter reopened this afternoon.
We have been debating this matter for some time now, Mr. Speaker, and at no time have we ever conceded that there was any virtue in this bill. We have had a couple of amendments proposed and voted on, and we have lost them. But in the course of the debate we have heard some of the recommendations which were proposed by the Woods and Gordon company. We have not had any satisfactory answer as to which of these recommendations have been implemented or are to be implemented, or as to the savings which might reasonably be effected. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, at this time I move, seconded by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks):
That this bill be not now read a third time but that further consideration thereof be postponed until such time as the house is in a position to assess the effects of the implementation of the J. D. Woods and Gordon report.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt very much whether the amendment is in order. To me it is an expanded negative. What we are considering on the third reading of the bill is nothing else but what is in the bill. That is the difference between second reading and third reading.
In my opinion this amendment is not in order. Of course, I have not had much time to look up authorities and cite the ones which are applicable, but I know for a fact that this amendment is not in order. If I could have just a few more seconds I am fairly sure that I could put my hands on the relevant citation. I see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has his book in front of him. Has he the proper section?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will find it in a moment, Mr. Speaker, but you do not expect me to help you out on this bill, do you?


Mr. Speaker:: I know that I speak not only for myself but for all hon. members when I say we are interested in seeing that the rules are observed.


Walter Edward Harris: Citation 710.


Mr. Speaker:: Citation 710 of Beauchesne's third edition reads as follows:
The question for the third reading is put immediately after the report from the committee of the whole. All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
I think this authority should be considered sufficient at this stage. Perhaps the hon. member will consider withdrawing the amendment. In any event, I am compelled to rule it out of order.
Is the house ready for the question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that you have ruled out of order the amendment just proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough), on grounds which I will not discuss at this time, I wish to make a motion for the same reason which, it will have been obvious, motivated the amendment just moved, namely that the matter should not be proceeded with until the Woods and Gordon report has been implemented and until the Post Office Department itself has had time to assess the effects of that implementation and bring before us some definite figures on which to base their proposal. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks):
That this bill be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
Post Office Act


Mr. Wylie:: I was paired with the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Victor Quelch: I was paired with the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Proudfooi:: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question on the main motion, or shall I call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: There is only about two minutes before five o'clock.
Blanchette
Boivin
Bonnier
Boucher (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie) Boucher (Restigouche-Madawaska)
Bourget
Bourque
Breton
Brown (Brantford) Brown (Essex West) Buchanan Byrne
Cameron (High Park)
Campney
Cannon
Cardin
Caron
Carter
Cauchon
Cavers
Chevrier
Clark
Claxton
Cloutier
Cote
Crestohl
Croll
Dechene
Denis
Deschatelets
Dickey
Dumas
Enfield
Eyre
Fairey
Forgie
Fraser (St. John's East) Garson
Gauthier (Lake St. John) Gauthier (Nickel Belt) Gauthier (Portneuf) Gingras Gour (Russell)
Gregg
Habel
Hanna
Harris
Healy
Hellyer
Hollingworth
Houck
Howe (Port Arthur)
Huffman
Hunter
James
Jutras
Kickham
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough)
Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare) Lafontaine Langlois (Gaspe) Lapointe Leduc Lefranpois Legare Lusby MacDougall MacEachen MaeKenzie McCubbin McCulloch (Pictou) McDonald Mcllraith Mclvor McMillan McWilliam Masse Matheson
Mitchell (Sudbury)
Monette
Nixon
Pearson
Philpott
Pickersgill
Pinard
Pommer
Pouliot
Power (St. John's West)
Prudham
Purdy
Ratelle
Reinke
Richard (Ottawa East) Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Roberge
Robertson
Robichaud
Robinson (Simcoe East)
Ross
Rouleau
Schneider
Shipley, Mrs.
Sinclair
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Studer
Thibault
Valois
Viau
Villeneuve
Weaver
Weir
Weselak
Winters
Wood-125.
++NAYS
Messrs:


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I was member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


John Hugh Proudfoot: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion. Bill read the third time and passed.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale) moved: the second reading of the following bills:
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Dorothy Ann Stuart Story McKenna.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Joyce Tulloch Foley.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Ruth Annie Ricketts Perrett.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Elizabeth Harriet Wyburd Ramseger.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Warma Wilhel-miina Rantasalmi Wirtanen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Ruth May Rowley Grundy.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Rodney David Themens.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Patricia Mac-kell Wilson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Joseph Aurele Denault.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Arthur Ryan. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Mary Clenman Bernard, otherwise known as May Clenman Bernard.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 189, for the relief of Lloyd Demont Noseworthy.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 190, for the relief of Douglas Charles Fortune.-Mr. Hunter.
Private Bills
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Kenneth George Wright.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 192, for the relief of Sonia Rofman Bailis.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 193, for the relief of Bessie Livshitz Rudy.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Monika Emi-lija Kasputyte Janauskas.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 195, for the relief of Suzanne Marie-Therese Gens La France.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Noella Cooker Prince.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Rupert Evans Joyce.-Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, just before this motion carries I want to say a brief word. My purpose is merely to keep the record in this house straight, so that we shall know what we are doing when we put these divorce bills through. To date, as I have already made clear, we have processed 140 divorce bills.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he think that the scorekeeping he is doing is relevant to the principle of these bills?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I submit that when the house is being asked to do such an unusual thing as to pass on the principle of 20 different bills at once, at least it is appropriate that I draw attention to the fact that it is 20 bills that we are passing in this half minute.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bills read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 2, consideration of the motion of Mr, Campbell, for the second reading of Bill No. 175, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (protection of rivers).
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned on Tuesday of last week I was discussing the bill sponsored by the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell), and I was attempting to show at that time that what the hon. member was trying to do was to amend an act concerning navigation, over which the federal government alone has jurisdiction, by virtue of the British North America Act, to remedy the pollution of certain waters, a matter which falls normally for determination under provincial jurisdiction. I had gone on to explain that his amendment to the act together with the amendment moved by the hon. member for

Navigable Waters Protection Act Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) accentuated the position. I had summed up by casting doubt on the constitutionality of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Prince Albert.
Since then I have had the opportunity of considering the bill, together with the amendment brought forward by the hon. member for Prince Albert, and now I have no hesitation in stating unequivocally that the amendment leaves no doubt in my mind as to its invalidity. I should like to quote the words which the hon. member for Prince Albert sought to introduce to the bill proposed by the hon. member for The Battlefords. The hon. member for Prince Albert moved:
That after the word "whatsoever" in the fifth line of section 18 in the bill the following words be added:
"or chemicals of any kind, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing any substance which, although not deleterious or harmful to human health, causes discomfort or annoyance to risers of water."
In order that there may be some sequence in the debate, and since the bill is a short one, perhaps I may read it now as it would stand amended:
Section 18 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, chapter 193 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
18. No owner or tenant of any sawmill, or other industrial plant, or any workman therein or other person shall throw or cause to be thrown, or suffer or permit to be thrown any sawdust, edgings, slabs, bark or rubbish of any description whatsoever, or chemicals of any kind, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing any substance which, although not deleterious or harmful to human health, causes discomfort or annoyance to users of water.
In my understanding it now becomes quite clear that the amendment is one that has to do with the pollution of water, one that has to do with the drinking of water, and unquestionably one that has to do with health, a matter which is entirely extraneous to navigation and shipping and over which the Navigable Waters Protection Act would have no jurisdiction whatsoever.
The bill in itself is ineffective, in my opinion, to remedy the situation, unless it can be shown that these deleterious matters, or the industrial plants to which my hon. friend refers, have to do with navigation and shipping. If he can connect them up with the fact that these matters interfere with navigation and shipping, then of course there would be jurisdiction; but no one, I think, will argue that chemicals interfere with shipping. I do not think they do. Neither is it the property of a chemical to interfere with navigation, and I do not think there is any


way in which you can link those chemicals or deleterious matters with navigation and shipping.
If I go a step farther and use the argument of the hon. member for The Battlefords, I think he will agree with me in this conclusion; because if one looks at Hansard for February 2, at page 1702 he will see this stated by the hon. member:
The discussion to which the minister referred related to an amendment moved by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) to section 19 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and had to do with the pollution of the waters along the shore line of lake Ontario, while the case which I am arguing refers to a river running through three provinces. During that debate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) argued that the federal government was not competent to deal with the situation, and the amendment was voted down. I believe the minister was correct, because this is a completely different situation.
But it is not. There is no difference at all between the situation to which my hon. friend refers and that argued by the hon. member for York West. The position is exactly the same. The fact that three provinces are involved does not alter the jurisdiction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Even if there were ten provinces it would make absolutely no difference in so far as this act is concerned. It would give no jurisdiction over navigation. It might make some difference in so far as the question of health is concerned, but that is not a matter for me to determine. As I said earlier, this matter is one which comes under navigation and shipping and I am concerned only with that aspect of it at the moment, because that is the only aspect which my hon. friend seeks to consider in his anxiety to meet the difficult position in which the people of Prince Albert and other communities along the shores of the North Saskatchewan river find themselves.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the position in which he and other hon. members find themselves at the moment, but I am sure that he and the other hon. members would not want an act to be passed which would be ultra vires; for, after all, what would be the use of passing an act if we knew in advance that it would not meet the position and would not be intra vires of the British North America Act?
That brings me to the statement made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). The leader of the C.C.F. party said at page 1705 of Hansard:
Now, the Saskatchewan river is frequented by fish. Is it more important to protect the lives and the health of fish than the lives and the health of people who live along this river?

The answer of course is no. It is far more important to protect the lives of humans than it is to protect the lives of fish, but if we have no jurisdiction to protect the lives of humans under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, then why enact legislation when we know beforehand, as I said earlier, that the legislation would be innocuous?
Again, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked why we did not do something under sections 32 and 33 of the Fisheries Act. I believe the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) dealt with that matter earlier, when in answer to a question in the house he said that while under the British North America Act legislative jurisdiction over fisheries lay with the federal government, since 1930, by agreement with the provinces, they were the ones who administered their own natural resources, including fisheries. I think he made it quite clear that if some remedy were desired, perhaps the best way to seek that remedy was to consult those who had been administering the act for some years.
I conclude by reiterating what I have said already, that while there will be a great deal of concern for the problems which hon. members have spoken about in this debate and for which a remedy is sought, and while there will be a great deal of sympathy and much concern for the people themselves, I do not think the house or any hon. member in the house would want to suggest a remedy which would have no effect. I have no hesitation in saying that the amendment brought forward by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in my humble opinion would not meet the position from a constitutional standpoint and is ultra vires.
So far as the argument of the hon. member for The Battlefords is concerned, I can see no difference whatsoever between this attempt to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and the attempt made by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) on an earlier occasion. I have forgotten what reasons I gave, or whether I had consulted the Department of Justice at that time, but my recollection is that I had and that the deputy minister of justice gave as his opinion that it would not be possible to make the amendment within the constitution. Again, I do not think there is any difference between what is attempted here and what was attempted on that occasion.
I remind hon. members that I am not attempting to deal with the problem as regards health. That is not a matter that concerns the navigation of ships or shipping on navigable waters. I am concerned only
Navigable Waters Protection Act with the operation of that act, and I say that to attempt to deal with the matter, which is chiefly provincial, by amending this act would in my opinion be ultra vires.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has referred to an amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). It has been brought to my attention that that amendment was ruled out of order after it was moved. For the guidance of hon. members who wish to participate in this debate I would point out that since that amendment is not before the house as it appears at page 287 of Votes and Proceedings, there is now before the house only the bill of the hon. member for The Battlefords.


Mr. F. G. Robertson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) who is unavoidably absent because of other important government business, I would like to make a few comments on this bill.
This bill, introduced by the hon. member for The Battlefords, seeks to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act. By so doing I understand he is seeking to give the federal government authority to deal with a very disturbing problem in his area. This problem has been the subject matter of a number of questions put to the Minister of National Health and Welfare by the hon. member for The Battlefords and the hon. member for Prince Albert during the past month. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has indicated his concern over this matter, and he has pointed out that we have no jurisdiction to deal with it.
Nevertheless, he has offered the full co-operation of the department in assisting the provinces to correct this very unfortunate situation. On February 2 the hon. member for The Battlefords moved an amendment by this bill. It has been pointed out very ably by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chev-rier) that this would amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act, a subject dealing with navigation over which the federal government has jurisdiction; that in fact we are being asked to remedy a situation which is a health matter, namely the pollution of the water used in those areas. In my opinion also, this matter should be dealt with in another way, and further I would state that this matter comes under the jurisdiction of the provincial government.
This problem has to deal with the dumping of industrial waste into the North Saskatchewan river which provides water for some
1928	HOUSE OF
Navigable Waters Protection Act of the cities in the hon. member's constituency, namely the cities of North Battle-ford and Prince Albert, and the town of Battleford. I am sure we all sympathize with the hon. member and with the people living in those areas because they are being subjected to a very disagreeable situation. As a result of these substances being dumped into the North Saskatchewan river we know that the water in the cities I have mentioned has a very objectionable odour and taste, and I am informed that this extends as far as The Pas in Manitoba.
I have seen many of the reports which have come to our department, and so far there is no report which indicates there is an associated health hazard. I would not minimize the distress which is being caused to the people in these areas, but I think that is an important point to make. On previous occasions the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has indicated the action taken by our department. This action has been taken by the Department of National Health and Welfare in conjunction with the provinces concerned because, as I have stated and as the minister has stated on many occasions, we believe that this is a matter coming under provincial jurisdiction; and further, the provinces themselves are quite agreed that it is their responsibility.
I should like to outline what the Department of National Health and Welfare has done to correct this situation. At the request of the provincial health officers we have sent the supervising engineer of the division of public health engineering in our department to consult with officials of the various provinces concerned. He has talked with officials of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. He has also taken part in conferences, at which industries concerned attended, and he has given to those officials the benefit of his experience.
The occupational health laboratory of our division have also been working on this problem. They have examined samples of the water taken from various cities in that locality, and are giving the provinces the benefit of their advice. We have also attempted to obtain all possible information from the United States. We have been in touch with the environmental health centre at Cincinnati, asking them to give us the benefit of their experience in dealing with such matters. We have been assured that such help will be forthcoming in the very near future. I therefore hope all hon. members will agree that our department has been extremely sympathetic in connection with the difficulty and have taken concrete steps to correct it.


I should like to point out that the solution of this problem is most complicated. We have yet been unable to identify the offending substance, or substances, or combination of substances which are related to this problem and which are the cause of this disagreeable condition, nor have we been able to say what their origin is. It will only be by intensive research that it will be possible to determine the cause. In fact there may be a number of substances involved. They made be coming from more than one source. More than one industry may be involved. The solution is not likely to be simple. It will require exhaustive studies of a highly technical and specialized kind to determine the real source of this trouble.
It might appear that the obvious solution to this problem might consist in closing down some of these industries; but I am sure that, on reflection, this would not be termed a particularly satisfactory solution. It might require the closing down of a great number of industries. In addition to the economic implications, we have no assurance that this would be a permanent solution to the problem.
While we are attempting to identify the substances concerned, temporary measures have been taken to deal with this situation. In one locality, the use of activated charcoal has been useful in clearing up this condition. I am told that laboratory tests indicate that chlorine dioxide might be useful in purifying the water. I am also informed that one locality is considering the use of this substance.
I hope I have made it clear that the solution is not to be found in jurisdictional responsibility, but that it will require the intensive efforts and the co-operation of all people concerned in order to find a satisfactory solution to this problem. If the provinces concerned-and notably the province of Alberta, where the difficulty seems to originate-will agree, the minister is prepared to make available the services of the technical officers of our department to cooperate with the provinces and the industries concerned in setting up and engaging in the co-ordinated investigation which we believe is essential.
As the minister indicated to the house a few days ago, he dispatched a telegram to the minister of health in the province of Alberta offering the full facilities of our department to the province in attempting to correct this situation. I may once again refer to the telegram which the minister read to the house on that occasion:
In view of the many questions asked respecting the pollution of the North Saskatchewan river through industrial wastes said to originate with

industries in Alberta, I would like to offer the co-operation and assistance of the technical officers of this department to participate in a joint study with the technical officers of your province and of the industries to endeavour to find a solution to the problem. I appreciate that the matter is not one that is within federal responsibility but in view of its importance and the complications and technical difficulties that would appear to exist, the solution may well be one that can only be found with the full utilization of all of the technical resources that can be made available. If you feel that this is a helpful proposal I suggest that you have Dr. Somerville communicate with Dr. Cameron with a view to working out satisfactory details and arrangements for an immediate study.
The house is aware that today the Minister *of National Health and Welfare informed the house that Dr. Somerville, who is deputy minister of health in the province of Alberta, telephoned Dr. Cameron, the deputy minister of our department, informing him that the province of Alberta was most anxious to co-operate in every way it could. He also expressed his appreciation of the helpful assistance which has been forthcoming from the Department of National Health and Welfare. The minister also informed the house that he was in conversation with the minister of health of the province of Saskatchewan and that he too is most anxious to co-operate in the solution of this problem.
The minister has also directed that all possible speed be taken to place the facilities of our department at the service of the provinces. Already the staffs of the public health engineering division and the occupational health division of our department are taking the necessary steps to assist the provinces with this work. It will be necessary to divert some of the staff of these two divisions from important work which they are now carrying on, but it is felt that it is most necessary in order to assist the provinces with this matter. I am also informed that it is not likely that a solution can be found in a short time. As I have indicated, it is a complex situation and it is felt that it may be some time before a definite solution is found.
I should like to emphasize that the success of any effort in dealing with this problem is dependent upon the co-operation of all of the industries that may be involved. We assume that this co-operation will be forthcoming from those industries, and that they are as anxious as anyone else to clear up the situation. The measures which may be found necessary for control, once a solution is found, and the enforcement of those measures must, of course, remain the responsibility of the provinces.
I am sure all hon. members agree that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has
Navigable Waters Protection Act shown much understanding of the situation that prevails, and that he has been most helpful in co-ordinating the work of the various governments in attempting to find a solution to this very important problem.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the parliamentary assistant a question? Has his department given any consideration to the possible need for amending the Criminal Code in order to meet situations of this kind?


Mr. Roberison:: I cannot say that any
serious consideration has been given along those lines because we feel that under the British North America Act, since it is a matter involving health it comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces. As far as I know, no serious consideration has been given by our department to dealing with this matter under the Criminal Code.


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Vicloria-Carleion):: I should like to say a few words on this bill.
I feel that the hon. member for The Battle-fords (Mr. Campbell) should be congratulated on introducing it. Having given it some study, I must say that I agree with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) that the bill will not bring about what the hon. member for The Battlefords is seeking. The-Navigable Waters Protection Act has to do with navigation; therefore I do not think any pollution that might affect the health of people can be remedied under it.
I think it is a good thing to have this, matter brought before the house. The situation in the west is serious, and is one that, may arise in other parts of Canada. I believe some thought should be given to it. by the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Justice from the point of view of trying to work out some arrangements with the provinces whereby there might be a conference or some other action to take care of such situations in the future. This may be the first time this situation has. arisen, but it will not be the last.
Not long ago a somewhat similar problem arose in eastern Canada, and it is not the first time we have had this trouble. It. has been brought to the attention of one or two departments. I believe the Department, of Fisheries knows about it. However, this case in the east is different in that it involves international waters. The river rises in Canada, flows through the state of Maine and then re-enters Canada, and the water is polluted. There is no remedy under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Large numbers of fish were killed last summer, and the doctor in charge of health matters.
1930	HOUSE OF
Navigable Waters Protection Act there said that as far as he could tell the cause was pollution of the water in the state of Maine, but there does not seem to be anyway of rectifying it.
I know that is a different problem from an interprovincial one, but it does place emphasis on the question. In a large country such as ours we have interprovincial rivers and international waters. As our country develops, industrial plants are going to be built adjacent to these waters, and in my opinion it is time for some thought to be given to the working out of a convention or agreement among the provinces and the dominion government whereby machinery will be provided so these problems can be dealt with speedily, especially where the health of our people is concerned.
I am sorry I cannot say very much in favour of this particular bill as something to meet the requirements of the hon. member.
I do not see much objection to what is in it, but it is not going to help meet the situation so far as health or pollution is concerned, because the material that seems to be in the waters of this western river is not material that interferes with navigation. Looking at the bill from a legal standpoint, it is not going to meet the ends the hon. member has in mind. Nevertheless he has brought a most important matter before the house, and it should receive a lot of thought and consideration so that similar situations may be met when they arise in the future. Consideration should also be given to the problem that arises when international waters are involved, because there does not seem to be any machinery to deal with such matters effectively.


Walter Edward Harris: On a point of order, I understand that it is the wish of the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill that he might be allowed further time to consider what might be said or done. While the government's position has been made clear by the Minister of Transport and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, it would be our view that it might be desirable, in view of the general interest in the subject and the particular interest that the hon. member has in it, to allow the bill to stand over and not be dealt with today. If that is his wish, that is agreeable to us.


Mr. Adamson:: Mr. Speaker-


Walter Edward Harris: Is the hon. member going to speak about the next bill, which is his?


Agar Rodney Adamson: No, I am speaking on the point of order. I have no objection to the procedure suggested, but there may be some


extended remarks on the next order and as it is now eight minutes to six I would hope the Speaker would call it six o'clock.


Walter Edward Harris: That is just what I was about to say, and I thought you might be going to speak on this particular bill.


Agar Rodney Adamson: No.


Walter Edward Harris: Then I would propose the adjournment of the debate and ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call it six o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Harris the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act 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.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Mr. Charlton:: Is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture going to explain the resolution?


Mr. McCubbin:: The reason for the introduction of this resolution, Mr. Chairman, upon which the bill is founded, is to compensate the owners of hogs which have been slaughtered as a result of the outbreak of hog cholera. As we all know, hog cholera is the disease which hog producers, not only in Canada but in other countries as well, fear most. Heretofore the compensation which has been paid for a hog has been $30 or any portion thereof according to the value of the hog. If a hog were worth $50 or more, as it is now when it is ready for market, the owner was compensated only to the extent of $30 if the animal were slaughtered under the terms of this act. The government felt that some increased compensation should be given to a man who was in that position, and had hogs ready or

nearly ready for market which had to be slaughtered. We are introducing the resolution to compensate him more adequately.


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not intend to say very much at the resolution stage. I should like to say, first, that I believe this measure is long overdue. I noticed that the parliamentary assistant just mentioned hogs, but the resolution also speaks of sheep. I believe that the compensation paid for sheep in the past has been much too low, especially for purebred animals. It is extremely difficult to arrive at the real value of purebred animals, and of course we shall have to wait until we get the bill before we can ascertain the basis for fixing the value. If it is similar to the basis for cattle, then I believe it is probably fair.
In some cases the compensation is not enough because it is a stipulated amount, plus the value of the carcass where it is suitable for consumption. In the case of highly bred animals, that is not enough. We all realize that, but it is rather difficult to arrive at any hard and fast rule. We shall reserve further comments until we see the contents of the bill.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I do
not want to say very much at the resolution stage, except to ask the parliamentary assistant if any consideration has been given to increasing the compensation to those who have to dispose of purebred hogs? If the government is considering an amendment to this act, has consideration been given to increasing the compensation paid to cattle breeders who suffer the loss of purebred cattle?
I should like to point out to the parliamentary assistant and the house that in the case of purebred cattle, the compensation under the act today stands at a maximum of $100. We have a ceiling, but we have not a floor on the compensation to be paid the owners of purebred stock who have to dispose of animals under this act. I should like to ask the government to give consideration to bringing the payments made to purebred breeders into line.
Today there are more and more people producing purebred cattle, just as we have farmers producing more purebred sheep and purebred hogs. I think it is time the government gave consideration to more equitable payments to the people forced to dispose of their purebred cattle. Many of us today have stock worth thousands of dollars and the loss is tremendous if, for any reason, we have stock which has to be destroyed under this Animal Contagious Diseases Act. I ask
Animal Contagious Diseases Act the parliamentary assistant to tell the committee if any consideration has been given to raising the ceiling on payments for purebred cattle and hogs?


Mr. Fair:: We Social Crediters believe in always doing what is fair and right, and that applies in this case. I feel that this action should have been taken some time ago. Without going into too much detail, I feel that we should pay the fair market value for livestock, whether it be ordinary livestock or purebred. When I say "fair market value", that does not mean we should pay on the same basis for purebred stock that is destroyed as we do for commercial livestock. By making fair payments to those who have their livestock destroyed we would encourage farmers to report any disease that may be in their herds.
I feel that is one thing that is being overlooked, and which may prove rather expensive for the government and for the country. If farmers feel that they are not being properly compensated, then they are apt to sneak out and sell their livestock. I do not say there are many who would do that, but there is the odd one. When I say "odd", I mean just that. As a rule, farmers do not play any of those tricks. We Social Crediters are fully behind this move by the government, and we hope that in this case the payments will be generous and will fully compensate those who may be unfortunate enough to have a disease in their herd.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is the parliamentary assistant going to answer the questions of the hon. member for Moose Mountain?


Robert McCubbin: I was going to wait until all had spoken.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is any consideration being given to the payment of compensation for animals that died previous to the diagnosis of the disease? In the case of foot-and-mouth disease in Saskatchewan, the government paid for the clean-up and burial of these animals. Is it not fair to suggest that they do the same thing for the outbreak of hog cholera in Ontario or any other part of Canada?


Robert McCubbin: The questions which have been asked are very fair. The questions asked by the hon. member for Moose Mountain are certainly fair, but under this amendment to the act with which we are dealing cattle are not mentioned. The amendment relates to hogs and sheep. My own feeling, and I believe it is the feeling of the committee as well, is that if any consideration is given to a change in the compensation for cattle it should be done in another amendment.

Animal Contagious Diseases Act
The hon. member for Brant-Haldimand has mentioned the foot-and-mouth disease out in Saskatchewan, and hog cholera in Ontario. The foot-and-mouth disease is something we hope we shall not see again, and it was dealt with under special legislation. Things were done in connection with the foot-and-mouth disease-and rightly so, of course-that we might not do in other circumstances.
In connection with hog cholera, I believe Canada is one of the few countries in the world that pays compensation for losses in this connection, and that is a condition we have had for many years. In the country to the south of us no compensation whatever is paid. It is done by the farmer himself; the government does not pay for it. Then, regarding cleaning up the premises, as has been pointed out it is not the intention of the government under this legislation to do anything in that respect. The intention only is to pay the actual price of the hogs slaughtered as the result of hog cholera.
Many hon. members will be aware of the fact that much of this difficulty has developed in some of the sale barns in Ontario. At this point I should like to commend the department of agriculture at Toronto and their livestock commissioner, Mr. Watson, for putting through legislation to assist in every way possible in bringing about a condition under which these sale barns are now better supervised than they were previously.


John Alpheus Charlton: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant would answer my first question. I suggested that consideration should be given to paying compensation for animals that died previous to the time diagnosis was made.


Robert McCubbin: Of course we can consider those things. However, I do not think it is the intention to pay for animals that died prior to diagnosis being made. But if a worth-while case is made, it will be considered.


John Alpheus Charlton: I would point out to the parliamentary assistant that hog cholera in Ontario, or in any other part of Canada, would be just as dangerous to a community as foot-and-mouth disease in cattle. I do not see the justification for saying that it is not necessary to pay for the clean-up and burial of those animals. So long as we maintain such a policy in respect to hog cholera, then it would seem just as important to do away with those animals, to see that they are properly buried and the premises are properly cleaned, as it was in connection with foot-and-mouth disease.
There was a case last spring where hog cholera was not diagnosed as quickly as it might have been. Some animals died of the

disease previous to the notice that it existed in that area. So far as I know, no compensation was paid for those animals. I do not think that is fair. The hogs died from hog cholera, that is well known; and I say those hogs should have been paid for, just the same as others.


Mr. Argue:: Can the parliamentary assistant tell the committee whether payments under this amendment will be retroactive and, if so, how many cases will be covered? If payments are not to be made retroactive, on what date does the government expect the legislation will be proclaimed?


Robert McCubbin: It has been made retroactive to May 1, 1953.


Hazen Robert Argue: Has that arisen because of an outbreak or epidemic of hog cholera? Has a great amount of slaughtering taken place, extending back to May of 1953, which has made this legislation necessary in the opinion of the government?


Robert McCubbin: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am pleased to note that the legislation is being made retroactive. That is an excellent provision. If circumstances have made such an amendment necessary, then it is clear that the farmers who have suffered considerable loss should be compensated adequately. I imagine that by making the legislation retroactive to May of 1953 the objective will be accomplished. The improvement in compensation will be welcomed. It will be particularly acceptable to the swine producers, because ordinary grade hogs are being sold today on the market for a good deal more than $30. Perhaps it would amount to $50 or even $60.
When I look at section 12 of the act it would appear that cattle producers now hold a privileged position as compared with hog and sheep producers. I may be interpreting the statute incorrectly, and if I am I would be glad to hear from the parliamentary assistant. It would appear that under section 12 the owner of cattle infected with contagious disease as defined by the act is paid $100 for a purebred animal and $40 for a grade animal; and if the carcass cannot be sold, then in addition to the $100 or $40 he will receive an amount equal to the value of the carcass. So if a grade cow is slaughtered the farmer receives the market value plus $40. If it is a purebred animal he receives the market value plus $100.
Even with the suggested improvement as set out in the legislation, if I read it correctly the maximum that a swine or sheep producer may receive is the market value. No consideration is given to the fact that an animal

may be purebred, and that a farmer would sustain a loss greater than the market value. When one goes out to replace an animal he cannot do it for the market value. It is clear to anyone that there are other costs involved.
If I am right when I say that the maximum a hog producer can receive, even with the new legislation, will be the market value, whereas the cattle producer can receive the market value plus $100 for a purebred animal or plus $40 for a grade animal, then the government should give consideration to this apparent discrimination as between cattle producers on the one hand and hog and sheep producers on the other. When the bill is brought down something more should be added by way of compensation than would appear in the resolution. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to comment on these points.


Robert McCubbin: I understand the significance of what the hon. member for Assiniboia has said. The statement he has made is absolutely correct. It will be understood, of course, that he was referring to the eradication of tuberculosis, a procedure for the assistance of the producers of dairy and beef cattle across Canada.
The difference is that the tuberculosis eradication is done by the farmers themselves. A petition may be circulated in a township or a county, and if two-thirds of the farmers sign the petition the provincial government takes action and sends it on to us. We go ahead and have the cattle tested. If the cattle are rejected the owners are paid $40, plus the market value.
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. If the cattle beast goes to the tank, the market value is based on that action by the packinghouse and a decision is made as to what the selling price would be if the meat had been fit for human consumption.
The matter of hog cholera is different. As I said before, Canada is the only country I know of that pays any compensation for the destruction of hogs. In Canada we felt that we were going a long way-maybe we could let it go; maybe we could live with it as they do in the United States-in being willing to compensate the farmer whose hogs had to be destroyed on account of an outbreak of cholera in his own hogs or those of his neighbour.
The government feel, as I said before, that we are going a long way in helping to assist the farmer in trying to eradicate the disease. We in Canada do not want, and I am sure
Animal Contagious Diseases Act the farmers feel the same way as the government does, to live with hog cholera in this country. We would like to eradicate it. I think the farmer is willing to co-operate. If we will go half-way he will co-operate with us, and that is the reason we are acting in this way. Nothing else is being done along the lines mentioned by the hon. member for Assiniboia.


John Alpheus Charlton: Can the parliamentary assistant say that there is no price set on a hog or sheep outside of the market value?


Robert McCubbin: No, there is not.


John Alpheus Charlton: In the case of cattle and horses, there is?


Robert McCubbin: Yes, that is right.


John Alpheus Charlton: In the case of sheep and swine there is not?


Robert McCubbin: There is not.


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not agree with that, because there are other diseases in swine besides cholera. Are you going to say that purebred swine are to be valued at only the market value of the hog?


Robert McCubbin: That is right.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is the slaughter market value?


Robert McCubbin: That is right.


John Alpheus Charlton: The slaughter value or the purebred replacement value?


Robert McCubbin: No, the slaughter value.


John Alpheus Charlton: Just the slaughter value?


Robert McCubbin: That is right.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is not fair.


Robert Fair: I do not think the government should let this legislation go through with the present proposal. The point I made a little while ago still holds good to the effect that people owning livestock that may be diseased are not getting proper compensation, provided that the swine or sheep are purebred. I do not think it is good enough. It would cost very little more, and I think we should go whole hog on this matter. That is farmers' language, and I think the parliamentary assistant understands it perfectly well. Let us be fair all the way through with this. We are making a special privileged class for cattle and horses, and then we are going to put the lowly hog and the innocent sheep in a degraded class by themselves.


Hazen Robert Argue: Class distinction.


Robert Fair: Some suggested that it is perhaps shearing the sheep, and I will not say what
1934	HOUSE OF
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries they said about the hogs. Let us play the game and make this uniform for all grades of stock that may be affected.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Harris thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 250, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NORTHWEST ATLANTIC FISHERIES


James Sinclair: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to implement the international convention for the northwest Atlantic fisheries, signed in Washington on February 8, 1949, and ratified July 3, 1950, following approval by parliament.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, this resolution will introduce a bill to give legislative effect to the northwest Atlantic fisheries convention, which was approved by this house in July, 1950.
This is one of the series of international fisheries conventions which this country has been able to arrange for the proper protection and conservation of the fisheries on the high seas adjacent to our shores. The first was the international halibut convention, signed in 1923, covering the halibut of the north Pacific, followed by the fur seal convention and the international salmon convention. Then last year a new convention for control of the north Pacific was signed by Japan, Canada and the United States.
The area covered by the convention of this resolution is the northwest Atlantic, with the Grand Banks the principal fishery concerned. The Grand Banks are still, after 400 years of fishing, the greatest single fishery in the world, but in recent years there have been signs of depletion in one or two of the banks, which gave concern to the nations which are fishing that great fishing ground. Just after the war, meetings were arranged between those nations, and as a consequence we had this convention, which was approved by parliament. The ten nations are Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, France, Norway, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Since the convention was approved in this house an administrative organization has been established. I am happy to report that because of the very attractive proposals made to the new commission by the government of Nova Scotia and the governors of Dalhousie University, the permanent headquarters of this new northwest Atlantic commission have been located at Halifax on the campus of Dalhousie University. The first chairman of this commission is our own Canadian deputy minister of fisheries, Stewart Bates, who was also honoured last week by being elected the first chairman of the new north Pacific international fisheries commission.
The commission has drafted regulations to enforce conservation measures on these banks. Now we have come to parliament to give us legal power to enforce these regulations on Canadian fishermen.


Mr. Bell:: Have all the countries that originally signed the agreement ratified it?


James Sinclair: That is true.


Thomas Miller Bell: With respect to this advisory committee that is mentioned in the original convention, is that the group the minister mentioned to which Dr. Bates has been appointed?


James Sinclair: Dr. Bates is chairman of the full commission, which has representatives from each of the ten nations. The chairmanship will rotate among the ten countries. The pattern is exactly the same as has been successfully developed in these other international fisheries conventions. The legislation will be almost identical with the north Pacific legislation.


Angus MacInnis: I am not criticizing; I am merely seeking information, but why has it taken so long to get the convention ready for legislation? It is pretty nearly four years since this house ratified the convention. What were the difficulties that had to be overcome before the legislation was introduced?


James Sinclair: Our other fisheries conventions were arranged with the United States, and after our experience with the first one, the halibut convention, it was very easy to work out satisfactory administrative procedures with the one nation. Four or five of the ten nations in the northwest Atlantic convention, however, had never such an international fishing convention before. It has therefore taken a little longer to work out acceptable draft regulations which will be applied to the conservation and protection of these fishing grounds.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Sinclair thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 251, to implement the international convention for the northwest Atlantic fisheries.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ONTARIO-MANITOBA BOUNDARY ACT DEFINITION OF PROVINCIAL BOUNDARIES

Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 79, respecting the boundary between the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister going to make a statement?


George Prudham: Mr. Speaker, the boundary line between Ontario and Manitoba has been completely surveyed and marked on the ground by commissioners appointed from time to time by the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and Canada. The two provinces have requested that the parliament of Canada pass legislation confirming the boundary, and for this purpose they have themselves passed the required legislation.
The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to confirm the boundary between the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba in compliance with their respective requests and in accordance with the British North America Act.
In these days of the rapid development of mining and other industries, particularly in the northern section of our provinces and in the territories, it is imperative that boundary lines between the provinces be as firmly and clearly established as possible. This is vitally important not only to the provinces and territories but to the private firms and private citizens who are helping to open up new areas to development and settlement. The bill before the house is a helpful step in that direction. It seeks to establish with certainty the boundary between Ontario and Manitoba.
The history of the determination of this boundary is rather long and complicated. As a measure of assistance to this house I shall attempt to summarize briefly the historical background of this particular interprovincial boundary line, the total length of which is 609 miles.
As early as 1870 in the case of Manitoba and 1889 in the case of Ontario, the boundaries of these provinces were originally defined by statutes for the respective provinces. In 1893 an unsuccessful attempt was
Ontario-Manitoba Boundary Act made by the then secretary of state for Canada to arrange with the two provinces for a survey of the boundary between them on a co-operative basis. Manitoba declined the invitation at that time, as that province did not then have the ownership of its natural resources. But Ontario did accept. As a result a commission was established composed of one representative from Ontario and one from the federal authority. This commission in 1897 and 1898 surveyed and marked a portion of the boundary.
At this stage the federal deputy minister of justice was asked to advise what further steps could properly be taken to establish the boundary between Ontario and Manitoba. The advice was given in the following terms:
The boundary line between Ontario and Manitoba, as marked on the ground by Messrs. Stewart and Saunders, can be absolutely established only by legislation. If the legislatures of Ontario and Manitoba consent, the parliament of Canada can, by the provisions of the British North America Act, 1871, pass an act declaring that line to be the boundary between the two provinces. Orders in council of the several governments accepting the line might be passed, but these would not bind the provincial legislatures or parliament of Canada.
On October 10, 1898, the two provinces were invited to accept the boundary as marked by commissioners Stewart and Saunders. Ontario accepted the invitation and passed 62 Victoria, chapter 2. It does not appear that Manitoba passed any legislation on the matter at that time. In the absence of Manitoba's consent, no legislation was passed by the federal government.
In 1921 the two provinces were again invited to join in a continuation of the boundary line survey. Manitoba declined. Accordingly, the governments of Canada and Ontario each appointed a representative and survey work was extended to the twelfth base line and reached completion in 1921-22.
In 1929 both Manitoba and Ontario passed acts of consent, accepting and confirming as the true and unalterable boundary between the two provinces the survey that had been made by the two commissioners and marked on the ground from the northwest angle of the lake of the Woods to the twelfth base line.
The parliament of Canada did not pass any legislation at that time to confirm that part of the boundary because it was thought advisable, I am informed, to wait until the boundary was completely surveyed and marked. The last part of the boundary, from the twelfth base line to the shores of Hudson bay, have since been surveyed and marked by monuments of a permanent nature under the supervision of commissioners appointed by Manitoba, Ontario and Canada.	.

Ontario-Manitoba Boundary Act
The two provinces have expressed the wish that the boundary line thus surveyed and marked be accepted and confirmed. Both provinces have passed acts consenting to a declaration to that effect by the parliament of Canada. The purpose of this bill is to carry into legislative effect the request of Ontario and Manitoba, and it is also in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the British North America Act, 1871.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, there is only one thing I noticed in connection with the minister's remarks, and that was that he was very careful to avoid any use of the word "dominion" in his reference to Canada. I took his words down and he said that the new boundary was the result of surveys made by representatives of the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and Canada.
This seems to me to indicate that, far from achieving any great national sovereignty for Canada, the sole result of the elimination of the word "dominion" has been that we have reverted to provincial status. Perhaps the minister may have some explanation to offer.


[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.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it from what the minister has said and from what is set out in the bill that what we are now being asked to do in the parliament of Canada is based on the provisions of section 3 of the British North America Act, 1871, which was chapter 28 of the statutes of the United Kingdom, Victoria 34-35. Section 3 reads as follows:
The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the said dominion, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of such province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any province affected thereby.
Section 6 of the same statute seems to have bearing on the case of Manitoba, but it does not alter what is set out in section 3, which I have just read. The question I should like to put to the minister is this. By this act are we merely making clear the line that has been recognized, or are we altering the line in any way? If so, which province is gaining a bit of territory and which is losing, and how much?


George Prudham: In 1930, by astronomic
calculations, a certain point was fixed indicating the point of intersection of the 89th meridian of west longitude with the south shore of Hudson bay. In 1947 and 1948


ground surveys established that the point of intersection was actually 21-4 feet west of the point that had been established in 1930. The result of the correction was an increase of some 200 acres to Ontario. There is no doubt that section 3 of the British North America Act applies to the proposed legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is not here in case he is interested in this point. What is the effect of this change on the redistribution act? Those few hundred acres which the minister refers to must be in the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River, the constituency of Springfield or possibly in the constituency of Churchill.
I do not ask this question in the levity that some people may attribute to it. It could be a very real issue. If a change is being made since the last redistribution bill was put through, and if 200 acres are involved, it is a very real question as to which constituency that piece of land is in. The minister stated that one of the reasons it was necessary to delineate this boundary was the mining developments up there. In other words, it could be that this would be not just some barren wilderness. It might be a town site. Perhaps the minister could comment on this phase of the matter.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, I do not see that that problem is related to this bill. Certainly representation is not decided on acres. It is decided on population. It is extremely unlikely that there would be anyone living in that 200 acres.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says that representation is not decided on the basis of acreage. I would remind him that constituency boundary lines are drawn on a geographical basis, and that acreage is a geographical concept. In some areas-for instance, in the minister's constituency or in my constituency-200 acres might represent a good many people. I do not think the question should be brushed off as not being relevant just because the minister makes that statement.
The fact of the matter is that in the Representation Act there is a clause which covers the situation in case a city or municipality alters its boundaries after a redistribution act has been put through. If I remember correctly, the provision is that whatever the boundary was at the time the redistribution act was put through, that boundary stays even though a municipality or a city may change its boundaries. It is more than a

matter of academic interest as to what happens when the boundary between two provinces is changed.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, I submit that my hon. friend is borrowing trouble. It has no relation to the bill before the committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can the minister tell us how many people live in those 200 acres?


George Prudham: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister does not know. Is there anyone who does know?


George Prudham: I do not suppose so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do any of the other ministers know?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Have the minister's departmental officials looked into the question?


George Prudham: It does not concern our
department.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It does not concern the minister's department whether anyone lives there?


George Prudham: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does it concern the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources?


James Sinclair: No. It concerns the provinces.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The ministers just do not care whether or not anybody is living there and is affected by this change?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Abbott:: They would still be living in Canada.


Mr. Mclvor:: I do not think we should be too much concerned now about this boundary line, since at the lakehead there is an energetic group of people who are fighting hard for a new province up there in northern Ontario because they think they are the forgotten people. A new line may soon be drawn, but that will be some time in the future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, that there was another section in the British North America Act of 1871 which had a bearing on this matter. At that time I said I would not take time to read it, but now I think I must do so. Section 6 of the British North America Act of 1871-and that is the act of which section 3 is the authority for what is now before parliament-reads as follows:
Except as provided by the third section of this act, it shall not be competent for the parliament of Canada to alter the provisions of the last-mentioned act-
Ontario-Manitoba Boundary Act
That refers to an act having to do with Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory.

of the said parliament in so far as it relates to the province of Manitoba, or of any other act hereafter establishing new provinces in the said dominion, subject always to the right of the legislature of the province of Manitoba to alter from time to time the provisions of any law respecting the qualification of electors and members of the legislative assembly, and to make laws respecting elections in the said province.
The point I have raised is a relevant and valid one. I have read that section to indicate that when the British North America Act was amended in 1871 respecting provincial boundaries, provision was made as to the right of the province of Manitoba to legislate respecting elections in that province. In other words, if Manitoba gains in territory as a result of the moving of a line, Manitoba would have a right to take that new territory into consideration in its electoral laws. If it lost territory, it could amend its laws taking cognizance of that fact.
I submit that it is a very real question as to what happens to that area of 200 acres with respect to federal representation. The minister does not know whether or not there is anybody there. Even if no people are there now, there could be people there some time. I submit that the question should be looked into. If the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys is not able to do it, I hope the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who knows all about representation acts, or the Secretary of State, who is responsible for matters in that field, might be ready with an answer on the point when we get to the third reading stage.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



EXPLOSIVES ACT


George Prudham: the second reading of Bill No. 83, to amend the Explosives Act.

Explosives Act
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Explosives Act, Which the bill now before the house amends in several particulars, has had a relatively recent history. The act was first introduced in parliament in 1911, and did not pass through all its stages before the session of that year concluded. The act was again introduced in 1914 and was passed that year. Proclamation of the measure was delayed on account of world war I until 1920. The original Explosives Act was based on the British North America Act of 1875. The purpose of the legislation is to provide a measure of control in the manufacture, testing, storage and importation of explosives in the interests of public safety.
The 1914 act, proclaimed, as I have said, in 1920, continued in operation until 1946. In that year it was revised because of postwar conditions. During the course of world war II a number of regulations were made under the War Measures Act in order to secure closer and more effective control over explosives. It has become advisable to recommend a number of new amendments at this time. One of these is to make clear that the Explosives Act applies to government agencies as well as to private firms and individual citizens charged with the use or control of explosives. The amendments include a broadening of the definition of "factory" to include land adjacent to the site where the manufacture of explosives is carried on, also all buildings on the said site.
The terms of licences under the act are dealt with as well as certain regulatory measures covering the importation and manufacture of explosives in order not to endanger public safety. The amendments deal with such matters as the inspection of magazines and the destruction of explosives which appear to be abandoned or in a position to be dangerous to persons and property. During the 33 years in which the act has been in force it has proved of value as a public safeguard.
Hon. members will appreciate that in the post-war period of expansion widespread use was made of various types of explosives. As a result of this act the quality and uniformity of explosives marketed in Canada have greatly improved. Although the use of explosives marketed in Canada has quadrupled since the act was first passed the number of accidents has shown a steady decline, owing to the control exercised by inspectors of explosives under this legislation. I might add that the manufacturers have also co-operated toward this end.


[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-Factory.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I notice that the purpose of this clause is to enlarge the definition of "factory" to include the site on which the factory stands. The present section reads:
"Factory" means any building, structure or premises in which the manufacture or any part of the process of manufacture of an explosive, is carried on, and any building or place . . . within a factory site in which a finished explosive is stored.
Would the minister explain to us the necessity for the amendment? I must say that on reading through the bill there are quite a number of sections for which it is difficult to understand the necessity. I appreciate that it is desirable to make certain that the Explosives Act is clearly understood and easily enforced, but I must say that I am unable to appreciate the need for some of these amending sections. They seem to me to be mere verbiage. Can the minister say why it was considered necessary to amend this particular subsection to make it clear that "factory" includes the site; because it would be my impression that in any case that would have been the interpretation given to it by the courts. Is there a case which makes this necessary?


George Prudham: This amendment is based on experience under the act. I am informed that when the word "factory" was first defined it was intended to cover by the definition not only the buildings in which the manufacture or any part of the process of manufacture of explosives is carried on but also all other buildings on the site and the site itself. The definition as it now reads seems to cover only buildings in which an explosive is manufactured or stored.
In a recent case in Ontario a person was found in the boiler room of a factory. The person was charged under section 21 of the act with trespassing upon the factory. The case was heard and the accused was found not guilty. Among the reasons given in the judgment one was that the accused, not being in a building where any part of the process of manufacture of an explosive was carried on, was not guilty of the offence with which he was charged. This amendment is to clarify that section and make sure that anyone trespassing on the premises will be liable as a trespasser.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to know whether that case was appealed. It seems to me to be an extraordinary decision.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 1 carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman. I am trying to ascertain the necessity for this amendment, and I must say that the decision in the case to which the minister referred seems to be an extraordinary one. As I understood it, the minister said that one of the reasons, the main reason this amendment is considered necessary, is that in a case in Ontario a person found in the boiler room of an explosives factory was found not guilty of the charge because it was held that the manufacture of explosives was not carried on in the boiler room.
As I say, if I have understood the minister correctly that seems to me to be such an extraordinarily poor decision that what should have been done was to appeal it, because the present definition says that "factory" means any building, structure or premises in which the manufacture or any part of the process of manufacture of an explosive is carried on. Surely the boiler room would be part of the building in which the manufacture is carried on.
I am not questioning the fact that the decision may have been given, but if it was possible to give such a decision under the present section it seems to me that the same decision could be given under the proposed new section. What should have been done was to appeal the case to a higher court where you might have got a reversal of the decision, rather than to rush in immediately with an amendment. I should like to know whether the case was appealed.


George Prudham: No, I do not think the case was appealed, but if this amendment is made no appeal will be necessary.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Certainly in my experience that is not the usual reason law officers of the crown make their recommendations as to amendments. They usually try out the validity or enforceability of a section before expressing an opinion as to the necessity for amendment. Would the minister explain to me how it is expected that the present amendment will cure any defect, real or fancied, in the legislation which resulted in that decision?


George Prudham: The proposed amendment defines more clearly what is meant by "factory".


Edmund Davie Fulton: It does not deal with the point which the minister has cited as the reason for the amendment. The minister said the reason for the amendment was that an accused was found not guilty because he happened to be in the boiler room, and it was held that the boiler room was not a place
Explosives Act
where the manufacture of explosives was carried on. Let us compare the present proposed section with the old one.
The proposed section says:
"factory" means any building, structure, premises or land in or upon which the manufacture or any part of the process of manufacture of an explosive is carried on, the site on which such building, structure or premises are situated, and all other buildings, structures, or premises within such site;
The old section reads:
"factory" means any building, structure or premises in which the manufacture or any part of the process of manufacture of an explosive, is carried on, . . .
I am unable to appreciate how the proposed subsection would have any effect in curing the supposed defect in the present legislation.


George Prudham: We have had some very competent law officers drafting this amendment. It is their opinion, and the opinion of our departmental officials, that the amendment more clearly defines the meaning of "factory".


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Application of act.
George Prudham: Before we deal with clause 2, I should like to propose an amendment. The Department of National Defence is obliged to use road transportation more than in former years for the movement of explosives. This transportation may be effected by the Department of National Defence or by commercial vehicles. In the case of transportation by national defence vehicles, the necessary controls over transportation can be exercised by the department itself. The same situation does not apply in respect of commercial vehicles, in which case the safety of the public would be better ensured by the application of the regulations enacted under authority of the Explosives Act.
The following situations conceivably might arise: the transportation of Department of National Defence explosives from one depot to another or the transportation of explosives from railway points to areas or depots served only by road; the transportation of Department of National Defence explosives originating in the United States for delivery to ammunition depots; the transportation of Department of National Defence explosives from a factory in Canada to storage depots. For these reasons I would ask my colleague the Associate Minister of National Defence to move the following amendment:
Strike out all the words in line 15 and substitute the following therefor;
"3. (1) Except as provided by the regulations, this act does not apply to or in respect of any . . .


Mr. Campney:: I so move, Mr. Chairman.

Explosives Act


Mr. Gauthier (Nickel Belt):: I should like to say a few words about the Explosives Act. I just noticed that the minister's amendment seems to give consideration to the Department of National Defence in the transportation of explosives. Can the minister tell me whether this amendment will cover also the cargoes of commercial vehicles? Will commercial vehicles be permitted to carry more tonnage than they were permitted to carry under the old act?
Those of us who have had experience with the mining industry, which probably uses the largest part of the explosives used in this country during peacetime, find that commercial vehicles are not permitted to carry sufficient tonnage. As the minister said a few minutes ago the act was first introduced about 1910, during the days of the horse and wagon. It has not been revised since. Today there are heavy commercial vehicles capable of carrying heavy loads. Can the minister tell us if some consideration is being given by the departmental officials to increasing the tonnage permitted under the act? That is a problem facing all the mining companies'in the country today. I believe the maximum load now is one ton, and that was all right in the early days. I know that today this limit is not practical; it is not economically sound when applied to mining operations.


George Prudham: The whole matter is being carefully studied at the present time. The provinces and municipalities also establish limits on the loads of explosives. The whole question is being studied with the various provincial governments with a view to adjusting the old limits.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Does this act prohibit a private individual from carrying dynamite in his automobile?


George Prudham: Yes, without a permit.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Can the minister tell me if a private individual needs a permit today to have explosives in his possession?


George Prudham: Yes, he must have a permit if the quantity exceeds 150 pounds.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They did during the war, but after the war that provision was removed. Has it been reinstated?


George Prudham: So far as I know, it has when the quantity exceeds 150 pounds.


George Randolph Pearkes: It was extremely difficult at this end of the house to hear what the minister was saying. There was a certain amount of noise, and I am afraid I did not catch the exact implications of this amendment in so 
far as national defence vehicles were concerned. Will the minister please explain that? If he has already done so I apologize for asking him to repeat it, but I could not hear a word that was said concerning the effect this amendment will have on national defence vehicles.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, subsection 1 of section 3 of the act exempts the Department of National Defence from control by this department. At the suggestion of the Department of National Defence we are proposing this amendment to cover explosives belonging or consigned to the Department of National Defence while they are being transported by a commercial carrier.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In other words, the Department of National Defence is going to be bound by any regulation made under this act.


George Prudham: No, that is not correct. This act will apply to explosives or ammunition owned by or consigned to the Department of National Defence while in the hands of private carriers, but not while in the hands of the Department of National Defence itself.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I understand it, the proposed section will now read as follows:
Except as provided by the regulations, this act does not apply to or in respect of any explosives under the direction or control of the Minister of National Defence.
That would be the whole of the new section 3 (1), would it not? I understand that would be the reading of the new 3 (1).


George Prudham: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Therefore it seems to me that the regulations might apply to explosives under the control of the Minister of National Defence. That seems to be obvious, does it not?


George Prudham: I have another amendment to section 3 which I think will clarify what my hon. friend is asking.


Mr. Balcom:: Do I understand that any movements of explosives in Halifax harbour, for instance, made by naval authorities are not supervised under this provision?


George Prudham: That is right; so long as they are in the hands of the Department of National Defence, we have no control over them.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: Is the minister's department undertaking to see to it that movements of explosives such as I have described are properly supervised?


George Prudham: We have no control whatever over explosives in the hands of the Department of National Defence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister will have control if the amendment he is now proposing is accepted. He will note that amendment says:
Except as provided by the regulations, this act does not apply to or in respect of any explosives under the direction or control of the Minister of National Defence.
Therefore surely it must follow that the minister can make regulations governing the storage, control and handling of explosives by the Department of National Defence, if this amendment carries. Is that not so?


George Prudham: This amendment is intended to cover explosives of the Department of National Defence while in the hands of private carriers, but not when such explosives are in the hands of or are being transported by the Department of National Defence itself.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That would be a matter of regulation. But the fact remains that if this amendment carries the minister can make regulations governing the handling of explosives by the Department of National Defence, within the limits of section 4, giving him power to make regulations. In other words any regulations he can make under section 4 he can now make with respect to explosives under the control of the Department of National Defence. I think probably that is a good thing; but I am just pointing out that if this amendment now proposed is accepted, that will be the situation.


George Prudham: No; the Department of National Defence has always been and still is exempted from the provisions of this act. The proposed amendment deals with explosives belonging to the Department of National Defence while in the control of or being transported by private carriers.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Subject to the regulations.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Let us start at the beginning and go through it again just to see where we are. Section 3 as it now stands reads:
This act applies to the possession, storing, sale or offering for sale, making, manufacture or importation of explosives by or on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada or any province except explosives under the direction or control of the Minister of National Defence.
Therefore under the present section 3, explosives under the direction or control of the Minister of National Defence are exempt. The bill now before us, letter C of the Senate and Bill No. 83 of the House of Commons, starts out by saying:
Section 3 of the said act Is repealed-
Explosives Act
That is, section 3 is wiped out.
-and the following substituted therefor:
And now we have the amendment in the form of what is to be substituted for the old section 3. This is the amendment, and I am now reading it in conjunction with the rest of the words in section 3 (1) as they appear in the bill before us. Together they will read as follows:
Except as provided by the regulations, this act does not apply to or in respect of any explosives under the direction or control of the Minister of National Defence.
If, as in this instance, there is an exception, that except as provided by regulations the act shall not apply, then the effect of the new section 3 is to say that the minister may make regulations which shall apply to the Department of National Defence. Therefore all the regulations which he may make under section 4, which is the regulation-making section, it seems to me can be applied to the Department of National Defence.


George Prudham: The regulations can only be made by order in council, by the governor in council, not by the minister.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That does not matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I had not reached the end of the act, which says when regulations have to be made. However, I think the minister is not correct in his statement.


George Prudham: It has to be approved by the governor in council.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We will accept the minister's word when he says that regulations have to be made by the governor in council. Then the governor in council may make regulations which apply to the Department of National Defence, because that provision is now specifically covered by the exception now being enacted.


George Prudham: As I said before, I shall propose another amendment. I believe if I were to read it the hon. member would be satisfied. I propose to add to section 4 of the act-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, well-


George Prudham: -another clause which will be known as the new subsection (o), in these words:
(o) Prescribing the circumstances in which explosives shall for the purposes of this act be deemed to be or not to be under the direction or control of the Minister of National Defence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is to be an additional clause in the amending bill, is it?


George Prudham: Yes.

Explosives Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the minister would read it again.


George Prudham: The purpose is to add to clause 3 of the bill a new subclause:
Section 4 of the said act is further amended by striking out the word "and" after paragraph (m) thereof, by inserting the word "and" at the end of paragraph (n) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraph:
(o) Prescribing the circumstances in which explosives shall for the purposes of this act be deemed to be or not to be under the direction or control of the Minister of National Defence.
I think that covers the point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That does not alter the position as stated by the hon. member for Kamloops. Can we not put this in laymen's language? What is being said is that this act does not apply to the Department of National Defence unless it is made to apply to that department by means of regulations. Then the minister says that section 4 of the act, which sets out the regulations, is going to be amended. And in what way is it going to be amended? It will be amended to say that the governor in council may make regulations defining under what circumstances the governor in council can, by regulation, decide that the act is to apply to the Department of National Defence.
Is not the hon. member for Kamloops perfectly right in saying that the door is being left wide open for the governor in council to decide on this matter whichever way it wishes? He is not suggesting, and neither am I, that it is not all right to do that. As a matter of fact I think it might be a good idea. But why deny it? We have heard about double negatives, but I have not figured out whether this is a triple negative or a quadruple one.


George Prudham: As I said before, this amendment was proposed by the Department of National Defence. They saw the possibility of the public not being protected adequately in certain phases of departmental operations. After lengthy consultation during the last couple of weeks with officials of the Department of National Defence, the Department of Justice and my department, it was thought that, in the light of certain circumstances which they could foresee, in which explosives belonging to the Department of National Defence might be transported by private conveyances or commercial vehicles, regulations could be set up under the act to protect the public. I think it is quite in order.
I hope I have made clear to my hon. friends what is intended. I do not know why my hon. friend fears what might be done by order in council. We have two ministers of national defence in the cabinet at the present time.

I am sure the interests of national defence will be adequately looked after. This department is not anxious to encroach on their territory at all, but we are anxious to protect the public. That is why we are proposing this measure.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister appears to have misapprehended the point of my remarks. What I was trying to establish was what the position would be if this amendment carries. I think we have that clear now. Under this act it will be possible to make regulations governing explosives, even though they are still under the control of the Minister of National Defence. I think that is a good thing. I am not worried about encroaching on the power of the Department of National Defence. That is the effect of the amendment now before us.
Then the minister goes on and says it is subsequently proposed to introduce another amendment, I suppose laying down the conditions upon which and the limits within which those regulations making this act applicable to the Department of National Defence may be drawn up and enacted. Well, that is all right, except that I hope the authority given under the proposed amendment to section 4 will not be too widely used so as to make it almost impossible for the minister to make regulations applying to the Department of National Defence, because I observed in my reading of the debate in the Senate, where this bill originated-and it was a limited debate-that great concern was expressed there by certain honourable senators, whom I am not going to quote, as to the necessity for power to regulate the conditions under which the Department of National Defence might handle explosives.
Therefore it seems to me that the amendment to section 3 of the bill is designed to give the minister power to do that-I am glad he will have that power-yet under section 4 his power is limited. Perhaps I cannot add too much to it. I do not see the need of the amendment to section 4, personally.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have one question for the minister. He referred to explosives of the Department of National Defence being carried in vehicles. What would be the position of explosives of the Department of National Defence being carried in vessels? A large quantity of ammunition is moved from the mainland of British Columbia to various magazines on Vancouver island. It is transported by commercial vessels, not by naval vessels; by steamship, by tug and barge.


George Prudham: In that instance the Department of Transport would have control of explosives transported by ship.


George Randolph Pearkes: Then this act does not cover the movement of explosives of the Department of National Defence by water, by vessel?


George Prudham: We control only transportation by road. The Department of Transport would have jurisdiction over the shipment of explosives in civilian vessels. If it were a national defence ship the Department of National Defence would have control.


George Randolph Pearkes: Does it require an act of parliament to cover that point? Would the Department of Transport not be governed by this act, as well as the minister's department?


George Prudham: The governor in council makes regulations under the Canada Shipping Act to cover such circumstances as my hon. friend mentions.


Mr. Nowlan:: Does the minister mean that if explosives are being transported in Halifax harbour to the magazine, and a situation develops such as developed two years ago, control of the shipment would not be covered by this amendment to the act? Surely we are not being told that we have an Explosives Act dealing with the shipment of explosives in Canada, yet when they are moved by water they come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport. I am sure the Minister of Transport would be much surprised to find out that he is responsible for that.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the amendment carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are waiting for an answer.


George Randolph Pearkes: We are waiting for an answer.


George Prudham: I have nothing further to add. The regulations governing the carriage of explosives on vessels would come under the Minister of Transport.


George Clyde Nowlan: This act has nothing to do with the transport of any explosives by water under any circumstances whatsoever?


George Prudham: By ship or vessel, no.


George Clyde Nowlan: By water; I do not care whether by vessel or what.


George Prudham: No.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am asking about the transport of explosives by water. This act has nothing to do with that?


George Prudham: Not by ships or vessels. I understand we have control of shipment made by barge or small craft.


George Clyde Nowlan: In other words, with a situation such as developed at the Halifax magazine more than two years ago, the matter
Explosives Act
would come under the minister rather than under the Minister of Transport? Is that correct?


George Prudham: Would the hon. member mind repeating his question?


George Clyde Nowlan: As I understand it, then, a situation such as occurred two years ago at Halifax, when explosives were being transported to the magazine and an explosion occurred, would come under the minister, or would it come under the control of the Minister of Transport? I said two years ago. It was longer than two years ago.


George Prudham: I do not know the circumstances to which my hon. friend refers. I could not say.


George Clyde Nowlan: I will tell the minister. If he does not know he should know, because he is responsible for the administration of this act and for the control of explosives. Explosives were being transported in Halifax harbour by barge. Owing to some circumstances which were investigated the explosives caught fire, and as a result there were a series of explosions which caused loss to the Department of National Defence and also to the city of Halifax. As those explosives were being transported on that particular day, would the control of that transport come under the minister who is piloting this bill through the house or would it come under the control of the Minister of Transport?


George Prudham: That is a very reasonable question. I have asked the director of the explosives division to come in, and I shall get the answer.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 2 as amended carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As I understand it, the minister has drawn this distinction. If explosives are in barges or in small craft, then they come under this act; but if they are not in barges or small craft, in other words if they are in larger vessels, then they come under the Department of Transport. Those terms seem very vague to me. Are they defined in any way? How small is "small"?


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, this department has jurisdiction over explosives used by all craft not regulated by the Canada Shipping Act.


George Clyde Nowlan: What craft are regulated by the Canada Shipping Act?


George Prudham: Anything over 10 tons registered.

Explosives Act


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is another thing I do not understand. The minister has used [DOT]a word which puzzles me. He said explosives used by what?


George Prudham: Transported by.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And that applies to 10 tons and under. That is small craft. Does that apply to a barge, for example?


George Prudham: It would if the tonnage happened to be less than 10 tons. If the tonnage of the craft, regardless of whether it was a barge, boat or ship, was under 10 tons this department would have jurisdiction.


George Clyde Nowlan: Has the minister consulted with the Department of Transport to see if that department has regulations governing the transportation of explosives in craft over 10 tons and parallel with these regulations. What is the purpose of passing this act if it should so happen that the Department of Transport permits the movement of explosives without any parallel regulations.


George Prudham: The answer is yes.


George Clyde Nowlan: Are the regulations the same?


George Prudham: They are not the same, but there is no conflict.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Where exactly does that leave us, Mr. Chairman? They are not the same, or so we are told, but presumably they are as good. Why are we labouring over all this to ensure the safety of the public when we might find there is another act which may deal with it in an entirely different way. Can we assume it is just as good?


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Transport has regulations under the Canada Shipping Act governing the transportation of explosives. I am sorry I do not happen to have a copy of the regulations here, but I am given to understand they are drafted and designed to protect the public safety. I would suggest that perhaps when the Minister of Transport's estimates come up hon. members might then be able to obtain the details.


George Clyde Nowlan: I know very well, Mr. Chairman, that the minister should not be held responsible for the regulations of the Department of Transport. It is quite obvious we cannot expect him to answer for that department. But if there were regulations of the Department of Transport they were either not enforced or were very poorly drafted and prescribed because of what we know happened in Nova Scotia some years ago. I am wondering just what authority there is for the passing of these regulations by the Minister of Transport. Is there a

section in the Canada Shipping Act with reference to the passing or making of regulations for the control of explosives? If so, why should we have this long act before us now dealing with this matter if it can be dealt with by any minister by simply passing regulations?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the clause as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the minister has nothing further to say to the hon. member who has just spoken, I want to ask him a question.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, I cannot speak for the Department of Transport. The bill before us is to amend the regulations as regards explosives under the control of this department. We have the control of explosives transported by road and control over the manufacture and storage of explosives, but we do not have control over shipping in so far as the transportation of explosives is concerned, and I am sorry I cannot answer the hon. member's question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But that does not seem to make sense. If in fact what we are doing now is trying to tighten up and improve the carriage 'of explosives in the manner the minister has explained, and in accordance with the restrictions he has outlined, then I presume this bill was brought in because it was considered an improvement on the existing situation. If that is so, can the minister say what improvement he is making within his jurisdiction, which presumably is worth while making because we have this bill? Are we going to have a situation left in the Department of Transport where no improvement is being made, or are the improvements contained in this bill applicable to explosives being transported by sea.


George Prudham: That is right. It is considered an improvement.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If that is the minister's answer I will accept it for the moment.


George Clyde Nowlan: The minister has told us that the amendment which he has introduced and which the chairman is asking us to agree to is being made at the instigation or suggestion of the Department of National Defence in so far as this act is concerned. What is the position of the Department of National Defence with respect to the shipping act. If there are regulations which are parallel are they being amended? If not, why not; and if not, why should this bill be brought in?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 2 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, I have just been told that the Department of National Defence observes the rules applying to the shipment of explosives while such explosives are on vessels under the control of the Department of Transport. The Department of National Defence observes the regulations laid down under the Canada Shipping Act regarding explosives. That is as much as I can tell the hon. member.


Léoda Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, the minister said a few moments ago that this bill covers the transportation of explosives by road. Can he tell me if consideration is being given to increasing the tonnage of explosives that may be carried in respect to road transportation?


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, I answered the hon. member on that point on a previous occasion. The whole matter is being reviewed at the present time with the provincial and municipal authorities in order to determine if any increase in the load limit is justified.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 2
carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I understand the minister is going to move an amendment at the end of this clause.


George Prudham: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I want to ask him this. I
grant it may not be of any fundamental importance at first sight, but I am one of those people who cannot understand the necessity of amending a statute unless the necessity becomes apparent. I would ask the minister to read paragraph (b) in clause 3 carefully and compare the new subsection (b) with the present subsection (b). In the explanatory notes to the bill we find the following:
This amendment will authorize regulations to provide for the suspension or cancellation of licences, permits and certificates, as for example, where the holder thereof fails to comply with any provision of the act, the regulations or the terms or conditions of licences, permits or certificates.
Subsection (b) now says that the governor in council may make regulations-
(b) prescribing the form and duration of licences, permits and certificates issued under this act, the terms and conditions upon which such licences, permits and certificates shall be issued, and the fees to be paid therefor;
Surely if the governor ini council has the right to prescribe the terms and conditions
Explosives Act
under which such licences will be issued, he would have the right to say that if you commit a breach of the terms or conditions or of anything else under the act or of any regulation under the act, your licence or certificate shall be cancelled. I therefore cannot see the slightest suggestion of any necessity for this amendment.
If the minister is prepared to say that some legal authority exists or some case in which he has tried to make a regulation or in which the governor in council has tried to make a regulation prescribing the conditions upon which the licence shall be cancelled, and that that regulation has not stuck, then all right; perhaps there is a need for the amendment. Otherwise it seems to me that the section in its present form gives him an absolute right to decide the terms and condh tions upon which the suspension or cancellation of a licence, permit or certificate will follow. I cannot see any need for this amendment, and I think it is wasting the time of the committee to have a section presented in this form.


George Prudham: I do not think the hon. gentleman should accuse me of wasting time in this chamber.


James Sinclair: The minister is the last man he should accuse of that.


George Prudham: This amendment is intended to clarify the powers given under that section. It gives authority to the governor in council to provide regulations for the cancellation and suspension of licences, permits and certificates. The regulations will fix the conditions under which licences, permits and certificates may be cancelled or suspended.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You could do that now.


George Prudham: The reason for cancellation or suspension will be such things as overstocking of explosives or storing initiating explosives with blasting explosives. The regulations will also provide for temporary disposition or storing of the explosives pending further action, such as the laying of a charge against a delinquent and the disposition of such charge or charges. Section 16 of the act which is repealed by this bill provides for the suspension and cancellation of such licences, permits and certificates, but only after a person has been charged with any violation of the provisions of the act or regulations. This condition makes the administration of the act very difficult, in that most of the violations of the act are committed in very remote places with the result that an unnecessary delay in the suspension might result in a very serious accident which might otherwise be avoided.

Explosives Act
In the second amendment under clause 3 of the bill the word "conditions" has been added for obvious reasons. It is not only necessary to prescribe the manner in which explosives shall be handled and stored but also the conditions under which such explosives may be stored. Conditions vary according to circumstances. This gives the governor in council power to prescribe for conditions as they may develop.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask the minister this question. Has he ever issued a permit or licence prescribing that if the holder of the permit or licence commits a breach of any of the regulations made under the act or of any of the provisions of the act, his licence shall be cancelled, and had that provision in the licence questioned in the courts?


George Prudham: One of the purposes of this amendment is to prescribe that the terms of the licence should apply as well as the regulations under the act. That was indefinite before.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My point is this. The minister is now going to have the right to authorize regulations to provide for suspension or cancellation of licences, for example, where the holder fails to comply with any provision of the act or the regulations or the terms of the licence.


George Prudham: Regulations or the terms of the licence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No; the regulations or the terms or conditions of the licence, permit or certificate. If the minister makes it a term upon which he grants the licence that any breach of the regulations or provisions of the act shall result in suspension or cancellation of the licence, it seems to me that is all the power he needs; and he has that power now, as I read the present provision. I want to know whether the minister or his predecessor ever tried to impose conditions upon the breach of which a licence would be suspended or cancelled and had it questioned in the courts or elsewhere, as to whether he has any right to impose such conditions, because it seems to me that he has the clearest right to impose such conditions at the present time.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 3 carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


George Prudham: I am told that in certain instances in the past it was impossible to prosecute because a misdemeanor was a breach of the terms of the licence rather than of a specific regulation. We are now proposing to make the specific regulation, so that it will be possible to prosecute if necessary.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then there have been cases in the experience of the department-and this was my question some time ago-where it has not been possible to prosecute. We are not dealing with prosecution here. We are dealing with cancellation of a licence. As I see it, this section does not seek to confer any right of prosecution. This section merely seeks to make it possible to impose terms or conditions upon which the licence will be cancelled. Therefore the argument which is now given is not relevant to this consideration at all, namely that prosecutions could not be launched. The question is this. Could you cancel the licence? Have you ever tried to cancel a licence or to impose terms regarding the suspension of a licence which you were not able to enforce?


George Prudham: My understanding is that under the act as it was previously, you had to prosecute before you could cancel a licence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You had to prosecute?


George Prudham: You had to prosecute before you could cancel. This provision permits cancellation prior to the legal procedure.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I am unable to follow the argument. I must confess that one of the disadvantages we are under here is that while this bill was apparently considered by the banking and commerce committee of the Senate, and these amendments were reported to the Senate, the discussion in the other house occupied just under one full page of Hansard. There is no detailed discussion of the amendment, and unfortunately there is no Hansard report of proceedings in the committee of the other house. There is therefore not much we can get by way of previous information about this bill.
I regret that I am unable at the moment to understand the application of the argument being made by the minister. This section does not ask for the right to prosecute. I cannot understand that on any previous occasion it would have been necessary to prosecute before you could cancel the licence, because the minister had the power to prescribe the form and duration of the licence and the terms and conditions upon which it should be issued. Therefore, if he had that power, he could have said that one of the terms upon which the licence was issued was that any breach of the regulations or other provisions of this act would result in automatic cancellation. Why would he have to prosecute? Surely he would cancel, and then the person holding the licence might bring an action questioning his right to cancel.

I am asking the minister if any such action was ever brought and whether the right to cancel has ever been questioned by the courts. I have not had an answer yet.


George Prudham: I am told that our legal
advisers doubted the validity of the previous clause, and this amendment will give the same powers to the terms of a licence that we now have by regulation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, well, Mr. Chairman, it
becomes a little bit problematical as to whether one should hold up this clause any further. I can only say that the minister has not satisfied me. I say, with due respect, that he has not satisfied me that he needs this amendment in order to have the power to cancel licences. I certainly do not question the good faith of his legal advisers or anybody else who is advising him, but I say in all seriousness that ministers should not bring amendments before the house without being able to give us more substantial grounds for them than are now being presented to us. Having made that comment, I shall not continue to oppose the adoption of this section.


George Prudham: I should like to read the proposed amendment once again:
Add to clause 3 of the bill a new subclause as follows:
(3) Section 4 of the said act is further amended by striking out the word "and" after paragraph (m) thereof, by inserting the word "and" at the end of paragraph (n) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraph:
(o) prescribing the circumstances in which explosives shall for the purposes of this act be deemed to be or not to be under the direction or control of the Minister of National Defence.
I would ask my colleague the Associate Minister of National Defence to so move.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 4-Authorized explosives only.
Mr. Harkness:: I have two questions I
should like to ask the minister on this clause. What is meant by "authorized explosive" as found in the last line of the clause? In other words, what is the difference between an authorized explosive and an unauthorized explosive? Second, what is the position under this clause, and I presume also under the foregoing clause, of a farmer who has a certain amount of dynamite on his farm for the purpose of blowing up stumps or 83276-123J
Explosives Act
anything else he may use it for? Is he required to have a permit or a legal form to have the dynamite in his possession?


George Prudham: Supplementary to what I said earlier, no one needs a permit to buy explosives at the present time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Under this section apparently a man needs a permit in order to have them in his possession or to store them or to use them. That is why I want to know the position of a farmer who uses a little dynamite for ordinary purposes around his farm?


George Prudham: An authorized explosive is an explosive that has been tested by the explosives division of this department and has been given authorization as a safe explosive. Any explosive that does not have' that authorization is illegal.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I understand it, if a man has an explosive which has not been given explicit authorization by the department he is in breach of the law. How is he to know whether or not it has been given authorization?


George Prudham: Only authorized explosives are manufactured in Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What about the ones that are imported?


George Prudham: Imported explosives also have to have a clearance or authorization from this department.


Douglas Scott Harkness: To come back to my question about the farmer, which the minister has not answered, the minister said that the farmer did not have to have a permit in order to purchase explosives, but what about this section that says he may not have them in his possession or store or use them?


George Prudham: The section is designed to cover explosives that might be imported for purposes of experimentation. It regulates the quantity and the conditions under which such explosives may be imported.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 4 carry?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In order to be sure on this point, do I understand the minister to say that a farmer can buy, keep and use explosives without a permit?


George Prudham: An authorized explosive, anything that is authorized.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter Edward Harris: On Thursday we shall continue with this debate. When it is concluded we shall take second reading of the bill to amend the Patent Act; then second reading of the bill respecting the Canadian forces, the bill respecting benefits for members of the Canadian forces, the bill respecting the War Service Grants Act, the bill respecting
the national battlefields at Quebec, the bill with respect to the northwest Atlantic fisheries as a consequence of the resolution having passed tonight, and then second reading of the bill to amend the Telegraphs Act. It has been suggested that on Friday we might consider the Criminal Code throughout the day.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 10, 1954