1957-04-08

AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Jutras.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 413, to implement an agreement between Canada and the Netherlands for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.


Mr. Macdonnell:: May I ask the minister for an explanation?


James Joseph McCann: These three bills we are
introducing this morning relate to agreements between Canada and the Netherlands with respect to the avoidance of double income tax, Canada and the Union of South Africa for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, and Canada and the Union of South Africa with respect to the avoidance of double taxation with respect to death duties. They are similar to bills introduced on previous occasions whereby there is a treaty having to do with fiscal matters in order to avoid double taxation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When the minister says they are similar does he mean to agreements with these countries or with other countries? Are these the first agreements with these countries?


James Joseph McCann: They are the first agreements with these countries, but they are similar to agreements we have had with the United States, France, Great Britain and other countries.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.




James Joseph McCann: for leave to introduce Bill No. 414, to implement an agreement between 82715-2041
Canada and the Union of South Africa for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SUCCESSION DUTY


James Joseph McCann: for leave to introduce Bill No. 415, to implement an agreement between Canada and the Union of South Africa for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to death duties.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 20-Mr. Dufresne:
For a copy of all payrolls, lists of materials and other documents showing detailed accounts in connection with repairs to the hill leading to the wharf at Caplan, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, during the months of November and December, 1956.
Motion agreed to.
HUNGARIAN REFUGEES, ONTARIO Motion No. 22-Mr. Hollingworlh:
For a copy of all memoranda, correspondence, agreements and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the provincial government of Ontario, since February 18, 1957, to date, regarding the immigration, reception, care, placement, etc., of Hungarian refugees.
Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get the concurrence of the Ontario authorities before complying with this motion, but I have no reason to think they would object.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 26-Mr. Fulton:
For a copy of all letters, memoranda, or other correspondence and/or minutes of conversations exchanged between the president or secretary or other official of the national Liberal federation and the chairman or any other officer of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation since 1st January, 1956, and in the possession of the Canadian Broadcasting
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers
Corporation, referring to any particular broadcast (whether delivered or proposed) sponsored or originated by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. gentleman to allow this motion to stand until tomorrow or the next day.


Mr. Fulton:: On Wednesday last the minister asked me to let the motion stand in order that he might consult with officials of the C.B.C. As it is close to dissolution it seems to me the better course would be for us to carry the motion now and, if there is found to be no such correspondence, the minister can make a nil return.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, my reason for asking that it stand is that I intended to have further conversations this morning with the authorities concerned, but I was unable to reach them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect, I submit that
makes no difference in principle. We say we are entitled to ask for the production of the correspondence and documents, and if there are no such documents then of course a nil return would be made. In order to have the matter settled I must say that with regret I am unable to accept the minister's request, Mr. Speaker, and would ask you to put the motion.



WHARF REPAIRS, PABOS MILLS, GASPE COUNTY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 28-Mr. Van Horne:
For a copy of all payrolls in connection with the work done to the wharf of L'Anse-aux-Canards at Pabos Mills, county of Gaspe, Quebec, during the month of June, 1956.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 29-Mr. Goode:
On the order:
For a copy of all letters or other correspondence and/or minutes of conversations exchanged between any member of the official opposition in the House of Commons, and the chairman or any other officer of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation since January 1, 1955, referring to any particular broadcast (whether delivered or proposed) sponsored or originated by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: With regard to this
matter, we are most anxious to have it passed. The hon. member who proposed the motion was here a moment ago, and we would substitute a mover if we could. We do not have the same feelings as the government regarding the production of papers.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition realizes, of course, that the hon. member who sponsored this motion has the responsibility for it.


Mr. Fleming:: He was here a moment ago.


Mr. Speaker:: There is, however, no
machinery by which I can go and bring him back.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is in and out like the Leader of the Opposition.
Motion stands.



UNION STEAMSHIPS LIMITED SUBVENTION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 30-Mr. Hahn:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged between the government and Union Steamships Limited, relating to the application for and receipt of a subvention as included in the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1957, item No. 496; and item No. 610 of the supplementary estimates (3) for that same year, as well as any similar information relative to item No. 495 of estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958.
He said: In view of my discussion with respect to this motion with the Minister of Transport, and on the assurance of the Minister of Finance that there will be an opportunity to present this motion at a later date, I am prepared to let it stand at the present time.
Motion stands.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 31
Mr. Robichaud:: For a copy of all letters and telegrams exchanged between the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the premier of the province of New Brunswick, from March 1, 1957, to date, regarding storage on the Tobique river, New Brunswick, and the construction of the third unit at Beechwood, New Brunswick.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 32-Mr. Nowlan:
For a copy of all tenders received by the Minister of Public Works, or any agent or official of his department, during the fiscal year 1956-57, in connection with the following: (a) breakwater-wharf repairs at Chapel cove, Nova Scotia; (b) wharf reconstruction at Caribou, Nova Scotia; (c) harbour improvements at Bayfield, Nova Scotia; (d) dredging at Howard's cove. Prince Edward Island; (e) wharf repairs at Cribbin's point, Nova Scotia.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Bourgel:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. friend would let this stand until tomorrow, because I will have an opportunity of discussing it with the minister this afternoon.


Mr. Nowlan:: That will mean Wednesday, I presume. I will let it stand at the request of the parliamentary assistant.
Motion stands.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that everyone expects the session to end this week, would the Prime Minister say what is the situation relative to the projected prime ministers' conference? When is it expected to be held? Would he also add a word as to his hopes that in the future conferences such as this will be held in Canada and other parts of the commonwealth?


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to make any definite answer with respect to the prime ministers' conference. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is endeavouring to arrange a conference, and I have been informed that it would not be possible to arrange it for this summer unless it were to start not later than June 26.
I know he is in correspondence with the other prime ministers, and I have informed him that although that would not be the most convenient time for a conference so far as a Canadian delegation is concerned, no Canadian delegation would wish to be the cause of there not being a conference if it could not be otherwise arranged.
Now, with respect to this matter of whether there will soon be a prime ministers' conference in Canada, I cannot add anything to what I have already said. I understood that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was very anxious to have the forthcoming conference in London, but wished at that time to have the matter of alternating them among the United Kingdom and the capitals of other commonwealth countries discussed.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: In
view of the uncertainty of the answer the Prime Minister has given the L.ader of the Opposition regarding the proposed prime

Inquiries of the Ministry ministers' conference, would the Prime Minister express at that conference, when it is held, the desire of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr, Rowe:: Mr. Speaker, I observe the applause, but I would not like to be too sure who is going to be prime minister; I think it depends upon many things. But I hope the Prime Minister will suggest an early commonwealth trade conference, as is so desired by the people of Canada.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker,
I have already expressed to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom the desire of Canada to have a meeting here as soon as that would be convenient to the governments of all the other members of the commonwealth; and if and when this forthcoming conference takes place, and I am in attendance, I will certainly express the same desire to all the prime ministers present.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the excellent statement made by Mr. Dunton in Montreal on Saturday that the C.B.C. is not subject to the direction of a minister of the crown regarding its broadcasting, will the minister consider discontinuing his practice of making representations to the C.B.C. regarding its programming, as he indicated to the house last Wednesday he had been doing?


James Joseph McCann: The answer is no.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. T. Stick (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources what progress has been made in connection with the national park for Newfoundland?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the boundaries have now been defined, and I expect that a formal agreement will be signed between this government and the government of Newfoundland within the next 10 or 15 days.
[Mr. Rowed


An hon. Member:: Before the election?


Jean Lesage: We work on this side, we don't lose time trying to play tricks.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister comment on the report concerning indications of control stiffness in the CF-100, and will he inform the house whether to his knowledge this problem has been the cause of any crashes involving the type of aircraft in question?
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National
Defence): About ten days ago there was some evidence shown in certain CF-100 planes that stiffness of the controls had developed under certain conditions of climate and temperature, and as a precautionary measure, while maintaining air defence operations, we did cut down training flights to a minimum in the interests of safety.
The matter has been under investigation by R.C.A.F. personnel and by officials of the Avro company, and I understand some progress has been made in dealing with the situation. So far as we know the weakness which did display itself on a few occasions has not been the cause of any crashes, although that is very difficult to say with certainty. It is not an extremely serious matter, and I expect that a solution will be found within a few days.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: I
wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government yet received any answer to the protest made to the United States government concerning the baseless slanders on Mr. Norman's name?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, we have
not yet received a formal reply, but we expect to get one within the next day or two.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: In view of
the continued attacks on the name of Mr. Norman, does the government intend to make any further representations in an attempt to stop this iniquitous procedure?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The question of what the
government can do to prevent this procedure in the future as it affects Canadians is now under consideration, and I hope to have an announcement to make on that point, perhaps tomorrow.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: I
would like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister inform the house when we might expect a report on the universal application of the five-day 40-hour week for employees of the Department of National Defence, a report he promised on February 14 last?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I cannot promise a report by any
specific date. Our officials, officials of the civil service commission, and officials of the Department of Labour have been making continued studies on this matter, and until they have reported I cannot act on any recommendations they may make.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Could the minister say
whether we might expect a report before the dissolution of the house?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would think not, but I
cannot say definitely.



REFERENCE TO UNSIGNED LETTER INCLUDED IN RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zapliiny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. Assuming that the minister does not approve of anonymous letters directed either to the government or sent by the government, I am going to send him a letter dated March 6 which I hope he will identify, written to the minister of industry and commerce of the province of Manitoba.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in order to shed some light on the point raised by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny), may I say that he sent over to me a return of a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the federal government and the provincial government of Manitoba with particular respect to grain facilities at lakehead terminals. On that return there appears to be a copy of a letter from myself to Hon. Mr. Jobin, the
Inquiries of the Ministry Manitoba minister of industry and commerce, on which there is no indication of a signature by me.
I would suggest to the hon. member for Dauphin that in the very unlikely event that I sent this letter to Mr. Jobin without my signature upon it, since it is now in his possession and not in the possession of any civil servant here, it does not look as if they would know that. It looks as if the failure to print my signature on the copy of this letter is merely a clerical error.
I therefore send this return back to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, and suggest he should take up the time of the house with more important matters.



REQUESTS FOR ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting for the appropriate opportunity. I do not think such a statement is called for on the orders of the day.']
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, arising out of the authoritative statement which appears in Hansard on page 1651 of the edition of February 26 of this year. When can I expect to receive an answer to my question No. 238 on the order paper?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to get an answer in the course of the next day or two. I may say I made a personal investigation of the potatoes at Abbotsford and two or three other places when I was in British Columbia, and I could not find anything but British Columbia potatoes anywhere.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance when I may expect to have an answer to my question No. 275 on the order paper?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think a draft answer is on my desk, and as soon as the orders of the day are over I can correct it, if necessary, and the hon. member may have it some time today.


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldt-Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture would answer the question which has been standing in my name on the order paper since March 7.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I shall look up the matter and report later.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I have looked up the question to which the hon. member

Inquiries of the Ministry for Humboldt-Melfort referred a few moments ago. I should like to say to him that the answer has passed me, and I expect it is on its way.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister now in a position to give the house some information in reply to my question regarding a Belgian restaurant keeper?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I was informed that the gentleman in question paid his own fare across the Atlantic and is travelling at his own expense in Canada.


CRIMINAL LAW
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Borden Hamilton: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Since we are getting close to the end of the session, is there any hope of the McRuer report on sex criminals being available to hon. members of the house before dissolution?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I would not think there was. It will depend in part on the matter of translation and printing. I would not want to undertake at this moment to make the assertion that it will be available, and even if it were I would not think it likely that there would be too much time in this session for consideration of it.


Mr. Hamilfon (York Wesf):: Does that mean that the report has been written and it is simply the case now that we are waiting for the printing to be done?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I don't think that is the case; but I would want to check before I made a statement to that effect.


INQUIRY AS TO RESEARCH INTO NEW USES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, on February 7 I asked the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys if he was prepared to make a statement respecting developments in the field of research so far as coal is concerned. The minister's answer was, "Yes, at the first opportunity". I take it that meant


that he would make a statement at the first opportunity. Is the minister yet able to make a statement in that regard?


Hon. George Prudham (Minisier of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting for the appropriate opportunity. I do not think such a statement is called for on the orders of the day.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce? Is it correct, as reported in the Financial Post, that Mr. J. D. Barrington, president and managing director of the government-owned Polymer Corporation Limited, has been appointed a director of McIntyre Porcupine Gold Mines Limited?
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I saw the report. I have not inquired from Mr. Barrington whether or not it is correct. If my hon. friend is interested I will try to get the information.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce regard it as appropriate for the managing director of a crown corporation to be on the board of directors of a private company which has been receiving subsidies from the federal treasury of half a million dollars a year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a question of ethics on which I would need to get an expert opinion.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to address a
question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it the intention to proceed today with the agricultural products marketing bill after the health insurance bill has been considered? Would the minister say whether or not representations have been received by him or other members of the cabinet in opposition to the bill? If so, from whom have they been received, and will the minister table the representations that have been made?
Hon. V/. E. Harris (Minisier of Finance):
Mr. Speaker, may I answer with respect to the procedural part of the question.

Representations have been received this morning, not in opposition to the bill but suggesting certain amendments which might carry out more effectually the purpose of the bill, and those suggestions are to be followed by more direct reference to what is desired. Just before we came into the house I gave the assurance that until we had received the particular representations the bill would not be called or, at any rate, not passed. I think telegrams are to be received which will tell us precisely what is required but these representations are not in objection to the bill. They are for the purpose of furthering the bill.
On the other point I have no answer to make because I have received no objections to the bill. As soon as I have received the representations I have mentioned, we shall consider them to see whether or not the bill ought to be delayed, or whether the proposed amendments coming forward could be put in the bill in the normal course at the committee stage.


John George Diefenbaker: So the position is that the minister is not certain at the moment whether we will proceed with that legislation today following the health insurance bill. Will the minister also answer the other suggestion that any representations made adverse to the bill in its present form should be tabled? I think they should so that as the result of consideration of both sides of the question the best possible bill may be achieved.


Walter Edward Harris: That would be for the Minister of Agriculture to decide. So far as I was concerned, all I was pointing out was that if the hospital insurance bill should carry before one o'clock we would have to proceed this afternoon with some other business until we received the representations I have mentioned and have considered them.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall that there are any specific representations against the bill, although I shall look into the matter. However, I think there was one telegram received, with a letter probably to follow, suggesting that if it was the intention to proceed someone might have objections to make, but I do not think any have been made. I will look into the matter to make sure.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, April 4, consideration in committee of Bill No. 320,
Health Insurance
to authorize contributions by Canada in respect of programs administered by the provinces, providing hospital insurance and laboratory and other services in aid of diagnosis -Mr. Martin-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions
The Chairman:: I understand that we carried clause 1 and are now discussing clause 2.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, when we were last discussing clause 2 there were a number of features in the clause which came under consideration. I should like to say a further word about one of the matters, and what I wish to say is by way of comment on a statement made by the minister.
We have contended that this legislation, which provides for a sharing of hospital costs between the federal and provincial levels of government, should include the hospitalization of patients in tuberculosis hospitals and hospitals for the mentally ill. One of the arguments used by the minister in opposing our contention that there should be this extension is contained in a sentence or two to be found on page 3122 of Hansard for April 4, 1957. At that point the Minister of National Health and Welfare said:
We are simply following the pattern that exists in the province of Saskatchewan where tubercular patients and mentally ill patients are not covered by the hospital insurance scheme which, as my hon. friend knows, is basically on premium; but tney are covered under a separate account for tubercular people and mentally ill people.
The minister went on to say that the same practice is observed in British Columbia, and so on. It seems to me that the minister is distorting the picture when he tries to take the position that the federal government is following the pattern established in a province such as Saskatchewan. It is true that in Saskatchewan there are two separate accounts. Those in tuberculosis hospitals and in hospitals for the mentally ill are paid for out of general account, whereas hospitalization in general hospitals is paid for out of a special account which is set up on an insurance basis including the payment of premiums.
The over-all fact is that in the province of Saskatchewan-and it is true in the province of British Columbia as well-any person who requires to go to hospital, whether it be a general hospital on the one hand or a tuberculosis or mental hospital on the other, has his hospitalization covered. We suggest that is the basic fact, namely that in the provinces to which the minister has referred all types of hospitalization for whatever disease are covered under provincial arrangements.

Health Insurance
The federal government is now proposing at long last to get into this field and to share in the cost of hospitalization. But the federal government proposes to share only in that portion of hospitalization which relates to hospitalization in general hospitals. In my view the minister cannot put forward the argument about the insurance principle because, so far as the federal payment is concerned, he has already asserted-in fact he has boasted of it-that the federal payment is to come out of general revenue. There is not to be imposed by the federal government any premium for the purpose of collecting the money that Ottawa will pay into this hospitalization scheme. The federal money comes out of general account in the same way that the payment for tuberculosis patients and the payment for mental patients in the provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia come out of the general funds of the provinces.
If the minister wants to use other arguments as to why the federal government does not wish to come into this scheme he is free to do so, but I suggest that it is not fair for him to say that the federal government is following the Saskatchewan pattern. The Saskatchewan pattern is for the state, as represented by the province, to provide hospitalization for patients in all hospitals whatever the nature of the disease. The pattern in this legislation is for the federal government to provide hospitalization only for those who are in general hospitals. It excludes those in tuberculosis hospitals and in hospitals for the mentally ill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And in nursing homes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We wish to express our regret at that exclusion. It is appropriate to raise this matter at this time because _we are dealing with clause 2 of the bill which, by paragraph (e), excludes services in tuberculosis hospitals and hospitals for the mentally ill as well as one other category. We hope that even yet, before this legislation comes into effect the government will reconsider its position and recognize that if it is going to go into the hospital field it should stop drawing this line between physiological illnesses and those in the category of mental diseases; that it should stop drawing the line between various other illnesses and tuberculosis, and should cover hospitalization for all diseases.
I submit that there is no particular problem of administration so far as the federal government is concerned, because the whole of the federal government's contribution is to be paid out of the general revenues and comes out of the consolidated revenue fund. We

continue to make the point that tuberculosis hospitals and mental hospitals should be included in this legislation.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Mr. Herridge:: I have not spoken on this bill before but I want to rise and support the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I think he put the argument very well indeed. I do not intend to take up a great deal of time. I see that the minister shakes his head but I do not agree with him in that respect.
I might say that I have had a great deal of experience in connection with hospital affairs, in fact, being a member of a hospital board since about 1912. I remember when our patient costs per day for the hospital of whose board I was chairman were $1.75, and that we considered that amount a bit excessive. Even at that time I remember people saying there was a need for a hospital insurance plan, which this is.
I am very glad that we are adopting this plan. However, I support the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his remarks concerning the omission of tubercular patients and mentally ill patients, who make up a large percentage of those who are sick in this country at this time. Along with a good many people across Canada who are interested in this question, and a good many responsible organizations, I believe that when we are dealing with hospital insurance we should so approach the problem as to make arrangements to care for all the sick and to meet the needs of all the population who require these services. In fact, in my opinion this is one of the major deficiencies of the bill. I hope in the future the minister will give some consideration to the criticism which has been voiced in the house, and which has been expressed by a good many responsible people in the country.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Mr. Blair:: Mr. Chairman, I mentioned this matter several times in this debate from the resolution stage onward. I refer to the question of the omission of mentally ill patients from this bill. I again wish to register our protest, because in my opinion this bill differentiates between one form of illness and another. The other day I said I thought it was a backward step even to recognize that type of thing.
I again point out the need for hospitalization for mental patients, the need for treatment, the growing percentage in Canada. Above all, I again point out that this legislation is differentiating between one form of illness and another. The mentally ill patient is no different, as I said the other day,

from the person who has pneumonia, cancer or anything else. He is a sick person. Mental illness is just as important as any other form of illness. I again register my protest this morning.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In order to give effect to the unanswerable argument put forward by the hon. member for Lanark I move:
That clause 2 of Bill 320 be amended by changing the word "but" to "and" and striking out the word "not" in line 8 on page 2.
Thus the words "but does not include" would be changed to read "and does include".


Mr. Martin:: I have not a copy of the amendment but, as read by my hon. friend, it is quite clearly out of order.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Mr. Fleming has moved that clause 2 of Bill 320 be amended by changing the words "but" to "and" and striking out the word "not" in line 8 on page 2.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I say, it is quite clear that this amendment is out of order as it would add to the financial obligations of the crown.
I just want to reply briefly, largely in connection with the observations made by the hon. member for Kootenay and the constructive spirit in which he made them. He may not have heard the argument that has been adduced before in connection with this question. He should not conclude that no disposition exists to look after tubercular and mentally ill patients, but should remember that this is a measure to provide assistance for general hospital care. It is not a measure intended to provide for the subsidization of responsibilities that are now accepted by the provinces, and in the discharge of which they provide substantially free care and treatment for those suffering from tuberculosis and mental illness.
This measure will provide for persons who are the victims of tuberculosis or mental illness and who are receiving treatment in general hospitals. If hon. members request that, under this hospital insurance measure, we provide for individuals in provincial mental or tuberculosis institutions, they are simply asking us to use this measure to subsidize provincial governments, and that it is not intended to do. Let it be clearly understood that individuals responsible for their own hospital care in general hospitals in respect of mental illness and tuberculosis are included in this bill, but individuals who are being treated in Whitby or in the institution at Brandon or at Essondale in British Columbia are not included.
If one puts forward the argument that they should be included in this bill, then one is 82715-205i
Health Insurance
putting forward an argument which we have threshed out over and over again, and which could not be accepted. Of course we fully agree with all the suggestions made concerning the importance of treating mental illness. We will continue to do our share under the national health program, in which the largest single grant goes toward mental health.
I do not think I need add anything more, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are we discussing the point of order or the substance of the matter?


William Alfred Robinson: Is the hon. member rising to speak to the point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am rising to answer the substance of the argument advanced by the minister.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Eglin-ton has moved that the word "but" be changed to "and" in the eighth line and also that the word "not" be struck out in line eight on page two. This would have the effect of removing the exclusions in paragraph (e), and I would be forced to the conclusion that this would increase the expense to the crown. I think I have referred to this question on a number of occasions and I need not elaborate upon it. However, I shall quote once again from May's fifteenth edition, page 678:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand or recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
I think the rule is quite clear, and I would be forced to declare the amendment out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say a word in reply to what the minister said the last time he was on his feet, regarding the matter of hospital for tuberculosis and mental illness. I am not going to repeat the arguments that have already been made in answer to other points in the debate, but I should like to answer his statement, if I took it down correctly, that the federal government does not wish to enter into the subsidization of responsibilities now accepted by the provinces. I think that is a fair resume of what the minister said a moment ago. He goes on from that to say that the provinces are now accepting the responsibility for the care and hospitalization of tubercular and mentally ill patients. His argument is that the federal government is not going to share in that responsibility.

Health Insurance
What is the difference between that and the responsibility that a province like Saskatchewan or British Columbia is already carrying with regard to hospitalization for all its residents? As the minister knows, the provinces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan, if this legislation goes through and comes into effect, will receive from the federal treasury money toward the responsibilities they are now carrying. If I may use the language the minister used a moment ago, it will be a form of subsidization of responsibilities now being carried by those two provinces I have named.
It seerns to me that that argument is rather weak. The government is doing precisely that in this legislation. It is offering to make a contribution in respect of programs administered by the provinces; it is offering to carry part of the load; it is offering to subsidize to some extent the responsibilities being carried by the provinces. The minister draws this hard and fast line between responsibilities the provinces accept regarding general illness and the responsibilities the provinces accept regarding these two particular types of illness. We think the government's argument does not stand up at all.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I should like to have a word on this matter of mental illness. I am sure the minister is aware, as are all hon. members of the house, that the problem of mental and emotional illness is one of our most difficult health problems at the present time.


Mr. Marlin:: We do that in another way.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I appreciate the minister's viewpoint. There is just one comment I want to make on this matter of excluding mental illness and tuberculosis from the provisions of the present bill. The minister is well aware that mental illness has always been placed in a special category by public opinion, and down through the years one of the major difficulties in dealing adequately with this problem of mental illness has been the misunderstanding on the part of the general public. There has been an attitude of discrimination, an attitude of misunderstanding surrounding the whole difficulty.
I gather that it is not the intention of the minister to place mental illness in a special category at all.


Murdo William Martin: Of course not; my hon. friend knows that.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: We are all aware that medical science today is of the opinion that mental and physical illness are inseparable. The field of psychosomatic medicine is pretty well a predominant approach to health problems today. Perhaps the minister, in scoring and

underlining in a special way this problem, I might say unintentionally, contributes to the tendency to place mental health problems outside the regular category.


Murdo William Martin: We are not putting them in a special category; that has already been done by the provinces. If my hon. friend will look at what I said last week-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This problem still prevails in connection with the public attitude toward mental illness. For example, the cost per day for hospitalization for mental illness is something like $2.92 while the cost today for care in a general hospital averages around $13. There is this tendency, it seems to me, to ignore the fact that mental illness is our basic health problem.
We are placing all the emphasis on what has been recognized down through the years as the more orthodox types of illness, but we have now come to the conclusion-


Murdo William Martin: This legislation is to help the individual who is paying his own costs. We are dealing with my hon. friend's suggestion through the mental health grant in the national health program.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, I admit, Mr. Chairman, that certain provisions have been made through the national health program. I have the Department of National Health and Welfare bulletin on the subject before me. I have the percentage breakdown of the grants under the mental health program. For example, in 1954-55 the total amount available was $7,234,868. It was broken down as follows: 55 per cent to mental hospitals; 10 per cent for mental health clinics; 10 per cent for psychiatric services in general hospitals; 10 per cent for research; 5 per cent for training; 5 per cent for bursaries; and 5 per cent for provincial mental health divisions. I conclude that the breakdown is much the same during the current fiscal year.
The point the minister has made in supporting the present grants is to the effect that adequate provision is made through psychiatric services provided in general hospitals. In other words the care of the mentally ill carried out by general hospitals is going to be included in these new health measures but, as these figures demonstrate, only 10 per cent of the existing grants is used in the division of psychiatric services in general hospitals.
The point I do want to make, without enlarging on my remarks, is that there is the unfortunate tendency all the way through the health measures to discriminate between mental illness and regular illnesses. With the very successful research going on today

in the chemical treatment of mental illness, the members of this house should do their utmost to ensure that we give primary and greatest emphasis to our greatest medical problem, which is the problem of mental illness.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


William Gourlay Blair: No. The minister said the purpose of this legislation was to assist the individual who was paying his own costs. The mental patients have difficulty; the insurance principle is difficult for them. They pay their costs even when they are declared mentally incapable; when they are put into a hospital the official guardian, if that is the correct description of the man in charge, takes over the estate so the patient does pay his costs. He does not have recourse to insurance. The situation in regard to insurance is just the same for the mental patient as for the other person who is ill-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Almost 90 per cent of the cost is borne by the provincial governments.


William Gourlay Blair: I know the provinces have to pay. If they do not pay for them, then it comes out of the estate. The moment a mental patient goes into a hospital the official guardian of the province of Ontario- I think he is the individual-takes over the estate. The hospital bills are paid out of the funds controlled by the official guardian. Therefore even if the province of Ontario does pay the costs they come out of the individuals-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The province pays almost 90 per cent.


Mr. Low:: May I ask the minister this
question. In his negotiations with the provinces, what position did they take on this very important matter? Did they request that mental illnesses be included with other illnesses and be covered by this hospital arrangement?


Murdo William Martin: The provinces naturally tried to get all the money they could, but there has been no persistent demand after it was revealed by the provinces themselves in the conference that they are bearing almost 90 per cent of the cost. There has been no insistent demand for it.


Solon Earl Low: Am I to understand, then, that the provinces were satisfied with this formula?


Murdo William Martin: Naturally the provinces would like to get all the money they could; but
Health Insurance
as we went around the table and each province indicated the extent to which it was bearing that responsibility the demand was not persisted in by them.


Solon Earl Low: I would like to carry this further. Is it possible that the official representatives of the provinces were told flatly that it was no use attempting to negotiate an arrangement such as has been proposed by the official opposition? Is that correct?


Murdo William Martin: They were asked what they paid and they told us. I think that indicates the position.


Solon Earl Low: If the provinces themselves have made strong representations to the minister that mental illness should be included, and if they are very much concerned about the rising costs of treatment of mental illness, then it certainly would seem to me that I would have to agree completely with the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Lanark and others who have spoken this morning that this is a matter which-


Murdo William Martin: The bill we are now discussing was passed out to every province two weeks ago. A year ago in the committee on estimates it was dearly pointed out that the provinces were now bearing those responsibilities themselves. It was pointed out that this legislation was intended to help individuals and not provincial governments in respect of their normally accepted responsibilities. The bill has now been sent to every province. We have heard from the province of Alberta. They did suggest a change in the bill with regard to authorized charges, but not one reference was made by that province or by any other province to this particular provision of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They knew it was no use.


Solon Earl Low: If right from the beginning they were told there would be no use in discussing it, I can understand why no reference was made to it. I cannot follow the minister's argument. Is it not true that my province already carries full responsibility for bringing the cost of hospitalization down to a certain maximum limit? The same argument could be used with respect to any illness. It would seem to me that this is just a question of the federal government having taken an adamant position and telling the provinces that this is as far as we are going to go, that they have to arrange their own affairs under this particular scheme being dreamed up. That is what it would look like to me.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why does the minister not be frank in the answer he gives the hon. member for Peace Paver? The provinces

Health Insurance
wanted the inclusion of patients in tubercular hospitals and hospitals for the mentally ill under the scheme, and the attitude taken by this government was to the contrary all the way through. The provinces have never acquiesced in this. They were simply told point-blank by the federal government that it would ignore such requests. There has not been any withdrawal from that position by any of the provinces. As a matter of fact, the minister and the government of which he is a member know perfectly well that if they would include the patients in hospitals for the mentally ill and hospitals for tubercular patients they would have more provinces coming in under the scheme, so we could bring it into effect much sooner. I do not think the minister has been at all frank in the statement he made this morning to the hon. member for Peace River.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I give you the report of the committee set up to discuss this matter in Nova Scotia. I read from paragraph 53 of that report:
In view of the present uncertainty on this subject, your committee is of the opinion that mental hospital treatment at this time cannot be included in a hospital plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has Nova Scotia agreed to the plan?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, would it be possible for the minister to inform the committee how much this new hospital provision will mean in increased assistance to the mentally ill?
Apparently the federal assistance at the moment is running around $7 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no segregation of the costs in institutions and in general hospitals at the moment but, as my hon. friend knows, the disposition to develop psychiatric treatment in general hospitals is on the increase. Right here in the city of Ottawa we have, in two hospitals, two psychiatric wards, which incidentally are provided for largely at the expense of the federal government. This is a practice that is growing more and more. The vast majority of people receiving mental treatment of course, are in the provincial institutions.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Just on that point again, Mr. Chairman, do I take it from the minister's remarks that so far as increased assistance toward the hospitalization of the mentally ill is concerned, this bill we have before us will be of no consequence.


Murdo William Martin: I did not say that. For every individual receiving this treatment in a general hospital it would be of very real consequence, but in respect of a mental institution which the government of the province is operating or providing for, it would not apply.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but the minister-


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is the same policy as that now followed with respect to the existing Saskatchewan and British Columbia schemes.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The minister concluded his remarks by saying, "Of course we know that most of the treatment is given in provincial mental hospitals." Now it seems to me, and I repeat this point, that mental illness, with which we are dealing, is the most difficult health problem. Unfortunately this measure is going to make no substantial contribution to the solution of that problem and I think, as we move into the field of health insurance or hospital insurance, we should be thinking more of the preventive measures than the curative ones. It has been demonstrated that many of the physical illnesses emerge from preliminary emotional and mental problems and, if we are going to emphasize the preventive aspect of these measures, it seems to me that we should give very careful thought to making provision for the inclusion of mental illness.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, every time the minister stands up and says the government is following a pattern set by the provinces in this regard he is, in effect, emphasizing the point that the provinces accept responsibility for hospitalization no matter what may be the nature of the disease, whereas the federal government is prepared to accept responsibility only for certain diseases. He cannot get away from that.
There is something else which the minister has done repeatedly and which he did again this morning in answer to the question of the hon. member for Peace River. He said that at the meeting in January of 1956 the provinces of course wanted all the money they could get and therefore they asked for the tuberculosis and mental hospitals to be included but, says the minister to the member for Peace River, when it was brought out that the provinces are already paying these costs, they accepted that fact. He tried to create the impression that the provinces have agreed that the federal government's plan goes far enough.
Now, of course, the provinces which have signed agreements in principle have, in effect, agreed that it is better to get this money

than none at all, but that does not mean they have necessarily agreed that the plan should not go further.
I have been drawing on British Columbia and Saskatchewan for my arguments a number of times this morning, and I now turn to Ontario. I have in my hand a copy of a booklet entitled "Hospital Care Insurance for Ontario"; this is the proposal of the Ontario government and it is dated January, 1957. I would emphasize that date, because the minister is trying to make out that this whole question was settled at the meetings here in Ottawa in January, 1956.
In this booklet the Ontario government sets out the fact that the federal government's proposal specifically excludes benefits for the hospitalization of patients having mental illness or tuberculosis. That is on page 11. Again, over on page 13, this Ontario government booklet protests that because the shareable items do not include tuberculosis and mental illness, it means that really the federal government proposes to share in perhaps no more than one-third of the cost of the entire program. That is a further protest against the fact that the costs in respect of these two types of hospitalization are not included.
Then I draw the attention of the minister to page 18 of this booklet, paragraph 6, which reads as follows:
Despite the refusal of the federal government to participate in the costs of care in mental hospitals and tuberculosis sanatoria, the government of Ontario does not believe that a hospital services program is truly comprehensive unless such services are included. The Ontario government, therefore, proposes to offer such additional coverage in its basic contract, to be financed by the Ontario government.
Unless the federal government changes its views with respect to the important area of mental and tuberculosis care-
The minister says that the provinces accepted this a year ago, in January, 1956; but in January, 1957, the government of Ontario is still expressing the hope which we are expressing now, that the federal government will change its views with regard to this matter. Perhaps I should read that full sentence:
Unless the federal government changes its views with respect to the important area of mental and tuberculosis care, the costs of the additional benefits of care in mental hospitals and tuberculosis sanatoria will be borne solely by Ontario.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As they always have been. That is the whole argument-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Up to the present time, in the provinces where there has been any state responsibility for hospital care at all, it has been borne solely by the provinces.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And the municipalities.
Health Insurance


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the municipalities. The federal government is coming into this field, but is coming in with only one foot instead of both feet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Turning now to page 19 of this booklet I read the following:
These are the essentials of the Ontario proposal for a federal-provincial hospital care insurance program. They are in close accord with the plan announced by the Prime Minister of Canada and the Minister of National Health and Welfare in January, 1956. The early acceptance of the Ontario proposal by the government of Canada will enable the necessary administrative steps to be taken to make basic hospital care insurance coverage available to all, irrespective of age, disability, or condition of employment.
My purpose in quoting from this Ontario booklet is to make the point that although in order to get something the provinces may have agreed in principle to the federal government's proposal, they still think the federal government should change its views with respect to the important area of mental and tuberculosis care.


Mr. Barneti:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to register my accord with the arguments advanced on this question of mental illness and tuberculosis treatment by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others. I do not think there is anything I can add to these arguments already advanced, but this is one matter which does come within the scope of the definition the minister gave a short time ago in reference to the costs which are incurred as an individual responsibility. I am referring to paragraph (f) (i) of Bill 320, which reads as follows:
in-patient services" means all of the following services to in-patients, namely,
(i) accommodation and meals at the standard or public ward level.
I would like to ask the minister first of all whether any of the existing provincial insurance plan coverage allows for any more coverage than is indicated in paragraph (f) (i>?


Murdo William Martin: I understand my hon. friend is asking whether what we are proposing to do here is more or less than what is done in any one of the provinces at the present time. These are benefits that are generally provided under the existing provincial schemes and under the Blue Cross scheme except that unlike in the case of the latter, we do not have any limit on the number of days of treatment a patient can receive.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I think that should be on the record at this point in the discussion, because I would have hoped that out of the federal participation in the hospital insurance coverage scheme it might have been possible to

Health Insurance
extend that basic minimum set forth in this paragraph (f)(i) concerning accommodation at the public ward level.
I want to make it clear I am not suggesting that those who have the means and the fancy to go into private wards should have their expenses covered under a national plan, but I do feel that before our hospital insurance coverage can be considered as complete as it should be, provision should be made under the plan to cover those who, because of the serious nature of their illness, may need private or semi-private ward care, probably under certification, to facilitate their recovery.
I raise this point now because I feel this is an important matter to which consideration should be given, and if it cannot be dealt with at this time it should certainly be the subject of future discussion and review between the responsible federal authorities and the provincial authorities. I realize this is something which would have to be worked out very carefully so it would not be subject to abuse. Nevertheless I think this is an important point and one which has not yet been incorporated into any of the existing provincial schemes, according to the statement the minister has made. If the minister has any information as to what consideration may have been given along the lines I have been suggesting I would be very glad if he will give us that information now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only say that no province proposed that we should go any further than we have gone. If at some future time we ever thought this would be desirable, it could always be done under this provision in subparagraph F(x) of section 2, but I am sure it is not the desire at the present time.


Mr. Castleden:: Mr. Chairman, I have
already registered my objection to the fact that this bill is represented by the minister's party as making hospitalization available to all when in reality it does not. It makes hospitalization available to all who come under a general hospitalization scheme, and that is just over half the hospital patients of Canada.
I would like to ask one or two questions of the minister. Since his department has the care of Indians in this country, what is to be the status of Indians under these proposals? Does this plan provide health insurance for Indians, and who would be paying the cost if that is the case?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We shall, of course, as I said the other day, continue to be responsible for Indians suffering from tuberculosis and mental illness, when hospitalized in tuberculosis and mental hospitals. But for general

hospitalization purposes the provinces must covenant to include all residents, including the Indians.


George Hugh Castleden: Then Indians in those provinces which come into the scheme will be covered by health insurance, but in any province which refuses to enter the scheme-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Except in tubercular and mental institutions, we will look after them there.


George Hugh Castleden: If the minister would set aside his legal technique of interfering with people when they are trying to make a statement it would help us both a great deal. I understand from his statement that in those provinces which come into the scheme the Indians will be covered by health insurance, but that in any province which refuses to come into the scheme there will be no health insurance under this plan for Indians. Is that correct?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The scheme must be universally available.


George Hugh Castleden: You still have not answered me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have. I have said the scheme must be universally available, except in the case of Indians suffering from tuberculosis or mental illness and hospitalized in tubercular and mental institutions. They will be the responsibility of the federal government. Indians are included as residents of the provinces and come within the ambit of universal availability.


Mrs. Shipley:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would tell the house whether the provision in clause 2 which says in effect that nursing service will be provided for in-patients means the regular nursing service provided by the hospital and paid for by them, or special nursing when necessary?


Murdo William Martin: It means the former.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Amount of contributions.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to say that if it were not out of order I would be moving an amendment at this point to the effect that the figure of 25 per cent, where it appears here in two places, should read 40 per cent. We accept the nature of this formula, but we think the total percentage paid by the federal treasury should be of the order of 80 per cent rather than of the order of 50 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Why not make it 100 per cent?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.

On clause 5-Provisions to be included in agreements.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear some comments from the minister regarding clause 5, subclause 2 (d). I ask about this because I understand some of the provinces are concerned as to how huch responsibility is placed on them by this provision in the matter of recovering costs where a third party is liable for damages. May I ask, specifically, whether a province has to wait until it has recovered such costs, or whether payment is made in advance? May I ask, also, how far a province would have to go in taking legal action under this clause? Perhaps the minister would comment on this subclause.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They would not have to wait. There would be interim payments and other payments afterwards. This is the same arrangement as exists under provincial legislation, and it is a very fair one. All they are called upon to do is take all proper and reasonable steps to effect such recovery.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does the minister mean by "all proper and reasonable steps"? Suppose you have a case where someone is hurt in an automobile accident in another province and the victim, shall we say, is transported to his home province and hospitalized there. Does the home province have to take legal action in the other province? What kind of an undertaking is necessary on the part of the province under the terms of this clause before the agreement is valid?
The minister says this is comparable to what is in the provincial legislation. I believe it is in the legislation of British Columbia, but I am not sure that it is in the legislation of Saskatchewan where you have, as a companion to this, a system of automobile insurance which covers everyone.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know whether it is in the legislation, but I am told it is certainly the administrative practice in Saskatchewan.
All that we are asking here is that when an individual has a right of action arising out of the negligence of someone else for which he could receive damages or costs awarded by way of adjudication the province shall be subrogated to that person's position. There would be no actual difficulty involved. Even in the case my hon. friend mentions, if the province cannot recover, there is nothing more to it; but there is no legal difficulty even in the case of an accident that happens in another province. In the meantime the federal government would make an interim payment, and there would be an adjustment later on.
Health Insurance


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the position is clear in the case of the individual, but in the province of Ontario there is an unsatisfied judgments fund which is available to persons who have suffered injury in a motor vehicle accident and who are not able either to locate or to collect from the person who is negligently responsible for the injuries they have suffered. Let us take a case where the injured person has collected from the unsatisfied judgments fund of the province, that fund having been built up by contributions from individual motor licencees in the province. What is going to be the position under this clause in such a case?


Murdo William Martin: It would depend whether such a person was legally entitled to recover the costs of such services from the responsible person.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of course the individual concerned has under the legislation parted with his right because his claim has been, at least pro tanto, satisfied out of the unsatisfied judgment fund, and the unsatisfied judgments fund is in turn subrogated to the rights of the injured plaintiff. What is the position then with the unsatisfied judgments fund holding the right of subrogation?


Murdo William Martin: I do not think I can add anything more than I have said already. Where such a person is legally entitled to recover the cost of such services as the result of negligence or wrongful act, then there will be subrogation of the rights of the entitled person to the province.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. The minister's statement does not clarify the position in that regard. It assumes that the individual is entitled to recover. In the case I am putting forward the individual has obtained his judgment. He must. Then, because the defendant cannot be located or because the defendant has not the means to satisfy the judgment, the individual recovers in whole or in part from the unsatisfied judgments fund. That fund is then subrogated to his rights, and that is a provincial fund.
What is the position in that event? Is the province going to be denied the right of recovery because the individual has lost his right, the unsatisfied judgments fund having been subrogated thereto?


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the clause carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. Either the minister can tell me that he does not know what the answer is, or he can say that in the case I have put forward the whole burden falls on the province and there is no recovery at all under the provisions of this legislation. The

Health Insurance
further we go with this bill the more it becomes apparent that the minister has no right to use the word "comprehensive" as applied to the scheme under this legislation. He has been bandying that word about very freely as applied to the scheme, but it is a very limited scheme, and in frankness to the house and to the people of the country he should be more careful of his selection of adjectives to describe the scheme.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the clause carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Evidently we have one more case where the whole burden falls on the province. If the minister would be frank enough to admit that, we could at least be clear in our understanding of the situation.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Payment of contributions.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I object very strongly to subclause 2 of clause 6 being in this legislation at all. This is the subclause that requires the agreement of six provinces. I register my objection on two counts. In the first place I object to it from the point of view of law, if I can get into that field without running certain risks. It does seem to me that this is a case of giving to certain other jurisdictions the power of veto over legislation of this sovereign parliament.
By virtue of the British North America Act, when a bill has been passed by the House of Commons and the Senate and has received royal assent it is the law of the land. Yet by virtue of clause 6, subclause 2, we give to provincial legislatures the power, by failing to act, to veto this legislation and keep it from coming into force. As I said earlier, I concede the right of the government to say it will not bring in legislation until certain conditions have been met, but I object very strongly to conditions of this kind being written into a statute of the parliament of Canada.
We can pass this bill in the House of Commons, as I hope we will today. It can be passed in the other place and can be given royal assent before parliament is prorogued. It can even be proclaimed under the provisions of a later clause in the bill. Yet it can remain on the statute books of the Dominion of Canada without ever coming into actual effect because of the right of veto written right into this clause.
The other count on which I object to subclause 2 of clause 6 is that I think it is a ridiculously unreasonable requirement to continue to insist that there be at least six provinces agreeing to the legislation before it comes into effect. As I have pointed out

now on several occasions, the five provinces which have agreed contain within their boundaries 56.3 per cent of the entire population of Canada, and when I say "entire population of Canada" I draw attention to the fact that that percentage is based on the population of the ten provinces together with the population of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
As I have already pointed out, if the province of Prince Edward Island were to reach agreement with the federal government on this matter, technically the government's formula would be met. We would then have six provinces. But what would be the change in the population percentage? It would go up from 56.3 per cent to 56.9 per cent.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. It being one o'clock-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think it is quite one o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: According to my clock it is one o'clock. If the committee wishes to sit after one, that is entirely up to the committee.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Stanley Howard Knowles: At one o'clock I was pointing out how ridiculous is this provision which is contained in subclause 2 of clause 6 of this bill. I refer to the requirement that at least six provinces containing at least one-half the population of Canada must enter into an agreement concerning this proposed hospital insurance before it can come into force.
As I had already pointed out, five provinces have already agreed, namely British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Newfoundland. Those five provinces represent 56.3 per cent of the total population of Canada. If the smallest province in Canada, namely the province of Prince Edward Island, were to reach an agreement with the federal government concerning this plan the formula would be met; we would have six provinces. In terms of population we would have 56.9 per cent instead of 56.3 per cent of the population of Canada.
I suggest it is utterly ridiculous for the government to be drawing a line of that kind, and to be saying, "We are prepared to put this legislation into effect when 56.9 per cent of the people of Canada are in provinces whose governments have agreed, but we are

not prepared to go ahead with it when that total is only 56.3 per cent." I hope that even yet subclause 2 will toe struck out of clause 6 of this bill.
I come back for just a minute to the first of the arguments I made on this point when I rose a few minutes before one o'clock. In terms of the drafting of a statute of parliament, I object most strongly to this right of veto being included in this statute. If this bill goes through in this form it will mean that although technically speaking it will be the law of the land, nevertheless it can be kept from coming into force by the provinces that fail to take action with regard to this matter.
As everyone knows, five provinces have agreed. That means that any one of the five provinces which have not agreed can, by their inaction, veto this legislation of the parliament of Canada so far as the majority of the people of Canada are concerned. Subclause 2 of clause 6 of this bill thus, for example, gives to the government of my province of Manitoba, a government which is quite slow in these matters, the power by itself-the same power that is accorded to four other provinces in the country-to veto this legislation.
In terms of law I think it is bad business, and I hope that even yet sutoclause 2 will toe struck out of this clause 6, so that once parliament has passed this legislation this week it will be the law of the land and can come into effect in those provinces, representing a majority of the people of Canada, which have agreed to it.


William Gourlay Blair: I should also like to register my objections to this clause. I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken. I think the minister could very well amend this act. I realize that an amendment moved by me would be out of order. All that is required is a change in one simple word. In place of "six", simply write in the word "five". The province of Ontario made concessions to enter this agreement and deviated from their original plan. One can conceive of this legislation remaining inactive, with nothing done about it, until another province comes into this scheme.
We need this act. We want it. However, I would not want to see it held up on account of the lack of one province. Already the minister has a majority of the people of this country in the five provinces which have agreed to the present suggestion. I therefore suggest to the minister, in registering my objection, that he reconsider the matter, and that in subclause 2 of clause 6 he make his own amendment by striking out the word "six" and putting in the word "five".
Health Insurance


Frederick Davis Shaw: Having been rather fully occupied in a committee while the house has been considering this bill, I think it is conceivable that the minister may have answered this question without my knowing it. It occurs to me that when we were discussing the resolution preceding the introduction of the bill the minister indicated that it would have been unfair-although he may not have used that exact term-for a majority of Canadians to be taxed, as it were, to provide hospital benefits for a minority of Canadians. I understand that even though only five provinces have signed the agreement we have in excess of 56 per cent of Canadian taxpayers who, as residents of five provinces, would come under the provisions of the bill; that is, if it were made operative.
Has the minister indicated any reason for this legislation not becoming operative with five provinces other than the one he advanced while we were considering the bill at the resolution stage? I feel somewhat the same as do those who have already indicated their views on this section of the bill. To date I have not heard an argument which would convince me that the government would be taking an unwise course of action in authorizing the bill to become operative with five provinces participating especially, as I emphasize, when the population of these five provinces represents, let us say, substantially more than 50 per cent of the Canadian population.
May I ask the minister again if there is any reason other than the one he advanced at the resolution stage for not making this legislation apply if five provinces instead of six were to sign.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 6 carry?


Frederick Davis Shaw: No, Mr. Chairman. I asked
my question in all sincerity. I should like to know whether there is any other reason than that given by the minister at the resolution stage.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend asks me a
proper question. I have given the reason, but I should be glad to repeat it. I do not share the pessimism that has been expressed about the likelihood of a sixth province indicating agreement. I will be having a conference this week with one provincial government. I cannot, of course, positively state that there will be a sixth province in the immediate future, but I have every reason to be optimistic on that score.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister tell us
which province that government represents?


Murdo William Martin: The province of New Brunswick is going to confer with me this week.


Mr. Nicholson:: Not Manitoba?

Health Insurance


Paul Joseph James Martin: Manitoba has conferred with
us and is coming to see us again. The reason we insist on the provision for six provinces as part of the conditions which are embodied in the proposal of the federal government and in the bill is that our aim is to obtain a scheme as nearly nation-wide in character as possible. If we had not included that condition, I am satisfied that we would not at this time be able to say that five provinces have accepted the proposal put forward by the federal government. We are after a nation-wide scheme. From the discussions I have had during the past few months I am satisfied that the way to bring about something approximating a nation-wide scheme is to maintain this particular condition.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: When the minister professes his desire to have more provinces come in, it does not seem to occur to him that he himself could do a great deal to make it easier to bring in more provinces. This morning when we were dealing with some of the exclusions in the bill he had an opportunity to improve greatly the chances of bringing in more provinces. But he stands rigidly on the terms the federal government laid down a year and a half ago, and which it has been adamant in insisting upon ever since. Notwithstanding the financial condition of many of the provinces, he is asking them to assume a very heavy commitment.
If the federal government had been more earnest in connection with this matter and had offered terms that were not so difficult for the provinces to meet, he certainly would have had the majority of the provinces before this time. If he really wishes to bring in the provinces, let him not insist upon such rigid terms.


John Angus MacLean: I just want to make a remark or two along the same lines. I believe if the minister is sincere in wanting this to be a truly nation-wide program, then it should be of such a nature that all parts of the nation could take advantage of it. It will be difficult for the maritime provinces generally to afford to come under this scheme, and in the case of Prince Edward Island I believe it will be impossible for the time being at least. I should like to think that further consideration will be given by the federal government in connection with making the terms such that they will be more acceptable to the provinces, and within reach of all of them.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Perhaps the minister has answered the question I am going to ask, and if so he will forgive me for asking it again. Can he tell us exactly what

the implication is in the reference to provincial boards being in force? Does that imply that there must be a hospitalization scheme organized and operating, or does it mean that the provincial legislation for it must have been passed and proclaimed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It means it must be proclaimed or otherwise in force.


Colin Cameron: That brings me to another point. If all that is required is for it to be proclaimed in order to permit the federal government to get the thing under way, what then would be the position if, for instance, one of the maritime provinces passed legislation, proclaimed it, and then discovered it was unable to go on with the operation of the plan? Would that let the plan fall to the ground again?


Murdo William Martin: It would all depend on whether the legislation was in force, whether there was the necessary number of agreements. For instance, one of the reasons for this provision is that a province might say the premiums would be collected as of a certain date and the benefits would not be paid until six months hence. One province has been giving consideration to that possibility.


Colin Cameron: What would be the position if one province started the scheme and then found it was beyond its financial resources to continue it and so, perhaps, abandoned it? You would be reduced to the position in which you are now, of not having the required number of provinces.


Murdo William Martin: It would depend upon whether there were agreements signed with all six; whether legislation in this province was in force, and if the other conditions were met there would be no question about the operation of this measure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is one thing for the minister to say there was, in his view, merit in requiring six provinces to agree to this proposal before it would become operative. Otherwise, as he put it, we might not have five today. I submit, however, that it is quite a different thing now that we have the five for which apparently he was aiming, when he asks to carry this formula forward into this legislation.
The other comment I should like to make is one I wish to put in the form of a question. Has the minister considered the position in which he will be if a month from now there is still no sixth province? Suppose he feels he would like to recommend to his colleagues in the cabinet that the plan be put into effect. Is he aware of the fact he will not be able to do so because of the very rigid

requirement for six provinces which he has put into this legislation? Should he not give himself and his government, for the few weeks more they will still be the government, freedom of action with regard to this matter?


Murdo William Martin: As we will be the government not only for the next four weeks but for the next four years, I have no worries on that score.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nobody is going to take the minister's answer seriously. It is just another evasion. The minister does not like some of the questions, so he just evades them. I should like to ask the minister, if he is serious about this matter, to tell the house now which, in his opinion, is likely to be the sixth province, and when he expects it will agree. He has been talking vaguely about these meetings he is arranging. The house is earnest about this matter, and about wanting a plan and wanting it put into operation as soon as possible. Now, let us have an end to the minister's evasions, and let us get down to dealing with realities. When is this plan going to be brought into operation? When may we expect the sixth province to come in, and what province is that likely to be?


Murdo William Martin: I cannot add anything more to what I have already said. ,


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have said nothing yet.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to ask a
question, and I have the merit of not having spoken on this matter yet. What is the answer to the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre? Is there some fixed objection in principle to the minister leaving himself some flexibility if he should desire it later, I will not say whether it is in four weeks or forty years? Is there some objection in principle; because if not, then the minister has entirely refrained from answering the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has deliberately refrained
from answering it.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 6 carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. I am just an amateur. All these others are accustomed to asking questions from the minister and getting no answer, but I am not. This is my first experience. I should like very much to have an answer. The minister can do one of two things. He can explain to me that my question is not a reasonable question. If he cannot show that it is not reasonable, then I think he should answer it and I shall stand here waiting to be answered.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think my hon. friend's question is reasonable but my hon. friend is a reasonable man. I have already given an
Health Insurance
answer. The objective we have in mind is this. By insisting on this condition, we hope and we believe we will be able to get something approximating a nation-wide system. I am sure if we had not insisted on six provinces, we would not now have five.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But you have five.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have every reason to be
optimistic that we will have more than six.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I take up the minister's last answer? He says he is optimistic that he will have more than five. Let us be a little more specific. I invite the minister to be a little more informative. When does he expect to have the sixth province, and which province does he expect it to be?


Mr. Lennard:: He does not expect it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows I cannot answer that question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Did the minister say he could not answer that question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot tell what the provinces are going to do, but I know what I optimistically believe they will do.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not see that we should have to be governed by the minister's optimistic beliefs. I still want an answer to my question. I can appreciate the point in the minister's answer that it was desirable to have this as an objective. He says it may well be that if we had not had the objective of six we would not have got five. But that is not the question the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked or that I am asking.
Why does the minister feel it necessary to have his hands tied absolutely in case his optimism is not justified? The inference one would tend to draw would be that for some reason I cannot understand the minister does not want this thing to go through. That is the inference a reasonable man could draw, unless the minister does what he has not done yet and explains that there is some reason in principle, a more effective reason, against now arming himself as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated with a power or discretion so that if these other provinces do not come in within the next month or six weeks, the measure could still become law.
I repeat, unless the minister gives some reason for sticking to this, which he has not done, then the only inference I can draw is that for some reason that I do not understand the minister does not want this to go through.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, will you divide the clause into its two parts and take a vote separately on subclause 1 and subclause 2?

Health Insurance


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The question is on the clause. Shall clause 6 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, citation 379
of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition, reads as follows:
A motion which contains two or more distinct propositions may be divided so that the sense of the house may be taken on each separately.
This clause contains two distinct propositions. Subparagraph 1 provides for the payment of contributions; subparagraph 2 attaches a condition to the payment of those contributions. I suggest it is in order to have a vote on the two separate propositions. I suggest it is also in order to have a vote on the separate subclauses of a clause.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. On the point of
order, I am afraid the clause cannot be separated. May I draw the hon. member's attention to May's fifteenth edition, at page 534:
When a clause contains two or more subsections which are not mutually dependent, an amendment to leave out each subsection is in order. When the subsequent subsections are dependent upon or ancillary to the first subsection, an amendment to the clause to leave out that subsection is out of order, as the effect of such an amendment being carried would be to destroy the clause. The decision that should be reached, and the discussion that should properly arise, on the question of the clause standing part of the bill would thus be anticipated. The same principle has been applied to an amendment to leave out the essential words of a subsection.
This refers more particularly to amendments, but by inference I would take it it would be impossible to divide the vote on this clause. I must rule that I should call the clause as a whole.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Before you make your ruling, Mr. Chairman, will you hear a word on it? As you have already pointed out yourself, the citation has to do with amendments. I suggest this is an entirely different matter from asking for a separate vote on the two subclauses of clause 6 of the bill.
As to their being interdependent, or dependent upon one another and not capable of being severed, I should like to submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that the two are clearly severable. Subclause 1 stands clearly on its own feet; it is a general clause permitting the Minister of Finance to make contributions or advances out of the consolidated revenue fund. Subclause 2 takes us into an entirely separate matter. It has to do with the condition under which the whole operative scheme of the act is to come into force. That condition is surely not something that has to be dependent upon the first clause, or so closely related to it that the two cannot be severed.
The first subclause could easily have appeared in this bill in separate form, as a

separate clause. Subclause 2 could easily have appeared in this bill as an entirely separate clause which might have come at the end of the bill. We have clause 10, which deals with the commencement of the act. We could have had this subclause 2 come in as another one governing the date on which the scheme under the act is to come into effect.
I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, very seriously to consider the fact that this clause 6 embraces in the two subclauses matters which are in no way dependent upon one another. In any event, the citation you have read does not touch on the matter of severing two subclauses for the purposes of a vote. I submit that the citation does not apply to the request made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did you not in your own words, Mr. Chairman, as you were reading the citation, admit that it referred more particularly to amendments rather than to the issue that is now before us? In so far as you suggested, sir, that there was any applicability, you rested that contention on the supposition that to remove subclause 2 from clause 6 would destroy the integrity or the completeness of clause 6.
I submit, as the hon. member for Eglinton has already pointed out, that such is not the case; that subclause 2 is not connected to subclause 1 by a comma or even a semicolon; they are completely separate propositions. If subclause 2 were removed altogether from clause 6 the words in subclause 1 would be complete in themselves. I would respectfully submit that you, sir, might reconsider the point. It is not one that we expected would come up, but I know there have been other occasions when we have been given the right to vote on the different subclauses in a clause, and I think you should allow that to be done on this occasion.


William Alfred Robinson: Well, I am unable to agree with the hon. members who have been kind enough to assist on this point of order. I point out that clause 6 of this bill provides for certain contributions to be paid by the Minister of Finance out of the consolidated revenue fund. Paragraph 2 of the clause provides that:
No contributions shall be paid under this act until at least six provinces, containing at least one-half the population of Canada, had entered into an agreement . . .
The royal recommendation is contained in the resolution preceding the bill, which reads as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize contributions to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund to provinces in respect

of costs incurred by them in providing insured hospital and diagnostic services pursuant to provincial law and to agreements made in accordance with the said measure, to commence when at least six provinces, containing at least half the population of Canada, have entered into such agreements and qualified for the receipt of such contributions.
Under these circumstances I would be unable to separate the two paragraphs of this clause, and I feel I must rule that I must put the question on the entire clause. Shall clause 6 carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. I want to ask the
minister once more whether he is going to answer the question I asked. If he does not, I want to ask him whether he can suggest to me any reason why I should not say, and say in public, that so far as I am concerned, I can only come to one conclusion, if the minister is not prepared to answer the question, that he does not wish this bill passed.


Frank Exton Lennard: You know that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already answered the question. I have indicated that the reason for the condition is that we want a nationwide scheme. I regret my hon. friend has suggested that because I do not give an answer that fully satisfies him-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that this indicates that I do not, or that the government does not, want this measure to go through.


Frank Exton Lennard: You know you do not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows that is not so.


Frank Exton Lennard: You know you do not. Page the Minister of Finance; he will tell you why.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I said applies not only to myself but to my colleagues as a whole. We would not introduce this bill unless we wanted it to go through, and we have every reasonable expectation that we will have more than six provinces. One of the reasons we insist on this condition is that we believe this will be the surest way to stimulate interest and to get participation in the scheme.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
On clause 8-Regulations.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought my hon. friend from Kingston had something to say. Would the minister comment on subclause (l)(a)? What is meant by "residents of a province", especially if no time limit is involved?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, by "residents of a province" we mean that everyone normally resident in the province shall be entitled to come within the application of the term
Health Insurance
"universally available". It would not, of course, include a transient or a mariner from another country, who would benefit under the sick mariners' provisions, or a tourist. A person is deemed to be a resident of a province if such a person makes his home and is ordinarily present therein, and there is no specific period of residence required to indicate what a resident is. He is a person whose normal domicile is established in the province.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister what will be the situation with respect to, let us say, Indians domiciled within a remote section of the province where hospital facilities are not available and where it is not convenient, in any sense of the word, to provide hospitals for such persons. What effect does that have upon the general agreement with the provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If they can get to a hospital there should, I think, be no difficulty.


Frederick Davis Shaw: What I have in mind is this. If it has no effect upon the agreement generally, to what extent does it impose responsibility upon the province to make hospitalization available for such persons, even though they may be domiciled several hundreds of miles from the nearest hospital facilities? What responsibility will the signing of the agreement place upon the province to provide hospital service for such persons?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It does not mean that a hospital will have to be built in that particular area; it simply means that all the persons normally resident in that area would be covered by this act for the purposes intended.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Will there be a responsibility upon the province to get such persons to a hospital; let me put it that way?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, no.


Miss Aitken:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if with respect to this question of residence in a province that would include, for example, a university student from another country, attending a Canadian university and in residence there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, the provincial authorities of course may, for the purpose of determining whether a person is resident in the province, establish conditions which would be the subject, naturally, of arrangement between the federal and provincial governments. However, it is not intended to give the advantage of this legislation to people who are not normally resident within the province.


Margaret Aitken: Then the answer to my question is no.
Clause 9 agreed to.

Income Tax Act
On clause 10-Commencement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister tell us when the government intends to proclaim this legislation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As quickly as is possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister explain the previous answer?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the answer is selfexplanatory.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, for a government which has been dealing in this field for all these years to expect us to accept a statement such as "as soon as is possible" as meaning anything-[DOT]


An hon. Member:: It does not mean a thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -leads us only to conclude that it can take a very long time yet.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thirty-eight years since 1919.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr, Deputy Speaker:: Shall the bill be read the third time now?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Speaker; later this day.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INCOME TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, April 5, consideration in committee of Bill No. 407, to amend the Income Tax Act-Mr. Harris- Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
William Alfred Robinson: At our last sitting we let stand clauses 8, 9, 10, 11 and 21.
On clause 8-Dividends received by corporation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister gave an explanation of this clause the other day, but I would like to ask him one question with respect to subsection (c). I quote the reference to the receiving corporation having acquired control of the payer corporation by the purchase from the corporation to which they were or have become subsidiary of shares of the capital stock of the payer corporation for a consideration not exceeding:
(c) in the case of shares that have a par value, the par value thereof,
Why is that provision necessary? Might it not in some cases be quite artificial? It might not represent the true value, and why should it be the par value?


Walter Edward Harris: I am informed that the reason is to avoid any subsequent capital loss upon payment of dividends.


Mr. Monteiih:: I am thinking of a company which possibly has one class of stock which has a par value and which also has an earned surplus. Would it not be reasonable to pay something more than the actual par value for the purchases of these shares?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Could I amplify that question. Surely there would be other ways of preventing the contingency to which the minister referred from arising.


Walter Edward Harris: I think my hon. friend will appreciate that this is quite complicated.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do, and that is why I wanted it left over the other day.


Walter Edward Harris: I am informed that if you had paid-up capital stock and a surplus, that by the payment of a tax-free dividend you would in fact have a capital loss, and the purpose is to avoid that situation.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am trying to get that through my head. As the minister says, it is a rather complicated section. He says that by the payment of a tax-free dividend you could get rid of the capital surplus, but need that payment take place prior to the purchase of the shares? The whole provision has to do with two parent companies amalgamating or merging, as I understand it. Well, then, if one of those companies has an earned surplus and happens to have only one class of stock with a par value, why should the purchasing company not be permitted to pay more than par on the purchase of the stock of the company which they are buying?


Walter Edward Harris: I am also informed, in this particular instance at any rate, that since the purchase takes the form of the acquisition of shares in the company, the company being purchased then has shares in the purchasing company, the shareholders of that company-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Would you mind repeating that?


Walter Edward Harris: Let us start with the company which is purchasing the other; the consideration is shares in the purchasing company.
That being the case, the transaction is not one which would prevent the payment of a reasonable price for the shares. On the other hand, if you were to allow the payment of a greater sum than the par value you would, as I have said a moment ago, permit the payment of the dividend tax-free, which would then put us in the position of having a capital loss, and we do not want to end up with that for tax reasons.


Jay Waldo Monteith: As I understand this section it has to do with the abolition of double

taxation on dividends. I just do not understand how this applies when there is a tax dividend and, as a consequence, a capital loss. It may be that I did not understand the original explanation, but it seemed very simple last Friday when the minister made it on the floor of the house. Possibly he did not himself know it too well at that time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am going to confess, quite frankly, that this is a complicated matter. There is an old jingle which comes to my mind. I do not know whether it is quite applicable to this situation, but mutatis mutandis it may be:
O what a tangled web we weave When first we practise to deceive.
There is no deception here, but it seems to me that here we may be weaving a very tangled web by introducing a consideration which seems artificial and unnatural. Why cannot nature take its course, so to speak? Why do we have to say things are different from what they are? Why fix an arbitrary value when the real value could be introduced? I have a feeling that we shall make this thing so complicated that a year or two from now something will have come up which nobody could have foreseen, with the result that we shall have to pass another complicated piece of legislation in order to undo what has been done here. Are we sure that nature could not be allowed to take its course?


Walter Edward Harris: We are sure, in so far as one can be sure about any recommendation, that the proposed amendment effects what we have in mind with regard to the particular condition now contemplated. It may very well be that problems will arise which are not at present foreseen. That is true of all statutes. But this does accomplish what we have in mind for the companies concerned who wanted this legislation. If it turns out that this has a wider application than was intended, and if it is thought that the scope should not be widened, then I will bring forward another amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If you are still Minister of Finance.


Walter Edward Harris: I beg your pardon; I should have said that any finance minister would bring forward such legislation. At present we are thinking only of the one situation we have in mind.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 9-"Earned income" defined.
Donald Methuen Fleming: On clause 9 there are really two parts of the amendment. The first adds to the present definition of earned income, and my question does not concern this part
Income Tax Act
of the amendment. But I am very concerned with the second part, the effect of which is to permit the deduction of certain items in the calculation of what would otherwise be earned income.
Hitherto, Mr. Chairman, the deductions which are now proposed in subclauses (d) and (e) were not deductible in arriving at the calculation of earned income, and the explanation given in the bill for permitting the deduction of these items is anything but satisfactory. We know, Mr. Chairman, that it is proposed that the taxpayer be permitted in arriving at his earned income to deduct two things, first, business losses sustained in the taxation year in the course of carrying on a business, and amounts taxable under section 79B in computing income for the taxation year.
As to section 79B, to which we shall be coming shortly, I think its inclusion is clear enough as a new section, pertaining to registered retirement savings plans. But I am much concerned as to the effect of subclause (d) which will permit a taxpayer for the first time, in calculating earned income, to deduct business losses. There is in the act no definition of business losses, and this phrase cannot mean expenses incurred in the course of earning an income. There would be no reason for having this clause in the bill at all if that were all it meant, because the act makes specific provision already, in arriving at net income, for a deduction of the expenses necessarily incurred in earning a particular income.
So what does this phrase mean, losses sustained in the taxation year in the course of carrying on a business? As I say, it obviously does not mean the expense incurred in the course of earning an income from that particular source, because in that case it would be totally unnecessary to introduce such a provision; it is contained in the act already.
It must, therefore, mean, on a proper interpretation, something very different from that kind of expense. What, then, can it mean? I am sure if this goes before a court it might well be interpreted as meaning capital losses. What are possible losses in business, in the absence of any definition in the act? There is a provision in section 12 (1) (b) of the act that in computing income no deduction will be allowed in respect of:
-an outlay, loss or replacement ol capital, a payment on account of capital or an allowance in respect of depreciation, obsolescence or depletion except as expressly permitted.
Here, however, you are introducing a provision which on the face of it looks like a contrary provision, the sort of thing for

Income Tax Act
which an exception is created under the provisions of section 12 (1) (b) of the act. Now, if the intention is to permit the deduction of business losses of a capital nature, then I think it is necessary to have a very close look at the situation here to see what is the proposed justification for this amendment, because if the minister is proposing that capital losses in business should be permitted in a situation of this kind, then I think the house should be well aware that it is introducing something that could have a very wide effect.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, no change has been made in the administration of law by this amendment. It is the practice at the moment that where a man, not being an incorporated body, receives income from two businesses he must offset the losses of the one against the income from the other for the purpose of arriving at his earned income, and this is what this amendment says. It is, in fact, a statement of what is being done at the present time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It may be intended to be simply a codification of the existing practice, and if that were all one would not be raising any objection. But the government is introducing here something so broad in its terms that it seems to me to go far beyond the intent which the minister has just related to the house. "Business losses"-if the intention is simply to confine these to losses sustained in the carrying on of one business, why cannot we have that set out in terms clearer then these? "Business losses" is surely going to be interpreted by some tribunal- the income tax appeal board or the exchequer court or the Supreme Court of Canada-as including capital losses.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, it may be that one could use another phrase to describe what is intended, but I find, that this phrase is used in section 27 where we find the words "business losses sustained in the five taxation years immediately", and so on and so on. That is why the phrase is used in that manner, because it is a phrase known to the act at the present time and, as I said before and as my hon. friend accepts, it is intended strictly to be a definition of what is being done at the present time.
Once again I repeat, as I did on the former occasion, that if experience indicates that this has some result we did not foresee, then certainly someone will bring it before the house, either the Minister of Finance or perhaps an opposition member. But we do not foresee any more than the usual amount of trouble in applying the law when we make it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The trouble with that kind of explanation is that these matters do not arise until after some taxpayer has been through the mill. The time comes to make an assessment, and in the face of the language of the act the officials of the department feel that they must proceed on such a course and the assessment is made. But when the remedial legislation is introducd, nobody thinks of going back and removing the assessment on the taxpayer who has been the victim of this severe interpretation.
It seems to me, with respect, Mr. Chairman, that now, at the time of enactment, is the time to deal with these matters and prevent any such situations arising. What the minister has stated as his purpose is perfectly clear, understandable and, I am sure, acceptable to all members, but I am greatly concerned about the language he has employed in this clause to carry out his intent because, regardless of the fact that the expression appears in section 27 of the act, the language he has employed goes far beyond the intent that he has declared to the house.


Walter Edward Harris: We will do our best to make sure that it does not. In the first place it is, of course, remedial legislation and you always run a risk in doing that. However, I think it is justified from year to year, and if it does turn out to mean other than what we have in mind I am quite satisfied that we or someone else can bring an appropriate amendment before the house.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If I thought a court could be influenced by expressions of opinion in this chamber I think I would be quite happy in view of what the minister has said. He has made it perfectly clear what the intention is. But I submit that the hon. member for Eglin-ton is quite right in saying that it is perfectly open to a different interpretation being put on it. If that is so, the resources of the English language are not so limited that it could not be made perfectly clear. I submit that it is not clear now and that now is the time to make it clear. It would not be a great job. Nobody can suggest that it is not possible to make the other argument. I think anyone who listened to the member for Eglinton five minutes ago would say that argument could be made very persuasively before any court.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister not consider introducing for the sake of clarification some such words as "not of a capital nature" after the word "losses"? I am not putting forward anything specific, but I think something to carry out that purpose should be introduced.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not think that would be advisable because we have the term "business

losses" in the act, it has been considered by the courts, and I am told there is no definition of "capital" in the act. I am given a reference not to a lawsuit but to the use of the words, "business losses", in the act, and the statement is made to me that it has been interpreted by the courts and that is why the draftsmen used it in this connection.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
On clause 11-Credit for dividends.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to raise a question with regard to the wording in line 3 of clause 11, "an individual who was resident in Canada at any time in a taxation year may deduct," and so on. I realize I am questioning something that has been in the act before and that this is not part of the new wording, but I am raising a question as to the breadth of the words, "at any time."


Walter Edward Harris: Section 2 of the Income Tax Act reads as follows:
An income tax shall be paid . . . upon the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the year.
I realize that there are certain rules about residence, but the phrase, "person resident in Canada at any time in the year", occurs in section 2, which I have read and which is the general charging section. In addition, as my hon. friend points out, it also appears in section 38 of the act that we are now amending, and since the amendment does not relate to that particular matter the wording is left precisely as it is with the phrase "at any time."


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is to be the meaning? The minister has made reference to section 2, subsection 1, of the act. There are also the provisions of section 139, subsection 3, which define, for the purposes of the act, a person resident in Canada in a taxation year. He is such if (a) he sojourns in Canada in the year for a period in the aggregate of 183 days or more or (b) he was a member of the armed forces or (c) he was a member in general, let us say, of the civil service, the diplomatic corps, etc.
But it is this expression "at any time." We know what the act intends in the definition of a taxpayer resident in Canada. It eliminates the man who is just here on a temporary sojourn. You have specific rules in section 139 to determine what is to be residence in a year. But here-and it is admitted it is already in the section-you have the expression "at any time", which suggests that you are taking something away from the meaning of "residence" as determined by section 139, subsection 3.
Income Tax Act
Let us take a simple case. Section 38 of the act gives a very valuable benefit to persons who are in receipt of income in the form of dividends from Canadian corporations. It is a very valuable privilege in the hands of a taxpayer who has income of that nature. Here we have the provision extended to anyone who was resident in Canada at any time in the taxation year. I think we need a very clear statement as to the effect of it.


Walter Edward Harris: My understanding is that any person who is a resident of Canada pays an income tax if he comes within the terms of the act. In the section to which my hon. friend refers there is a statement that a person who is in Canada for a period of more than 183 days, or whatever it may be, is a resident. This does not mean that all persons who are not within that class are not residents. It is a statement that persons who are here that long undoubtedly are residents for the purpose of taxation.
But the problem is whether the person is a resident. If he is a resident, if he takes up residence, then he becomes subject to taxation. Therefore, as I understand it, it is not essential that one show that this person was physically within Canada for 183 days. It is only necessary to show that he is resident in Canada.
For that reason we have the two groups, one the person who is ordinarily resident, if I may use that phrase and, second, those who may be in here for a period of time beyond that mentioned in section 139 and therefore become subject to tax even if they may possibly claim that they are not residents. Hence we are not importing anything new here. In fact, we are repeating the words in the existing section. Once again it is remedial; that is to say, in the amendment before us we are doing what I think has been advocated by my hon. friend on other occasions and are preserving, if you will, the language of the section in every other respect except the proposed amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps the Minister of National Revenue can tell us whether his department is experiencing any difficulty over the definition of "resident" in the case of persons who are not in Canada 183 days in the particular year.


James Joseph McCann: If my hon. friend will address that question to the Minister of Finance who has the deputy minister before him he will give him an answer.


Walter Edward Harris: I am informed that there is no particular trouble. I am also referred to another section in the act which uses the same phrase.

Income Tax Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, yes; there are places
where the expression appears.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no question about that. But we have not a definition here in the act apart from the definition in section 139, and it seems to be intended to be overridden by the expression used here.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not want to get involved in any technical explanations but how much content is there in the word "resident", an individual who is resident in Canada at any time? Does that mean that someone who is here casually can get this substantial benefit which ordinarily would go just to a Canadian resident on the strict basis of 183 days, or does the word "resident" itself import a substantial consideration?


Walter Edward Harris: I have sat here through a good many discussions on the Income Tax Act. I realize that these matters only come up when they occur to hon. members-and I do not recall any debate in the house prior to this time on the use of this phrase. That would lead me to think that the deputy minister is correct when he tells me there has been no trouble in administering the act using this phrase. Had there been any trouble, I am sure we would have heard of it, both from him and from the members of the committee. I do not see how there can be any conflict between the use of the word "resident" and resident at any time in the taxation year except that I suppose fom the standpoint of the draftsmen they repeat words which have been interpreted to mean something and they feel safer in continuing them from year to year until they find that they are not useful and then discard them. While I do not expect that I will ever be a draftsman, I would take the same view. I would not have brought forward the proposed amendment and changed words which it was unnecessary to change. I would only change those words that I felt would bring about the change I had in mind.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 21-Optional method of payment.
Donald Methuen Fleming: The point I should like to raise with the minister may not be directly apposite to this clause, but it is a matter which I am sure will not take long. In his budget speech the minister made reference to the fact that he was proposing that the permissible income or earnings of a dependent be increased from $750 to $950 per annum, having in mind principally students working in the summertime. In the bill there is no provision for that increase. However I take it that the government is dealing with the

matter by regulation. If so, when will the required regulation be brought into effect?


Walter Edward Harris: The regulation has not been passed, not because we did not feel the house did not agree with us but rather that we thought it would be improper to make a change while there was any debate about it going on in the house. Theoretically I suppose we could have done it after the budget debate was concluded on Thursday night or Friday night last. We can bring it into effect now, as of this calendar year, and we will do so by regulation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister say in a word why he has not included wives in the scope of the proposal, when he is increasing the permissible income of the dependent child?


Walter Edward Harris: As I think I said the other day, we considered the question and we felt that we were not clear enough about the results which would ensue if we increased the amount from $250 to $950 or whatever it might be. I had to review the policy on it when the $250 was originally established. Having done that, I found that there were a great many side issues that must be considered as well and I was not able to complete that consideration by the time I brought in the budget recommendations. Nor would I want this to be taken as an indication that I thought we would be able to do so any time in the near future, although it does come to my mind immediately when we increase the $750 to $950 that it might be asked, "Why do you not carry on from $250 or whatever it may be to any sum higher than that?" But I should add that during the course of that consideration I re-read what my hon. friend has said in the house on the subject and I must say I was benefited by it. However, I did not come to the conclusion that I could at this time recommend the change.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Shall this bill be read a third time now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Edward Harris: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) will recall that last week, during the discussion of the measure, he stated that he would tell the house on third reading what had been decided about this question of

relieving the construction workers who are obliged to leave their homes from tax on allowances made to them for board and lodging. Is he in a position to do that now?


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


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for detaining the house at this time. However, the minister knows I never detain the house without justification. I intended to say a word or two on a point that concerns a number of my constituents but was called out hurriedly twice at inappropriate moments. That is the reason I am raising the matter at this time. The matter I wish to raise concerns a number of miners, smelter men and lumber men in my constituency and, I presume, in other constituencies across Canada. I refer to the question of loss occasioned men-workers particularly-who h,ave been resident in mining, lumbering or smelting camps for a number of years, long enough to erect residences or homes and to have an investment in those homes. I refer to the loss occasioned by the ceasing of operations which in effect not only means the loss of jobs but the loss of their investment in their homes, often savings over a long period of time: because as the operation concerned in most areas is permanently shut down it means that the investment in the home is reduced to almost nothing. I mention this matter because the companies concerned can, I understand, make deductions out of taxation from year to year for the cost of the homes provided for employees or bunk houses or staff houses and things of that sort. I understand that, according to the act, they are considered an operating cost and have always been permitted as a tax allowance.
I raise this question briefly because I believe an injustice is being done. I believe the workmen in these communities should receive the same consideration as the companies concerned. They suffer as individuals to a much greater extent from the loss of their savings and their homes and things of that sort. I do urge that this question be given consideration. I understand that some companies have obtained tax allowance for houses that were built for their employees and later purchased by the employees. In some cases these companies have made some allowance to compensate for the loss occasioned by the closing down of the camp, but that is not the same thing as having the workers treated in the same way as the companies concerned. I urge that consideration be given to what appears to me a grave injustice caused by the provisions of the act now.
Income Tax Act


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I do not
intend to take more than a moment, sir, but the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) just asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) a question concerning whether or not travel expenses, board and lodging for people who are away from their normal place of work, should be included as income for purposes of taxation. I have a resolution on the order paper to this effect, but it will not be reached this session.
In view of the fact employees of the Department of National Revenue and the unemployment insurance commission receive allowances when they are away from their ordinary place of employment which are not included as income for taxation purposes, I do not understand why, to use an old expression, what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. I do not understand why one group of employees should not be taxed and another group should. I certainly have no objection to the employees of the Department of National Revenue or the unemployment insurance commission not having these expenses included as income for tax purposes; I think it is a very good idea. If this provision applies to employees of the government I certainly believe it should apply to other persons as well. This has been a source of considerable annoyance and a cause of concern to a number of people, particularly to organized labour, and I feel they have a justifiable complaint. I hope the minister will have some interesting information for us on this point when he closes the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) to give consideration to one other point which I shall state quite briefly. It has been drawn to my attention several times over the years, but it was drawn rather forcibly to my attention by a taxpayer just a few days ago.
The Income Tax Act, in section 27, does seem, for the purpose of deductibility with respect to charitable donations, to limit those donations to those made to charitable organizations to Canada. Those are the words in section 27 of the Income Tax Act. However, the income tax form which is placed in the hands of the taxpayers, and I hold in my hand a copy of the 1956 T-l form, does not indicate that that limitation applies. The words, in part read:
Charitable donations. A deduction for charitable donations is only allowable when the donations have been made to charitable organizations and are evidenced by proper receipts issued by those organizations and attached to your return.

Income Tax Act
My point is that there is nothing on the income tax form to indicate that it is only to organizations in Canada that contributions can be made and deductibility claimed. The most recent case drawn to my attention was that of a taxpayer who made contributions to funds for famine relief in India, and things of that sort, but the organizations to which he contributed had their head offices in the United States. My friend, who has been in touch with me, tells me that on one or two former occasions he had claimed deductions for similar items and they were allowed. This year the same types of claims were disallowed. Despite the generality of the language on the income tax form, there is the limitation in the act. I am not going to take the time now to make the argument that the act should be changed, as I believe it should, but certainly if there is this limitation it should be made clear on the forms placed in the hands of the taxpayers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Walter Edward Harris: Just to clear up the last point first-I have nine minutes before I have to leave-may I say there is no question about the law as contained in section 27 of the Income Tax Act. Those donations are donations within Canada. It is true that the form does not disclose that, but the receipts themselves would disclose it. It may well be that on occasions those receipts were not checked in the manner in which they have been more recently. I am sure the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) will take into account what has been said with respect to the filing of receipts in future years. It may be that the form ought to be altered accordingly.
Now, to answer the requests of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) I may say the situation is this. The bulletin which was sent out last July 10 relating to the charging of these things is not, as we made clear, new law at all because charges for board and lodging have been provided for in the act for a number of years. I have been informed, in so far as administration is concerned, that it is not the intention to apply the bulletin to the year 1956, though some employers, and I think quite properly, began deductions upon receipt of the bulletin. If that is the case, there will be a refund, or a possible refund in some cases. It will apply to the taxation year 1957.
I made it quite clear that we felt we were providing for an interpretation of the law, as we understood it to be, and that we were

continuing to study the taxation of a great many allied subjects and fringe benefits, not for the purpose of adding to the tax but for the purpose of finding a logical explanation, if we could, for where we would draw the line. I am not prepared to recommend that the words "board and lodging" be taken out of the act. Indeed I do not think they should be. I did, however, make it clear that the construction industry seems to have been in the unique position of not having this tax apply to it over quite a period of time. I have not been able to determine whether this was because of the peculiar nature of the contractual relationship or the peculiar manner of recruiting construction workers for distant points. I cannot give my hon. friend any further assurance than I have, namely that the bulletin will not be used in a retroactive sense; but I do give the further assurance that we shall continue to look at this, having in mind the fact that construction projects of benefit to Canada in distant parts ought to go forward and if there is any impediment as a result of the tax laws which prevent development in Canada I do not think the house would expect us to maintain the impediment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce the order of business for the rest of the day, and in my absence I think a colleague of mine will deal with the items later on. At this time it is the intention to call second reading of the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, subject to what I said earlier this morning that it would be desirable to have the second reading debate; then if the representations which have been made to us should be adopted we can take them in committee of the whole, or stand the discussion in the committee of the whole over until tomorrow, if the consideration of those representations have not been completed. At any rate I do not think at this stage of the discussion it would be desirable to try to complete the whole discussion on the bill unless hon. members, in the light of the explanation that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) might give, would find it desirable to do so.
Then we shall take the second reading of Bill No. 400; that is, the fertilizer bill; then, the resolution with respect to the Judges Act and proceed through with it if hon. members find it possible to carry it to third reading; then, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act; then, the Prisons and Reformatories

Act; then, the resolution with respect to the atomic energy agency. I understand there is some question whether or not it is in the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite and I am making inquiries about that.
It evidently has been made clear that the Prime Minister would make a short statement on the resolution with respect to the Federal District Commission Act in order to permit first reading of the bill, which will not be proceeded with at this session; then, third reading of the bill on hospital insurance.
The following bills will not be proceeded with during this session; the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources Act; the Control of Narcotic Drugs Act; the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company; the Admiralty Act; and the Yukon Act. That will leave the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act and the United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act which, I understand, my hon. friend wanted to stand over for tomorrow, together with any of the items I have mentioned which have not been completed today, which we shall take up tomorrow.


Howard Charles Green: What does the government propose with regard to a supply motion?


Walter Edward Harris: I had hoped that we could complete the order paper today so that we could have a supply motion tomorrow by consent, since the rules do not permit it, and that it would be limited to one day, of course. I find it is not possible to complete the order paper today. That being the case, we would have to consider overnight whether or not if we get through with the legislation fairly early tomorrow we will have the remainder of the day on the supply motion. As far as the government is concerned, we see no reason why we should not.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister suggest that there will not be a supply motion tomorrow unless certain legislation is completed in advance? I want to be very clear because it was very clearly stated-and I will not say any more than that at the moment-that a supply motion would be introduced and would be debated. There was no question of its limitation to one day although, in view of the fact that all of us are endeavouring to effect the close of this session at the end of this week, I would be prepared to accept one day. That however, was not the basis upon which I agreed to the expedition of legislation. I want to be very clear that there is not going to be any reduction in a period of one full day to discuss supply on the supply motion.


Walter Edward Harris: I have heard what the Leader of the Opposition has said. I think it is
Business of the House
desirable that we should complete the legislation I have mentioned, and when we do, if it happens that it is not too far along tomorrow, we can consider the situation at that time, having in mind the fact that we still have part of the week left.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I must take strong objection to that course. If supply is to be called, let us fix Wednesday for supply instead of having this haphazard idea of supply being dependent on whether or not the house passes certain legislation. That was the arrangement. I do not want to go into particulars of the discussion I have had, but I insist on the right of our having one day for supply, and not a day chosen at random based upon the degree to which the legislation is passed. In order to clarify the situation, will the minister fix Wednesday as the day for the introduction of supply?


Walter Edward Harris: I did not reject the idea at all in my former answer. On the other hand, I could not agree to it at this time because we do want to get the legislation through, and if it does not go through tomorrow we would have the house consider tomorrow whether we would use Wednesday for legislation. I can understand my hon. friend's desire to have a full, uninterrupted day in preference to a portion of a day, although perhaps he would agree with me that as long as the time he has in mind is found his purposes are properly met anyway, even if it is not a continuous day in itself.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has had very good co-operation in regard to getting the legislation through, as witness what happened on Saturday. I suggest it would be wiser to take tomorrow on the supply resolution and finish it up and continue with the legislation on Wednesday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say a word? In the line-up of business that the minister discussed a few moments ago he indicated that certain items were to be proceeded with and certain other items were not. Then, there were certain other items which he just listed. In all of these he made no mention of a very important matter, namely interim supply for the period between prorogation and the time when the house may meet again. I know we all understand that there has to be, and probably will be, an interim supply bill, but I think we should know what are the government's plans for discussing an interim supply bill in committee of supply, before we are asked to make a decision on the question as to whether there should be a debate on a motion for the Speaker to leave the chair to go into committee of supply. It seems to us that actual legislation and the debate in committee of supply on

Business of the House
an interim supply bill are of greater importance than the debate on a supply motion itself.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we will, of course, be presenting a request for interim supply. I deliberately confined my remarks earlier to the legislation on the order paper. We shall be asking for interim supply, and it will cover a portion of the main estimates and I think the two supplementary estimates that have been tabled; so that, subject to whatever rulings there may be, there could oe a fairly wide discussion on the interim supply bill, covering as much time, I take it, as hon. gentlemen wish to have up to the time when we feel we ought to prorogue parliament in order to arrange for dissolution. That being the case, I would like to present the interim supply bill at the earliest possible time so that I would not be accused of presenting it so late that there was not adequate time for discussion of the various subjects hon. gentlemen opposite might want to take up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Walter Edward Harris: On the other hand, it is obvious that it would probably take all the time left from the time we introduced the interim supply bill until that hour at which we thought we ought to prorogue. I had hoped that we could work out an arrangement which would be satisfactory to all parts of the house for a discussion which would be adequate to cover the interim supply bill and have sufficient time which would give an opportunity to hon. gentlemen in the official opposition to make a case on whatever matters they chose to bring up in the supply motion.
If hon. members have read recently what I said on Friday night I think they will have seen that I made clear that there were at least three alternative methods to be adopted to bring this about. Up to the present we have not been able to work that out. I wonder whether we can just leave it this way. I think we know what my hon. friend has in mind; I think we know what other hon. gentlemen would like to do, and it may be possible to meet all the wishes. If it is, of course, we will be glad to do so. If we can leave it that way for the moment, may I say we do not propose necessarily to call a supply motion tomorrow, though I would be glad to consider that early in the morning with hon. gentlemen concerned, having in mind the progress made today. If at that time it is thought desirable to proceed with the remainder of the legislation tomorrow, we can consider then whether a supply motion should be brought forward later tomorrow or on Wednesday.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I discussed this matter thoroughly early in the session and it was understood, and very clearly understood, that at least one supply motion would be called on which full debate would be allowed-that would be two days. However, I am prepared in the interests of expediting matters to consent to one day but not a partial day at the sufferance of the minister. If that course is to be followed then I will have to raise the matter tomorrow morning before the orders of the day, because a promise was made and I accepted it and there is going to be no reduction in the degree of that promise as far as I am concerned. The opposition is endeavouring to expedite the legislative program but we do not want to be placed in the position that, having done so, the minister now places a veto on our rights. Those rights we intend to uphold regardless of what the minister may have in mind. I know what the undertaking was and the plans that were made and I am prepared to reduce those plans to the extent of one day but I insist on the right to one full day's discussion of supply on motion made by the minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: take it for the purpose of the foregoing conversation or exchange that the house by unanimous consent reverted to motions. Order.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING ACT


James Garfield Gardiner: the second reading of Bill No. 403, to amend the Agricultural Products Marketing Act.
He	said:	The Agricultural Products
Marketing Act was passed in 1949; it came before this house as a result of a fairly long series of discussions which started in 1938.	The province of British Columbia
had over a considerable period been experimenting with legislation which provided for the setting up of marketing boards and they introduced legislation into their house on one or two occasions, which legislation was carried through to the privy council and declared to be ultra vires. Then, in 1934, they did bring in legislation which was carried to the privy council at that time and declared to be intra vires. At the same time they presented to the privy council an act which if passed by this parliament would pass on to provincial boards authority which could be given only by the federal legislation. When they presented this to us in 1938 we

asked for some further consideration having regard to the fact that probably more provinces should have taken advantage of the opportunity to set up boards than had done so up to that time before we should take action. They came back in 1939, just after we had embarked upon the war, and represented their requests with the suggestion that some other provinces had passed legislation making possible the setting up of boards. We indicated at that time that since we were entering upon wartime activities it would be necessary for the federal government to take over many of the authority which was then, in peacetime, with the provinces and we would be obliged to exercise during the time of war the authority we had under the War Measures Act. We said that therefore we did not think that was a suitable time to bring in the legislation which has come to be known eventually as Bill No. 82. So the farm organizations and those interested in boards of this kind and in legislation of this kind did not persist with the request that we have this legislation passed; they simply went on organizing in the provinces until the war was over. After the war they came back again each year to indicate most of the provincial legislations had provided for boards and asking for this special legislation.
In 1949 we answered those requests by bringing in what was called Bill No. 82 and that bill was described in the short title as the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, 1949. Now we have been carrying on with this legislation, assisting provincial marketing boards of one kind or another, and most of them have asked for whatever authority was required under this act, which authority has been granted from time to time. Therefore they were going along, with an act which met most of the conditions that were required, until the province of Ontario organized some marketing boards, to which they gave authority that was not anticipated in the earlier period.
I think the outstanding authority which they desired to have, and which the court eventually decided they did not have under provincial legislation, was to levy certain fees against those who were delivering to marketing boards and to utilize at least part of those fees for the purpose of equalizing payments or effecting the payments which were made to the farmers who entered into the marketing organization that was set up under the act. A few years ago a delegation came to the members of the government, particularly to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and myself and discussed whether or not we were prepared to pass legislation which would give the further authority 82715-206
8, 1957	3261
Agricultural Products Marketing Act which the government of the province of Ontario and some of the farm organizations at least, if not all of them, desired should be given. We suggested at that time that if they would go as far as they thought they should go or desired to go in the passing of legislation, then, if the passing of the legislation was questioned and taken to the courts, and if they would wait until the courts had given their decision, we would then consider whether or not the legislation could be passed.
That program has been carried out; the Ontario legislature did pass legislation which they thought they should have and it was contested in the courts, or at least action was commenced in the courts. We suggested to them that the matter should be carried through the courts at that time. And in order to expedite that, we assisted them to get a stated case under the act before the court, and the court, as hon. members know, came to a decision just before the house met for this present session.
The legislation now before the house as an amendment is intended to meet the request which has been made, and I would just like to say in connection with it that the recommendation which was made by my department to the council and which has been put in the form of the bill now before the house recommended that the Agricultural Products Marketing Act be amended in such a way as to facilitate the prosecution of offenders under the act and to provide that marketing boards may collect fees and levies and use the funds thus obtained for the equalization of returns. The proposed amendments arise out of the recent judgment of the supreme court in respect to the farm products marketing reference which has more clearly defined the respective spheres of authority existing under federal and provincial legislation.
Prosecutions under the existing law present a problem where it is difficult to establish whether a product is to be marketed within a province or outside the province. One of the proposed amendments would place upon the accused the onus of proving that the product is not a regulated product within the meaning of the act. Further, it is proposed to make provision that where a prosecution is undertaken under a provincial act and it is found to be the federal act which is in fact contravened, the prosecution may proceed under the federal act notwithstanding that information has not been laid under such act. Both these amendments have been recommended by the attorney general of Ontario to bring the federal legislation in line with the Ontario legislation.
The proposed amendment relating to the collecting of fees and levies and the use of the
3262	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Marketing Act funds thus raised for equalization of returns or pooling arises from the opinion of the supreme court that it is not within provincial authority to raise funds and use them in this way, as this constitutes indirect taxation. The authority to equalize returns through the use of funds and levies is, however, considered necessary to the success of certain marketing programs carried out by provincial marketing boards; that is, the authority to equalize returns through the use of fees is considered necessary by the provincial authorities. The amendment has been recommended to the government by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in its recent presentation and has been advocated very strongly by various organizations across the country. It was not considered that the bill would run into any great length, and the bill which is now in front of hon. members does not in fact run to any great length, although it is considerably longer than the bill we had before, which could all be printed on one page. The bill now required is somewhat longer than that, but it does cover the points to which I have referred, and I wish to move its second reading, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with the general outline given by the minister I am in agreement, except that he did not go back to the original products marketing act which was placed on the statute books of this country in
1934	by the Bennett government. That act was known as the Natural Products Marketing Act. It covered most agricultural products, but in addition it contained clauses dealing with shingles and lumber, fruit and fruit products, maple products, tobacco, animals, meats, eggs, wool, dairy products, grains, seeds, vegetables and vegetable products, and other natural products of agriculture and of the forest, sea, lake or river.
That legislation was the first legislation placed on the statute books dealing with producers who were marketing their own products and in particular with the setting up of marketing boards, which have since become of very general importance and of general use. That legislation was based in the main upon certain legislation passed in British Columbia which was made applicable to the national field. It was opposed most strongly by the Liberal party when it was enacted, and up to the time it was enacted, and as soon as Mr. King was returned as Prime Minister in
1935	that legislation was submitted to the courts to determine whether or not it came within the legislative competence of parliament.


While the courts decided that it did not, it is of interest to know that in the recent submissions made with respect to the Agricultural Products Marketing Act many of the arguments which Mr. Bennett often stated should have been placed before the supreme court and the privy council, and which he contended would have caused those courts to come to the conclusion that the legislation was within the competence of parliament, were followed by the counsel who argued the case. As one looks back over a period of 22 years and finally arrives at the point where the Supreme Court of Canada in its majority judgment agrees with the contentions of Mr. Bennett, it is indeed of some interest to those of us who engage in the practise of law that so often we find that arguments unused on one occasion, when used many years afterwards may bring about a change in the judgment rendered.
As far as this legislation is concerned, the minister has set forth in general the course which has been followed with reference to this act. The degree to which farm marketing plans are in operation is not so generally known. Ontario today has 17 marketing plans covering 30 products to a value of $290 million. That shows the degree to which this type of legislation and the placing of the marketing of farm products in the hands of the producers to a great extent has advanced since 1934 when Mr. Bennett's government brought this legislation to which I referred before the house.
The largest scheme in Canada is, of course, Ontario's hog marketing co-operative with over 30,000 members and an annual sale exceeding $100 million.
All of the provinces but Newfoundland have marketing legislation today, although Alberta, Quebec and Nova Scotia have no marketing boards in existence. Ontario, with its vast marketing system and with the government of that province naturally interested in assuring that such legislation would be as effective and as beneficial as possible, suggested, and the federal government agreed therewith, the submission of certain questions to the Supreme Court of Canada with a view to determining the legislative jurisdiction in respect of these matters to which the minister made reference. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada is a long and complicated one but I think that in general the minister has summarized the effect of the majority judgments on the reference in question.
The conclusion was that the province of Ontario marketing legislation was within provincial jurisdiction but that boards established under it could not operate beyond Ontario's borders; that the province of

Ontario or any province lacked the necessary power to authorize levies to pay losses, to set up reserves or to provide equalization payments to producers. Such levies were declared to be a form of indirect taxation which, under the British North America Act, comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal parliament.
I have before me the recent amendments to the farm products marketing act of the province of Ontario which were passed at the last session of the legislature. The powers under that act are wide and most comprehensive. They grant to marketing boards in the province of Ontario the power to investigate, adjust or settle any dispute arising in connection with the producing, processing, distributing or transporting of any regulated product. These marketing boards also have the power to investigate prices and price spreads, to require all persons to register who are engaged in producing or marketing a regulated product. Full provision is made for the licensing of all those who will engage in these processes and provision is also made for the fixing of licence fees. Boards also have the power to fix and allot quotas and to require that the price payable or owing to the producers for the regulated product shall be paid to or through a local board. Provision is also made under the Ontario act for the making of regulations covering prices, grades, quantities, et cetera, that may be marketed by each producer, and also for the prosecution of any person who pays less than the minimum price as fixed by the board.
As the minister has stated, the amendments now before the house were requested by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
I have here the submissions made by that organization in January of 1957, and I shall quote from them for I think they clarify the purposes of the legislation. They say:
Whereas marketing legislation aimed at enabling agricultural producers to develop orderly self-help production and marketing programs is now in effect in nine provinces of Canada;
Whereas the validity of certain provincial marketing legislation in effect in Ontario is being challenged . . .
Whereas provincial and federal governments have severally and individually jurisdictional authority over these matters;
Resolved that the provincial governments be requested to continue to actively support effective producer marketing legislation, and in co-operation with the federal authorities develop complementary legislation which will permit the orderly marketing of farm products.
In their presentation to the cabinet on February 15, 1957, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture also made this submission:
Based on the Supreme Court of Canada decision . . . further federal legislation is needed if producer boards are to be enabled to carry on certain 82715-206J
8, 1957	3263
Agricultural Products Marketing Act functions which they consider will often be essential to effective orderly marketing of farm products.
Those in general represent the presentations made by farmers. I have as well the presentation made by the president of the Ontario federation of agriculture in which he sets out the request made to the federal government for legislation similar to that now introduced by the minister.
We in the Progressive Conservative party believe that legislation of this kind, demanded as it is by farm organizations across Canada in the interests of orderly marketing, deserves and commands our support. We believe that on the basis of the record of farm marketing organizations this legislation, while it does mark an unusual step forward, is necessary. We believe that the powers contained in the legislation, being subject to a form of revocation by the governor in council, assure that in the application of the legislation the rights and equities of people in general will be preserved and maintained while at the same time assuring to the farmer and to those engaged in the production, processing and distribution of farm products fair and equitable treatment.
I think all of us can pay our tribute to the work that has been accomplished by the marketing boards that have existed. This is a form of self-help. Instead of asking governments to do for them, they themselves ask their governments for the opportunity to do for themselves.
I believe, however, that in addition to this legislation further action is necessary. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has determined the distribution of powers between the federal and provincial governments we believe that the time has come when, in the interests of the national welfare of agriculture, a national conference on agriculture should be convened. This would be representative of the federal and provincial governments and of farm organizations with the responsibility of suggesting a general policy for domestic and international trade so as to assure the farmer a fair and proper share of the national income and also permit farmers to have a part in formulating policies for the promotion of the welfare of agriculture.
In saying that the opposition is giving its support to this legislation, I do say to the minister, however, that irrespective of the circumstances under which clause 3 of the bill has come into being I am of those who through the years have opposed legislation which places the onus upon an accused or defendant in a prosecution. While I am not permitted to read the clause, with great deference to those who feel otherwise I believe
3264	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Marketing Act that clause is not necessary in order to strengthen provincial boards in carrying out prosecutions for contravention of the act. I should like to know from the minister the degree to which consideration has been given to this question. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) might be able to contribute his views on the matter. I am one of those who realize that in recent years the trend has been in the direction-in particular with regard to certain types of legislation in which knowledge is peculiarly within the competence of the accused or defendant-of placing the onus upon the accused or defendant in any prosecution that is taken. Under the pure foods act, in connection with adulteration and the like, there are cases in which the onus must naturally rest on the accused. Having given some considerable thought to this matter, I for one believe that the last section is not necessary to a successful carrying out of the duties and responsibilities of the marketing boards that will be set up under this act or those already set up to which it will be applicable.
I think, in general, that is all I wish to say at this time. This legislation is certainly far-reaching in its effects. It has vast potentialities. The power possessed by the governor in council of revocation of any authority granted under one of the sections would appear to be one that will assure the preservation and maintenance of the public interest. At the same time the legislation in general will permit farmers and producers to extend and expand the field within which agriculture has attained its greatest advance, namely through producers by self-help making their contribution to their own prosperity rather than relying on the state to assure them a fair and proper return for the products which they produce. Any measure that has as its purpose self-help rather than making any organization a leaner on the state is, I believe, a step in the right direction, and one that deserves support.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, the members in this group wholeheartedly support this measure to amend the Agricultural Products Marketing Act. We, I suppose like other groups in this house, had the opportunity to listen to the representations of the representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, particularly those from the province of Ontario. We thought they had a thorough knowledge of their difficulties and of what was needed to correct them. As a result of hearing their representations and because of our knowledge of the value of marketing acts in other directions, we wholeheartedly support this legislation.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l

While the hon. member who preceded me spoke with academic knowledge of this question, I speak from experience because I was a member of the first committee in British Columbia that went before the legislature of British Columbia, and the results were the first marketing legislation in Canada passed by the Liberal government of that day. The situation that caused this action on the part of the tree fruit growers of British Columbia was chaotic marketing. I refer to the unnecessary competition between the growers themselves in a limited market on the prairies-the export market had then not been developed to a great extent-and the robber barons engaged in the distribution of fruit in the prairie provinces at that time. The chaotic conditions caused by those two influences were the reason for the decision by the representatives of the tree fruits industry to study the matter. As a result of giving over a period of years some lengthy consideration to the question of what should be done in a legislative way to correct the situation, they finally recommended to the government of the day in British Columbia that marketing legislation of this type was necessary.
Getting the legislation through the legislature was a long job. There was opposition from various quarters. Finally a marketing bill was passed. Then it was challenged and its validity was ruled upon by the privy council and finally it was declared intra vires. I remember very well that, when the telegram was sent to all the members of the committee at various points in British Columbia informing them of the decision of the privy council there was general rejoicing at that fact.
The results have indicated and proved the good judgment of the fruit growers concerned at that time. I could give numerous illustrations. I make these few brief remarks because this type of legislation is strongly supported by members of this group. In fact it is one aspect of our agricultural policy and has been such throughout the years. In order to give one concrete illustration of how the farmer was protected by this legislation, may I say that prior to the marketing act of British Columbia being placed on the statute books of that province and prior to the establishment of the tree fruits board in that province, the average amount claimed per year by the robber barons on the prairies in the fruit business for cherries that were supposed to arrive in poor condition was 14 per cent. We have sent hundreds and thousands of crates through our packing houses, and inevitably we would get back from Calgary, Edmonton or some other point like that a telegram saying that

so many cases in this car were in poor condition, so many cases were damaged and so on. We were obliged to accept the deductions because we had not any inspectors or organization to correct the matter. Since we have had marketing legislation in British Columbia that average of 14 per cent claimed for damage has been reduced to slightly over 1 per cent.
I mention that as a clear illustration of what can be done by farmers or fruit growers under the protection of satisfactory legislation. Without any doubt time has vindicated the faith of the fruit growers of British Columbia in this type of legislation. I am glad to know that the agriculturists of Ontario have followed our lead and are finding it successful, as well as agriculturists in other parts of Canada.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) mentioned this was a self-help type of legislation which made it possible for the farmers to help themselves. I am all in favour of that. This is self-help under the protection of law, in which we believe. I think fundamentally, marketing legislation is selfhelp to provide the farmers with a means for preventing the robber barons from controlling their products. We support this legislation.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, there is no useful purpose served by holding up this legislation at any great length.
I am not going to speak from an academic point of view or from the point of view of one who was actually involved in the setting up of the first marketing legislation in this country. However, the fact the bill is entitled an act to amend the Agricultural Products Marketing Act indicates to me and to the members of this group that it is an admission of weakness in our present economic system. Apparently we have failed to look after the agriculture industry as it has a right to expect to be looked after, so we have to pass special legislation to assist it.
Recognizing that there is that need in this country we in this group are prepared to support the legislation, but only by reason of the fact that the present system has failed to look after the needs of those who are engaged in the agriculture industry. The hon. member who preceded me in this debate indicated that we, in British Columbia, are happy with our marketing legislation. It has served a very useful purpose. Certainly, I would agree with him that it has served a very useful purpose in so far as it has assisted both the farmer and the consumer.
It has stopped underselling and so has assisted the farmer and the customer has been assured that when he purchases a commodity today the same commodity will not be selling at a ridiculously low price tomorrow.
8, 1957	32$5
Agricultural Products Marketing Act
In supporting this legislation, I would once again draw to the government's attention the fact that it is high time we started looking into our economic system to see if we cannot cure these ills without always resorting to legislation.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: wish to support the statements made by the last two speakers. I realize this bill is a very important one, especially so far as Ontario is concerned. As you know, in British Columbia we have been very successful in our marketing legislation and when doubt was cast upon it we were somewhat worried. However this legislation will clear away all doubt. I should like to thank the minister for his prompt action in this regard. He could have delayed acting until the next session or perhaps a year or two from now. Prompt action has been necessary to protect this vast industry, and I refer to the whole industry throughout the Dominion of Canada.
I would say that while legislation of this type is necessary at the moment, it has been hastily conceived and probably there will be weaknesses apparent in it as experience is gained. I do hope the minister will watch the operation of this particular act and protect the growers as they have not been protected in the past. I merely make that suggestion to him because the fact that the act becomes enforceable does not necessarily mean that the provisions of the act will be followed. I have found that in past years,, and year after year corrections are made in the acts. I hope the minister will watch carefully to see that this act does operate.


George Hugh Castleden: We like to see these improvements in the Agricultural Products Marketing Act. In this case provincial boards have been limited, largely because they have difficulty in establishing whether or not the product was sold provincially or whether it was going into other provinces or the export trade. These boards will now be permitted to impose duties and levies on the products, thus making it easier for them to operate. I do not believe the bill is a cure-all for agricultural ills, but in so far as it enables these boards to assist in marketing the crop and in giving the provincial boards more opportunity to expand and establish certain rights, I think it is helpful. It is for that reason we support it.
We had hoped earlier that there would be something to assist the establishment of livestock boards at the provincial level which would help in the proper grading of cattle in the stockyards so the farmers could be protected in that regard. Perhaps the idea has been brought out that it may be necessary for a person who is accused under this act to
3266	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Agricultural Products Marketing Act bring proof of his innocence. However, I think that could be dealt with when the measure is in committee. We welcome this measure, as far as it goes.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I was
not in the house when the minister made his opening statement. Might I ask the minister, in view of the fact I was not in the house- and I apologize for that-does this legislation meet with the requests made by several producers' organizations in Ontario.


James Garfield Gardiner: We think it does.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not speaking.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I rise to make one quite simple point. The federal act which we are amending is a very brief act of four sections. Section 2 and section 4 contain the words, "outside the province". The bill as we have it before us deletes that phrase from section 2 of the act, but does not delete it from section 4. I have been absent from the house for the last few days, and when upon my return, I examined the legislation today it seemed to me that it was necessary to delete this phrase also from section 4. When we get into committee, I shall be making a motion to that effect. I thought it was proper I should make reference to it on second reading so hon. members would not be taken by surprise.


George Hugh Castleden: Would the minister also include something to the effect that in any prosecution the onus of proof lies upon the accused?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Apple whaite):: It
is not unusual to ask the one who has the floor a question before he resumes his seat, but we are not in the committee stage. However, the Minister of Justice may answer the question.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid I did not get my hon. friend from Yorkton's question. My remarks today have no reference to any other part of the bill except that to which I have just referred.


George Hugh Castleden: I shall deal with it in committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Is
it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understood we were not going into committee today.
[Mr. Castleden.l


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: I may say so, it was my understanding we would go into committee, be instructed, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Preamble.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day, or next sitting of the house?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I must have missed something. Was there some arrangement under which we were not to continue with the bill today?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; a suggestion was just made by the Minister of Justice that since the deputy minister has been away we are not fully instructed on the amendments to this section and to the amendments referred to a few moments ago. As soon as we can get fully instructed on them we shall continue with the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: This morning I suggested that if any communications had been received regarding this prospective legislation the minister, or any other minister of the government, should table those letters or telegrams so that full information would be available regarding the matters to which objection may have been taken. When the item is called again I presume the minister will be in a position to place before the committee the suggestions regarding amendments, or any other matters dealt with in the communications, that have been received in the last few days.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, some communications have come in since I was in the house this morning; that is, they came in in this mornings' mail and I had not seen the mail when I came into the house. Some communications have come in along the line that certain amendments should be made. I would not consider those as being in opposition to the legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: No; that is right.


James Garfield Gardiner: Some communications have come in which probably would not be considered of a public nature. I doubt very much whether we should start a precedent of producing in the house those kinds of communications from individual to individual; but there may be some that can be brought in. I shall go over them.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister will check during the interim.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: When shall the committee have leave to sit again? Later this day or next sitting of the house.



FERTILIZERS


James Garfield Gardiner: the second reading of Bill No. 400, for the regulation and control of agricultural fertilizers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill has already been before the Senate and was referred to a committee of the Senate. It has been gone over rather carefully, and I do not think there were any suggestions that there be amendments made to it. I therefore will not go too far into detail in connection with it in moving the second reading of the bill; but I think probably I should make a short statement on it.
The present Fertilizers Act was enacted in 1922 and amended in 1927 and 1948. Its basic provisions are to require fertilizers sold in Canada to be marked to show their guaranteed plant food content of nitrogen, phosphorus and potash; to provide for sampling and analysis to ensure they meet their guarantees and to require them to be registered.
The present act continues a large number of details which are now inadequate or outdated in view of recent developments in the fertilizer trade and fertilizer usage. As illustrations, (a) it does not provide adequately for trace mineral elements, such as copper and boron which are now being introduced in fertilizer mixtures; (b) it requires that the phosphorus and potassium components of fertilizers be identified and analysed as phosphoric acid and potassium oxide; whereas the present trend is to identify and analyse them on an elemental basis as phosphorus and potassium-the present bill will allow for this adjustment when desirable; (c) the present act requires each fertilizer to be re-registered each year, but it is now considered that with respect to many fertilizers permanent registration could be granted, thereby lightening the administrative load both on the department and on the industry; (d) it specifies certain methods of sampling which are now at variance with established standard control methods.
For some years fertilizer users, as represented by provincial fertilizer boards and the fertilizer industry, have made representations to the department that the legislation should be amended to bring the above and other similar detailed requirements up to date. The
Fertilizers
bill before parliament at the present time in no way changes the basic provisions of the basic act. The major change is that Bill 400 provides for various details with respect to registration, composition, packaging, labelling, sampling and analyses to be established by regulation by the governor in council rather than under the act as it is at present. This is considered desirable, as it will permit the more ready amendment of those details as may be necessary to maintain them in keeping with changing conditions and practices in fertilizer usage.
The general structure of Bill 400 follows the pattern of agricultural legislation of this type brought to parliament in recent years.
In view of the fact that the bill has been gone over very carefully by a committee of the Senate and is recommended to this house, I do not think it is necessary at this moment to say anything further, but when we are considering the measure in committee these matters can be gone into further.


Mr. J. A. Charlton (Branl-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, the length of this debate and the time I take on it are not to be taken as a lessening of the importance of this measure. It is very important that producers and farmers using fertilizer be protected as far as the analyses of fertilizer are concerned. As a matter of fact, the use of fertilizer has gone up so tremendously in the last few years that it has become more important every year.
The minister just mentioned the fact that it is not necessary to re-analyse fertilizers each year. I suggest to him it would be if the fertilizer had been stored in a place where it might be moist, and should be reground. Under those circumstances it would be advisable to re-analyse it.
The minister also mentioned the fact that lesser elements be included in the analysis. I think that is very good, because the importance of the lesser elements has become a fact. The people who are desirous of getting fertilizers, including those lesser elements, should be given the protection of this act the same as in the three elements of nitrogen, phosphorus and potash.
Another thing that is included in this act is supplements used to improve the physical condition of soil. I suppose people know that this can be quite a racket if it is not watched. I think it is very good that these are included in the act.
This bill does not change the present act a great deal, and I do not think it is necessary to discuss the changes at any great length.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I presume this bill is one that results largely from the experience of the minister's officials and has been recommended

Fertilizers
by his officials, because of their knowledge of changing practices and circumstances and the increasing use of and demand for certain new trace elements in fertilizers, such as copper and boron. I know they are used and in the fruit industry they consider the importance of this matter. The use of these elements is now being recognized more and more and they are being applied on a wider scale every year. The act should be amended and protection provided such as the circumstances demand.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that while I am not able to follow everything that the late Louis Bromfield has said with respect to fertilizers, it is advantageous that farmers should be made aware of the many trace elements that would be valuable in the growing of crops. I think possibly it is important to note that this bill may tend to do away with many of the abuses that possibly farmers are exposed to today from certain kinds of fertilizers which they buy on the market. I have noted in the last few years the use of certain fertilizers, although I know very little about them, and possibly this will tend to eliminate a lot of these abuses to which the farmers are exposed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 4-Regulations.
John Alpheus Charlton: Clause 4 (d) reads:
(d) for exempting any fertilizer or supplement or any person from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this act;
I wonder if the minister could explain under what circumstances a man would be exempt from the provisions of this act?


James Garfield Gardiner: Clause 4 provides for regulations with respect to the various details which are mentioned here. In subclause (d) it provides for exemptions and under this subclause natural manures and materials used for manufacturing purposes, etc. will be exempted. Also, probably, small packaged goods used by backyard gardeners will be exempt from registration.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the minister that some of these materials sold to backyard gardeners could be very important items, although they are not sold in very large quantities. As far as natural manures are concerned I would assume, for instance, that they will have to have an analysis attached to them. You

might have sheep manure dried for fertilizer, I would assume that these would have to have an analysis.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are not exempt from analysis but are exempt from registration. There is a registration fee but it is not thought that some persons using some fertilizer product in the backyard should have to pay this fee.


John Alpheus Charlton: If the minister means
where a farmer sells some natural fertilizer to a gardener in the city, certainly he should not be called upon to have a licence to sell a load or so of manure to such a person. Is that the reason?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is one of the reasons. It exempts manures; and under these "natural manures", materials used for manufacturing purposes are exempted from the provisions of this act. Exempted from registration will probably be small packaged goods used in backyard gardening. It does not say that they are exempted from anything else.


John Alpheus Charlton: I take it, then, that it does not exempt the analysis if a man is in business, but it is just for the small operator. What about a man who buys his own ingredients and mixes his own fertilizer for his own use?


James Garfield Gardiner: He is exempted under the act.


John Alpheus Charlton: A man who mixes his own fertilizer for his own use?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Angus MacLean: May I ask the minister what is the position regarding certain chemical byproducts that will be used in fertilizers, slag, for instance, and things of that nature?


James Garfield Gardiner: If they are used for the making of fertilizer they, too, come under the act.


John Angus MacLean: Yes, but if they are sold direct to the farmer?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, if he is buying them for his own purposes they do not come under the act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Inspectors and analysts.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister mind telling the committee where the inspectors operate; is it at the point of manufacture or along the line of distribution as well?


James Garfield Gardiner: The inspectors sample
fertilizers anywhere along the line of distribution.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act including provision of a salary for one additional judge of the county court of Ontario.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May we have an explanation from the responsible minister?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, this act will provide for a salary for an additional county court judge in the province of Ontario. As hon. members know, before we can appoint a judge there has to be a judicial vacancy existing in the province in question, and also authority from parliament to increase the number of judges in the province for whom the Judges Act provides salaries. This is the step that we are now taking to provide one more county court judge in the province of Ontario. In addition, there will be one section in the act relating to the titles of one or two judges in Nova Scotia whose present titles have become obsolete.


Stanley Howard Knowles: According to the estimates there is at present provision for 63 judges and junior judges of county and district courts in Ontario. Is that right?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems rather odd to me, if we already have 63, that we would need just 64. If several new appointments were asked for, or if the present number happened to be 10, for example, I could understand an increase of one. Would the minister explain why he happens to need just one more?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The reason we need to increase the number from 63 to 64 is that we need to increase the number of judges in one centre from two to three.


Mr. Michener:: Could the minister say where that increase is to take place?
Judges Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In London.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: for leave to introduce Bill No. 416, to amend the Judges Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: When shall this bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps we had better have a look at it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, it is very short. I could read it slowly and I am sure all hon. members would get the substance of it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: I think perhaps we had better agree whether this bill is to be read the second time now by leave.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of the bill.
He said: The present section 10 of the Judges Act reads as follows:
10. The salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia are as follows:
Per annum
(a)	The Chief Justice of the court _ $18,500
(b)	The Judge in Equity	 16,900
(c)	Five other judges of the court, each 16,900
Because there are no longer any distinct proceedings in equity in Nova Scotia, the judicature act of Nova Scotia has been amended to abolish the title of judge in equity, and the purpose of this clause is to make a corresponding amendment to the Judges Act.
The bill we are now considering will then read that the salaries of the Nova Scotia judges are as follows:
Per annum
(a) the chief justice of the court   $18,500
(b) six other judges of the court, each 16,900
The rest of the section is dropped.
Clause 2 of the bill will read:
2. Paragraph (a) of section 19 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor: (a) Sixty-four judges and junior judges of the county and district courts, each, $10,500.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Salaries of Judges of Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister say a further word regarding clause 1? He may have explained it on second reading but as he knows we did not have the bill in front of

Judges Act
us at that time. I gather that by this clause we are not reducing the number of judges in Nova Scotia; there will still be seven judges on the Supreme Court.


Daniel Roland Michener: A somewhat similar idea occurred to me about the number of judges. I am not sure why the clause says "six other judges" instead of "the other judges." That would achieve the same result.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Except that when the number is given it enables hon. members to see what is the total amount of the crown revenue that is being used for these judicial salaries. You multiply the amount that each judge gets by the number of judges and hon. members can then see the precise total amount of money that is involved.


Daniel Roland Michener: Could the number of judges be changed only by amendment of the act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh yes, and this is our authority for paying these salaries.


Mr. Montgomery:: I take it that this judge in equity has been carrying on the ordinary work of the supreme court.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-1955, c. 48, s. 3.
Daniel Roland Michener: Would the minister say again what is the purpose of the reference to the $10,500. There is no change, I take it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, no change. My hon. friend will see that it is just the underlined words that are changed.


Daniel Roland Michener: Oh yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend looks at the Judges Act, of which the present bill is an amendment, he will see that the first several pages of that act are taken up with a list of the judges in the various provinces, the number of judges and the amount of salary that each one gets. The Judges Act is our authority for spending the money in payment of their salaries.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Apparently there are now to be 64 judges and junior judges. That indicates there are two classes of judges.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. Where there is more than one judge in a county court there is a senior judge and a junior judge, but they both get the same amount of money. The one is senior and the other is junior.


Daniel Roland Michener: The provision for the payment of judges sets out the number of judges which there may be.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Daniel Roland Michener: In other words, this is an increase in the number of county court judges in Ontario from 63 to 64.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Daniel Roland Michener: And the increase is effected by permitting one more judge to be paid.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Daniel Roland Michener: It is a rather roundabout way of increasing the number of judges.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the third reading of the biU.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE ACT


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 226, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister going to explain the bill?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, the explanation of the bill is pretty largely covered by the explanatory note. Hon. members will recall that on a couple of occasions since I became minister we have brought in bills to extend the liability of the crown in actions between the crown and a subject with the result that now the crown is, I think, fully as liable to the subject in respect of any contracts or torts as the subject is responsible to another subject.
The purpose of the present bill is to maintain a liability which we have always recognized. In other words, we have always considered that members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, when they were going about the country in the discharge of their duties, should be regarded as servants of the crown so that if they commit any tort upon a subject we as their masters would be responsible to that subject for the full amount of the damages which their tort had inflicted.
Recently there was a decision of the privy council in a case that arose in New South Wales which raised a serious doubt whether members of a police force are servants within

the meaning of that legal principle. If we were to leave the law in Canada in the condition in which this privy council judgment may have left it, then we could perhaps have this result-indeed and I would think it more than likely-if someone who had been injured by a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, thinking that he could recover indemnity from the crown, sued the crown as the master and the principle of this judgment were applied, which holds that the crown is not the master of a policeman at law, then the subject in that case would not succeed in his claim against the crown.
The whole purpose of the present bill is to confirm the law in the position in which we have always admitted it to be, namely that the crown should continue to be liable to anyone who has been wrongfully injured by a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police while engaged in the discharge of his duties.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Mr. Speaker, boiled down, I think the minister has stated the purpose of the bill, to bring the legal situation regarding police officers who perform their duties by virtue of their office into line with modern thinking. I think the common law distinguishes between the position of master and servant and that of a police officer and his employer. Under the Crown Liability Act passed a few years ago by parliament the crown was made subject to actions for damages caused by any civil servant while in the course of his employment, and the armed forces were later included. I take it that the minister and the government feel that the R.C.M.P. are in a little different position than the armed forces. Otherwise they would have been brought under the other act.
Apparently a doubt has been raised by the case of Attorney General for New South Wales v. Perpetual Trustee Company. I have not read the case but I take it that the decision does not put police officers in the same category as members of the armed services and that heretofore there has been a wrong interpretation of the position of members of the R.C.M.P.
I understand this is the sole purpose of bringing them into that relationship. In other words, by statute we simply make officers and men of the R.C.M.P. servants of the crown, so to speak. In other words, the crown will be liable for any damages caused by any of their acts while on duty in the course of their employment. It changes the old axiom in the common law in a sense because of modern thinking.
3271
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think it might perhaps be a little bit-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I thought the minister was going to make an answer.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I was just attempting to answer his question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This being the second reading stage, if the hon. gentleman resumes his seat I must recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on this bill will be very brief. As we understand it from the explanatory note and from the explanation given by the minister, it seems to be a step that is desirable to take. Indeed, it is in line with the modern concept as to the liability of the crown. I take it that there are three parties involved in this legislation. There is the subject who might suffer as a result of a tort. There is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer who might in a sense be responsible for the tort. Then there is the crown. I take it that what this legislation does is to make crystal clear the protection that is afforded to the subject, and that it also protects the mounted police officer when he is on duty. In other words, it extends or confirms the protection of those two parties. If any party has its protection weakened or, shall I say, has its liability extended, it is the crown. If that is a correct statement of the position, or in other words if it improves the position both of the subject and of the individual officer on duty, it would seem to be desirable legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[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-Member of force deemed a servant of the crown.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Now that we are in committee, perhaps the minister might indicate whether or not my statement of our understanding which I made on second reading is correct.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, the matter is really quite simple. We have always proceeded upon the assumption that a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the discharge of his duty was a servant of the crown. We have recognized responsibility for his actions in that regard. In this case which arose in New South Wales and was taken to the privy council, the judgment of the privy council raised some doubt whether the practice which we had followed was legally sound.

Prisons and Reformatories Act We thought that the practice which we had followed was just and fair. Therefore, regardless of what effect the privy council decision might have upon the law, we thought we should continue the law in Canada as we had always interpreted it to be.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.
Mr. Garson, by leave, moved the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PRISONS AND REFORMATORIES ACT


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 282, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have very much to add to the explanatory note. The purpose of this amendment is to enable transfers of inmates to be made between certain new institutions in the province of British Columbia. It is necessary for us to pass this bill in order to permit that to be done. That is the purpose of the bill.


[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-Transfer of offenders.
Howard Charles Green: Has there been legislation on this point in the legislature of British Columbia?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think I could say whether or not there is provincial legislation there. The necessity for this federal legislation arises from the fact that, as my hon. friend knows, the provinces under the British North America Act have the power to create provincial gaols. But such provincial gaols in this sense are lock-ups for the incarceration of persons found guilty of summary conviction offences and the like. When the provinces get into the field of reform institutions such as this one at Haney they derive their authority to administer these reform institutions, not from their provincial powers under section 92 of the British North America Act but by reason of the Prisons and Reformatories Act powers that we delegate to them under our powers

under section 91 of the British North America Act to establish penitentiaries. That means that on every occasion on which a new provincial reform institution of this kind is created, an amendment to our Prisons and Reformatories Act is necessary in order to authorize the actions and steps that are authorized by this bill.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I take it that this
amendment applies only to British Columbia.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes; this amendment applies just to British Columbia. In the appropriate part of the Prisons and Reformatories Act my hon. friend will find similar sections with regard to his own province.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I take it that this bill actually is being introduced at the request of the government of the province of British Columbia?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall this bill, by leave, be read a third time now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.
Mr. Garson, by leave, moved the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



ATOMIC ENERGY

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
The following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient that the houses of parliament approve the statute of the international atomic energy agency signed by Canada at New York on October 26, 1956, and that this house do approve the same.-The Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, if I might, I should like to make an inquiry.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wanted to raise a point of order, perhaps. I wanted to know whether it is the intention to proceed with order No. 2? We are ready to do so now.


Howard Charles Green: No. That is being dropped.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order as to what we are to proceed with, may I point out that we were going to be furnished with a few copies of this statute. We have not

received them as yet, so I wonder if this could be delayed. Could we not go on with the Prime Minister's resolution?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, atomic energy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am afraid the minister
missed my point. We were assured that before we would proceed with the atomic energy resolution we would be supplied with a few copies of the statute referred to therein. We have not yet received them.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps whatever minister is dealing with this resolution could make his statement, and then consideration of the bill could be deferred until we see a copy which, I presume, will contain a copy of the agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not even a bill; it is just a one-stage resolution.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told that copies are on the way. I have one here which I would be glad to send to someone.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How long has the minister had it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: About five
minutes; I have had it since last February, as a matter of fact, but I saw it recently again about five or ten minutes ago.



APPROVAL OF STATUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AGENCY

Paul Joseph James Martin: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament approve the statute of the international atomic energy agency signed by Canada at New York on October 26, 1956, and that this house do approve the same.


Howard Charles Green: We will certainly require a statement by some minister on this question, and then we want time after that to read the statute before we debate it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce suggests that I might make a preliminary statement. This resolution arises out of a proposal that was first made by the President of the United States to the general assembly of the United Nations in 1953. After his conference with the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the Prime Minister of France he went to the assembly of the United Nations and proposed that an effort be made to set up an agency to provide for the peaceful uses of atomic energy. It was particularly appropriate that that proposal should come from the President of the United States because, as the major atomic energy power, the invitation and the
Atomic Energy
suggestion made by the president bore all the earmarks of something that was both important and very reassuring.
As a result of the proposal which was made there was a meeting, I think some time in December, 1953. A negotiating group, of which Canada was a member, representing a number of atomic energy countries began negotiations in Washington with a view ultimately to the presentation of a statute which was to be accepted by the members of the United Nations and certain other member states not members of the United Nations. These negotiations between the eight powers continued until the fall of 1955 when a draft statute was placed before the general assembly for consideration. As a result of the consideration given by the general assembly it was decided to extend from eight to twelve the number of negotiating countries which brought in, amongst others, India. Then for a period of some months these 12 negotiating countries gave further consideration to the matter in Washington. Ultimately there was presented last September, not at the general assembly but at a meeting held at the United Nations, a draft statute to which some 87 countries gave their general adherence. This statute now awaits ratification by Canada and other nations.
Canada, I may say in speaking from recollection of the last series of meetings held at the United Nations, did play a notable part in the early negotiations in Washington and later at the United Nations prior to and during the presentation of the draft statute. The body set up by this general conference will have the character, for the purpose of administration, of a specialized agency of the United Nations, although it will not be in fact a specialized agency of the United Nations. It will be a body that will, from time to time under certain conditions, make reports to the United Nations. It will have its own board of governors, of whom five must come from the most advanced nations in the technology of atomic energy, including the production of source materials, and one other must come from North America, Latin America, western Europe, eastern Europe, Africa and the Middle East, south Asia, south-east Asia and the Pacific and the Far East.
The purpose of the organization is one which I am sure will commend itself to all hon. members. It represents an attempt to provide for the benefit of mankind the peaceful uses of atomic energy. It is with that in mind we are now asking the house to approve the statute of the atomic energy agency which we signed in New York on October 26, 1956. This will enable Canada to proceed with ratification so that Canada may

National Capital Plan
join other nations in making it possible for this important agency to come into being and serve the constructive interest of mankind.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should like to say just a word on this matter. This statute was tabled in the house in February last, and it has been on the records of the house since that time. The statute is intended to put regulations into the field of atomic energy and make it possible for those countries that wish to learn the technique and obtain the source materials to do so. The first meeting of this body will be held, I understand, next September, and only those countries which have ratified the statute will be able to attend and take advantage. It is important, therefore, I think that the statute be ratified by Canada. It has already been signed by Canada. We would like it to be ratified at this session of parliament.
I have read the statute again. I was familiar with it at the time the discussions were under way, but I have read it again recently and I am sure there is nothing in the statute which members of parliament will find objectionable. It is simply setting up a body of men with instructions to arrive at a workable plan for controlling the use of source material of atomic energy, to regulate its use for peaceful purposes and to provide assistance to those countries that require assistance in entering the field of the peaceful use of atomic energy.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this statute is a good deal longer than I had expected. The booklet with which we have been furnished contains about 45 pages. I expect that we can agree quite heartily with the terms of the statute, but I would ask that we be given some time in which to read and consider it. With those thoughts in mind I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Green the debate was adjourned.



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the development and improvement of the national capital region and in relation thereto,-
l to provide for the constitution of a national capital commission and to repeal the Federal District Commission Act;
2.	To provide for the objects, purposes and powers of the commission; and
3.	To enact such financial provisions as may he necessary to accomplish the purposes of the act.


Mr. Weir:: Would it not be preferable to take No. 7, which I think the Minister of Finance announced a few moments ago would be ready for this afternoon?


Jean Lesage: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He put it on the questionable list.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Howard Charles Green: My understanding was that the Prime Minister would be making a statement.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@Quebec East: Mr. Chairman, I already indicated some days ago that it was not the government's intention to ask parliament to complete action this session on the measure which this resolution would precede. We felt, however, that it was desirable that hon. members of this house and those in the other place, who did such useful work on this subject last year in the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the federal district commission, should now have an opportunity to see the government's proposals in regard to the legislation while their recollections of the work they did is still relatively fresh in their minds.
It will be recalled that the joint committee, in part IV of their report, recommended that the Federal District Commission Act be revised. They noted that since the present act was drafted both Canada and the national capital have developed substantially, and they suggested it was appropriate that the act should be revised in order to bring the definition of the powers, the duties and the responsibilities of the commission in line with the development of the national capital area. They went on to recommend that the name of the act and of the commission be changed, and we are disposed to recommend that their recommendation be adopted by parliament.
This description of the area as the federal district commission was subject to some misinterpretation because of the fact that there are other federal district commissions which are separate from the usual city or territorial administration. The bill which has been prepared does not contemplate removing any part of the territory from the ordinary jurisdiction of the provincial authorities which have jurisdiction in respect of all municipal matters, and it was felt that it would be less ambiguous and less subject to misinterpretation if we merely called it the national capital area. That does not mean that it is not normally subject to the ordinary rules of municipal and provincial

administration, but that there is a commission that is giving special attention to the development of the area.
The committee also recommended that the chairman of the commission be employed full time in this office, and the bill which will follow the adoption of this resolution, if it is adopted, implements that to the extent that it makes it permissible to have that done. But after discussing it with the present chairman of the federal district commission, it was found that at the present time, and for perhaps the next several months or a year or two, it would not be necessary for the one who is at the head of the commission to devote the whole of his time to it and, as a matter of fact, the gentleman who is the chairman of the federal district commission is rendering very useful advisory service to the government of Alberta in connection with the eastern slopes of the Pacific; to the government of Ontario in connection with its legislation and regulations concerning the administration of the forest and water resources of the province; and he is also consulted by the government of Newfoundland as to the economic possibility of there being established new pulp and paper mills there that would not overtax the resources of the forests of that province, but would add to the economy of the province without endangering the future of the existing establishments or the establishments that might be made if it were found that the forest wealth would support additional establishments.
It was felt that that was something that was of value to the economy of the nation and the chairman, from his experience, told me that he thought he would like to devote something more than half his time to the work of the commission but he did not think that he would be working full time even if he were required to abandon the other retainers that he has from the government of Alberta, the government of Ontario and the government of Newfoundland.
The bill as drafted does provide that the chairman may be a full-time or a part-time chairman, and it would be our intention, if we are still responsible for the administration, to retain the present chairman of the commission on a part-time basis, with the understanding that he will-and I am sure he will-if he finds more time is required than he anticipates-he now anticipates that it would take something more than half his time but not the whole of his time because he is the very conscientious gentleman we know him to be-bring that to the attention of whoever was responsible to parliament as a liaison between parliament and the commis-
National Capital Plan
sion and suggest a different recommendation to parliament.
My attention has been drawn to the fact that it is six o'clock. May I interrupt at this moment and continue at eight o'clock the few remarks I have to make on the other portions of the resolution.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, I think the most important recommendation in regard to legislation which was made by the joint committee was what it described as the basic issue of policy and jurisdiction in achieving the control of land use in the national capital area. The committee urged, it may be recalled, that the federal policy be exercised as far as possible through the ownership and use of property rather than by the assertion of any federal jurisdiction.
I think hon. members will be satisfied that we have faithfully followed the spirit of this recommendation in the bill that has been drafted. The government agrees with the observations of the committee that the major objectives now appear to be capable of a reasonable measure of fulfilment by this means provided we can have the co-operation of the bodies having jurisdiction in the provincial and municipal fields.
Of course it would be out of place to comment at this stage in the proceeding upon the details of the bill, but I think hon. members will find that the provisions are quite clear and that they do conform to the spirit of the recommendations. The provisions regarding the constitution of the commission itself should, we think, make it a more efficient body to carry out the considerably larger volume of business which it now has to undertake in connection with its duties.
It is provided in the bill that there shall be a chairman and a vice-chairman and an executive committee consisting of the chairman, vice-chairman and three members chosen by the commission from amongst its other members. The purposes of the commission have been, I will not say expended but they have, I think, been expressed a little more clearly and more specifically. They are such as would allow the commission, if it is provided with the necessary funds by parliament, to participate in the major recommendations of the commission with respect,

National Capital Plan
for instance, to the prevention of pollution of the waters bordering on the properties of the commission to the Queensway for which an agreement has now been signed between the provincial government, the city of Ottawa and the commission.
The purpose of this agreement is to participate in the provision of better communications with the other shore although there is no specific requirement in the legislation, on the recommendation of the commission, that another bridge between Ottawa and Hull is urgently required, the powers of the commission would be sufficiently enabling, if parliament were to provide the commission with the funds, for such a specific purpose. There would also be one provision allowing the commission to accept donations or bequests and to carry out the conditions attached by the donor or the testator to the use of such funds.
I may say at once that we are not proposing by this bill to make appropriations; we are proposing to set up a corporate body that will be entitled to accept and use such funds as may be provided and we have felt that it would make for better accounting practice to have the recurring administrative expenses of the commission provided for by an annual vote, such as the estimates which departments have to bring forward, setting out the requirements for the year. There probably will be, at least many hope that there will be, the appropriation of capital sums to be placed in a fund to be used only for capital purposes.
With respect to the acquisition of lands for the purpose of controlling their use, there will be in the bill provision that the commission may borrow from the Minister of Finance after there has been appropriation by parliament for such loans, to make loans, for the capital purpose of acquiring lands not immediately required for immediate use. These loans are to be current during such time as the commission would be holding the lands which would then be repaid out of the capital fund when the lands are taken for use by the commission.
While this is an enabling power that could be used if parliament sees fit to authorize such loans for the acquisition of lands, it would assist in implementing arrangements made with the provincial and municipal authorities to secure this green belt that is a part of the capital plan. It was however felt that in this revision of the act it would not be proper to ask parliament to make any long-term provisions of funds but that that would be a matter to be dealt with annually, for the operation of the commission, which, as hon. members know, takes

care of a lot of government property. It does, not exactly the housekeeping but the landscaping and gardening work that the government would otherwise have to do and it is for the purpose of avoiding the setting up of two organizations to do the same kind of work, paid out of the same federal funds, that this commission has been doing it.
We would expect that there might be, as there have been in the past, lump sums appropriated annually to be put into the capital fund and to be used only for capital purposes. All the recurring expenditures, however, are to be provided by an annual vote, as I have already mentioned, in the same way as the administrative votes for each of the government departments. This, of course, will provide an annual occasion to consider what is being done and how it is being done.
It would be this government's intention, if it is returned to office, to introduce a bill at the first session of the new parliament. In the meantime the privy council office serves as the channel of communication between the commission and parliament. We would be grateful if members, after having considered the bill and having suggestions to improve the form of it, would make at their convenience such recommendations as they feel disposed to make.
This is a matter which I believe all members of the house have been satisfied to have dealt with by the joint committee as an absolutely non-partisan measure. I hope in the future that such matters as have to be dealt with by the house in the common interest of making the best practical provisions for the national capital will continue to be dealt with in the same spirit. This spirit was very evident in the operations of the joint committee which sat during the last session and it has been evident in other joint committees previously dealing with the affairs of the federal district commission.
We hope that by having the bill read the first time now it will be available for distribution, not only to hon. members but to those of the public who are interested in the activities of this commission. That is why I am stating that whoever happens to be constituting the government when parliament reassembles will, I am sure, be appreciative of any suggestions which in the meantime are sent to the privy council office with the object of improving this bill in order that when it is brought forward again it may be the best legislation which those responsible for considering it here and in the other place can possibly devise for the purpose of realizing

this important objective of further establishing the national capital of a country which is going to last for a long time, which is rapidly increasing in population, in industrial and commercial activity, and also, I hope, in the activities of the mind or those concerned with the aesthetic side of human nature.


Mr. Harkness:: I think it scarcely needs to be said that we in this party and I think all hon. members of the house are anxious to see this city a capital of which everyone in Canada can be proud, and one which is worthy of the great country to which we all belong. I believe also that we are anxious to see such improvements made in this capital city as would be consonant with the growth which we expect to take place, and with the great nation of Canada as we expect it to be in the future.
The Prime Minister, in introducing this resolution, said there was no intention to take complete action with regard to it this session. In view of that statement I think there is no course open to us, whatever our views may be about the contemplated changes, but to agree wholeheartedly that the resolution should be concurred in, that the first reading be consented to and the bill put into circulation so that everyone can see what it contains.
The Prime Minister said something to the effect that the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which considered this matter last year recommended a change in the name of the administering body. Personally I do not think it is a very important matter whether the body which administers the building of the national capital and looks after its general development, or controls the type of architecture which is used in the buildings erected, is called the federal district commission or, as is proposed in this resolution, the national capital commission. Personally I would prefer to have it called the dominion capital commission, but that is just an expression of personal opinion.
The Prime Minister went on to say that the committee recommended the appointment of the chairman of the commission on a full-time basis, and that this particular resolution and the bill which will be founded upon it makes this permissive. I think that is a reasonable provision. If it is not necessary that the chairman of this commission should be employed on a full-time basis I do not see any reason why it should be made obligatory by legislation and, therefore, to the extent that the resolution allows for some flexibility in regard to this matter I think it is all to the good.
The Prime Minister went on to say something about General Howard Kennedy who
National Capital Plan
has been chairman of the commission on a part-time basis for several years, pointing out that General Kennedy was not prepared to devote the whole of his time to this work, and it was felt that if he devoted half his time to it the functions of the position could be carried out adequately. I had the honour to serve with General Kennedy in the 1st Canadian division under the command of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. I had a very high regard for him at that time, and my acquaintance with him since, during which period he has been chairman of the eastern slopes of the Rockies forest conservation project and advisor on forestry matters to a number of governments has only increased my admiration for him and for his high qualities.
I think Canada and the federal commission have been very fortunate in having the services of Howard Kennedy, and I would certainly be delighted if he were willing to continue as chairman, either on a full-time or on a half-time basis, whichever the government which happens to be in power may consider to be the necessary amount of time to spend on this very important job.
Later in his remarks the Prime Minister referred to a number of other matters which were considered by the joint committee which met last year, matters on which they spent a very considerable amount of time. I may not have heard the Prime Minister completely, or understood him correctly, but I do not remember him making any mention of the sewage disposal problem which Ottawa, Hull and all the adjacent communities on the banks of the Ottawa river are facing in a very serious form. This was one of the questions upon which the joint committee spent a great deal of time; it was considered to be perhaps the most important matter which came before them, and the primary matter to be dealt with. I was disappointed that the Prime Minister made no mention of this as far as I can recall.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I referred to the pollution of the waters bordering on the territory of Ottawa, and I thought that comprised the matter of sewage disposal, because I understand that to be the principal cause of the pollution of these waters.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Prime Minister certainly did not stress that matter and, as I say, I think the members of the joint committee considered that this was the most important problem to be solved as far as Ottawa, Hull and adjacent areas are concerned; the places, in other words, which make up the national capital area. I hope there will be no undue delay in finding some solution to this problem.

National Capital Plan
I note also that while the Prime Minister made some mention of other matters which had an important place in the discussions of the committee he did not indicate that there was any intention to proceed toward a solution of these difficult matters which were raised; the question of roads, for example, which, next to sewage disposal, was considered to require most urgent attention.
Personally, I think that next in importance to the sewage or water pollution problem is the green belt around Ottawa. As I pointed out in the house when the motion to set up the joint committee was under discussion, unless the problem of the provision of land for the green belt was solved very rapidly the cost of doing so would soon become prohibitive. I regret very much that nothing really definite has been done with regard to the provision of the green belt area because every month and every year that go by the greater will become the expense of providing that necessary area of park land. That is another matter which I hope there will be no delay in proceeding with if it can be done, as I think the Prime Minister indicated, by the provision of funds. I was not quite sure whether he meant by supplementary estimates or what the method might be.
Another matter which the Prime Minister did not mention and which occupied quite a bit of the time of the committee is the development of the Gatineau park. It too does not permit of a great deal of delay unless we are prepared to be faced with considerably increased expenditures in the future. The Prime Minister did indicate, I think, that if his government were returned to power a bill founded upon the resolution now before us would be introduced at the next session of parliament. In view of what I at least consider to be the very considerable delays that have taken place over the past several years in doing extremely necessary things respecting the national capital area, things which have not been done by the government, I would think that the chances of having the necessary things done would be very much better if another government were given the responsibility of carrying into operation the bill to be founded on the resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we welcome the course suggested by the Prime Minister of having a short discussion of the resolution and then passing it so that the bill may be introduced and brought to the light of day. We agree with the suggestion that any enactment of the bill might well be left over until the parliament that meets following the forthcoming election. I am sure that whatever government is in power when we reassemble
[Mr. Harkness.l
will be interested in implementing the recommendations, so far as possible, of last year's joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which dealt with these matters.
I disagree with the hon. member for Calgary North on one point. He said that he did not see that it made much difference whether the commission is called the federal district commission or the national capital commission. It seems to me that this is one of those little points which does have in it a good deal of meaning.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said I preferred the word "dominion".


Stanley Howard Knowles: In this country the word "federal" has become associated with a level of government in contrast with another level of government. We have conferences which are given various names. Sometimes they are called federal-provincial conferences. I think it is highly desirable that the capital we are seeking to build in this centre should be recognized and be named and in fact be something that belongs to the whole nation, to the people of Canada. I suggest that for the name "national capital commission" to be substituted for "federal district commission" is along that line, and we are glad to support it. That suggestion is contained in the resolution and I assume it will be contained in the bill as well.
I think a word might be said at this point concerning the appreciation I am sure all members of the house feel regarding the services that have been rendered by the people who have been members of the federal district commission. I think of the services that have been rendered for next to nothing or for nothing at all by people who share the vision of building a capital worthy of this great nation.
I was glad that the Prime Minister reminded the hon. member for Calgary North that he had said something about the question of pollution, for that was indeed one of the issues that exercised the committee a great deal, and I am glad to know that it is the government's thought that some responsibility for that matter can be given to the proposed national capital commission.
As my leader, the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar, has often pointed out in speaking on this matter, we are concerned about the development of Canada as a whole. We would like centres like our capital centre with green belts and developments of one kind and another, museums, libraries and theatres, at many places in Canada, not just in Ottawa, but we think it it appropriate that at the nation's capital we should

symbolize in a particular way the interest of our people in building those things that represent life at its best.
I was interested in the closing words of the Prime Minister when he seemed to be dreaming a bit of the future of this country and hoping that those dreams would be expressed in the development of a really attractive national capital here at this centre. We share those dreams but we also hope that just as it is recognized that if we are going to have a proper national capital it will have to be planned, so if we are going to have a nation from coast to coast worthy of our Canadian people it will have to be planned in all of its aspects, economic, social and cultural. We hope that after the election, to which reference is being made quite often these days, is over we will have the kind of government that will plan, not only for a better capital but for a better Canada from coast to coast.
(Translation):


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, as member for Hull I am very happy that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has seen fit to bring down this measure before the dissolution of parliament.
I might be allowed to emphasize that the Federal District Commission has been of immense usefulness to this area, on the Quebec side as well as in the national capital proper. However, as it will generally be recognized, this legislation has now been on our statute books for many years and now requires certain amendments to ensure a more rapid implementation of the national capital plan.
We are most grateful to the Prime Minister for introducing this measure at this time, for we will now be in a position to study the bill thoroughly before our return here, next parliament.
I think I can safely say that this view is shared by all the members for the area, who are happy about the work which has been accomplished so far.
(Text):


William Gourlay Blair: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to see this resolution on the order paper but I am sorry that the bill is going to be delayed until the next parliament. I was a member of the joint committee and I think the committee worked very hard in the hearing of evidence. There was one point that caused considerable difficulty, the division of jurisdiction between the provinces, the dominion and the townships adjoining Ottawa. It presented a very difficult question and, as the hon. member for Calgary North pointed out, conditions in Ottawa are changing all the time, especially in the areas surrounding
National Capital Plan
Ottawa, and the sooner we get a commission empowered by the government to get busy on the plan the better it will be.
The question of sewage disposal was one that was put in the class of No. 1 priority in the recommendations of the committee. The committee heard a long report from Dr. Berry of the Ontario department of health and we were greatly impressed by that report. Since that time, however, in so far as sewage disposal is concerned, the Ontario government has passed the Ontario water resources act which is going to make it less difficult to deal with the sewage question than it was prior to that act being passed.
There were other matters that were listed in the four top priority considerations of the committee, including bridges across the Ottawa, the matter of the Queensway and the matter of the green belt. We cannot afford to delay any longer dealing with the green belt. The bridges across the Ottawa river are a necessity at the present time. The question of the Queensway is being solved by an agreement between the city of Ottawa, the federal government and the provincial government. As yet, the matter of sewage disposal is delayed, and that was No. 1 on the list of priorities in the consideration of the committee. I hope the time will not be far distant when the question of sewage is dealt with by the same committee and when power is given to the federal district commission to deal with the question.
In so far as the name is concerned, I agree that the national capital commission is the better of the two because in the minds of certain people in and around the area there was the thought that the federal district commission would be a commission somewhat akin to that existing in Washington at the time. Hence I am glad that the resolution is on the order paper, even if the bill will not make its appearance or at least will not be dealt with until another session.
I again point out the urgent necessity of dealing with the sewage question because that is a basic matter. You can not start to build a city beautiful and still maintain the conditions existing in the Ottawa river at the present time. The solution of the problem is going to entail a great deal of work. Again you are dealing with the jurisdiction of several municipalities or areas along the Ottawa river. The sooner we start to work by way of a bill dealing with this federal district commission or, to use the suggested name, the national capital commission, the better it will be. So far as sewage is concerned, the position is not improving. Owing to the growth of this city which is rapidly expanding, there are in the outlying areas of the city now developing into an urban area, conditions which should be dealt with now because, as was

National Capital Plan
pointed out by the hon. member for Calgary North, the longer we delay this question, the more expensive it is going to be to deal with it.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I was thinking about something that has not been mentioned yet. From the first world war we have the peace tower and the statue. I may not be correct but when the former prime minister introduced this question I thought it was to be a war memorial. At that time I thought that a big, dead-looking statue does not commemorate what our young men struggled for, namely hope of no more war, courage, love of country, love of God and sacrifice. No dead statue, to my way of thinking, can commemorate those things. I was going to ask the Prime Minister if this great undertaking is a war memorial in memory of our young men who made the supreme sacrifice.


Solon Earl Low: I should like to add a word to what has already been said. I think the procedure that has been outlined by the Prime Minister in respect of this resolution is quite good in view of the fact that we know that only a few days are left in this session. I should like to impress upon the Prime Minister, as has been done by the hon. member for Lanark, that the sooner we can get to grips with this whole national planning commission work, the sooner we shall have something like a national capital befitting a country as important as Canada has become. But, as we grow, we are going to find that we shall continuously run into this problem of sewage disposal, the problem of the bridges and the problem of the green belt. We might just as well make up our minds now that we shall be obliged to deal with these matters as quickly as possible and to make some satisfactory disposition of them before we can get very far with the development of our national capital.
We are prepared to go along with the suggestion of having the bill introduced and in time sent to the committee for further study. But let us not get bogged down in too much committee study when a new session is convened. We have already had a long period of study by a committee. It seems to me that we now have enough information to be able to go ahead and get legislation through this house.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, I wish to express appreciation to the hon. members who have taken part in this brief debate and to point out that of course the joint committee recognized that this matter of sewage disposal, pollution and so forth was a primary concern of the provincial and municipal authorities but that it felt

that the federal district commission or, as it will be when this legislation or legislation founded upon a similar resolution is adopted, the national capital commission was also interested and should take its part in pressing this matter forward. The same statement applies with respect to roads and with respect to bridges. I think the example that flows from the co-operative way in which the Queensway was provided for is a good augury for future co-operation between the three levels of government in bringing about the things that are in the interest of three levels of government.
The hon. member for Fort William wants to know whether this is a war memorial. I think he and I both agree that everything that has been done since 1945 in the development of this country has been done because of the sacrifices that were made by those men during the last war. The whole progress of the Canadian nation is a war memorial- and a lasting and growing one-to their heroism and to the sacrifices they made for their fellow citizens in this country and the decendants of their fellow citizens.
There has been built a special roadway- the opening of which I had the privilege of attending this fall-upon Gatineau heights from which those who may want to call to mind what we owe to the men who took part in those two great wars will have an opportunity of doing so from a vantage point that overlooks the Ottawa river and the whole national capital region. It will be a good thing for their souls occasionally to visit that look-out point and there to reflect upon what we owe to the men who took part in those wars, and not only to them but to the pioneers of this great country because they too were pioneers in establishing our position in the family of nations.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 417, to establish a national capital commission.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MARINE AND FISHERIES


Mr. T. G. W. Ashbourne (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, may I have unanimous consent to revert to motions to present the committee report?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for leave to revert to the presentation of reports?


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I object very strongly to the hon. member submitting a report of this committee. I am a member of this committee. My name appears on page 588 of Hansard as being a member of the standing committee on marine and fisheries. I arrived in this building at a quarter to nine this morning. At that time I personally cleared my mail box and I have been in this building continually since that hour with the exception of an hour between 3.30 and 4.30 this afternoon. I have not been advised of the meeting of this committee, either by having a notice delivered to my office or placed in my mail box. I consider that it is entirely wrong that the government should try to railroad this through without notifying all the members of the committee that the committee was sitting today.
I showed interest in this particular bill by speaking at the resolution stage Saturday. When the parliamentary assistant asked if his bill might be advanced one stage farther by having it given second reading, I rose in my seat and agreed that that should be done on the definite understanding that it would be submitted to the standing committee. As I say, I am a member of that standing committee. I have had no notice today that the standing committee was meeting and, therefore, I consider the hon. member has no right to submit a report from a standing committee a meeting of which was not called in a proper way and about which the members of that committee had not been notified.


Mr. J. Watson MacNaughl (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: wonder if I could say a few words on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes).


George Randolph Pearkes: I did not raise a question of privilege; I object to the motion.


John Watson MacNaught: I thought you were objecting by the way of a question of privilege. I wish to reply that on Saturday last this resolution was before the house. It is quite true the bill was advanced one stage on the understanding that it would be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries. The bill was so referred by an order of this house. As soon as I could get in touch with the chairman of the committee and the clerk of committees I asked that the bill be brought up for consideration by the standing committee on marine and fisheries as soon as possible. At about a quarter to eleven this morning a notice was delivered to my office by messenger informing me that the committee would meet this day at three o'clock.
8, 1957	3281
Marine and Fisheries Committee I checked with some of the other members on the committee and found that the same procedure had been followed with them.
I do not think the government can be accused of railroading this bill through if, as a result of a slip taking place which was occasioned by the distribution of the notices, the hon. member was not informed of the meeting. It is regrettable, and I am very sorry for it, but I do not think it is a matter about which the hon. member should object to the bringing in of the report of the committee.


Thomas Gordon William Ashbourne: I should like, at this stage to make a few remarks in explanation to the hon. member who did not receive his notice. I regret that very much indeed. I might say that I was not here on Saturday, but last night at 11.30 I left Goose Bay and travelled by plane. The plane was delayed yesterday because of icing conditions and mechanical trouble and had to return to Montreal. This morning when I arrived in Montreal at 20 minutes after two I called my wife to let her know I was on the way. She told me the parliamentary assistant was very anxious to have this committee meet today. I saw the sun rise this morning as I was waiting for the plane to come to Ottawa. I arrived at my apartment at 20 minutes to seven and at 10 minutes to nine I was here in this building. I communicated with Mr. Arsenault of the committees' branch and asked him if he could have the committee meet at the earliest possible time as I understood we were anxious to get through this business. After chatting with the parliamentary assistant the meeting was called for three o'clock this afternoon.
According to the report 12 members attended the committee meeting. I wish to apologize for the fact the hon. member did not receive a notice. I noted the absence of the hon. member, but I took it that he might have gone to British Columbia and for that reason I did not make any special investigation or inquire any farther, especially as there were other members present.


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not think the hon. member has any right to think that I had gone to British Columbia, much as I should like to go there. There are three members from British Columbia in this party, and they are all here. If the hon. member has been travelling to his own part of Canada during the week-end, that is no responsibility of mine. I was here during the discussion on Saturday; I was here over the week-end, and I have been here today. A meeting has

North Pacific Fur Seals been called, and because the members have not been properly notified I claim that meeting has been called illegally.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We need not discuss that. Do I take it the hon. member is withholding unanimous consent.


George Randolph Pearkes: Do we have to have unanimous consent?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has not unanimous consent been given already?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, the hon. member rose immediately when I inquired if unanimous consent was given. I was inquiring whether the hon. member is withholding unanimous consent to the request of the chairman of the committee that we revert to the item, presenting reports by standing and select committees.


George Randolph Pearkes: I want to register the strongest possible objection to the manner in which this meeting was called. I consider it was called illegally and that the meeting was not a proper meeting, but I will not go so far as to say that I will object to proceeding with this motion. I do consider that it was done in a manner which was unworthy.
It was slipshod work on the part of the clerk or whoever was responsible for sending out the notice. In view of the apologies which have been made by the chairman of the committee and by the parliamentary assistant I will not hold up the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to revert to the item "presenting reports by standing and special committees"?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Gordon William Ashbourne: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present the third report of the standing committee on marine and fisheries.



NORTH PACIFIC FUR SEALS


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could have unanimous consent to have the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) move for the Minister of Fisheries:
That Bill No. 412, an act to implement the interim convention on conservation of north Pacific fur seals, reported upon this day by the standing committee on marine and fisheries be placed on the order paper for consideration in committee of the whole later this day, and that standing order 20, subsection 1, be suspended in relation thereto.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman leave to revert to motions for this purpose?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the parliamentary assistant would be so kind as to advise the house what consideration was given this bill during the committee sittings? Before the parliamentary assistant replies, I have a few questions that I should like to ask and a few matters I should like to deal with. I should like to call attention to the fact that this bill is not yet available to members on this side of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I took it that the motion which had been made by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys had carried. If such is the case, there would be nothing before the house, and any question which the hon. member wishes to ask might better be asked in committee and, in fact, could only be asked in committee.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I did not understand that this had been moved in to the committee stage. Has it? I thought you were still in the chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion was
merely to place it on the order paper for consideration later this day. I understood that that had been agreed to. We have not yet moved into committee.


George Randolph Pearkes: Before we move into committee, is this debatable?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry; that is the point. I think there has been some misapprehension. This motion is not debatable. I was right the first time. The hon. gentleman should ask his questions in committee.
The house in committee on Bill No. 412, to implement the interim convention on conservation of north Pacific fur seals-Mr. Sinclair-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, not only myself but other members were not notified of this committee meeting. I did not know until a minute ago that there were other members in the same position as myself and had no notice of this committee meeting. Had I known this I would not have given consent to proceed; but having been advised since I took objection that there were other members of the committee who were not notified of the sitting of the committee, I would ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries to report on the proceedings of the committee.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very glad to do so. As I stated in my opening remarks a few moments ago, the committee met in room 497 this afternoon at three o'clock. A quorum was present and there were also present the Minister of Fisheries and five officials from the Department of Fisheries. The bill was considered clause by clause. No amendments were proposed and consequently the bill was reported back to the house without amendment. The Minister of Fisheries made a statement. A statement was also made by Dr. Kask, who is chairman of the fisheries research board. Every question that was asked by any member of the committee was answered adequately and completely. There was complete unanimity as to the procedure.
At the resolution stage the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich advanced a very novel, and interesting proposition. I think he based the proposition on two premises, one of which probably has not been scientifically established. He pointed out that fur seals were responsible to a large extent for the destruction of commercial fish, particularly salmon. The evidence given by Dr. Kask today to the committee was to the effect that there was no such proof and, in fact, the experiments carried out up to the present time would seem to indicate that such was not the case. However, the purpose of the convention is to carry out a research program over a 6-year period. One of the matters which will be referred to the committee will be to ascertain whether fur seals are as destructive to commercial fish as some fishermen allege.
The other premise upon which the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich based his suggestion was that he could draw some analogy between the present situation and the award under the Ashburton treaty. I submit that no true analogy can be drawn in this instance. Along about 1910 or 1911 the seal fishery of the Pacific coast had almost vanished. It is true that at one time there was a reasonably large fishery on the Pacific coast, but in 1909 or 1911 this had dwindled down so that there were only two boats still engaged in the pelagic fishing of seal, and these boats were not getting many seals. The result was that when the convention of 1911 undertook the conservation of seals in a scientific manner they took over a defunct or a non-existent fishery. At that time I think an estimate was made that there were about 130,000 seals in the Pribilof herd. Today that has grown by scientific conservation to a herd of something between 2 million and 3 million head of seal.
Therefore I submit that the first premise has not been scientifically proved and secondly that no true analogy can be drawn between the Ashburton treaty and the present
North Pacific Fur Seals situation. Furthermore, at the present time the federal government is spending far more money on fishery programs than would be possible under this sum of money. I think the hon. member also would agree with me when I say that it would be unrealistic to try to divide the amount of money that we get from the sale of the fur seals among the fishermen, as was done in the case of the Ashburton award on the Atlantic coast.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to agree at all; I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant the date on which the so-called scientific investigation was carried out?


John Watson MacNaught: It was carried out over the last three to five years.


George Randolph Pearkes: What number of personnel was employed in this scientific investigation; what boats were used and where were the scientific tests carried out?


John Watson MacNaught: They were carried out under the supervision of Dr. Kask who is the head of the fisheries research board.


George Randolph Pearkes: How many vessels were used and how many seals were taken?


John Watson MacNaught: I regret I cannot give any specific information on those points. I was merely reporting to the house for the benefit of the member for Esquimalt-Saanich and other members what was reported to the committee today and that was the statement made by Dr. Kask to the committee this afternoon.


George Randolph Pearkes: Not having been advised of the committee meeting I was not there and therefore was not able to question the evidence given by this officer of the fisheries department, but all the evidence I have received from practical sealers and men who are operating on that coast is absolutely to the contrary. All the evidence from people such as Captain Max E. Lohbrunner, men who have been engaged in the sealing operations over the last 50 years, is to the effect that large quantities of Pacific salmon are destroyed by the fur seals during the months from November to June when they are operating off the west coast of Vancouver island.
These seals will attack a full grown salmon, take a bite of the fish and then go on to attack another one, passing through a whole run of salmon and perhaps eating only a few pounds, but destroying great quantities. There is every evidence from practical fishermen on the west coast of British Columbia that vast quantities of salmon have been destroyed.
I quoted figures on Saturday, which were conservative figures, indicating the quantities

North Pacific Fur Seals destroyed. The evidence is to the effect that on an average a full grown fur seal will destroy at least 15 pounds of salmon per day during the time when the seals are feeding off the salmon on the west coast.
Now it all depends in what periods of the year these so-called scientific investigations were carried out. True, if you are examining a seal during the early months of the summer, when it is not feeding on salmon, you will not find salmon in its belly, but if you examine the seal during the winter months, you will find that that seal is living off Pacific coast salmon. For this reason I claim that the west coast fishermen should be compensated for the loss of their industry when it is necessary to place restrictions on the amount of time that the fishermen can carry out their lawful operations on the Pacific coast.
You are passing regulations prohibiting the trolling for spring salmon during the winter months when the best fishermen go out and fish. Anybody can catch a fish during the summer when they are running but during the hard winter months the fish are only caught by the most experienced fishermen with the best gear and the best vessels. Those are the men who are permanent fishermen there; they are not the casual fishermen who take out commercial licences in order to spend a summer fishing vacation, at the same time making a certain amount of money from their catch as I know a great many men do.
Because of the shortage of salmon on the Pacific coast sought by the year-round fishermen, and because of the reduction in the run and the need for conservation, you have to close down the trolling during the winter months when the fur seals are preying on the Pacific coast salmon. It is during those months that the fisherman is not able to earn a living and I maintain, if you can have a similar situation existing on the Atlantic coast where your Atlantic fishermen are paid compensation on account of the privileges granted to United States fishermen who are depleting the catch on that coast, similar conditions apply on the Pacific coast.
As I have requested, I would like an answer to be given as to the months during which these scientific operations were carried out, particularly as to whether or not the tests were made when the seals are feeding off the salmon. Obviously if they were carried out during the summer months there would be no salmon found in the stomach of the fur seal.


John Watson MacNaught: In reply to the hon.
member for Esquimalt-Saanich may I say that I regret I cannot tell him the exact 
period during which the experiment was carried out. I can tell him, however, that the stomachs of some 5,000 seals were examined, so I conclude that the experiments extended over some considerable period of time.
I can say also that it is the considered opinion of Dr. Kask, who has given this matter much thought and study, that the fur seal is not a great destroyer of salmon.
I think he pointed out to the committee today that the seal might destroy salmon left in nets, but that there is not a great deal of this type of fishing done on the Pacific coast, and that most of the fish found in the stomachs of seals are fish that do not swim as rapidly as salmon. The inference was that the salmon are able to look after themselves pretty well.


George Randolph Pearkes: All I can say is that I wish there had been an opportunity to call before this committee some practical fishermen from the west, because people who are engaged in practical sealing operations would have told your scientists and the committee a very different story. But when you do not give members of parliament an opportunity to attend a committee meeting it is not likely you are going to give an opportunity for practical sealers to come forward.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Implementation.
George Randolph Pearkes: I have not had time to read this. Will the parliamentary assistant please explain clause 4?


John Watson MacNaught: I think clause 4 is selfexplanatory. I do not think I can add anything to the clarity of the language used by the draftsmen.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Pelagic sealing.
George Randolph Pearkes: Does this include the Indians of the Pacific coast who are permitted to carry out sealing operations?


John Watson MacNaught: I think I pointed out when I made my statement at the resolution stage that the Indians of the Pacific coast are allowed to do pelagic sealing, but only in canoes with bows and arrows or spears; they are not allowed to use firearms or high-powered boats.


George Randolph Pearkes: Clause 5 says every person is guilty of an offence-I stress those words "every person"-who, being a citizen or resident of Canada or a member of the crew of a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of Canada engages in pelagic sealing in convention water. Would that not include Indians?


John Watson MacNaught: If the hon. member would look at clause 7 he will find the answer to that.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have not had an opportunity to get to clause 7 yet. The bill has only just been handed to me.


John Watson MacNaught: Under clause 7 an exception is made.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
On clause 8-Dealing in skins.
John Angus MacLean: I think this is an appropriate clause on which my observation may be made. I would like to know what information is made available by the countries concerned as to the number of fur seals taken in the north Pacific. In the most recent copy of the U.S.S.R. Illustrated News, which hon. members received today or yesterday, there is an article about the fur seal fishery in the north Pacific, and it is said among other things that thousands of valuable seal skins are shipped annually from the seal islands by 20 young trappers headed by two Russians with unpronounceable names. I am just wondering what pooling of information there is between the countries concerned. In other words, do we know the number of seals which the Russians take each year?


John Watson MacNaught: In connection with that, we know accurately the number of seals taken by the United States since 1911 when the convention came into force. How many seals the Japanese have been taking pelagi-cally, or how many the Russians have been taking over the last few years, we do not know. But as soon as this convention comes into effect we shall have this sharing of information, and from then on we will know accurately the number of seals taken by the four interested countries, Japan, the United States, the U.S.S.R. and Canada.


George Randolph Pearkes: I would like to know what steps are taken to see that Canada is assured of her fair share of pelts from the Pribilof island and also from the Russian islands. Do we have inspectors accompanying United States crews which are killing these seals on those islands? Do we have inspectors accompanying the killing operations carried out by the Russians?


John Watson MacNaught: In connection with the Pribilof kill we have had Canadian officials there during the catch. I presume-and I am reasonably sure of this-that similar provision will be made in future with regard to the Commander and the Robben islands.
North Pacific Fur Seals


George Randolph Pearkes: Has Canada received any portion or any moneys whatever from the killing of the seals on the Russian islands?


John Watson MacNaught: After 1911, during the first years when the convention was in effect, the Canadian government received about $5,000 worth of seals from the Russian government -I am quoting from memory-in connection with the seals killed on the Commander islands, and a somewhat larger share from the Japanese government in respect of seals killed on the Robben island. That was supposed to be 15 per cent of the kill. I am afraid that at this late date it would be difficult to determine whether as a matter of fact we got 15 per cent of the kill between the years 1911 and 1917, the period of the agreement. I presume we got 15 per cent, because the question was never raised and if there had been any suspicion that we had not got our 15 per cent I presume something would have been said at that time.


George Randolph Pearkes: Since 1917 how much has Canada received from the kill on the Russian islands?


John Watson MacNaught: My recollection is that we have not received anything from the time of the Russian revolution up to the present time.


George Randolph Pearkes: And the Russians are still killing seals on these islands.


John Watson MacNaught: I have every reason to believe that the Russians have not been as extensively engaged in the sealing industry after 1917 as they were before that year. I doubt if the government of Russia was greatly concerned for some time after the revolution about the taking of seals.


An hon. Member:: Do they have trained seals?


George Randolph Pearkes: Is the parliamentary assistant suggesting that when there is a revolution all killing ceases? All joking aside, the operations have been carried out both by the Russians and by the Japanese since 1917, and we carried on and have not been getting any moneys from those countries during that time. What steps has Canada taken to ensure that this country receives her rightful portion of these moneys? Has Canada ever made any protest to Russia or to Japan to the effect that we were not getting the portion of the kill to which by treaty we are entitled?


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Chairman, I might point out to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich that under the treaty of 1911 there was provision for revocation and that Japan revoked the treaty in 1941, just before Pearl harbour.

North Pacific Fur Seals


George Randolph Pearkes: There were a number of years between 1917 and 1941 and there was a large sum of money which should have been coming to Canada.


John Watson MacNaught: I do not think I should be held responsible for what happened between those years. I told the hon. gentleman that we got some seals during those years, and that from 1941 on, at which time the Japanese government revoked the convention, we got no seals. The hon. gentleman is quite right when he says we are entitled to correct this state of affairs. I submit that is why we are endeavouring at the present time to get this convention through so that we can deposit our ratification at Washington. The other governments will deposit theirs, and then we will be working under the convention from that time forward.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am perfectly agreeable to the convention going through just as quickly as possible, but here we have the experience of all those years when Canada got no money although entitled to it. She got none of her share of the kill by the Russians and the Japanese. Yet we are entering into the same sort of treaty again. With the experience behind us of these countries not giving us our share we are still going to accept their word that they will give us 15 per cent. Does the fisheries department intend to have any inspectors present during the time when the kill of the Russian and Japanese herds takes place?


John Watson MacNaught: There is no doubt that the utmost co-operation is going to exist between the four countries to see that the terms of the convention are carried out and that the proper portions of seal skins will be allotted to the respective countries.


George Randolph Pearkes: I see that the minister has now come into the house. Perhaps the minister, who paid a visit to Russia not so long ago, will be able to give us the assurance that this new Russian government will live up to the agreement and tell us the steps which have been taken by the Canadian government to ensure that Canada gets her fair share of the pelts.


Mr. Sinclair:: Mr. Chairman, I had asked the parliamentary assistant to pilot this measure through mainly because I gave a very full explanation of this very matter to the fisheries committee only this afternoon.


George Randolph Pearkes: On a question of privilege, that is the whole point of this discussion. I am a member of the fisheries committee and I never received any notice of the meeting. If I had been invited or asked to attend the meeting I would have been there but the
[Mr. MacNaught.l
government did not send any notice to me and to other members of this party that there was to be a meeting of the fisheries committee. In spite of the fact that I expressed interest in this resolution on Saturday, in spite of the fact that I have been in the building all day with the exception of between 3.30 and 4 p.m., no notice was given to me of the meeting. You need not look up Votes and Proceedings because no notice is given there of the meeting. I was not notified and another member of this party also was not notified of the meeting.
I appreciate the fact that the minister no doubt gave a very full report to the selected members of the fisheries committee who were invited to be present to hear what the minister had to say. I will now ask the minister to explain what happened at the committee meeting.


James Sinclair: I am very happy to answer. First of all, I would point out to the hon. member, who has been some years in the house, that the government does not extend invitations to attend committees. That is done by the committees branch and by the chairman of the fisheries committee.


George Randolph Pearkes: The chairman of the fisheries committee is a government supporter.


James Sinclair: It is an extraordinary
coincidence that the Tories should all be here in the house at 11 o'clock this morning and nevertheless committee members representing both the Social Credit and C.C.F. parties were in attendance at the fisheries committee meeting this afternoon.


George Randolph Pearkes: They were notified, we were not.


James Sinclair: I will be very glad to repeat my remarks of this afternoon on the matter. The treaty of 1911 was signed by the four nations. About 95 per cent of the fur seals are on the rookeries on the north American side, the Pribilof rookeries. Robben island, which used to belong to Japan, had a herd of less than 30,000 seals, and Commander island off Kamchatka had a herd of less than 50,000 seals. The actual kill from those two herds was very small in those years.
When I was in Japan I met the fisheries committee of the Japanese parliament to discuss the question of pelagic sealing. Robben island no longer belongs to Japan because Russia took away from Japan Robben island and Sakhalin after the war, so Japan now has no rookeries. I discussed with Dr. Babyan, the director of conservation in Moscow, the position of Commander island. They have a herd of almost 100,000 built up there now. In the early days there

was no killing on either Robben island, Pribilof islands or Commander island. Killing started on the the Pribilof islands when the herd began to build up. But in the years when neither Japan nor Russia gave any share of their kill or their absence of kill to Canada and the United States, no share of the kill on the north American side was turned over to Russia or Japan. As our kill is the big kill, averaging about 70,000 or 80,000 a year in recent years, although last year it was 120,000, we are the ones with the major interest.
The Pribilof seals do not frequent only the North American coast. The research work which was done in 1952 showed very clearly that the seals go up both coasts to their rookeries which is why these two countries have an interest in the rookeries on the Pribilof islands as well as the rookeries on the two islands on their side.
As far as forgoing revenue is concerned, we actually gain revenue because instead of 15 per cent of the Pribilof kill, which is the big kill, and 15 per cent of the two very small kills, on Robben and Commander islands, we have had 20 per cent of the kill on the Pribilof islands since the time that Russia first left the treaty. The 1911 treaty provided that notice could be given of leaving the treaty and Russia did so in 1917 and Japan in 1941 just before Pearl harbour.
We have certainly lost nothing. Up till now we have actually gained by the removal of these two nations as far as dollars and cents are concerned since we get 20 per cent of the Pribilof kill instead of 15 per cent. We would, however, lose in the future if they resumed pelagic sealing and cut down the herd on the Pribilofs, which they could very easily do by engaging again in pelagic sealing off the island of Hokaido in northern Japan and off Kamchatka where the seals pass very close to the shore.


George Randolph Pearkes: I appreciate the minister's
explanation, and I assure him that it would not have been necessary for me to ask for the repetition of his statement had I been notified of the committee meeting. I appreciate the fact that the government does not invite members to attend, but the chairman of the committee is a supporter of the government. The parliamentary assistant assured us on Saturday that such a committee meeting was going to be called and I was here and ready to attend the meeting.
Naturally not having received any notice of it, as I said before-and I was not the only one who did not receive any notice- I was in my seat here at eleven o'clock. I cleared my post office box four times, as I have said, and no notice came to me. I would
North Pacific Fur Seals not have taken up the time of the house had I received it. But these are things in which I am interested and which I think should be explained. The minister has had special opportunities of inquiring into these matters. He did not answer the question whether we were going to have inspectors present at the kill which will take place later this summer, both on the Pribilof islands and on the Russian and Japanese islands. Shall we have inspectors present at that time so as to be quite certain that we get our full share of the kill?


James Sinclair: That, of course, is a matter which will be worked out when this international commission, with one commissioner for each of the four nations, is set up. But you can rest assured that if we do not have inspectors and do not get assurance of the Russian kill, we will not deliver this share of the Pribilof kill which of course is the more important thing.
Now that we both have had our moment of heat, I may tell the hon. member that as well as making a fairly long comment in committee this afternoon I mentioned the fact that he has always shown a great interest in this fur seal question. As a matter of fact, I was surprised that the hon. member was not there. But if he did not get notice, I can understand that. I also dealt with his sug gestion that the proceeds of Canadian skins be made available for fisheries research on the west coast in the same way as the interest on the $5i million of the Ashburton award of many years ago is paid annually to the fishermen on the east coast. I do not know whether the hon. member wants me to repeat what I said but I will do so if he desires it.


George Randolph Pearkes: I should assuredly like to hear the minister's reasons why the fishermen on the Pacific coast cannot be compensated for the loss they are suffering from the destruction of a certain number of salmon. Nobody knows the actual quantity, but it is large. I understand there is some difference of opinion between some of the scientists who have carried out certain investigations and who claim that the amount of fish actually destroyed is much less than the amount of fish which experienced sealers and fishermen claim is destroyed. I am quite certain that the minister knows sealers such as Captain Lohbrunner who has had years on the Pacific coast and who has given evidence to the effect that the destruction of the salmon by the seal is extremely heavy. He has mentioned figures as to the amount a full-grown seal will destroy-I did not say will eat but will destroy-going up as high as 30 pounds a day. A seal will come along, take a bite out of a salmon and then will go to sleep in the waters and when refreshed

North Pacific Fur Seals again will come along and attack another salmon. He has estimated that there will be as much as 15 pounds of fish destroyed a day by an adult seal. I do not suggest that the seals are feeding on salmon the whole year around. Half the time they are in northern waters where we know they eat other types of fish. But during certain months of the year the experience of certain practical men indicate chat there is considerable destruction of salmon by the seals.
I therefore advanced the suggestion on Saturday that the money which was received as a result of our share of the pelts of these fur seals which during certain periods of the year have been living on our salmon should be devoted to the further encouragement of the fishery on the Pacific coast. On Saturday -and unfortunately the minister was not able to be present-I cited as a somewhat similar circumstance the Halifax commission of 1877 when, in compensation for certain privileges granted to United States fishermen, certain moneys were set aside and the interest thereon was applied, in addition to any grants made by the government, for the benefit of the Atlantic fishermen. It seemed to me that similar conditions exist on the Pacific coast and that here was an opportunity where the minister might very well say that instead of these funds going into the consolidated revenue funds they might be used for the further development of our fisheries. I am quite certain that the minister himself will be the first to admit that there is a tremendous amount of investigation and research work necessary on the Pacific coast. It must be hard for him to find sufficient funds with which to carry out all the work required.


James Sinclair: No.


George Randolph Pearkes: If he is satisfied with the amount of development work being done, may I say that I am quite certain that the fishing industry would like to see more work being carried out on the Pacific coast. I hope that he is not satisfied with the development or with the research which is being done there. The additional money could be well used to the benefit of the fishermen of the Pacific coast.
I should like the minister to comment on that matter and to indicate why the money taken from these pelts could not be used for the further development and improvement of the west coast fisheries and the general help of the fishermen. I am not suggesting the same division as that carried out on the east coast, but I am suggesting that the money which is received from the fur seals which have been living on the Pacific coast fish

might well be used for the improvement of the industry on the Pacific coast.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, the suggestion is a very interesting one but there are one or two points that do not bear similarity to the east coast situation which might be taken for granted at first glance. First of all, as far as the feeding habits of the fur seal are concerned, the fishermen on both sides of the north Pacific have always expressed concern about the amount of fish eaten by a herd of seals who number between 2 million and 3 million. In 1952 Canada, the United States and Japan joined in a scientific study and we killed 3,000 on their migration north, examined their stomachs and found that over 50 per cent of them had no fish in their stomachs and less than 3 per cent had any trace of salmon. The principal food in their stomachs was squid which of course are not used commercially in Canada though they are used in Japan, species which we do not use; lance fish which we do not use; some smelts and some herring, or in other words, smaller schooling fish. But right in this protocol there is a provision for a six-year study and on page 14 there is given the number of seals which can be killed at sea each year to ascertain definitely the damage done to commercial fisheries by the seal herd.
The second point is about the use of proceeds and the suggestion that the proceeds should be divided amongst the west coast fishermen in the same way as the interest on this $5J million award on the east coast is divided annually among the east coast fishermen. There is a very great difference. That $5J million was an award to Canada because of privileges given to the United States which affected the position of the east coast fishermen. Hence they receive the $160,000 interest divided amongst them each year and the bounty amounts to between $5 and $10 a fisherman. On the west coast the situation is very different because the sealers themselves ruined their industry. There were only two sealers operating out of Victoria the year before this treaty came into effect. The other sealers had killed so ruthlessly on the high seas that sealing was no longer economic. These two small sealers who were still in operation were awarded $60,000 in compensation for the fact that this new law removed them from sealing.
So far as money is concerned, I have said it before in this house and I say it again that in the five years I have been Minister of Fisheries I have never been refused money by the government for any fisheries project. It is not a lack of money, it is a lack of trained scientists which is our problem. We have tried to encourage them in the last two or three

years by offering $25,000 a year in graduate scholarships to students of biology and zoology who would go on and study fisheries science. We have allocated at least $50,000 a year in projects to universities for these students to work on in the hope of increasing the number of scientists available for this work.
At present the money goes in to the receiver general, and it is from this fund we are receiving our money for fisheries research. If you examine the estimates each year you will find that there are funds that have lapsed for fisheries research projects, and that is entirely the result of being unable to get trained scientific personnel to do that type of work. We are anxious to employ as many as we can. We have vacancies on our staff right now for trained scientists. It has never been a lack of money but rather lack of personnel which has held up the works.
While I am on that subject, I should like to refer to a statement in the Thompson string of newspapers made by Patrick Nichol, in which he pays glowing tribute to the hon. member for Lambton West for obtaining money from the treasury board for fisheries when I could not. This statement is a sheer fabrication. If you look at the estimates of the Department of Fisheries you will find that each year we have had more money than we have needed for our lamprey program because there has been a lapsing of money in this department of my estimates. Last year I explained to the hon. gentleman that our only shortage was a shortage of scientists and we were doing our best to correct that.


Frederick George Hahn: Before this clause carries I
should like to ask the minister how our salaries for scientists compare with those paid by our neighbouring country to the south?


James Sinclair: They are pretty much the same. I can explain that by saying that the chairman of our research board is one of the most brilliant fisheries scientists in the world, and he was brought here from a similar post in the United States. I think the trouble we have in recruiting fisheries scientists today is the result of the fact that when a young man or a young woman is graduating in the sciences we need-zoology, biology, physics and chemistry-and it comes to choosing a career or deciding on post graduate work, such a person realizes that if he takes fisheries science his only possible employer is a government or an international commission, whereas in most of the other fields of science he has a choice between industrial employment and employment with a government. This is one of the factors which does sway young men and women in making a choice.
Health Insurance
We have done everything we can to encourage young men and women to take up fisheries science by offering these graduate scholarships, by making work available in universities, and by offering them good summer employment in our research stations on summer projects.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 15 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask for leave to revert to routine proceedings for the purpose of receiving reports from the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
there unanimous consent to revert to routine proceedings?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Mr. Henderson presented the fifteenth and sixteenth reports of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



HEALTH INSURANCE


Paul Joseph James Martin: the third reading of Bill No. 320, to authorize contributions by Canada in respect of programs administered by the provinces, providing hospital insurance and laboratory and other services in aid of diagnosis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before this bill, which we welcome and support, is read the third time and passed there are a few words I should like to say. First of all may I point out that this party has urged across the years, not only the establishment of a nation-wide program of health insurance on a comprehensive basis but we have welcomed every step that has been taken in that direction.
I recall, in particular, the welcome which we accorded the announcement of a health grants program which was made in the house by the late Mr. Mackenzie King on May 14, 1948. We knew what was being proposed at

Health Insurance
that time, namely that it was only a health grants program, but nevertheless we recognized Mr. King's statement that its purpose was to lay the foundation for a nation-wide program of health insurance. Because it was good in itself, and because it was designed to lay the foundation for health insurance, we welcomed and gave support to that program. Likewise, in January, 1956, when the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) announced the government's readiness to go into a hospital insurance scheme, we welcomed that statement.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will recall that when we first discussed this matter in the committee on estimates last year my first words on behalf of the C.C.F. were to the effect that we welcomed this further step along the road towards health insurance. Nevertheless we must point out that it is only a step, and we shall continue to work for a broad comprehensive program, not just of hospital insurance but of full health insurance for all our people. This bill, therefore, though we welcome it is deficient in that it is only a step rather than complete health insurance.
It is deficient also in that it is not even complete hospital insurance. I have in mind some of the matters we have discussed at earlier stages. It is deficient also in that it provides for a federal contribution of only 50 per cent of hospital cost, whereas we feel that contribution should be 80 per cent. Nevertheless, because this is a step towards health insurance, we welcome this bill. When a final vote is called, and we believe there should be a final vote on third reading, we shall support the bill. I hope that the vote of the house at that time will be unanimous.
However, the bill does contain one provision we think should not be there. It is a provision which makes it possible for actual implementation of this legislation to be delayed. That has been the sorriest part of health insurance so far as the Liberal party is concerned over the years, namely, delay. Even now when at long last we have this bill before us there is in it a clause requiring that six provinces must agree before payments can be made, a clause which makes it possible for a province like my province of Manitoba to veto this legislation of the federal parliament.
We want this legislation, and we are voting for it, but we think that clause has no place in it. Therefore, I rise at this moment to make these few remarks and to move an amendment which I shall present in half a minute. If our amendment is disposed of, whatever the vote on the amendment may be, we feel that in the end there should be a vote

on the main motion to show where the house stands on this legislation. We shall vote for that main motion. But until we reach that final point we think the house should have an opportunity to express its view as to whether or not it is proper to keep in this kind of legislation a clause that makes it possible for some of the provinces representing a minority of the people of this country, to veto legislation that is for the benefit of the people of Canada as a whole.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson):
That Bill No. 320 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering the requirement that six provinces must enter into an agreement before contributions can be paid to any province, as set out in subclause (2) of clause 6 of the said bill.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which my hon. friend has put forward in substance is precisely the same as an amendment in another form which was introduced earlier in the discussions of this particular measure. The amendment proposes that the provision of the requirement for six provinces should not be insisted upon and should not be included in the bill. As I indicated today, the purpose of including the six provinces as one of the necessary conditions is to make it possible to have, as nearly as can be arranged, a nation-wide system of hospital insurance. If we did not have the provision of six provinces in the bill we would not be faced with the fact that we now have five provinces which have accepted our proposal.
What we are seeking is a nation-wide system of hospital insurance, and the only way that can be attained under our constitutional arrangement is by having an agreement with the provinces. If we had said that we were prepared to enter into an arrangement with fewer than the specified number we would not tonight have five provinces. If we remove the word "six" we will not encourage the adhesion of a greater number of provinces. I have no doubt that when this bill is passed in the provinces of our country we shall have more than six provinces. But if my hon. friend wants to resort to any measure to discourage having at least six provinces or more, this proposal is the way to do it.
My hon. friend has said that he is in favour of this measure; that he welcomes it as a forward step, but he has taken a step tonight by this previously attempted amendment which is calculated to delay the acceptance of this bill more than anything else could do. For this reason alone I certainly

would urge this house not to accept this amendment but to support the bill as it is drawn now, a bill which has brought in five provinces, a bill which is calculated to bring in more.
This week we are to have further conferences with the province of New Brunswick. I have no doubt that the date is not very far oil when that province will come in. Does my hon. friend think that by this particular amendment he is furthering the possibility of a nation-wide system of health insurance? If he does, I take serious and strong issue with him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Widen the coverage and all the provinces will come in.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Speaker, I rise only to ask the minister for a word of explanation. I should like to know by what method of reasoning the minister comes to the conclusion that if it were not for this proviso that six provinces come in we would not have the five that have now agreed to come in? That has me confused. By what process of reasoning does the minister come
Business of the House
to the conclusion that we would not have the five today if we did not have the proviso that six must come in?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
the house ready for the question?


Howard Charles Green: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Philpott:: I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Philpott the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand it would be agreeable to hon. members opposite if the Minister of Finance moved tomorrow to go into supply, on the understanding that there would be a division taken at 8.15 o'clock, in order to give all hon. members an opportunity to air grievances. If that course should be agreeable to hon. gentlemen opposite, it could be clearly understood that that would be what the government would propose for tomorrow.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. McCullough (Moose: Mountain):
X. Have any contracts been entered into between the government and oil companies in connection with oil leases or other contracts in regard to property on the White Bear Indian reserve, Carlyle, Saskatchewan? If so, how many?
2.	How many of these are presently in effect?
3.	What are the names of the companies involved and what is the basis of contract in each case?
4.	How much money has been received by the federal government on each contract and how much money in each case has been allocated to the White Bear band fund in each case?
5.	What proportion of all moneys received from leases, royalties or contracts has been allocated to band funds on White Bear reserve?
6.	How many oil well drillings have been made on the White Bear reserve to date?
7.	How many gallons of oil have been produced?
8.	What is the viscosity of oil that has been produced?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	Yes, 13.
2.	Nine.
3.	Bob jo Mines Limited. Permits under the regulations respecting petroleum and natural
gas on Indian reserves and Indian lands (1948). Ajax Petroleums Limited. Permits and leases under the same regulations.
4 and 5. Moneys received under each contract, and moneys allocated to White Bear band fund are:
Fees retained in Allocated to Consolidated	White Bear
Revenue	Band Fund
Permit No. 93	$ 50.00
Permit No.	94	
50.00Permit No.	95	
50.00Permit No.	96	
50.00
Lease No. 151-rents Lease No. 152-rents Lease No. 152-royalties Lease No. 180-rents Lease No. 181-rents Lease No. 182-rents Lease No. 183-rents Lease No. 185-rents Lease No. 186-rents Surface lease No. 151-1

Tuesday, April 9, 1957



AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Jutras.