1958-07-23

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Hayden Stanton (Leeds) presented the second report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker:: I think I should perhaps advise the house that this parliament is being represented by parliamentary observers at the 47th annual conference of the interparliamentary union being held from July 24 to August 1 in Rio de Janeiro, and that the representative from the Commons is Mr. Broome of Vancouver South and, from the Senate, Senator Dessureault.



SHIPPING


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make, and at the same time I make a request to hon. members of the house to grant unanimous consent for the presentation tomorrow of a resolution and also a bill respecting the British Columbia steamship services strike.
The government has had under continuous consideration the endeavour to achieve a settlement of the strike which has tied up the British Columbia coast steamship services of the Canadian Pacific Railway since May 16 of this year. The situation has assumed urgency, and I can tell the house that in the last few days every possibility of a settlement has been exhausted. All that remains is for legislative action to be taken to provide a solution to a situation which has proven so difficult for the people of British Columbia, and in particular for those living on Vancouver island and the northern areas of British Columbia, and which has had such an adverse effect generally on the economy.
Ever since negotiations commenced last September for renewal of the various collective agreements involved the facilities of the Department of Labour have been at the disposal of the parties, and every effort has been made by the department and by the Minister of Labour to effect a settlement by conciliation and negotiation. Effective June 1, 1958, the company signed collective agreements covering four groups of employees represented by the brotherhood of railway and steamship clerks. Notwithstanding continued efforts by the department and the personal intervention of the Minister of Labour, it has not been possible to bring about any settlement between the company and the seafarers' international union, which had first taken strike action in May of this year. Meantime, on June 24 the two unions representing the officers had also notified the C.P.R. that they were declaring themselves on strike.
During most of the time the strike against the C.P.R. ships has been in effect some services in the coastal regions of British Columbia have been provided by the Black Ball ferries previously referred to. Since, however, the C.P.R. supplied the bulk of the services the Black Ball ships have been able to only partially fulfil the needs of the area, and increasing hardship and loss have been accruing to the residents of Vancouver island and other coastal points on the mainland of British Columbia. On Friday last the Black Ball ferry service was interrupted by strike action and conditions in the area reached a critical point, with certain essential supplies and services being almost entirely discontinued.
As I said a moment ago, every effort has been made to resolve the dispute by negotiation and also to have the parties renew negotiations on a voluntary basis. All these efforts have been unsuccessful, and for that reason other steps must now be taken. I am accordingly giving notice now of the intention to introduce legislation immediately to provide for the appointment of an administrator of the British Columbia coast steamship services for the resumption of operations and return to work under the administrator immediately after the legislation has passed, and for the continuation of operations under the administrator while the process of negotiation is resumed looking to a voluntary settlement. The powers of the administrator will continue until such time

Canadian Pacific Steamships as settlement is arrived at. A resolution has been drawn up and handed in and will appear in Votes and Proceedings tomorrow. That resolution will read as follows:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the resumption of the British Columbia coast steamship service operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, including provisions for the appointment of an administrator to carry on all or any part of the said services, and for other related matters.
The bill will be printed and available for distribution tomorrow morning. The house will be asked-and that is the request I make under the circumstances-to give unanimous consent to taking up the resolution tomorrow, and as soon as it is adopted to proceed at once with consideration of the bill through all stages.
There was a tentative arrangement made that tomorrow the debate on external affairs would be proceeded with. However, in view of the present position, the adjournment without a set date on the part of the security council, I would suggest that the question to be considered could be postponed for another day and that this matter, so important to the economic life of the people of British Columbia, might receive the support of all hon. members in all parts of the house, to the end that without delay, following discussion, action may be taken to resolve, in so far as the people are concerned, a situation that is proving very difficult and trying and one of great discomfort, which in addition is causing severe damage to the tourist industry in that province.
If the house would agree I should be only too willing to fix any date as the day for the debate on external affairs. There is no indication that immediate action will be taken in New York, certainly not before the beginning of next week.
In making this request I do so because I believe it is of the essence that parliament be seized of this matter at once. We have made every effort and have met with no success. Indeed, there is no possibility of a settlement being arrived at which will make possible the resumption of the services unless parliament in its wisdom will act. I am not given to endeavouring to bring about changes in the legislative planning of the house or the planning of debates, but in this case I do make an appeal to hon. members to realize the situation that prevails and, to that end, make possible consideration tomorrow of this extremely important matter.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened with interest and concern to what the Prime Minister has just said. The house will recall that only yesterday the hon. member for

Laurier and also the hon. member for Skeena asked questions with regard to the strike in British Columbia to which the Prime Minister has referred and the seriousness of which is apparent to us all. In replying to these questions only yesterday the Minister of Labour merely stated that-
-the government still has this matter under very serious consideration.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we would have been the more surprised, I think, at the announcement the Prime Minister has made so soon after these questions if we had not read in the press this morning the Canadian Press story-which is dated July 22-to the effect that-
Legislation for halting the west coast C.P.R. steamship tie-up will be brought before the federal cabinet tomorrow, it was learned late today.
Informants said it will involve passage of a back to work measure by parliament.
The situation, of course, Mr. Speaker, is serious, but I think we have to be equally serious as members of parliament about the way in which we approach this problem in order to resolve it. The Prime Minister has said that the strike began on May 16, 68 days ago, and the report of a conciliation board set up by the government to consider the strike was received, I believe, by the Minister of Labour on April 24. The matter has been before the government for a considerable time.
Some hon. members will recall that in 1950 parliament and the country were confronted with a grave transportation emergency owing to a railway strike which was national in scope, which if it had been allowed to continue would have had disastrous national results. This strike in British Columbia is equally serious in a sense for those who are directly concerned with it on Vancouver island and on the mainland, but it differs from the strike in 1950 in that that latter strike was national in scope as well as in character.
The house will no doubt recall that at that time in 1950 the prime minister of the day, almost within hours of the beginning of that strike, called parliament together in special session and introduced legislation to deal with that national emergency, as it undoubtedly was. At that time, on introduction of the legislation, the leader of the Conservative party quite rightly emphasized that even in an emergency there must be sufficient time for members of parliament to give consideration to the measure that was being introduced by the government. Mr. Drew said, as reported at page 3 of Hansard of August 29, 1950:
It is highly desirable that there be an opportunity for hon. members to examine the bill, and

that there be an explanation by the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), before hon. members are called upon to express an opinion upon the bill itself.
Later on Mr. Drew said, as reported at page 4 of Hansard:
I am certain that the bill will be dealt with much more expeditiously if we have it before us and have the explanation that will enable us to understand the intention of the government in presenting it.
If I remember right the prime minister of the day and the minister of labour did explain the purpose and nature of the action they were asking parliament to take, and the bill was before members who had an opportunity to consider it before debate took place. I suggest that the same procedure certainly should be adopted at this time. For that purpose and because we do not wish to delay the matter unduly, having regard to the right of parliament to give it adequate and informed consideration, I suggest that the Prime Minister should get unanimous consent at this time to introduce the resolution, that perhaps the resolution could be passed at once and the bill then printed and, as the Prime Minister has suggested, be distributed to members sometime tomorrow morning.
But I also suggest that we should not proceed to deal with it immediately in the afternoon, as there certainly would be very little opportunity to consider the bill, but that we should proceed to deal with it on Friday morning. This does not seem to me to represent unnecessary delay, and such a procedure would have the additional advantage of enabling us to proceed with the debate on external affairs which had been contemplated for tomorrow. While it may well be, as the Prime Minister has said, that the security council has adjourned and there will be no immediate decision taken in New York with respect to the Middle East situation, nevertheless that situation remains tense and dangerous, and I think the time has come when we should be given the opportunity in a full dress debate in parliament to state our views with regard to it.
I think the opposition, and it is quite right that it should, has attempted to be cooperative in this matter with regard to procedure. There have been very good reasons for postponing the debate and we have accepted them, but I would hope that the debate could go ahead tomorrow, because that would also give us a few extra hours to study the legislation that is to be brought forward. I think, as Mr. Drew thought in 1950 with respect to an emergency even greater in its nature, that the opportunity
Canadian Pacific Steamships to give the legislation that kind of study will not delay the bill more than a few hours and will ensure that all members of parliament can discuss it in an intelligent and informed way. I therefore make that suggestion to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of making a lengthy statement with respect to this matter, for I am sure all hon. members and the people of the country are aware of our sincere interest with respect to the situation on the west coast. With regard to agreeing to the introduction of the resolution and the bill without notice in order that the house may deal with the legislation at the earliest possible moment, we have no objection to that either. We regret, however, that it has taken the government such a long, long time to deal with the situation. We have kept a very close watch on developments over the past weeks, and know the hardships that have been caused the employees involved and the general public.
We feel that while the approach of arranging for an administrator to operate the steamship line may bring relief to some quarters, nevertheless it only deals with the immediate problem and can do relatively little to solve the longer range and more important aspects of coastal shipping. The government would have merited extreme commendation if it had dealt with coastal shipping problems some months ago. It would still receive accolades from all parts of the country if it would consider dealing with passenger and other shipping facilities from the point of view of providing a service to the general public and to our economy.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I say just one word in connection with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. What I was asking for was expedited action in order to meet the situation. In 1950, as I recall, there was no resolution. There was simply a bill introduced, and at the time the request was made by the then leader of the Conservative party there was no bill available. In the present case it is necessary to introduce a resolution. At the resolution stage the fullest information will be available so that, in so far as the bill itself is concerned, after discussion has taken place at the resolution stage the house and the country will have every bit of information that will be available on the bill.
I am, naturally, in the hands of the house. If the house does not give consent then of course 1 must proceed in the ordinary way. This may mean very well that we will not be in a position to act before the beginning of the week. After all, once the discussion
2572	HOUSE OF
Canadian Pacific Steamships gets under way, if we started tomorrow and took even two days we would be able to get passage, if the bill is acceptable to the house, by Saturday. Then the legislation could be sent over to the other place, and if acceptable to the other place there could be a resumption of service by Saturday.
However, if the Leader of the Opposition takes the view he does, and does not feel like altering that view, I can only say that it may very well be that there may not be any legislation passed during the present week. Monday is private members' day. I simply point out these facts. If, however, unanimous consent is not forthcoming, then all we will be able to do is introduce the resolution and go no further.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I add
one word to what has already been said by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister stated that he is anxious to expedite this legislation, and has made a suggestion upon which the Leader of the Opposition has commented. What I am saying now is in support of what the Leader of the Opposition has said, that we are willing to go even farther than the Prime Minister has asked by consenting to the passage of the resolution now. Once the resolution has passed we will then be in a position to have the bill before us and will be able to consider the bill on Thursday, at which time the debate on external affairs could take place.
Under those circumstances we could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be holding up the legislation at all. We are anxious to assist the passage of this legislation in view of the urgency to which the Prime Minister has referred. If the resolution is not passed until tomorrow, and we get the bill after the passage of the resolution, we will then be in the stage of committee of the whole and may not have, at that time, the opportunity to which I think the opposition is entitled, to consider the bill as we should.
In effect we are saying, upon the suggestion put before us by the Prime Minister, that we consent to the passage of the resolution at once so that we may have the bill before us and ascertain what the contents of the bill are. We are, we think, entitled to know what the powers of the administrator are going to be and what the terms of the resumption of service are. All these things must be given consideration, and it strikes me that if we had that information by getting the bill today we would then be in a position to ponder upon it until tomorrow and the bill would move much faster through the various stages.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask your guidance on a point of order, Mr. Speaker?


We have agreed, as my hon. friend has said, to the introduction by unanimous consent of the resolution and the passage of that resolution through this house this afternoon. Am I right in thinking that once we have given that unanimous consent it is then within the rights of the government, if it so desires, to proceed with the bill after 24 hours. Do they not have that right once we give unanimous consent to the introduction of the resolution? We are not interfering with that right, but we suggest to the government that in its exercise they should print the bill, give us a chance to see it tomorrow morning, and not begin the debate until Friday morning, instead of Thursday morning. Nevertheless, if they feel they must go ahead with it tomorrow, once we have given unanimous consent to the introduction of the resolution today and its passage through its various stages today, then that is their responsibility.


John George Diefenbaker: In order to be perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, if I introduce the resolution now it will be with the consent of the house. Then, according to the Leader of the Opposition, if the government chooses to go ahead with the bill tomorrow it will be in order to do so, and that being so we are back in the position where we started. My request was simply-


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I realize the reason for the dissent at the moment. A few minutes ago there was no dissent but now there is a suggestion that it is not in keeping with the consent for which I have asked. Therefore I ask leave to introduce the resolution; the bill will be available tomorrow morning, and we will be in a position to go ahead with the debate tomorrow, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: In dealing with the discussions and the questions raised it seems to me that to accomplish what is suggested it would be necessary for the house to make an order giving unanimous consent to the introduction of the resolution, the passage of the resolution and the introduction of the bill without discussion, so the bill would then stand on the order paper for second reading tomorrow.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the Prime Minister has stated that I have changed my position on my second intervention. With great respect, I did not do that at all. I said at the very beginning of my remarks that we were quite agreeable to the introduction of the resolution, and then we asked the government, through the Prime Minister, to print the bill so those of us on this side of the house might have a chance to see the bill and study it before

it is discussed on Friday morning. But the Prime Minister feels that he must proceed with the bill tomorrow afternoon immediately after it has been printed and circulated. Once having given consent to the introduction of the resolution at this time-and this is what I said at the very beginning-we must go along with that procedure, but it is the responsibility of the government if they choose to follow it.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand the Prime Minister is now asking for unanimous consent to introduce the resolution at this time, to pass the resolution and to introduce the bill, so the bill will then be on the order paper for tomorrow and will, presumably, be printed and available to hon. members in the morning?
As I understand the matter, if it is dealt with in this way by unanimous consent we will in effect leap-frog the committee stage and introduce the bill all at one time now, so what I am proposing to the house is that it give unanimous consent to an order giving permission to the Prime Minister to introduce the resolution which he has read, to an order passing the resolution, reporting the resolution and to an order giving leave to introduce a bill based on the resolution, all in one order, so that on the order paper we will then have the second reading of the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: Second reading of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to the order I have outlined?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



WATER RESOURCES


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the house that the board of engineers appointed on behalf of the government of Canada and the government of Manitoba to make a survey and report on lake Winnipeg and lake Manitoba and the resources of waters within Manitoba flowing into and from the said lakes under terms of reference dated July 5, 1956, has completed its assignment.
The covering report entitled "Report on Measures for Control of the Waters of Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba, Province of Manitoba", comprising three volumes, will be tabled as soon as additional copies are available. I will also be pleased to provide copies to those members of the house representing Manitoba ridings and to those members who desire to review the report in detail.
Question


Mr. Pickersgill:: I wonder if I might ask the minister if this report is available in French?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.



STARRED QUESTION


Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Was Walter Mitchell, of the city of Montreal, an employee of the Department of Agriculture at the port of Montreal?
2.	If so, in what capacity and for how long?
3.	Was he dismissed from his employment?
4.	If so, for what reason and on whose recommendation?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the questions are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	As a casual checker and fumigator during the open period of the port of Montreal, from 1936 to 1940 and from 1946 to June 14, 1958.
3.	Yes.
4.	I received complaints that this man had been an active political organizer for the hon. member for Laurier during the last two elections. Later I received information that on November 29, 1957, Walter Mitchell was found to be in possession of contraband liquor and a quantity of contraband United States cigarettes which he had obtained, by his own admission, during his employment as a casual checker and fumigator with the department, from ships in the Montreal harbour. This, of course, is conduct which we cannot countenance, and as a result I ordered his release.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, may I say many of these statements are totally inaccurate, with which I will have an opportunity to deal on the minister's estimates.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, these are accurate statements-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member has said they are not accurate statements. I guarantee they are accurate statements, and I would suggest-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the debate on this matter had better be deferred.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would suggest the hon. member be more careful in his political associations.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: You will hear about it later.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that tomorrow we will be discussing not external affairs but a bill to bring to an end a shipping strike, so we are informed, and in view of the fact that this debate may continue beyond Thursday, would the Prime Minister give some indication now as to when the discussion on the international situation will take place?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should be very happy to see it take place as soon as we conclude the debate on the bill respecting the steamship strike. I cannot say how long the debate on the strike situation will take, but whenever it concludes we will be in a position to go ahead immediately.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as an ancient member of the Maple Leaf pipe smoking club, and because of my concern for the health of cigarette smokers, particularly the ladies, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the fact that the federal trade commission of the United States is giving consideration to amendment of the law to require cigarette manufacturers to list the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes on their packages in order that the public may be able to assess correctly the differences in this respect between various brands, would the minister inform the house if consideration is being given to the enactment of similar legislation for the information and protection of Canadian consumers?


Hon. J. W. Monteifh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. While I have not previously been aware of this suggestion, I can assure the hon. member that the government would watch such a development with keen interest.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Has the
minister given any consideration as to the constitutional right of parliament or of the


government of Canada in this matter? This is, of course, altogether apart from the question of whether or not this is desirable.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I have not, Mr. Speaker, purely because, as I mentioned a moment ago, this is the first time this has been brought to my attention.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the adjustment payment made to bondholders on reconversion subject to income tax?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, this adjustment payment to bondholders on reconversion has an element of interest in it; that is, part of the payment involves interest which has accrued on the bond. Another part is entirely independent of the interest. In so far as the interest element is concerned, that is taxable in the hands of the holder of the bond, who in fact will be required when he surrenders the bond for conversion to sign an ownership certificate indicating the proportion of interest which has accrued thereon.
I may say that these ownership certificates are forwarded to the Department of National Revenue, so that all persons receiving this interest must report it in their income tax returns for the year 1958, the returns they will file next spring. The balance of the adjustment payment is not taxable; in other words it is tax free in the hands of the recipient.

Perhaps I should qualify that answer in one respect. What I said a moment ago applies to the ordinary holders of bonds throughout the country, but there may be cases where people deal exclusively in bonds, thereby earning an income therefrom, and these may be placed in a different category from that of the ordinary bondholders in Canada.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS NEWFOUNDLAND    INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON REVISION OF TERMS OF UNION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Prime Minister if he has yet reached a conclusion as to when he will be able to table the report of the royal commission on the revision of terms of union?


John George Diefenbaker: I can only say that if there is any further considerable delay I will table the report in English and, as I indicated earlier, before doing so I will see that a copy is delivered to the premier of Newfoundland. As a matter of fact this afternoon I will make inquiries in this connection, and if it appears that there is going to be any further appreciable delay in the printing I will try to get a letter away to the premier of Newfoundland for tomorrow so as to be in a position to table the report in the house as soon as it has been received in Newfoundland.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. We have noticed that a number of reports have been published in English but that the French publication has been quite late in reaching our hands. Could the Prime Minister make inquiries to see why it is that the French translation often comes so late, and endeavour to remedy this situation?


John George Diefenbaker: I think it has been the experience over the years that there is in almost every case a longer period taken to provide the French translations and texts, and finally the printing, than has been the case in the production of the documents in the English language. I will certainly look into this to the end that any difficulty in this connection may be removed if at all possible.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I
address a question to the Prime Minister with regard to the request of the Secretary General of the United Nations for additional observers. The Prime Minister indicated yesterday that three additional Canadian observers had been sent. Was Canada asked to send only three observers; and could he now indicate whether or not a further request for observers has been made?


John George Diefenbaker: When I advised the house yesterday that three additional observers had been provided for, that was the number which was requested. There has been no further request as far as I know. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was held up in New York this morning by the late departure of his aircraft, and he only arrived in Ottawa a short time ago. My information at the moment is subject, of course, to conference with him, but no other request has been brought to my attention.
Inquiries of the Ministry COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


REPORT ON INDUSTRY IN WESTERN CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether any legal action is contemplated as a result of the report of the restrictive trade practices commission regarding the sugar industry in western Canada, which has been public knowledge for some time?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a decision has been taken in that regard, but I am not quite sure whether counsel has been retained. I should prefer to look into the matter before I make a definite announcement.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate drew my attention to what he termed a discrepancy between the figures of the dominion bureau of statistics and the national employment service, and he was concerned by the fact that the discrepancy for June was approximately 200,000 while at the same time last year it was only 100,000.
The answer to this, on investigation, is that on a percentage basis and taking into consideration the fact that all these sets of figures are larger this year than last year, the percentage of the discrepancy is, I would say, almost identical with that at the same time last year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nevertheless, does the minister feel that there should be a doubling of what we both call the discrepancy? It has always been understood in the past that this discrepancy was about 100,000 whether unemployment was high or low. It seems to me that the discrepancy has widened.


Michael Starr: I think the gap to which the hon. member refers is partly due to the fact that seasonal benefit claims were still being processed at that time this year, and were not being processed at the same time last year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether any changes have been made in the sampling procedures for arriving at the dominion bureau of statistics figures?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I will take that question as notice.



REPORTED CUT IN WORK WEEK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received from the municipal corporation of the united townships of Neelon and Garson a request to take immediate action to alleviate the present crisis in the nickel mining industry in northern Ontario where operations have been cut down to four days a week? If so, what action has been taken or is contemplated concerning this crucial problem?


John George Diefenbaker: Without notice it would be impossible to give a full answer to the question. In so far as the nickel industry is concerned, there has been a situation developing in the last year and a half or two years detrimental to the export of nickel. This was one of the matters which was discussed during the recent visit of the President of the United States.
All I can say at this time is that full representations have been made to the end that the United States realizes the effects on the Canadian industry. May I add that recently I met a delegation representative of the nickel producers, who placed before me at considerable length their views and suggestions, and these views and suggestions are receiving the attention of the government.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I wonder if the attention of the right hon. gentleman has been drawn to a newspaper account in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen in which it was mentioned that during a C.B.C. telecast the right hon. gentleman had placed the jobs of a number of C.B.C. employees in jeopardy. If that has been drawn to his attention, would he care to comment upon it?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I were to endeavour to answer all the speculative articles that appear I would be kept busy and have no time for anything else. I seem to recall that there was an epigram on the wall of Abraham Lincoln which read something like this: If I were to endeavour to answer all the attacks


that are made on me and all the speculative stories that are spoken about me, this shop might as well be closed.
Certainly there is no foundation for any suggestion that I have anything to do with the jobs of employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.



CANADIAN PACIFIC STEAMSHIPS


John George Diefenbaker: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the resumption of the British Columbia coast steamship service operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, including provisions for the appointment of an administrator to carry on all or any part of the said services, and for other related matters.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, we do not intend to hold up this resolution, of course, but I should like to ask the Prime Minister two questions. The first relates to something he mentioned in his earlier statement but perhaps not in sufficient detail. When are we likely to get the bill if in fact the government wishes to proceed with its consideration tomorrow afternoon? Second, would the Minister of Labour do what I think the minister of labour did in 1950 on the occasion of the railway strike, and explain to the house in as much detail as possible what will be in the bill following the remarks of the Prime Minister. This was the procedure adopted in 1950.


John George Diefenbaker: In so far as the bill is
concerned, Mr. Chairman, it will be available first thing tomorrow morning. It will be printed tonight. I could furnish the Leader of the Opposition as well as the representative of the C.C.F. with a mimeographed copy, and the bill itself will be printed this evening and made available tomorrow morning.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether or not the bill will be in our boxes in the morning?


John George Diefenbaker: That is the intention.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. It would be convenient for us if I could have a mimeographed copy of the bill any time this evening. I had a second question. Could the Minister of Labour add anything to what the Prime Minister has

already said this afternoon about the action the government proposes to take, and its form?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, before I do that may I refer to the fact that in speaking this afternoon on the proposal of the Prime Minister to introduce this resolution with the unanimous consent of the house, the Leader of the Opposition and also the hon. member for Skeena suggested that this government had not moved in this matter with sufficient speed, and had allowed a long period of time to elapse before finally deciding to take action. For the information of these hon. gentlemen I should like to briefly outline the history of this development. Probably in making their remarks this afternoon the hon. gentlemen lacked full knowledge of what has transpired throughout the course of this dispute.
On July 29, 1957, the Minister of Labour appointed a conciliation officer to mediate this dispute and meetings were held with representatives of the parties on August 1, 12, 13, 16 and 28. On August 30 the conciliation officer reported that he was not able to bring the parties to an amicable agreement and recommended the appointment of a conciliation board.
A conciliation board was appointed which sat for many days, heard the evidence and brought in three separate reports. The chairman recommended 25 per cent, the employee nominee recommended 31 per cent and the employer nominee recommended 17 per cent. This was rejected. The board conducted further negotiations on its own.
In the end we appointed a commissioner of inquiry, a man of high reputation for many years in these disputes, who spent close to five weeks presenting formulas of various kinds to both parties in order to bring about a settlement, but he failed in this. Eventually he recommended the form of arbitration. Immediately upon receiving his recommendation the Minister of Labour contacted all parties concerned to see if the recommendation was acceptable to them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are referring to the commissioner from Toronto, whose name I have forgotten?


Michael Starr: Mr. Taylor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Eric Taylor.


Michael Starr: We received acquiescence from all the parties to proceed on the basis recommended by the commissioner of inquiry with the exception of the seafarers' international union, which rejected any form of arbitration. We then proceeded to call both parties
Canadian Pacific Steamships to Ottawa in the hope that I would be able to put forth some other formula that might be acceptable, and to afford an opportunity to the parties to present a formula that would be acceptable to the other party. Two meetings were held in Ottawa on July 7 and again on July 10. On July 10 we brought together the major principals of the dispute without any conclusion being reached.
Since those two meetings we have been in direct communication by telephone and other means with both parties, endeavouring to bring about some solution to this problem. I say this, Mr. Chairman, in order to inform the committee that every effort and indeed a continuous one has been made by the Department of Labour to bring about a solution.
As far as the bill is concerned and the request of the Leader of the Opposition for an outline of it, I think I will leave it to the Prime Minister, who has asked for the introduction of this bill, to outline its various aspects.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the minister tell us how many days these men have been out?


Michael Starr: They have been out since the strike began on May 16.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, if I understood the reading of the resolution correctly it contains three parts: first, the resumption of the services of the Pacific coast steamships; second, the appointment of an administrator; and third, other related matters. I wonder whether the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour could throw some light on these three parts of the resolution.
What I am directing my attention to at the moment is, in what form is it intended to suggest, direct or order the resumption of services? Next, what will be the duties of the administrator and what will be his functions? Will he have jurisdiction to get the parties together and will he be given a certain time in which to do that, or will there be no such time? Will the legislation resemble the legislation to which the Leader of the Opposition referred earlier? Finally, what are the other related matters that are mentioned in the legislation?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, with
respect to the three phases of the matter referred to by the hon. member for Laurier, of which the first was the appointment of an administrator, the administrator is to be appointed by the governor in council to carry on all or any part of the business of the steamship company. He will be regarded as an agent of the steamship company for the purpose of carrying on its business. Forthwith upon his appointment he will carry on

Canadian Pacific Steamships the business of the steamship company which was suspended by reason of the strike, and every employee who is now on strike will be required to resume his duties or his employment with the steamship company.
As soon as the ships are put in operation there will be a direction that the steamship company and each union shall forthwith enter into negotiations with a view to settlement of any matters in dispute between them at the present time, and the authority of the administrator to carry on the business of the steamship company shall continue until a new collective agreement is concluded or until his appointment is terminated by the governor in council.
In order to secure the operation of the ships there will be a provision to the effect that the employees shall go back to work and that in general the negotiations shall continue with a view to determining, by the necessary operation of bargaining the questions still in dispute as between the S.I.U. particularly and the steamship company. I think that in general represents a summary.
There will, of course, have to be provision made for the assumption by the administrator of the full authority of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in operating the steamship company.


Lionel Chevrier: Is it contemplated to appoint an officer of the railway company to act as administrator?


John George Diefenbaker: That has not been finally determined but is the subject of consideration. There are considerations on both sides, but I would feel that in general the administrator should be someone with considerable administrative business experience in a governmental sense, and also with knowledge of the problems of the operation of steamships and the like.


Lionel Chevrier: Under what authority is
this legislation being introduced?


John George Diefenbaker: I am not quite sure
what the hon. gentleman means.


Lionel Chevrier: What I mean is this. By
virtue of what provision of the constitution in the legislation being introduced?


John George Diefenbaker: It is because of the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is involved, and it is a company under national jurisdiction.


Lionel Chevrier: I take it from what the
Prime Minister said that there will be a provision in this legislation requiring the employees to go back to work. What would happen in case they did not obey the direction of parliament? Is there a clause to cover that situation?


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. gentleman
knows, there is general provision that any infraction of a statute passed by parliament is subject to a general penalty.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
two questions which I think are pertinent. In view of the fact that the legislation proposed under this resolution does provide for compulsory operation of the ships my first question is, what is the basis under which the men would return to work, the contractual basis, wages, conditions, benefits, and all that sort of thing? My second question is, in view of the action which is proposed, was there any previous intimation given to the parties concerned that the government had the intention of introducing legislation of this kind?


John George Diefenbaker: With respect to the
second question, may I say that during the negotiations every consideration had been given to bring about a determination of the unsatisfactory situation, and I think it was made very clear that unless some amicable agreement was arrived at it would be necessary for the parliament of Canada to act; that public security and maintenance of a proper regard for the rights of others would demand the introduction of such legislation.
I may say that in taking this course we are following the suggestion we made on August 30, 1950, when the Maintenance of Railway Operation Act was before the House of Commons and the leader of the Conservative party moved an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West, as follows:
That Bill No. 1 be not now read the second time but that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to a measure which would provide for the appointment of a national administrator to ensure immediate operation of the railways pending final solution of the dispute by the free process of collective bargaining.
It is consonant with the viewpoint thus expressed that we proceeded as we have in the resolution and as we intend to proceed in the bill.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister what action the government would propose to take if the free process of collective bargaining does not work out effectively under this administration of the steamship company. Under the 1950 procedure, if I remember correctly, provision was made to deal with an emergency under which operation of the railway could not be carried on. The particular contingency of a deadlock could not have arisen under the earlier legislation. May I ask the Prime Minister what the government proposes to do in case of a possible deadlock, if the administrator

is not able to operate the shipping company because the processes of collective bargaining have not worked out effectively?


John George Diefenbaker: In 1950, of course, provision was made for compulsory arbitration under the legislation, and we opposed that at that time. On this occasion we simply make provision to get the men back to work and the ships in operation. If we get the ships in operation I believe we will have achieved the first major step. If other eventualities arise, and I am not here for the purpose of trying to envisage what the possibilities might be, then in that case, of course, we will be placed in a position where, if other action is necessary, it may be taken at that time.
The immediate purpose, the immediate aim and the immediate desire, I believe, not only of members of the house but generally is to bring about the restoration of the operation of these ships. Having done that, I feel that the negotiations that have been continuing will have renewed hopes of success.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Minister of Labour, who was seized with these negotiations more directly, I suppose, than the Prime Minister, when it was intimated to the parties to the dispute that the government would give consideration to the course it is now following. When was that information given? Was it given as late as yesterday?


Michael Starr: During the discussions we did not give any intimation that any action would be taken, but we did point out that if the parties did not arrive at a solution themselves action would have to be taken to bring about the resumption of this vital service, because it is a public utility upon which so many people on Vancouver island depend. We did discuss certain aspects of the bill with the parties concerned yesterday.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Could the minister tell me when he did give information in the form in which he said it was given, a form which, if I understood the Prime Minister correctly, was not exactly as the Minister of Labour has just indicated?


Michael Starr: No.


Peter Francis Martin: My question is, can the minister say when information was given as to possible action by the government?


Michael Starr: This particular action was discussed last night in all aspects with one of the parties interested.


Frank Howard: I have been trying to get in on this discussion so perhaps between us
Canadian Pacific Steamships we may find the answers. With respect to the discussions between officials of the government or the Minister of Labour and one or both of the parties regarding the proposal to appoint an administrator to operate the ships, which proposal will be contained in the bill, were there any negotiations between either of the parties and the minister about the conditions surrounding the appointment of an administrator? In the event of the appointment of an administrator, did either of the parties indicate that this would be acceptable or not acceptable if certain other conditions were met? Was there any discussion of this nature? I am trying to determine whether, if the question was discussed, it was discussed at some length or expanded upon.


Michael Starr: We explored every avenue and had discussions with both parties about the possibilities of legislation at this time in order to see whether certain things were not acceptable for the purpose of resuming operations on the west coast. These discussions have been going on for several days now with one or other of the parties.


Frank Howard: Discussions took place, but what I am trying to determine is whether there was an expansion or exploration of different ideas that would hinge upon the appointment of an administrator. Was there any discussion that centred around that sort of thing with one or both of the parties? Apparently the intent of the government was to find a solution mutually acceptable by each party to the dispute, which would probably be the most advantageous thing to do; but in attempting to reach mutual understanding or acceptability by the two parties was there any expansion on the idea of an administrator and any other matters discussed in relation to it?


Michael Starr: Every aspect of the bill was discussed fully with both parties confidentially in the light of the desire on the part of the government to bring about a measure that would be acceptable to both sides to the dispute.


Frank Howard: May I ask one further question. The minister used the word "confidentially". Am I to take it from this that he is not able to discuss the trend or import of the discussions?


Michael Starr: We discussed every aspect of the bill that will be presented to parliament, but I do not feel that I can disclose the details or exact wording of our discussions.


Frank Howard: All right; we will let that one ride. There are one or two other questions I have in mind apart from the matter we have

Canadian Pacific Steamships just discussed. Has the government any particular person in mind? I realize that this question was answered to some extent a little while ago, but has the government any particular person in mind who might act as administrator?


Michael Starr: Yes, the government has a person in mind, but no definite decision has been made that he will act in this capacity.


Frank Howard: Has this individual been
approached and is it merely a question of awaiting his reply as to whether or not he will accept? Is that the hold-up?


Michael Starr: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to look ahead a bit and ask the minister a question as to how this new operation, which we all hope will not have to be carried on for very long, is to be conducted. On what basis will the administrator get people to run his ships? What inducements will he oiler them in the way of wages, working conditions, other benefits and so on? If he has to offer them the salary scale and working conditions against which they are now striking, how is the administrator going to get these people back to work under the old conditions against which they have been striking now for four months? If the administrator offers better conditions, and he reaches the point where he has to offer the conditions which they have put forward as strikers and are asking for now, what will be the purpose in turning the shipping company over to the administrator?


Michael Starr: As I mentioned earlier, there has been an agreement signed between Canadian Pacific Steamships, west coast division, and the stewards union on the basis of an 8 per cent increase. The purpose of the bill is to provide for the resumption of work under the administrator by all employees on the same basis of an 8 per cent increase. All employees going back to work will have an increase of 8 per cent from the time the service is resumed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They go back to work, in other words, at a higher wage level than they had when they struck?


Michael Starr: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister this. Is it true, as reported, that the Canadian Pacific has already disposed of two of their ten ships? Does the minister feel the Canadian Pacific has any obligation to maintain service between the mainland and Vancouver island if the strike is settled?


Michael Starr: I have heard that the Canadian Pacific disposed of two of their ships.

My answer to the second part is that I feel they have an obligation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A legal obliga-gation?


Frank Howard: I gather that this settlement is not to follow the same pattern as that which was followed by British Columbia with respect to the Black Ball ferries, that is in so far as the profit and loss picture of the company is concerned. The government or the treasury will not enter into any arrangement with the Canadian Pacific so far as taking the profits or making up the losses is concerned?


Michael Starr: No, it is not contemplated that the government should enter into that.


Alexis Pierre Caron: A while ago the minister said it was the understanding between the company and the stewards that they would go back with an 8 per cent increase. Will the balance of the crew go back at that same rate? What was the demand of the union for the other members of the crew?


Michael Starr: There is a signed collective agreement, Mr. Chairman, between the Canadian Pacific and approximately 58 per cent of the employees in this service now on the basis of an 8 per cent increase. I am not able to say what the demands were. I can give the recommendations of the conciliation board. As I stated before, the chairman recommended a 25 per cent increase; the employer representative recommended a 17 per cent increase, and the employee representative recommended a 40 per cent or 50 per cent increase.


Frank Howard: Perhaps the minister should explain that these 25 per cent and 17 per cent increases were divided into two amounts over a two-year period.


Michael Starr: That is true; it is a two-year contract, and part of it was for the first year and part of it for the second year.


Lionel Chevrier: Earlier the minister referred to the two bargaining agencies involved, one the S.I.U. and the other the brotherhood of railway steamship clerks. In answer to a question put by the Leader of Opposition he said that the stewards, which I believe belong to the latter union, would go back to work at an 8 per cent increase. What is the position with respect to the other members of the other union, that is the S.I.U.? Do they go back at an increased wage?


Michael Starr: I cannot say with certainty that they would go back, but I expect and have every hope that they will, at the same rate of 8 per cent.


Lionel Chevrier: Is that contemplated in the bill?


Michael Starr: This is set out, that all the personnel go back at an 8 per cent increase.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister say what percentage of the men under contract belong to one union as opposed to the other?


Michael Starr: The average number of persons employed in this service on the west coast has been as follows: deck officers, represented by the Canadian merchant service guild, 62; engineering officers, represented by the national association of marine engineers, 93; unlicensed personnel represented by the S.I.U., 300; pursers and stewards, officers and ratings, represented by the brotherhood of railway and steamship clerks, 413. This latter group is the one that has a collective agreement signed with the Canadian Pacific. The total average yearly employment with the company is approximately 930.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you. May I go back to a question asked by someone earlier, I believe the hon. member for Essex East. What is the legal or constitutional position with regard to the company furnishing steamship service from the mainland to Vancouver island?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not quite follow what the hon. gentleman means.


Lionel Chevrier: I mean, for instance, with reference to the steamship service on the east coast from the mainland to Newfoundland, there is a constitutional obligation by virtue of the terms of union with Newfoundland. There is also an obligation with reference to steamship service on the west coast. I should like to know from the government what this is. Is it legal or constitutional or by virtue of what agreement between the provincial and federal governments, if such exists, that this steamship service be operated?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is not within my knowledge that there is any provision in the constitution or that there is an agreement that would cover the point mentioned by the hon. gentleman. The basis upon which we have jurisdiction is that the company is a company under federal jurisdiction. We are not asserting here any legislative jurisdiction by virtue of a written agreement, by virtue of a provision in the constitution for the provision of the service because, as I say, there is no such written or constitutional requirement. There is the fact that this company, and its service, is under the legislative jurisdiction of parliament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When the Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister of
Canadian Pacific Steamships Labour about two ships being disposed of by the company, and what was the minister's understanding as to the obligation of the company to carry on the operation with at least a limited number of ships, the Minister of Labour replied that he understood there was an obligation. I then put in an aside, was it a legal obligation? I do not expect the Minister of Labour to be able to answer whether or not there is a legal obligation, but perhaps he will explain what he meant by saying he understood there was an obligation as to the continuation of this service, which is so important?


Michael Starr: When I said there was an obligation I meant a moral obligation. After all, the Canadian Pacific have been operating these steamships for many years. People are dependent upon them, and they have more or less carried on the operation of this ferry service between the island and the mainland. After this bill is passed there certainly will be a legal obligation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the Minister of Justice will give consideration to this. There must be a legal obligation on the part of the crown, in the right of Canada, to see that there is communication between the mainland and the island?


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I add to that question just one observation. Is there any obligation in the original franchise, if that is the right word, by which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was granted the right to build the transcontinental railroad? Is there any legal obligation in that franchise to continue the service to Vancouver island?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I believe that has been the subject of dispute and representation over the years. The fact is that the service was established. I would not care, at this stage, to revive a controversy which died many years ago. The fact is that the company has been providing a service. It is a company under the legislative jurisdiction of parliament, and it is on that basis that I would prefer to rest the authority for this legislation rather than enter into a hypothetical discussion as to whether or not there is now a legal or constitutional obligation on the company.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is aware, of course, that it was a condition of the union with British Columbia that a railway should be built to the pacific coast. Does the minister recall-I confess I do not-whether or not there was any obligation on the dominion at that time to provide steamship service between the mainland and Vancouver island?

Canadian Pacific Steamships


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. gentleman Mr. Chairman, is himself a student of history. I know he will recall, as well as I do, the controversy that existed as to whether or not there was such an obligation. My point is that I do not see that there is any purpose to be served by reviving that controversy.
It is not necessary to found this bill on one point of view or another with regard to that controversy. We are concerned with getting the steamships back into operation and surely no hon. member opposite would question that this company is under the legislative authority of parliament-


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, that is so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There does not seem to me, therefore, to be any purpose to be served by going back to controversies which died 50 years ago.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps there is this purpose to be served-it is reported, and I ask for confirmation other than this report, that the company has disposed of two of these ships. Does the company or can the company relieve itself of any obligation which it might have by disposing of all of these ships?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course, Mr. Chairman, that is a hypothetical question because I am not aware that there is any intention or thought on the part of the company of disposing of all its ships, so I am really not able to answer the hon. gentleman's question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to pursue this subject a little further. This is a most extraordinary measure the government is proposing to take, which would have the effect for the time being at least of confiscating the property of a private company. The government is obliging people to go back to work by law- also a very unusual procedure-and is making it criminal for people not to go back to work for this shipping company. It would be a different situation if there were an obligation on the part of the federal government to maintain that service, as there was in 1950, between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, and hon. members will recall that the service was resumed with the consent of the union almost immediately after the strike started.
If the government is resting its authority for action solely on its jurisdiction over shipping and over federal companies-neither of which one would contest-I would think, and the minister is a lawyer and I am not, but I would think that the government's jurisdiction over shipping might be a more solid foundation than its jurisdiction over federal companies upon which to rest its action. It does seem to me that, although the minister says this business of disposing


of the ships is a hypothetical question, it is not really hypothetical, especially when we consider something which has happened very recently on the east coast. It is true that jurisdiction exists over these Canadian Pacific ships and it also existed over the Canadian National (West Indies) ships on the east coast but the government did not see fit to take this kind of action in that case. There must be some distinction or difference between the two cases. It is true that this is a service between one place and another place in Canada-


Edmund Davie Fulton: You have answered your own question, surely.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and the other was a service between another country and Canada. I admit that is a very important difference but I assume the government is acting here because of some sort of principle and we are anxious to find out just what is that principle.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes that it is a matter of concern to the government on behalf of the people of Canada to see that the people of Canada are served with adequate transportation facilities and I suppose that is the broad general principle involved in the bill. If it were not for something like that there would be no need or occasion for the federal government to take action but, as I say, I felt it was not useful to seek to set a narrow legalistic basis on which to found this bill. We felt the interests of the country required it; we know we have the legislative jurisdiction to do it, and we propose to submit this proposition to parliament for its approval if parliament agrees with the course being adopted. I might just say, however, that the hon. member should, I think, look at the bill before he makes broad, sweeping assertions about the confiscation of property of the company because I am sure he will find nothing like that in the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might substitute the word "appropriate" for "confiscate" the property of the company.


Frank Howard: Perhaps it is because both the minister and I come from the same province that we find ourselves in at least partial agreement at this time in that it is not necessary to rehash all the controversies on this particular item.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It might have some effect on the rights of labour.


Frank Howard: There was a comment on the rates of labour which I did not hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It could possibly have some effect on the rights of labour.


Frank Howard: Oh, yes it could possibly, but it is interesting that the point arose with respect to the speculation as to whether the company has any legal obligation to maintain some sort of service out there or not. This is a worth-while speculation which I think points up, by the mere fact that it was raised, the objections we have made for some time about the operation of passenger and steamship services on the coast of British Columbia. From what I can glean from the comments and answers by members of the cabinet about the contents of the bill, and I may have to revise this statement after I see what the bill contains, but from what I have been able to gather so far it does relatively little with respect to the over-all, long-term project of providing shipping on the coast of British Columbia. It certainly has an immediate good effect of allowing the ships to go back into operation so that some sort of service is provided between Vancouver and Vancouver island, between Nanaimo and Vancouver, but it does practically nothing in respect of the over-all co-ordinated approach which must be taken by this government. I think the government has failed just as the previous administration failed, in not taking cognizance of and in not paying more attention to the shipping problems on the coast of British Columbia. I have mentioned this a number of times and will continue to do so, but these stop-gap measures-particularly this one in the light of its effect on the overall shipping on the coast of British Columbia-are merely short term approaches into which the government was jockeyed because it was unable to deal with the situation in past years.
We have always contended that if some sensible approach or attitude had been evident on the part of the previous administration and on the part of this administration with respect to the operating of shipping in this area we would probably not have got into this difficulty in the first place because, as hon. members will know, this difficulty arose because of a difference in opinion regarding the wage structure which would exist. I have no intention of getting into a discussion on the wage structure as to whether or not there was merit on one side of the argument or the other. I think if we analyse the matter, as did the junior chamber of commerce in Victoria, we will find that the fault lies with the Canadian Pacific steamship company more than it does with the union representing the employees.
Because of this difference of opinion, however, we ended up with a strike and I think we have to look at the attitude of the company which said "We cannot afford to pay any more than the 8 per cent which we signed
Canadian Pacific Steamships for with another union", and secondly they said, "Even if we did it would mean an inequitable structure of wages within the same company or an inequitable structure of wage increases within the same company; therefore we cannot have anything to do with it." The question of subsidies was involved and if the company wanted to comply, the question of their fare structure was involved and the type of ships the company has been building was involved, as was also the inefficiency of the ships. I am sure anyone who is familiar with the operation of the C.P.R. boats on the coast of British Columbia would not say that they are anything but inefficiently run, and that they are improperly built for that type of service.
All these factors have to be taken into consideration in looking at coastal shipping as a whole in British Columbia and I submit that while this legislation may have the immediate result of providing a service between one point and another out there, and of getting the employees back to work at a wage increase equal to that which the other employees got, there is no guarantee and, if you analyse the trend of collective bargaining and the attitudes taken and which could be taken in the future with respect to this particular strike, there is not even a pious hope that this will do anything more than have the immediate effect for which it is designed of getting these ships back into operation. This effect, of course, is a good thing because the general public is certainly suffering in British Columbia far more than anyone else, far more than the employees and far more than the company.
Unless and until the federal government which is in office now, and any other federal government which succeeds it is willing to take the final step of placing all coastal shipping in British Columbia under an allinclusive crown corporation, you are going to continue to have these problems you have now, you are going to have subsidies involved, and ships are going to lose money on some runs and make it on others, and then you will have to balance it up, and so on. Until you do that you are going to have problems of this kind arising because of the costs involved, and because of the wage rates, and because the attitude of the companies is that they cannot afford to pay anything better, while they have millions of dollars in other accounts and there is no argument about that.
If it were a crown company where you could balance a loss against a profit and consider the operation of such a passenger service as primarily, a public service, you would have less chance of such a situation developing. So while there may be no reason

Canadian Pacific Steamships to go back into the history of this industry to find out these things, I point out that these particular problems will continue to arise.
There are all sorts of detailed things that we can get involved in, probably, when we see the bill, because then we will be able to go into more detail than we can at the moment when we are just groping around in the dark, but I have a strong impression that the effect of this legislation, as far as I have been able to grasp it, will be a purely short term one and that there is no conception of what the long term problems are, and, fundamentally, I do not think this government has any conception of how to deal with them.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not wish to become involved in a controversy, but as I listened to the hon. member pointing out that all we have to do was to set up a crown corporation and then all the difficulties would be settled, I thought I might just remind him that we have, in the province of Saskatchewan, a socialist government, and that it had a crown corporation in operation some years ago, the employees of which asked for higher payment-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order. I think it is permissible to rise on a point of order at any time. My point of order is that last evening we were so restricted as to what might be-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. What is the point of order?


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point of order is that we are debating a measure to deal with the Canadian Pacific steamships on the Pacific coast, and not the provincial government of Saskatchewan, and the Prime Minister is quite irrelevant and therefore out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: I notice the celerity with which the hon. gentleman raises points of order, when the question has already been raised by the hon. member for Skeena. It was he who raised the question of setting up a crown corporation, and I did not hear any objection coming then from that authority, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
I will simply terminate by saying this: That in Saskatchewan we had experience of a crown corporations-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have raised a point of order-


Frank Howard: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have no objection whatsoever to the Prime Minister's remarks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a matter of total indifference to me whether or not the hon. member for Skeena has any objection. What 

I am seeking to do is to have order maintained in the committee. The hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches were very anxious to do that last night, and we were exceedingly restricted.
The Depuiy Chairman:	Order. The hon.
member may talk about a point of order, but he cannot discuss a ruling that has been made. It is true the Chair was a little lax in allowing the hon. member for Skeena to develop his remarks, but perhaps I may now ask all hon. members to direct their comments to this resolution which is concerned with the British Columbia steamship services.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have a question which concerns this matter and which avoids the difficulties about crown corporations and their merits or demerits. I wish to raise a matter which does, perhaps, throw some light on some of the difficulties which may confront the government in the action which they propose to take, and I ask the government if they have yet taken these possible difficulties into consideration. I am thinking of the action taken by the provincial government to take over the Black Ball line and put it under an administrator, and the difficulties which the provincial government is facing in carrying out that order and operating the ships, difficulties which have now reached the point where they have had to secure an injunction to keep the ships going. I should like to ask someone in the government whether that difficulty has been taken into consideration and, if that difficulty should arise, whether this is the kind of remedy they would apply to it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can assure the Leader of the Opposition and the committee that these difficulties, and this sort of situation, were taken into consideration when the legislation was considered. We do not anticipate that this difficulty will arise, because the scheme of the bill will be to provide for a collective agreement subject to provisional amendment with regard to the increase in wages, and there will be therefore no reason for the employees to refuse to go back to work or for anyone to persuade them to refuse to go back to work, because a collective agreement will be in force.
I am not fully aware of the legal position in which the provincial government found itself, but my impression is that they appointed an administrator by virtue of their civil defence act, and my understanding is that the situation in which a strike had been declared was not remedied and that no attempt had been made to deal with that aspect of the situation. I do not say this by way of criticism, but merely according to my understanding of the position.

The situation here is quite different; there will be collective agreements in effect. As to what would happen if the men did not go back to work, the Prime Minister has already answered that with respect to the penalty but, again, I may say that the situation, as I have just outlined it, is that we do not contemplate that anybody will refuse to pay due regard to the legislation and to abide by what parliament will have provided.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The premier of British
Columbia has stated his position in the action that has been taken in the Vancouver Sun of July 18 which quotes him as saying:
The government of British Columbia is determined that in future ferry connections between Vancouver island and the mainland shall not be subject either to the whims of union policy or to the indifference of federal agencies.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think that sort of statement speaks for itself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is there any connection between the decision of the government in this matter and the visit of two distinguished members of the government to British Columbia? This is a matter which has been in the hands of the government for some 60 days. I am not criticizing the Minister of Labour, who has been conducting private negotiations, but there was a very unusual statement, attributed, I think, to the Minister of Public Works. If I am correct, when he was out west he said that now at long last he was convinced that this was really of vital importance to the people of British Columbia, and that he would go back to Ottawa as quickly as possible to bring this matter to the attention of the Prime Minister and undoubtedly, as a result of his vicarious activity, a solution to this problem which has been outstanding now for 65 days would be achieved.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Essex East knows as well as I do that it is not always wise to depend on press reports of what one said. I did not see the particular one he has mentioned with regard to myself but certainly I said nothing of the kind. We have always been terribly concerned about this situation ever since the Canadian Pacific steamships were first tied up but the position became extremely critical toward the end of last week when the Black Ball service also was tied up. The result of that was the only way a person could get to or from Vancouver island by sea was by going either from Anacortes or from Port Angeles in the state of Washington. While it was possible to get across by air or to send freight over by barge the situation became simply impossible. Hon. members of the committee must
57071-3-163
Canadian Pacific Steamships remember that there are almost as many people living on Vancouver island as there are in Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh now!


Howard Charles Green: This situation had to be met.
The proposal the government now brings forward is designed to get these ships operating and I am convinced it will do so, not only the Canadian Pacific ships but also the Black Ball ships, if the latter are not as a matter of fact already in operation again.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a good thing to go home now and then.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I have a
question to direct to the Minister of Justice. I may not have understood what he said but I believe he said one provision in the bill was to expand the terms of the collective agreement that was in effect up until the time the strike started. Not being familiar with it, I do not know if the agreement contained such a provision, but I understood him to say it was to extend the terms of that collective agreement with the exception of those provisions relating to wages. Is that correct?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I believe that I said the terms of the collective agreement would be extended, subject however to a provisional amendment with regard to a wage increase of 8 per cent. I do not think the hon. gentleman would expect us or parliament to require men to go back to work without a collective agreement in force.


Frank Howard: In effect, what parliament
will be asked to do is to write a collective agreement the same as was in existence before with the addition of an 8 per cent increase in wages?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Parliament is not being asked to write a collective agreement but to extend the provisions of the agreement subject to a provisional amendment by way of an 8 per cent increase in wages.


Frank Howard: Until what time?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Until settlement has been arrived at and a new collective agreement is substituted therefor.


Frank Howard: What provisions will be in there with respect to some of the other matters that were dealt with in the original negotiations and which I understand have not yet been resolved?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand-and the Minister of Labour can correct me if I am wrong- that the great bone of contention is wages and that the other issues were not major issues. I am also informed that the main subject
2586	HOUSE OF
Canadian Pacific Steamships upon which it became impossible to reach agreement or on the basis of which it became evident that agreement up to this time could not be reached was wages. That being the main bone of contention it seems to me that is the matter with which parliament should concern itself leaving the other matters to be the subject of the renewed negotiations.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice one question. Is it not a fact that the principle, procedure and method of this bill is essentially the same as that brought forward by the previous administration with respect to the railway strike?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman. I am confident that when the hon. gentleman looks at the bill he will find there is a substantial departure in principle and that the principle in this bill is that enunciated at the time of the railway strike by the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Drew, in the amendment he moved on August 30, 1950, and for which the hon. member for Kootenay West voted on that day.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: If I voted for it, it must have been correct. I misunderstood the explanation, Mr. Chairman.


Mr.. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Kootenay West will remember that this bill, if he examines it, would seem to provide-rightly or wrongly -compulsory arbitration which has the effect -again rightly or wrongly and I am not arguing that point at the moment-of interfering with the processes of collective bargaining.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: As the house has given
unanimous consent to this proceeding, I suggest we complete the introduction of the bill and first reading now even though the bill is not available and probably will not be available for distribution in mimeographed form until perhaps six o'clock. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-42, to provide for the resumption of the British Columbia coast steamship service operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT


Douglas Scott Harkness: the second reading of Bill No. C-40, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in presenting the resolution preceding this bill yesterday I outlined the general purpose of it and at this time I should like to briefly recapitulate some of the things which it is proposed to do by way of amendment to this bill. The general principle underlying the amendments which are proposed, of course, is to broaden the scope of the act and to thus make it possible to make payments to certain farmers and groups of farmers who heretofore have not been eligible for payments as the act is written at the present time. A very considerable number of farmers who have been precluded from receiving payment in the past because of the size of the minimum area which could be declared eligible for payment may now be put in receipt of payment and a considerable number of anomalies which have existed in the act will be removed by the amendments now proposed.
I should like to briefly outline the complaints and the proposed remedies and this will be a sort of brief compilation of what the amendments are and what their effect will be but before doing so I think I should point out to the house that it should be borne in mind that under legislation of this kind it is not feasible to pay awards to all farmers who suffer a crop loss in any particular year nor is it possible in all individual cases to make the award proportionate to each farmer's loss. This could be done only under a crop insurance scheme. We had a considerable amount of discussion yesterday with respect to a crop insurance scheme. The general opinion expressed by those who spoke on the resolution yesterday was that a crop insurance scheme should be brought into effect and I indicated that this was the opinion of the government and we were proceeding with that in mind.
However, this scheme has never been a crop insurance scheme. That was never the intention of this legislation. The main purpose of this act has always been to assist the municipalities and the provinces to deal with a relief problem which they could not otherwise undertake, or which they could not deal with alone, and I think that should be kept in mind in discussing the act, that this is not a crop insurance scheme. It has been, and essentially throughout the years has remained, a form of drought relief. That form of drought relief has been greatly extended to

cover other types of crop losses such as loss by rust, by grasshoppers, by hail and by flooding.
The majority of the complaints received- and they have been received, of course, for years-are protests against the inclusion of high-yield sections in an eligible area when computing the category of payment. It is proposed to exclude from both payment and the computations to determine the category of award all those sections having an average yield of 12 or more bushels; that is, the individual sections. This will enable the marking of payments on those sections with a loss of crop more in proportion to the loss.
Many complaints are also received from farmers in eligible townships who, even though they have a low yield, are excluded from payment because their lands are in a block of six or more sections with an average yield of over 10 bushels, that is contiguous to a high-yield township. It is proposed to repeal this section of the act and simply exclude xrom payment all sections having a yield of 12 or more bushels.
Many complaints are also received from farmers with a low yield who are in an ineligible township and denied an award because they do not form part of a block of six or more adjoining sections that is contiguous to an eligible township. It seems unfair to deny payments to such farmers when they are in many instances just across the road from an eligible township. It is therefore proposed to remove the restrictions as to the size of the block and make it possible to qualify any number of sections of land adjoining an eligible area, regardless of township boundaries as long as those sections are contiguous to one another.
It is also proposed to remove from the act the authority to exclude farmers with other occupations. It is felt that everyone who farms land himself, or hires the work done should participate in the benefits, particularly as the levy is collected from him.
Another proposal is to repeal that section of the act which excludes from award all crown lands which had not been sold or granted until after 1940. It is felt that farmers on such lands are as much entitled to an award as anyone else.
Many farmers complain that the minimum size of the area for eligibility, namely one-half of a township, that is, 18 sections, is too large. It is proposed to reduce this to one-third of a township, or 12 sections.
In areas where coarse grains are the predominant crop, many complain because wheat is used as the index in determining eligibility. They recommend the use of the predominant coarse grain crop. It is proposed to provide
57071-3-163J
Prairie Farm Assistance Act that the regulations may authorize the substitution of any grain for wheat where less than 10 per cent of the cultivated area is sown to wheat. That 10 per cent figure was taken because in any township where 10 per cent or more of the land is sown to wheat in nearly all cases that 10 per cent will perhaps be the best land, the land which has been summerfallowed and so forth, and therefore if the yield on that land is low the yield on the other land is likely to be considerably lower. Therefore, continuing to use wheat as the index in cases where more than 10 per cent of the township is planted to wheat means that the farmer will get a better deal than if you take merely the predominant coarse grain crop. In other words, where you had 15 per cent of the township planted in wheat, 45 per cent of it planted in oats and 30 per cent planted in barley, if you took in that case oats the farmers in most cases would not get as good a payment as if you took the wheat as an index for payment.
Many farmers also feel that crops other than wheat, oats barley and rye, should be subject to the one per cent levy deducted at the elevators. Since flax and rapeseed are now grown in large quantity it is proposed to make these subject to the levy also. The growers of these benefit under the act in a year of crop failure and have benefited, of course, for many years past, and it seems unfair when they benefit that they should not contribute toward the fund the same as the growers of wheat, oats, barley and rye.
Some complaints come from farmers who suffer from flooding because they feel that the minimum area to qualify is too large.
j Mr. Marlin (Essex East): What was the crop that the minister spoke of just now?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I spoke of those who grow flax and rapeseed.


Peter Francis Martin: Before the minister takes his seat will he address himself to the question he raised yesterday as to the difficulty of assessing farmers in eastern Canada who, it was suggested, might benefit from this scheme.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Flax and rapeseed are handled just the same as wheat, oats and barley are handled. They are handled through the elevator system in western Canada. The deduction can be made from them just as readily at it can be made from wheat, oats and barley. There is no such-system in handling grains produced in other parts of the country and, as I pointed out yesterday, most of the production in any event is not sold in the form of grain; it is sold in the form of livestock and livestock products.

Prairie Farm Assistance Act


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman,-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder whether I can finish. Of course, hon. members can pose their questions when they speak on second reading and we can have the ordinary question and answer discussion when we are in committee on the bill.
As I was saying, some complaints come from farmers who suffer from flooding because they feel that the minimum area to qualify is too large and that, I think, has been a justifiable complaint because you get many instances of flooding in a river valley and in many instances it has been impossible, of course, to get an area of 18 sections which was flooded. You have the river following an irregular course, and so on. At present there must be a flooded area of at least one-sixth of a township-that is of course six sections-to qualify. It is proposed to reduce this by making eligible any area consisting of six or more adjoining sections of land where at least one-third of the total cultivated area is flooded. In other words, to be eligible now the area really is reduced to one-third of what it was before.
A considerable number of complaints have also been received because the payment of awards is made in two instalments. It is proposed to amend the act to authorize payment in future in one instalment instead of two, and payment to be made in the month of December.
A number of other minor amendments to the act and regulations are proposed but these are largely to facilitate the administration of the act. One of the major amendments to the regulations will be to qualify for payment lands operated by Indians within reservations. The hon. member for Essex East asked about this yesterday and I gave him a guarantee. In future such lands will come under the operations of the act on the same basis as other lands.
I think this summary I have given of the various amendments covers all of those which are of any considerable importance and I would hope that all of them would receive the unanimous approval of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-"Farmer".
Samuel Boulanger: I notice that family corporations will benefit under this law but will business corporations owning land also benefit?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The reason for the amendment is that in recent years an increasing number of families operating farms have organized themselves as family corporations

for the purpose of carrying on the operations of the farm. Quite frequently you have a set-up of a father and a son or two sons. They form a family corporation and carry on the farm as such. Such corporations have been ineligible to receive awards under the act as it stood and therefore we are including family corporations of that kind in the definition of "farmer" so that these people will be eligible for awards in the future. It has been manifestly unfair that families who found it more convenient to organize themselves as private companies in order to carry on their farming operations should be cut off from the benefits of the act.
In most cases these family corporations carry on in the same way as similar families which are unincorporated. You have a father and a son or a father and two sons or a father, a daughter, a son and a son-in-law and so on. In order to make a better division of the proceeds and to meet other requirements these families have found it more convenient in many cases to carry on business as private corporations rather than as individuals. That is the reason for the amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A non-family corporation is not included. I do not know whether it will be too strong to say that the minister regards non-family corporations as a threat to the family farm or whether they are excluded purely for economic reasons, namely that they do not need any assistance. The minister nods that that is the case.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On that point, as I stated when speaking on second reading of the bill, the intent and purpose of the act have been to provide a measure of relief to farmers who have lost their crops, especially because of drought. I do not think anyone will argue that the Royal Trust Company, for example, is in need of any form of relief on lands they own and operate either as a result of drought or for any other reason. Therefore I do not think it is appropriate to include corporations, particularly loan companies which have foreclosed on land and taken possession. I do not think it is proper to include them under the provisions of the act and to make payments to them and, of course, there is no intention of doing so.


Mr. McIntosh:: I might say a few words to correct a wrong impression that may be held by some hon. members. Although the minister says that this is a form of relief, the funds required to pay this form of relief do not all come from the government. The plan operates on a contributory basis. The farmers pay one per cent of the gross revenue from their grain.
Last night a member from northern Ontario, I believe, asked why the levy could not be

raised to three per cent. I am quite sure that if he will inquire from the farmers in his constituency he will find that they do not want to participate. We have found that to be so in the western provinces in the case of farmers along the edge of the foothills of the Rockies. They have contributed to the fund for years and have never participated in the benefits. They would be pleased to get out of the scheme and not be included in a P.F.A.A. area. If members from eastern Canada will inquire from the farmers in their ridings I think they will also find that they do not wish to participate under the act.
It is a form of relief although each farmer has to contribute. We grow grain exclusively but the eastern farmers have not got the same problems. They can feed some of their grain and they also have sources of income from cattle or mixed farming. This is not the case in the west. Hon. members may ask why western farmers do not diversify their operations. The land in the west is not suitable for diversification. A lot of the land does not have water or shelter for cattle and you cannot raise cattle unless you have shelter and water. Therefore these farmers can only grow grain and that is the reason for this legislation. I do not think that eastern farmers would want to participate at all. It is not a case of 100 per cent of the relief coming from the government. The farmers of western Canada contribute one per cent of their gross revenue to the fund and I do not think eastern farmers would want to insure on that basis.


Mr. Baldwin:: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a matter which I think falls squarely within the four corners of the section of the act being amended by this clause. It is one that is peculiar to my constituency. We have there several associations known as metis associations which are incorporated pursuant to a provincial statute. They consist of a number of groups comprising metis or Indians who have contracted out pursuant to the appropriate provisions of the Indian Act. They occupy land for which they have a certificate of occupancy. They are not owners and they are not tenants.
Consequently when they had occasion last fall to make application for the first time for the benefits of this act they discovered that they could not qualify either within the meaning of the section or the regulations passed pursuant to section 5. They are farmers but, as I said, they are not owners and they are not tenants. When the minister is considering the regulations that will be drawn at a later date I would ask him to take into account the situation of these people, of whom there are a considerable number,
Prairie Farm Assistance Act so that they can qualify. They pay the ordinary levy, of course, when they haul their grain to the elevator but in the past they have not been entitled to receive benefits.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time this particular group of people and their problem with regard to prairie farm assistance has come to my attention. For many years past, as the hon. member for Essex East mentioned yesterday, I urged most strongly on the previous government that Indians should be included. That is being done by these amendments. I was not aware of this situation but I should like to thank the hon. member for bringing it to my attention and to assure him that we will give sympathetic consideration to putting these people in the position where they can secure payment in the same way as Indians on reservations and other people who will now be included and were not included before.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I should like
to reply to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) who stated that eastern farmers are not interested in a crop assistance scheme.
If eastern farmers are beginning to show interest in this legislation, it is because the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) talked about it in their area. As a matter of fact, he made several promises to them and if those people are interested in the matter, it is because, as their opposite numbers in the west, they need some sort of insurance to protect their crops.
As I said yesterday, the farmers of the constituencies of Megantic and Lotbiniere sustained heavy losses last year. In fact, they completely lost their crops and would have welcomed some sort of assistance.
I do not mean that eastern farmers should pay the 1 per cent premium as do western farmers. Out west, farmers incur damages generally as a result of drought, which is rather exceptional in the eastern part of the country, where wind, hail and flooding normally cause such damage.
You will no doubt recall that three years ago considerable damage was suffered in central Quebec and that this damage recurs every year. That is why eastern farmers are beginning to show an interest in the matter, all the more so since the Minister of Agriculture made them wonderful promises during the last election campaign.
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: If I have understood the hon. member correctly, Mr. Chairman, I think

Prairie Farm Assistance Act he is in error in, stating that I said at any time in speeches here in eastern Canada that the benefits of the P.F.A.A. would be extended to farmers in the east. I have never had any such idea in my mind at any time, and I can assure him I have never made any statement along that line.
I have said on numerous occasions, as I said yesterday, that we hope to bring in a system of crop insurance as soon as possible. There is no question about that. But it has never been in my mind at any time, nor do I think in the mind of anyone else who is familiar with the operations of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in western Canada, to extend it to other areas of the country. For the reasons I have indicated today and yesterday, it is not a practical proposition to do so. I do not know how the hon. member would have secured this impression, but I can assure him it is an incorrect one. I have never at any time had any such idea in my mind, and therefore I know definitely I have never made any statement along that line. I have talked to a considerable extent about crop insurance.


Samuel Boulanger: I would remind the minister that last January at a meeting of the federation of agriculture in Montreal, he talked about crop insurance.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is correct.
(Translation):


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) has very well understood the remarks made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) has just told us that the Minister of Agriculture had spoken to Montreal farmers; I am very glad to learn this, as I had been unaware that there were any farmers in Canada's metropolis.
(Text):
I do not believe the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek fully understood the remarks of my colleague, who expressed a view that I believe would be shared widely by the farmers in eastern Canada as well. The provocation may not always be the same, but as the hon. member pointed out the farmers in eastern Canada do have great losses, total losses, and notwithstanding other kinds of assistance that may come from the possession of other forms of farm income, these losses can be very great, having in mind the proportions of stock that a farmer may have on hand.
In my own area, for instance, where the farmers grow large cash crops of corn, soybeans and wheat, total failures mean a great
CMr. Boulanger.]

deal and put the farmers in a very difficult position. I can assure my hon. friend that notwithstanding the element of contribution that does exist in this measure my judgment would be, as his has been, that there would be a wide measure of support if it were practical to arrange for this kind of measure for the farmers of eastern Canada. I am not pitting the farmers of one section of the country against the other. I believe that in the national interest we must regard farmers as having special problems. There is an understandable feeling on the part of many farmers in eastern Canada that some of these measures might, with benefit, be applied to them. It is for that reason we have taken the position on this side that consideration ought to be given to the application of this measure.
The minister indicated today, and more particularly yesterday in greater detail, that he thought the way to do this would be through a system of crop insurance because it was not possible to make the kind of assessment necessary of the eastern farmer in order to bring him within the advantages of this particular measure. However, that is a matter that he is studying. It may be that through crop insurance, what cannot be done for the eastern farmer under this measure, can be done under that proposal.
I do not believe the minister has given any indication of the estimated total cost of these particular amendments or of the operations of the act this year. I believe I saw an estimate made by the Prime Minister that the cost of this measure this year would run somewhere in the neighbourhood of $39 million. I understand that the cost of the drought in 1949 was some $22 million. I have seen it suggested in western newspapers that the Prime Minister's estimate of $39 million was high. I would be grateful to the minister if he could give us those figures.
(Translation):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I understand the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) much better when he expresses himself in English than when he speaks French. However, I want to point out to him that when I spoke to farmers in Montreal, I was not addressing Montreal farmers, but farmers gathered from all parts of Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Visiting farmers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, of course.
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: In connection with the
estimate of total cost, I said yesterday that it is estimated it will increase the payments made by about 20 per cent. It is impossible to say what the payments in any particular

year may be. However, I have here the figures as to what the payments have been since the inception of the act in 1939. They have totalled, up to and including April 15, 1958,	$202,254,261.90. The amount of the
collections up to March 31, 1958-not exactly the same date, it is 15 days earlier-has been $103,955,728.82, in other words, about half of the amount paid out has been collected through the one per cent levy.
The largest amount which was paid out in any particular year was in 1954 when the total payments were $33 million odd.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And $22 million for 1949, is that right?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In 1949, it was $22,050,000. Those were the two biggest years.
The estimate for this year, of course, is that there will be more paid out than was paid out in 1954. The estimate which was made some three or four weeks ago was that it might run up as high as-I think I stated this myself in the house although I do not recall having heard or seen an estimate made by the Prime Minister-between $40 million and $50 million. That estimate would be reduced downward at the present time, I believe, in view of the extensive rains which have occurred during the past two or three weeks in western Canada. I am very glad to say these rains have considerably improved the situation, particularly as far as late sown crops are concerned.


Samuel Boulanger: I should like to ask the minister about what he told the farmers in Montreal last January as reported in Le Devoir of January 30 last, as follows:
I am at present studying the possibility of setting up a form of insurance which would protect the farmers against calamities, floods, hail storms or drought, acts of God which the farmers must always bear in mind.
The minister went on to explain the difficulties of collecting levies for insurance, if we ever do get this insurance in Quebec, and I would like to ask the minister whether the only reason the eastern farmer would not receive the benefit of this legislation is the difficulty of collecting levies from the farmers?


Douglas Scott Harkness: From what the hon. member said and from what he has read in connection with the speech I made in Montreal, it would appear to me that he is still under the impression that this is a type of crop insurance. I have tried to make the point several times yesterday and today that this is not a crop insurance scheme. What the hon. member read from my speech to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in Montreal is quite correct. I made that statement there and I made it numerous times before
Prairie Farm Assistance Act that meeting and have made it numerous times since. I made it here in the house yesterday, but that has no relationship to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act or to the amendment we are considering at the present time.
When we put into effect a system of crop insurance the farmer will of course pay a premium and, as I indicated yesterday, if he has a tobacco crop, which is a very high cost crop, and if he is to be paid compensation for the money he has put into that crop- which is likely to be $500 per acre or more- the premium he would pay and the amount of compensation he would receive under a system of crop insurance would be very much greater than in the case of a man who wanted insurance on a wheat crop, for instance. This is because the amount the latter man has put into his crop is less than one-tenth of what he would put in per acre to grow a tobacco crop. In other words, a system of crop insurance would have to be based on regular insurance principles, the higher the value of the crop you are insuring the higher your premium would naturally be, and of course the premium would also be determined by the likelihood of damage in a particular area. One area would have a lower premium than another and the same thing applies at this time to hail insurance in western Canada. We have hail insurance schemes in one section of the country which would run at 5 per cent or 6 per cent, while in another section of the country it could be as high as 22 per cent on account of the greater likelihood of hail, which experience has shown has fallen in a particular area in previous years.
Any system of regular crop insurance will have to be based on factors of that kind, with great variations in premiums according to the differences of crops insured and because of the difference in areas and the likelihood of damage in those areas.


Samuel Boulanger: I know the difference between the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and insurance on crops. I know there is a difference, but I would ask the minister when he intends to institute a system of crop insurance such as the one of which he spoke in Montreal?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I have stated, we have conducted very intensive studies for many months and we hope to be in a position during the next session of parliament to bring forward legislation. We do not know whether this will be possible or not as yet but we certainly intend to bring it in as soon as we can possibly work out a scheme which would be acceptable in all provinces across Canada.
Clause 1 agreed to.

Prairie Farm, Assistance Act
On clause 2-Calculation of average yield.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wonder, with regard to clause 2 if I might ask the minister a question. As I understand it, this provides that a farmer or a group of farmers can qualify for an area of six or more adjoining sections or lots rather than an area of one-sixth of a township, as at present. That would seem to be an improvement, as I am so advised. However, a crop failure to a farmer is a tragedy whether or not the adjoining sections are affected, and I wonder if the minister has given consideration-as undoubtedly he has-to this matter and has investigated the possibility of dealing with this clause on an individual farm basis rather than on an area basis. It does not seem fair that someone should be excluded just because there are not enough adjoining sections or lots to qualify, and perhaps the minister would enlighten on this point.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have given a great deal of consideration to the matter. If you bring it down to the individual farm basis you really to a considerable extent get into a system of crop insurance and to attempt to do that under this legislation, where you have a 1 per cent levy only as the farmer's contribution and where half the funds are put up by the dominion government, you would very greatly increase the administration costs, which would be out of all proportion to the benefits paid out and to the levy collected. It is not really a practical proposition under a scheme of this sort to bring it down to the individual farm basis.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The amendment also includes sections that have an average yield of 12 or more bushels. Is this not restrictive? Why is it not possible to provide a system for farms having an average yield of 12 or more bushels and likewise for farms with crop failures?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, as a matter of fact the chief complaint against the act as it now stands has been that where a farmer had a return of more than 10 bushels per acre he was excluded from payment, but his land was still taken into consideration in determining the average yield in that particular township so that the effect was that if he had, we will say, 15 or 20 bushels per acre as a crop and the other farmers in the township perhaps had no crop, they got a lower payment than would have been the case if his land had not been included in the determination of the eligibility of the township.
This proposal is to get away from that effect by excluding any section-in this case


we bring it down to individual sections- from the computation which is made when the section has a yield of more than 12 bushels per acre, and of course we are also excluding them from payment. As I say, it was previously 10 bushels and farmers were not paid but their land, nevertheless, was taken into consideration, or the yield from their land, was taken into consideration in determining what the other people would be paid. Those other people, however, were not paid as much as they were entitled to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to paragraph 2, may I ask the minister what he has in mind where less than 10 per cent of the cultivated acreage of land is sown to wheat. What special circumstances does the minister have in mind to enable another kind of grain to be taken in the place of wheat as the basis of an award? Why is it necessary to tie the act to wheat? Is it for administrative reasons? Is it for the reasons the minister mentioned yesterday with regard to assessment? What is the reason?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I dealt with this to some extent when I was speaking on second reading. The situation is that in considerable areas in northern Manitoba, northern Saskatchewan and northern and western Alberta, the amount of wheat grown is quite small. In some cases there is practically no wheat grown there at all. But you have a situation in some cases such as I described yesterday in which, in a whole township of 36 sections there is only some 40 acres of wheat. Nevertheless, under the act as it existed we had to take that small patch of wheat as an index for determining whether that whole township was eligible for payment or not. The purpose of this amendment is to get away from this situation, and in any township where less than 10 per cent of the cultivated acreage is in wheat we will take whatever is the predominant coarse grain crop, whether it is oats, barley or rye. The reason why the 10 per cent figure was taken is that farmers, generally speaking, put their best land into wheat, so if you have any area in which more than 10 per cent of the crop is in wheat, in nearly all cases the farmer would be better off by taking wheat as an index rather than oats and barley which are quite frequently planted on stubble land-land which has had a crop on it a year or perhaps two years before.


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


Some hon. Members:: By leave.


Douglas Scott Harkness: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT


Douglas Scott Harkness: the second reading of Bill No. C-41, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act at the resolution stage, I stated that it has two purposes. One is to permit payment of compensation at market value for cattle ordered slaughtered in controlling an outbreak of a serious animal disease which was not normally present in Canada. The other is to raise the statutory maximum compensation rates for cattle ordered slaughtered in connection with area or herd eradication programs for such diseases as tuberculosis and brucellosis.
Section 11 of the act authorizes the minister to order the slaughter of animals suffering from or exposed to an infectious or contagious disease. Subsection (1) of section 12 authorizes him to order compensation to be paid to the owners of such animals, and subsection (2) of that section establishes the basis of compensation.
If members will turn to the explanatory note accompanying the bill they will find there the present wording of subsection (2) of section 12. It will be noted that the authorized compensation is the market value of the animal except in the instance of horses and cattle, for which maximum compensation amounts are specified by paragraphs (a) and (b).
The amendment, which is to paragraph (b), limits the exception in the case of cattle to those ordered slaughtered pursuant to any area or herd disease eradication program. The effect of this will be to permit payment of compensation at market value in such circumstances as the foot-and-mouth outbreak in 1952. While such circumstances are rare, I am sure the house would agree that in those instances the owners of cattle which are ordered slaughtered in the national interest should receive full compensation for them.
The most important impact of the amendment will be in relation to compensation paid under the tuberculosis and brucellosis 57071-3-164
23, 1958
Animal Contagious Diseases Act eradication programs. At the present time the maximum compensation is $100 for purebred animals and $40 for grade animals. The amendment will increase those maximum figures to $140 for purebreds and $70 for grades. It may help in an understanding of the bill to explain briefly the nature of those programs.
The restricted area plan for tuberculosis was introduced in 1922. Areas are established, usually counties in eastern Canada and municipalities in western Canada, on the recommendation of a provincial minister of agriculture and following a request to him by a majority of the cattle owners in the area. All the cattle in the area are then tested for tuberculosis, reactors are removed from herds and if the incidence of tuberculosis is below one-half of one per cent the area is accredited. There is also an individual herd plan, known as the accredited herd plan, which operates on a somewhat more stringent basis and which is also entered into voluntarily by herd owners.
All sections of all provinces are now included in tuberculosis restricted areas. The programs have virtually eliminated tuberculosis from Canadian cattle herds. As an illustration of that, the incidence of tuberculosis in cattle tested has declined from four per cent at the start of the program to only slighly over one-tenth of one per cent last year.
A similar program for the eradication of brucellosis, or Bang's disease, was introduced in 1957. It operates on virtually the same basis as the area plan for tuberculosis. Most provinces have now requested the establishment of some brucellosis control areas, and the testing has been under way for some months.
In these programs it has never been considered necessary nor, in fact, desirable to compensate owners of reacting animals at their full market value. When an animal reacts to the test the owner is required to dispose of it for slaughter, under post mortem examination, and receives the carcass value of the animal. Also, the removal of reacting animals from the herd is to the owner's advantage as well as in the national interest. For these reasons the act has always placed a maximum limitation on the amount of compensation which can be paid for cattle and this principle is maintained in the present amendment in so far as programs of this nature are concerned.
The maximum compensations now authorized by the act, $100 for purebreds and $40 for grades, have been in effect since 1923. There have been numerous representations to the government from farm and livestock

Animal Contagious Diseases Act organizations that these rates are no longer equitable in relation to present cattle values. We have felt that these representations are valid and propose, by the present bill, to increase the maximum compensations to $140 for purebred cattle and $70 for grades.
I should perhaps explain the implication of the last portion of section 1 of the bill which reads:
-and if the sale of the carcass is unlawful an additional amount for purebred and grade animals equal to the value the carcass would have if the sale were lawful.
I mentioned earlier that if an animal is ordered to be slaughtered under the tuberculosis or brucellosis eradication programs the owner is required to dispose of it for slaughter and receives the slaughter value. All such animals are directed to plants operating under federal meat inspection, where they are subjected to veterinary post-mortem examination. When the infection is limited, the infected portions are condemned and the balance of the carcass is eligible for sale.
The effect of the last part of section 1 is that if the infection is sufficiently general as to require the entire carcass to be condemned an additional compensation may be paid to the owner to the value the carcass would have had if it had not been condemned. This provision has been in the act for some time.
Members will note from section 2 of the bill that the amended compensation rates will become effective on April 1, 1958. As I stated earlier we have just recently started testing under the new brucellosis area program. When we accept an area under the program on the recommendation of a province and start testing the cattle in it, our veterinarians move progressively from farm to farm. The owner does not have the privilege of electing when he will have his herd tested. Some, therefore, are tested at the beginning of the operation and some at the end.
We felt that it would be inequitable to have circumstances where some owners who quite fortuitously did not have their cattle tested until after the enactment of this bill may receive a higher rate of compensation than their neighbours who may have had their herds tested a few days before that. It was felt, therefore, that the amended rates should be effective from the first of the fiscal year which also coincides with the beginning of the main activity in brucellosis testing.
I might say that I had representations from a considerable number of hon. members in connection with the last point I mentioned of setting the date when the act will become effective and particularly from the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). It seemed to
[Mr. Harkness.l
me it was only the reasonable thing to do although in general I must say I am very much opposed to retroactive legislation of any sort. But in view of the fact that the program has just started and for the other reasons I mention about inequities that would occur if the date of enforcement were not set back to the beginning of the fiscal year and the beginning of the testing program the April date has been put in the act.
I have gone into these tuberculosis and brucellosis schemes as well as into other matters in some detail because I find there has been and there remains a considerable amount of misapprehension in regard to what the Animal Contagious Diseases Act provides for and the reasons for which compensation is paid for animals ordered to be slaughtered. As I indicated in answer to a question yesterday, the act does not provide compensation for animals which die of a particular disease. It provides for compensation only for animals which are ordered to be slaughtered when it is felt in the national interest they should be slaughtered in order to prevent the spread of a disease.


Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: 
Mr. J. O. Lalour (Argenieuil-Deux-Mon-iagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing an agricultural constituency of the province of Quebec known for its dairy industry. The people of the riding of Argen-teuil-Deux-Montagnes have expanded that industry to an extraordinary degree. I need not recall the organization work which was necessary for the operation of their farms, that is for their mechanization and all the other modern improvements required before they could send their milk to Montreal but I must point out that they have had to face and solve many problems.
To do so, the farmers formed various agricultural organizations, study groups and particularly what is known as the famous milk control which is now the subject of disputes and debates in Montreal and in my riding. The milk producers realized that in their own interest they had to protect themselves against milk distributors in Montreal, and, to that end, they established what is called a zone. This step was of the utmost importance for them but at the same time could entail serious consequences.
57071-3-164i
Animal Contagious Diseases Act
I wish to thank the hon. minister for this consideration he has shown for the people in my riding by allowing the brucellosis tests to take place as early as the beginning of June. At present, we find that this disease has spread to some extent; the minister was therefore right in providing for such tests. The losses to farmers of my constituency will be lighter as a consequence.
I understand that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) is now making a special effort to amend this compensation act so as to bring the payments up to $70 for grade cattle and to $140 for purebred stock. However, in view of the fact that farmers will be prevented from buying cattle outside this area, prices have become prohibitive and the Minister of Agriculture will soon have to consider whether the compensation payment should again be changed.
I wished to call the hon. minister's attention to this matter, in order to warn him that next year I shall submit other requests to this effect.
I thank him for his gesture and the interest he has shown in our farmers who fully appreciate the new compensation payments offered them.
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, anyone who has had anything to do with the production of livestock throughout the years realizes the excellent work that is being done by those who have had the authority to administer this act across Canada. In my opinion the administration has been continually improved and has brought about a great deal of advantage to farmers and producers of livestock and consumers of their products. I was pleased to note in this amending bill that the government is giving favourable response to representations of various organizations which are concerned with this matter. While the bill in one respect might be considered a piece of minor legislation, it is of great importance to the agricultural industry as a whole. We in this group intend to support the measure.
However, I do want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that the administration of the act and the requirement that the farmer or the cattle producer must have his cattle slaughtered in a licensed packinghouse places some of those farmers and cattle producers at a considerable extra expense. For instance, Mr. Speaker, in my constituency I think in order to reach a licensed slaughter house operating under the regulations that are required under this act the farmer would
2596	HOUSE OF
Animal Contagious Diseases Act have to truck his cattle some 300 miles over the mountains. For some who have cattle in the Lardeau valley, in the Beaver lake district and in the Pend d'Oreille this is a considerable extra expense; so much so that under normal circumstances I would say it would not be worth the farmer's while to truck a few cattle this long distance over rough mountain roads. I wonder whether that problem has arisen in other parts of Canada and whether any consideration has been given to it by the minister and whether he has given consideration to some extra compensation being paid to farmers living under those conditions?
I wonder whether the minister has had any complaints concerning that aspect of the question, or whether any of his officials has had experience with the circumstances of farmers living in isolated districts and long distances from packinghouses, such as I have mentioned, of the type required for the slaughtering of cattle under this act? If so, will the minister consider some form of extra compensation under those circumstances, or would he even consider allowing the cattle to be slaughtered on the ranch under safe sanitary conditions under the inspection of, say, a licensed veterinary inspector or an appropriate official of his department?
I make these few remarks and suggestions because they do represent the experience of some of the farmers and cattle ranchers who reside in my constituency. When the minister replies I would like to hear his comments on my suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner) brought up the question of Johne's disease. I think he has done a service to the house and to the government in bringing this to our attention. It is certainly a matter which I will go into with the director general of the veterinary service, and give very serious consideration as to what steps can be taken in order to eradicate this disease while it is still existing in very small proportions in Canada.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) has just brought up the matter that animals condemned under this act have to be slaughtered in government-inspected plants; that is, as far as brucellosis and tuberculosis control measures are concerned. He said that in some instances in his own constituency there is no plant within 300 miles. He asked whether I had any complaints. I have not had any. This is the first time that this particular matter has been brought to


my attention. I would think that there are very few instances, particularly where any considerable number of cattle are concerned, where there would be any such distances the farmers would have to go to reach a plant. In any event, ordinarily cattle going in would be shipped along with other cattle going for slaughter also. I know that the area from which the hon. member comes is in a somewhat isolated valley in British Columbia in which there is no railway transportation and where water transportation has been very seriously curtailed in recent years and therefore the transportation problem for cattle, as well as for most other things, is a rather serious one. I sympathize with him as far as that situation is concerned but it is not a problem which has been brought to my attention before or over which there has been any complaint.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I ask the minister one question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: We will deal with it in committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of the fact that there have been very few of these cases apparently and the number of cattle has been very few would the minister, along with his officials, give consideration possibly to making some arrangement whereby some appropriate official of the department could, shall I say, inspect the slaughtering of the cattle and avoid those long distances?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am always glad to give consideration to representations made by hon. members and I shall certainly be glad to take this matter up with the veterinary service but I would not like to give any definite assurance or have it taken that any definite assurance or promise has been given in connection with the matter because, as I said before, I do not really know what the circumstances are, or whether it is a practical move to do what the hon. member suggests.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1
Samuel Boulanger: I have only one question to ask the minister. I wish to remind him of what I said yesterday. I said that the amounts of $140 for purebred cows and $70 for grade cows were not enough. Would the minister explain how the figures of $140 and $70 were arrived at?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the hon. member was asking why the amounts were placed at these figures.


Paul Joseph James Martin: How you arrived at the $140 and $70.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As far as grade animals are concerned, in the majority of cases where an animal is ordered slaughtered $70 plus the value of the carcass would give a pretty good return. In some cases the return would be higher than the market value of the animal.
With respect to purebreds, as the hon. member knows, some purebred animals run up to many thousands of dollars apiece and I think it is not a practical proposition to ask us to determine what the particular value is in the case of such animals. If you pay compensation at the rate of $140 a head, that amount plus the value of the carcass brings you pretty close to the average value of most purebred animals. If it is a particularly good animal that is not so but, as I say, if we were to try to determine what the value of a particularly good cow was it would lead us into all sorts of difficulties.
The hon. member was not here something over a year ago when, as the hon. member for Essex East will remember, we had a great deal of difficulty over determining the value of sheep. An inquiry was made by the agricultural committee as a result of charges made by one or two members of the house, which charges were not vindicated by the committee. Nevertheless, this has been something that has caused trouble for some years past and a great deal of talk which was not justified. If we had to do this in the case of every cow slaughtered under the brucellosis and tuberculosis testing programs we would really be faced with an impossible problem.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What the minister has just said is historical but it is of some interest because it is a confirmation of the stand taken by his predecessor. Charges were levelled at that time that this particular individual who received compensation in the neighbourhood of $100,000, I believe, was a political partisan and so on and so forth. Of course, subsequent events prior to the last election indicated that the political convictions of the gentleman in question certainly were not as had been alleged. Have there been any large scale slaughterings of herds with consequent compensation under the act since the minister came into office?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The veterinary director
general informs me that the number of animals condemned during the last year was not very great. No whole herds have been condemned. Of course, a certain percentage of the animals tested for brucellosis have been condemned but just about the number that one would expect. As I indicated
23. 1958	2597
Animal Contagious Diseases Act in speaking on second reading, the number condemned for tuberculosis is very small now.
In connection with the question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West, the veterinary director general informs me that what the hon. member has requested should be done has been done for some time now. If an animal is condemned in an isolated area the veterinary who condemns the animal is authorized to have the animal slaughtered and carry out a post mortem on the spot. Compensation is then paid on the basis of the post mortem report. He informs me that the only difficulty that arises under these circumstances is that the farmer has to dispose of the carcass, which in some cases presents a little difficulty.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very glad to hear the minister's remarks in that respect. We have not had any of these cases in recent years. I remember that some years ago some small farmers suffered considerable losses. I am always in favour of doing what we can for those who are farming in isolated sections and who, by operating their farms, are performing a service in keeping the country opened up and in pioneering the establishment of other farms in the area. However I do think that in our area it may be somewhat difficult on occasion to get a veterinary surgeon from the department. I am not sure whether there is one in our district at the present time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I might say that this only applies when a tuberculosis or brucellosis testing program is under way and in order to carry out such a program you have to have veterinaries there. You have to bring them in for that purpose. Therefore the veterinary who was there had tested the herd for brucellosis, we will say, and found two or three animals that had to be condemned would, if it were an isolated area, have them killed, would examine them and compensation would then be paid.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister referred to the disposal of the meat. That would not be any problem in such an area because there is always a local market. I am very pleased to get that explanation.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read
the third time? Now, by leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Supply-Agriculture


Douglas Scott Harkness: the third reading of
the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $674,164.
Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if the minister would reply to a few questions concerning the matter which came up earlier, one Walter Mitchell. I do not propose to debate it at any length in view of the shortness of time, but perhaps the minister would tell me, first of all, upon whose recommendation Mr. Mitchell was dismissed because of political partisanship.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I indicated in answer to the hon. gentleman's starred question this afternoon, it was on my recommendation and order. When I had placed before me all the circumstances concerning this case, which I outlined very briefly this afternoon, it seemed to me there was no question whatever but that I had no option except to dismiss this man. As I indicated, he had been securing contraband goods from the ships which he had been inspecting as an inspector of the department, and this puts the department in an extremely bad position to have things of that sort occurring. I think there is no question at all but that the man had to be dismissed. As soon as I learned of this, I did dismiss him.


Lionel Chevrier: I take it that there were two reasons for dismissal, first, the political reason, and I take it that it was on the recommendation of the minister, and the second the possession of contraband liquor and cigarettes, as the minister stated. With reference to the second, may I ask this additional question? When did the minister ascertain about the contraband liquor?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Not having the documents in connection with this matter before me, I cannot remember exactly when that came to my attention. In any event, I did receive a report along those lines.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister, then, if any prosecution was instituted against this man because of the charge the minister made this afternoon?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman, it was decided not to institute a prosecution in this particular case.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask why?
IMr. Speaker.]


Douglas Scott Harkness: One reason was that we did not want publicity. I am sorry the hon. member asked these questions. We did not want publicity given to the fact that an inspector of the department had been engaged in these practices.


Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the minister as to whether or not this man is a casual employee who works during the navigation season, that is from the opening of navigation in April until the closing of navigation in December?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is correct, yes.


Lionel Chevrier: The information about the possession of contraband liquor came to the attention of the minister, according to his statement this afternoon, on November 29?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, it was on November 29 that the man was found in possession of these contraband goods, just about the end of the navigation season, as the hon. member knows. However, the matter did not come to my attention until some two or three months ago. I have forgotten exactly when it was, but it was shortly before the man was dismissed.


Lionel Chevrier: If this contraband liquor was in his possession on November 29, can the minister say whether or not he was still a casual employee performing his duties or whether he had ceased his casual work? Was it during the navigation season?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I cannot answer that question precisely. It was either just at the end of the season or just after the end of it. It was in that period. As I say, the information did not come to the attention of my officials and myself until considerably later.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister says the information did not come to his attention until considerably later, I think he said about two months ago?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have forgotten how many months ago it was.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not going to hold the minister down to dates, I can assure him about that immediately. But I should like to get as much information as I can, as accurately as I can. Since the minister has not the papers with him now, I would appreciate it if, at this time, he could give me the additional information I require. If he cannot, I will be willing to wait until another occasion. Is it accurate to say that this matter came to the minister's attention about two or three months ago?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The exact time, I do not know. I have forgotten the date now when the man was dismissed. As the hon. member knows, having been a minister, all the little

details, and particularly dates, do not stick in one's memory. There are too many other things with which to deal.


Lionel Chevrier: I realize that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not in a position to say precisely that this or that happened in connection with this case.


Lionel Chevrier: I realize all the details cannot be kept in the minister's mind. On the other hand, this man's position has been prejudiced. He has been dismissed, and I think the house will be entitled to certain information in connection with that.
As I said earlier, I do not want to hold the minister to any dates. I wonder if, at another sitting of the house, it would not be possible for him to give me the exact information. If he wants to put on the record any affidavits or other information he has, I am quite happy that he should.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I shall get further information with regard to this matter, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Fisher:: I have not been able to distinguish from the minister's earlier statement whether or not this dismissal was necessitated completely by the fact the man was found with contraband, or whether the fact he had some political relationship with the hon. member for Laurier had already brought him to the department's notice. Are one or both of these factors involved?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was on both grounds. As a matter of fact, complaints, as I said in answer to the hon. member's questions this afternoon, were made to me as a result of this man's political activities on behalf of my hon. friend. I ordered an investigation into the matter, and as a result this other information which I have mentioned concerning the contraband came to light.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Does the decision in relation to the man's political activity indicate the minister feels no member of his department at any time should take part in any political activity?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I feel, Mr. Chairman, anybody who is employed by the dominion government should not be taking an active part in politics. This is forbidden in the Civil Service Act, and a man who does take an active part in politics knows he is subjecting himself to dismissal.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The difficulty there is in defining what is active politics. I just wonder whether the minister could tell us that. Does he mean by active politics, the holding of a membership in a party?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I mean overt and active political activity. In this case, there was no
Supply-Agriculture
question about that. I not only have affidavits, if the hon. member is looking for affidavits, but I have pictures of this particular man in the hon. member's committee room, evidently in charge of the political activities there.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Just on that point, I would imagine anyone who has a committee room could have a civil servant drop in to give information, such as whether or not he is on the voters' list, something of that kind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I hope that those laughs are coming from eastern members who tend to be sceptical about politics, and not from western members who tend to be a bit more practical. It does seem to me that it should be accurately defined as to what you have in mind when you say active politics, and if the minister needs advice I suggest he consult with the Minister of Public Works who, I understand, is becoming an expert in these matters.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader what the business will be tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall commence with the discussion of the bill to provide for the resumption of the British Columbia coast steamship service and when that has been concluded through all stages we shall revert to the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.
On Friday we plan to have a debate on external affairs and a motion will be made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs referring the estimates of his department to the committee on external affairs. Under the rules such a motion is not debatable, but by agreement between the parties it is to be debatable on Friday and the debate is to last for one day.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the leader intend to put a notice of motion on the order paper?


Howard Charles Green: A notice of motion has been handed in this afternoon and should appear in Votes and Proceedings tomorrow.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the house leader tell us what we will do on Saturday?


Howard Charles Green: We shall be considering
estimates, starting with the estimates of the Post Office Department and then taking the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Lionel Chevrier: No agriculture on Saturday?

Business of the House


Howard Charles Green: Not on Saturday, no; the Min- It being three minutes after six o'clock the ister of Agriculture will not be here on house adjourned, without question put, Saturday.	pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, July 24, 1958



AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Hayden Stanton (Leeds) presented the second report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.