1959-03-10

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on January 21 I advised the house that a delegation was being sent from Canada to take part in the United Nations wheat conference at Geneva. Included in the Canadian delegation were members of the advisory committee of the Canadian wheat board who are at the same time leaders of the principal farm organizations in western Canada.
The purpose of the conference was to negotiate a new international wheat agreement. I am pleased to state that the negotiations in Geneva have come to a fruitful conclusion. Subject to ratification by the governments concerned, a new three-year international wheat agreement will enter into effect next August. I am advised that the new wheat agreement was negotiated in an atmosphere of international good will and co-operation, and that it is broader in scope and content than the present agreement and will cover the major proportion of the international wheat trade.
The new agreement differs in important respects from the agreements negotiated in 1949, 1953 and 1956. These earlier agreements were based upon rights and obligations which had effect only when prices reached the internationally agreed maximum and minimum. In the new agreement each of the importing countries has committed itself to buy a specified percentage of its annual commercial imports from the exporting countries at prices within the agreed price range. If, however, prices should go to the maximum the exporters' obligations to supply at that price are limited to the average commercial purchases of the importing countries over a recent period of years.
The objectives of the new agreement have been significantly broadened, and provision has been made for a comprehensive annual review by the international wheat council of developments affecting world trade in wheat, including surplus disposals. A new price range has been negotiated. The present minimum price of $1.50 per bushel basis No.
66968-9-113
1 Manitoba northern in store Fort William/-Port Arthur has been maintained unchanged and will be continued during the next three years. The maximum price has been established at $1.90 per bushel for the same grade of wheat in the same position.
It is a matter of satisfaction to Canada, and I think to all countries interested in international co-operation in wheat, that the United Kingdom, subject to parliamentary approval in that country, is likely to join the new agreement. The return of the United Kingdom to the international wheat agreement will strengthen the agreement and increase its effectiveness and value.
The text of the agreement will be submitted for ratification at the present session, and I trust it will commend itself to this house and to Canadian wheat producers.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think the house will have listened with great interest to this announcement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the effect that a new wheat agreement has been agreed upon at Geneva. There will be regret, I know, that it was found necessary to reduce the maximum price of $2 to $1.90, without interfering with the minimum price of $1.50. I think there will also be general satisfaction that the United Kingdom has entered into the agreement, and I am wondering whether the minister can inform the house whether any other countries which were not signatories to the earlier agreements have taken this course.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group over the years have supported the international wheat agreements which have been formulated from time to time. We are again pleased on this occasion to support the passage of this agreement and Canada's signature to it. We think it should be an improvement that a certain specified percentage of imports will be taken by each importing country. The past agreement has really been quite ineffective because neither the ceiling price nor the floor price came into effect.
I think to appreciate the probable value of this agreement one must bear in mind that the ceiling price for No. 1 northern wheat at Fort William/Port Arthur today is in the neighbourhood of $1.70 a bushel, which means there is a 20 cent leeway in
1774	HOUSE OF
Trade-Wheat agreements and Sale either direction. The floor price in the agreement, while some guarantee, would be a disaster for the wheat producers of Canada if our Fort William price should fall an additional 20 cents a bushel. The house will appreciate what I say when I refer to the great demand in the country today for an effective price higher than $1.70.
The agreement itself is satisfactory, but I suggest it must be supplemented and supported by a program of deficiency payments to bolster our western farm incomes. I am hopeful that the Minister of Trade and Commerce will pursue a vigorous trade policy, and I express the hope that he may be successful in concluding important export agreements with Poland and the U.S.S.R.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am glad the hon. member for Assiniboia has given his unqualified support to this agreement.
I would like to answer the Leader of the Opposition. I have not the details with regard to all the countries which would be in the organization, because ratification is required, as he understands. However, it is expected that in addition to the four major exporters, the United States, Canada, Australia and the Argentine, France and Sweden will continue in the agreement and Italy, Mexico and Spain will come in. The details which he would like to have will, I think, be available to us later on when we discuss the agreement.



WHEAT AND BARLEY


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement to make which will, no doubt, be of interest. I should like to advise the house that the Canadian wheat board has signed a contract with officials of Rolimpex, the Polish government purchasing agency, covering the purchase of 150,000 tons of Canadian wheat. The grain is scheduled for shipment from Canada between now and the end of the crop year, July 31. I might add that some of it will be moving very soon by way of the Atlantic ports.
Under the provisions of the contract the Canadian grain trade, acting as agents of the Canadian wheat board, will negotiate the individual purchase transactions. Rolimpex which is, as I said, the official purchasing agency of the Polish government, will now enter into negotiations with the agents of the board for the purchase of 100,000 tons of Canadian barley for shipment from Canada by July 31.
Both the wheat and barley transactions will be purchased under credit facilities extended by the government through the export
[Mr. Argue.)

credits insurance corporation on the same terms as previously granted to Poland.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to learn from the minister that we are continuing to ship wheat to Poland. While we are on that subject, may I ask the minister whether any progress has been made toward renewal of the agreement with Russia which lapsed a week ago, and under which we sold such large quantities of wheat in recent years?


Hazen Robert Argue: This is a welcome announcement, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce would agree that this is a most appropriate day on which to make such an announcement. I congratulate the minister on having arranged such an appropriate time, whether it was by coincidence or not. I wonder if he can say whether or not negotiations are still in progress for a long term agreement with Poland. I understand that the quantities he has mentioned are in respect of the present year.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not able to advise the hon. member for Assiniboia with regard to any further agreement which may be entered into with Poland.
In answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I do not want to announce everything at once, but I can hold out every hope that on an appropriate occasion I shall be able to advise the house that wheat will be shipped to Russia in accordance with the agreement set up by the hon. gentleman and his colleagues a few years ago.



STATEMENT ON SALE OF OIL AND GAS PERMIT RIGHTS IN NORTHERN CANADA

Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Hon. members will be pleased to hear that a public sale of oil and gas permit rights was held yesterday afternoon for 3,546,829 acres. All the acreage, except for some 250,000 acres, lies in the southwestern Northwest Territories and southeastern Yukon in the general vicinity of Fort Liard. Some 250 bids indicate the largest public interest in any sale ever held by the department, and also indicate that major exploration for oil and gas is moving northward into the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory.
Cash bonus bids to the value of over $6,500,000 will be accepted with some of the bids reaching nearly $9 per acre. This is all direct revenue to the crown. The successful bidders must spend $3 per acre over the nine

year term of each permit, which will amount to over $8,500,000 in actual exploration for oil and gas.
I should emphasize that this sale is for exploratory privileges only, though if the permittee complies with the regulations he may acquire up to 50 per cent of each area as an oil and gas lease. He must apply for such a lease if he discovers oil and gas and wishes to commence production.
I plan to make a full statement to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters on government policy regarding oil and gas and other minerals in northern Canada, and how the public interest is protected in the development of these resources.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if I may ask the minister, in connection with this statement, if he could tell us how many of the bids he has mentioned were made by United States corporations or Canadian subsidiaries of such corporations.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, we have not had time even to complete the final and exact tabulation, but if the Leader of the Opposition wishes me to do so I could get this information for him.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Was the highest bid taken on each occasion?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is what I announced, Mr. Speaker.



ALBERTA TAR SANDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can he tell us if the government has yet decided upon a plan to proceed with the establishment of a feasibility committee to examine the proposal of a nuclear oil separation process in relation to the Athabasca tar sands? If a decision has been arrived at, and if it is in the affirmative, can he tell us the membership of that committee?


Hon. Paul Comiois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I wish to thank the hon. member for Calgary South for having given me notice of this question. The answer to the first part of the question is yes. In so far as the second part of the question is concerned, I must say that a technical group under the chairmanship of Dr. John Convey, director of the mines branch, will include: Dr. George Laurence of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.; a representative of the federal Department of National Health and Welfare;
66968-9-1134
Inquiries of the Ministry two representatives from the Alberta government; one representative of Richfield Oil Corporation, and one representative, as an adviser, from the United States atomic energy commission.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister comment on a report in the New York Times of March 8 that the United States and Canada have agreed in principle on joint control of nuclear weapons and stockpiles of warheads to be based in Canada, and that an announcement on this matter is to be made shortly which would, among other things, state that such stockpiles in Canada would be under the direct control of United States personnel, as provided by United States law?
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I noticed that article; and while the hon. gentleman did not give me notice of his question I have made inquiries with regard to this matter and I find that the article appearing in the New York Times is inaccurate in a number of details.
The government does not anticipate concluding a formal agreement with the United States government on the acquisition of nuclear warheads in the immediate future. I would draw the attention of the house to the statement I made in this regard on February 20. I indicated then that it would be some time before nuclear weapons would and indeed could be available for use by Canadian forces. At that time I stated that as soon as the government was in a position to do so it would inform the house, within the limits of security, of the general terms of understanding reached between the two governments on this subject. I believe that is about as far as I can go on this occasion.



D.E.W. LINE    U.S. PERMIT FOR MINISTERS' VISIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay West):: should like to indicate this group's respect for the rules of procedure by asking the Minister of Justice a question which is strictly in order. I understand that the minister will be taking a trip to northern Canada and possibly the Arctic regions in the near future. Would he inform the house if he intends to visit D.E.W. line installations, and if so will
1776	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
it be necessary for him to get a permit separate units with complete establish-from the appropriate United States author- ments of personnel, missiles and launching ities?	apparatus.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: It
is refreshing to find the hon. member in order for a change.
In answer to his question I have to say that it is not my intention to visit D.E.W. line installations, those installations not being under the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Justice. My trip will be confined to visiting R.C.M. police detachments and other points throughout the western half of the Northwest Territories-where, as Attorney General, I am directly responsible for the administration of justice-in order that I may have a better understanding of the nature of the problems of the police and those who are in charge of the courts in that area.
So far as I know my schedule does not call for any stop at any D.E.W. line installation, In any event the R.C.M. police are capable of taking care of my modest requirements in regard to accommodation.



REPORTED SPEECH BY AIR MARSHAL CAMPBELL RESPECTING BOMARC INSTALLATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister tell the house whether Air Marshal Campbell delivered a speech at Montebello on February 5, and whether he will make copies of that speech available to members of the house?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, Air Marshal Campbell did not make a speech at Montebello on the date mentioned.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister then clear up the contradiction between his statement to the house on March 2, 1959, at page 1519 of Hansard, that two Bomarc squadrons were to be established, and the statement attributed by the hon. member for Calgary South to Air Marshal Campbell that we have been given the green light on two half squadrons of Bomarcs?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Both the Prime Minister and myself have on several occasions stated that there will be two squadrons of Bomarcs, one to be established at North Bay and one to be established in northern Quebec north of a line drawn between Ottawa and Montreal. These will be
[Mr. Herridge.l



INQUIRY AS TO TABLING OF WHITE PAPER ON POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister advise the house if the white paper which he promised some time ago concerning the policies of the government will be available shortly?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question a few days ago when I said the white paper would be ready and tabled before my estimates are presented to the house.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the necessity of expanding facilities to meet jet age requirements, would the Department of Transport be prepared to actively consider acquiring the Vancouver international airport from the city of Vancouver?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we shall be very pleased to consider any proposition put forward by the city of Vancouver.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is based on his statement in the House of Commons on Friday, March 6, when he tabled the document entitled "Private and Public Investment in Canada-Outlook 1959". His statement as found at page 1673 of Hansard is as follows:
-increased capital outlays are indicated for each of the three levels of government.
The Department of Trade and Commerce publication to which I have made reference, which publication was issued the same day, shows in table No. 7 on page 17 that capital outlays of the federal government will decline by $30.6 million in 1959, and that similar expenditures by the provinces will decrease

by about $40 million. There appears to be a contradiction in terms, and I wonder if the minister could clear it up.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would welcome an opportunity of clearing it up, but I do not think I can do so on such short notice as this.


George James McIlraith: Tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow will be satisfactory, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on the same point relating to the publication entitled "Private and Public Investment in Canada-Outlook 1959". I have given the minister notice of my intention to ask this question.
Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce explain his statement as it appears at page 1674 of Hansard in these words:
The rate of anticipated expenditures for 1959 indicates that Canadian industry is continuing to expand rapidly.
I ask this question in view of the fact that the publication of the Department of Trade and Commerce issued the same day and to which reference has been made shows in a table on page 7 that business capital expenditures will decline by $225 million in 1959 as compared with 1958.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I am of opinion that the publication to which the hon. gentleman refers deserves careful study. The hon. member has drawn attention to what he considers a discrepancy in the statement as related to the tables. The statement he read was:
The rate of anticipated expenditures for 1959 indicates that Canadian industry is continuing to expand rapidly.
I think that is borne out by a study of the document. On the first page there appears this sentence:
On the basis of these intentions as stated at year-end. the 1959 investment program would be moderately below the all-time peak of 1957 but would still comprise a larger percentage of gross national production than in any post-war year prior to 1956.
I think what is intended by that earlier sentence is that Canada is continuing to expand, perhaps not as rapidly as in 1958 or as rapidly in 1959 as in 1957, but the rate of expansion in the four years 1956, 1957, 1958 and the anticipated prospects for 1959 indicate that this is an expanding economy, because the prior years show that investment in 1954 was only at $5,700 million, and in 1955-56-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the
minister and the members who have posed these questions that they really cannot be appropriately dealt with at this stage. It seems to me they could be discussed more effectively on the estimates of the department or at some later stage than by question and answer on the orders of the day. They seem to involve expressions of opinion and argument.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the reasons
these questions were asked are surely obvious. The minister made a statement last Friday. He tabled some figures, and the figures contradicted his own statement. This is the first opportunity we have had to bring this contradiction to the attention of the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In view of the statement
by the Leader of the Opposition I should think I should be given an opportunity to reply, because he has now stated-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Leader of the
Opposition raised a question of privilege. If so, then certainly the minister will have an opportunity to deal with the alleged discrepancy.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have already pointed out that during the last three years, and with the anticipated investment for 1959, Canada is in an expanding economy as compared with the preceding years and, as I pointed out in that earlier statement, there has been a fourfold increase in investment in Canada during the last four years over the preceding years, which is a remarkable achievement. There is a slight drop anticipated in the business sector of 1959, but a careful reading of the document indicates that the revised figures which come out later in the year may indicate, as they have done in the past under similar circumstances, that the intentions of the year will be exceeded by the actual expenditures. On page 10 of this document we find this:
On the economic side, the present intentions were framed at a time when business conditions were in the initial stages of recovery. If this recovery continues, and particularly if it accelerates in tempo, it may be expected that additional expansion projects will be forthcoming as the year progresses, especially in the commodity-producing industries. In the past, in periods of improving business conditions investment intentions have always underestimated actual accomplishment. In current circumstances, however, the extent to which intentions may be exceeded will probably be limited by the amount of excess capacity still present in a number of industries.
There are other intimations throughout this document which indicate that the economy is in good shape and that there is every

Inquiries of the Ministry prospect of it expanding, and that it is an expanding economy as compared with other years.


William Moore Benidickson: I do not think this is an answer to the question, because I indicated that the minister had segregated one of the fields of capital investment, namely that with respect to industry. As I stated in my question, he asserted in a statement at the time he was submitting the document that industry -there are other segments; there is public investment and other capital investment-is continuing to expand rapidly, and the figures in the document do not bear out that statement.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my hon. friend's question I shall read just two other sentences in the summary:
In summary, the 1959 capital spending program in the business sector is more heavily weighted with new expansion projects than was the case last year. Spending on these new projects, as planned at this time, will he almost sufficient to offset the large gaps left by the completion of major undertakings in 1958.
It is on that basis that it is expected that the actual expenditures will exceed investment intentions in the business sector.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Due to the fact that the house public works committee in Washington gave quick clearance to the bill permitting Chicago to divert more water from lake Michigan by a vote of 19 to 11, after Canada and the six great lakes states have been fighting the proposal, will the minister make another formal protest to Washington before the bill comes up in the house or the Senate?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I thank the hon. member for indicating to me his intention of asking this question. Hon. members will recall that we have presented to the state department an explicit and strong protest, so in answer to his question I would say that at the moment there is no intention of presenting another strong and explicit protest.
As the hon. member has said, Bill H.R.l was adopted by the public works committee of the House of Representatives by a vote of 19 to 11. I understand that it now goes directly to the House of Representatives, Where it will be considered in due course.

This bill has not yet been before any committee of the Senate or, of course, before the Senate itself. Even if it is adopted by the House of Representatives and the Senate it does not become law in the United States, as we all know, until the President gives his approval.
I can assure the house, Mr. Speaker, that the government is following the course of events very closely. If and when the occasion should demand it, we will make formal, informal, oral or written representations in this vein.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
the minister a supplementary question arising out of his answer, in which he indicated that strong representations had been made in the aide memoire which he tabled in the house. My question is this. I read a letter recently which was addressed to Congressman Yates, in which it was said-this was a letter from the U.S. Secretary of State-that at that time, prior to the aide memoire, the Canadian government had no objection whatever to the diversion of 1,000 c.f.s. out of lake Michigan into the Chicago drainage canal. Is that so?


Sidney Earle Smith: I think this is the same letter to which the hon. member referred some days ago in the house. I have not ascertained the authenticity of that report, but I repeat that the latest word in this respect from the government of Canada is the aide memoire.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the minister be good enough to ascertain whether such a letter was sent prior to the aide memoire?


Sidney Earle Smith: I do not
know whether or not it is possible for me to get the text of proceedings in the legislature of another country. I shall endeavour to ascertain the facts to the end that I can answer the question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: While the minister is trying to ascertain whether or not such a communication exists-and it does exist-would he also table for the information of the house the communication from the state department to the Canadian government, I think on February 9 of this year, inquiring whether and when the Canadian government was going to make a protest on this matter?


Sidney Earle Smith: I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that that has already been tabled, with the aide memoire.

Inquiries of the Ministry
LABOUR CONDITIONS	TRANSPORT



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister at this time in a position to inform not only the house but the people of Canada as to what action the government is planning to take in regard to the recent labour legislation passed in the legislature of Newfoundland?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the legislation passed by the legislature of Newfoundland has been brought to our attention and the cabinet is giving consideration to the whole question.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. I wonder if the Prime Minister would be able to tell the house when a decision may be made, since the I.W.A. which has been the legal union under the law is now being interfered with by this law?


John George Diefenbaker: Of course the hon. gentleman knows that that is a matter of government decision, and I am not going to anticipate the date of that decision.


Hazen Robert Argue: In the meantime the legal union is being smashed.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. It arises out of a newspaper report to the effect that the Department of Public Works has made the announcement that the estimated cost of the development of the lakehead harbour is $6,600,000 plus $900,000 for a railway overpass. The minister indicated some time ago that the expenditure on the project was going to be $5,500,000. Can the minister inform the house if there has been a change of plans which has made necessary the increase of $1,100,000 in the estimates?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the preliminary report of the consultants, Sir Alexander Gibb and Associates, estimated that the cost would be about $5.5 million. We now have the final report and the estimate has gone up to $7.5 million, but it includes certain additional features which were not in the preliminary report.



GREAT SLAVE LAKE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister fulfil his promise to the people of northern Canada by announcing at this session a start on the construction of a railway to the south shore of Great Slave lake?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a matter which the hon. member was debating last night. It seems to me that it is a question of policy which he could hardly expect to have answered on the spur of the moment.



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last the hon. member for Dollard inquired about the reported cancellation of passes of railway employee commuters in the Montreal district. I have spoken to the Canadian National Railways, and so far as that company is concerned the management advise that passes have not been cancelled, but that effective March 1, 1959, passes held by C.N.R. employees were restricted against use for commuter travel; that is, for regular or daily travel between residence and place of business. The management add, however, that for such travel Canadian National employees having the requisite length of service may obtain reduced rate commutation tickets. The management point out that commuter services are operated at a substantial loss.
(Translation):



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (Sf. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Courtemanche). In view of the fact that the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) has stated that grievances put forward with regard to postal employee's salaries were the responsibility of the civil service commission, does the hon. Secretary of State intend to see to it that civil service commission officials meet the leaders of postal federations and associations, and of mail carriers before it is too late?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Henri Couriemanche (Secretary of Slate):: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) already knows the answer to his question. He is perfectly aware that the civil service commission is an independent body and that the Secretary of State has no instructions to give it.


Azellus Denis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the right hon. Prime Minister why it is that, every time we ask for information, we are told about this matter of "independence"? Whenever we put a question or make a suggestion, ministers reply that the matter is outside of their responsibility?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, the question I directed to the hon. Prime Minister is, in my opinion, of general interest, and I claim that account must be taken of those meetings and grievances of government employees. As he is no doubt aware, thousands of persons are working in the Post Office Department, and when the Postmaster General is asked what he intends to do to solve the problem, he replies that the matter is the responsibility of the civil service commission.
I am directing the question to the hon. Secretary of State and-
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to reply in French.
(Translation):
I will take the question as notice and answer it later.
(Text):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the unusual interest in monetary policy these days, can he tell the house when we may expect the tabling of the annual report of the bank of Canada? May I also ask whether, after the tabling of that report, the minister would have any objection to having it referred to the banking and commerce committee for discussion as has happened in previous years, although it has not been the invariable practice.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the report is being

printed at the present time. I hope to be in a position to table the report by the end of this week or not later than the beginning of next week. Whatever course of action is decided upon with regard to the possible reference of the report to any standing committee is a matter that will have to be decided after the report has been tabled. It has not been the practice to have that report referred to the banking and commerce committee every year. It has been done occasionally.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. It concerns a matter which is of great interest to many of us, especially those of us from western Canada. Can the minister give any advice as to the reported statement of Captain O'Brien-Ffrench that with respect to the famed-and I say "famed" advisedly-Fairholm ranch in Alberta an agreement is being concluded for its purchase by the government? If so, for what purpose is this most marvelous rustic ranch home and property being purchased by the government?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the department is now in the process of negotiating with Captain O'Brien-Ffrench for the purchase of this property. I think the proper place for me to give an answer to the question would be in the standing committee on mines, forests and waters, as there are a number of reasons.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a supplementary question. When we are told this by the minister, may I ask why the information cannot be given to the House of Commons on the orders of the day?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the reason is obvious, Mr. Speaker. Negotiations are still in process. I shall be glad to make a statement. As I say, there are many good reasons why we should purchase this property.


Harold Edward Winch: If I may, I should like to ask another supplementary question. Is it the policy of the minister and his department to enter into negotiations without knowing the reason why they want to purchase the property?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, of which I have given the hon. lady notice. My question is this. Can she bring the house up to date on what is happening at the Six Nations reserve? Before putting the question, if the hon. lady will permit me to do so I should like to express to her my regret with regard to a sentence attributed to me in a story in the Hamilton Spectator of yesterday and which states that "the government cannot afford to be frivolous any longer". As a general proposition I think that is sound, but in relation to this particular matter I do not think the government has been frivolous. I know the hon. lady has taken this matter extremely seriously. I think it is a matter that we should all take seriously.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for his explanation, or apology, or whatever it may be termed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Expression of regret.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I must say that I was shocked when I read the account in the Spectator, because the interchange to which it refers was one which arose from a frivolous question which certainly did not start on this side of the house.
With reference to the present situation at the Six Nations reserve may I say this. We are in constant touch with the elected council and the hereditary chiefs. It is a matter of keen regret to me that there should be a conflict over jurisdiction in that reserve. Because the situation is so serious I have spent a great deal of time on the matter myself. I spent the whole week end in consultation with various persons. The director of the Indian affairs branch was in Brantford. He met all day yesterday with the hereditary chiefs, and prior to that he had met with the elected council.
We are hopeful that we can come to a successful compromise in this matter. It will be recognized by the house that the elected council is in control of the affairs of that band. It will also be recognized that the hereditary chiefs have made some complaints which we are quite willing to hear. I would have preferred it if they had brought their grievances to the department instead of taking the action which they have taken. Nevertheless, we are doing our best to iron out the differences without undue delay.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. lady.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister received a telegram from H. Landon Ladd, president of district No. 2 of the I.W.A. of Newfoundland, in which Mr. Ladd has quoted Inspector Stevenson of the R.C.M.P. as saying that a detachment of 20 members of the force had been used to disperse an I.W.A. picket line on the Halls Bay road near Badger to assist 25 nonunion men to enter a strikebound camp, and can the minister say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I seem to recall that the hon. member, or some hon. member, asked a similar question about the use of the police, and the minister gave his response that the direction of the police was a matter for the provincial authorities, in which event this would not be a proper question to ask.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, on this point I wish to submit that the question arises out of a telegram that has been sent by the responsible president of the union to the minister. It raises a very important question at this time, and-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understood the question it concerned the direction of the police. If the hon. member has another question which is in order I will be glad to hear it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As
a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted, I think this question relates to another alleged incident different from the one which was discussed on the occasion of the earlier question. It is the same sort of allegation, but it does refer to another incident, and if Your Honour rules that, being another incident, it is in order, I would be prepared to reply.


Mr. Speaker:: What I was attempting to avoid was spending the time of the house on matters which are not the responsibility of the ministers to whom the questions are addressed. If the minister considers this is a matter of his responsibility, I have no objection to the question being answered.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did receive a telegram as referred to by the hon. member. I have, of course, not seen the statement alleged to have been made by Inspector Stevenson, and I doubt if he made it in the form in which it

Inquiries of the Ministry is reported in the telegram. What happened was that there was a roadblock on a public road, and the R.C.M. police, acting in accordance with their responsibility under the provincial contract to maintain communications and preserve law and order, sent out a patrol to ensure that the obstruction was removed from the public road. The R.C.M. police did not escort anyone through the picket line and have not yet escorted anyone through picket lines; they acted in order to maintain communications and prevent disorders from breaking out.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON ALLOCATION OF BOX CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister say whether the Bracken royal commission report on the allocation of box cars, which is in the hands of the printers, will soon be tabled in this house; and can he say further what action the government intends to take on this report?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The report will be tabled in the house as soon as it is received from the hands of the printers. The action which may be taken will be announced in due course.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, since the report was delivered on January 21 and is in the hands of the printers, I wonder if the minister would twist the printer's arm so this report may be made public soon?



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in view of the fact that I, at any rate, have not been able to find any recommendations in the Clark report, whether Professor Clark was asked by the government or any of its members to make recommendations of any kind, either written or verbal, in addition to his published report.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question the day I tabled the report. The terms of reference are in the report itself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could put a slightly different question to the hon. gentleman as a supplementary question. Was Professor Clark asked to do anything for the government except prepare this report?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think, Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference do answer that question.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


John George Diefenbaker: That the report of the Canada Council for the year ended March 31, 1958 laid before the house on July 10, 1958 be referred to the standing committee on public accounts in order to provide a review thereof pursuant to section 23 of the Canada Council Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to make any statement at this time except to point out that under the statute, chapter 3 of 1956-57, section 22 and section 23 read as follows:
22.	The accounts and financial transactions of the council shall be audited annually by the Auditor General, and a report of the audit shall be made to the council and to the member of the Queen's privy council for Canada designated under section 23.
23.	The chairman of the council shall, within three months after the termination of each fiscal year, submit to the member of the Queen's privy council for Canada designated by the governor in council for the purpose a report of all proceedings under this act for that fiscal year, including the financial statements of the council, and the Auditor General's report thereon, and the member so designated shall cause such reports to be laid before parliament within fifteen days after the receipt thereof or, if parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first fifteen days next thereafter that parliament is sitting and provision shall be made for a review thereof by parliament.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra suggested at the time this legislation was introduced that there should be some control by parliament over the expenditures of the Canada council, and it is pursuant to this that the section was accepted at the time. My understanding is that if this motion is acceptable a committee of this house will be set up, and in the other place the action taken will be to submit a report to the finance committee. The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) referred to this matter on one occasion. I think it is generally agreed that an examination would be beneficial not only to the council itself but also to hon. members of this house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have no objection to this motion. In fact, we support it, and feel that the
[Mr. Fulton.)

report of the Canada Council should be submitted to the standing committee on public accounts where I hope it will receive careful, serious and objective consideration.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, we are very much in favour of this motion. One of the questions which comes to mind is whether it would not have been better to have left this until later in the session so that the more recent report might be before the committee. I suppose it could be argued that a year's interval since the last report would enable us to look at this subject in better perspective. But I think there have been many press releases made by the council since the time of the last report, and it seems to me that the council's activities are moving at such a speed and on such broad lines that we should try to keep up with them. It seems to me that we have a special responsibility so far as the Canada Council is concerned. I should like to make one of my points by reading from a report criticizing the council which was written by Richard Jackson of the Ottawa bureau of the Sudbury Star. The article is headed: "Culture Vultures may 'get lumps' " and it says, in part:
The Canada Council and the $100 million it got for the promotion of the arts-through the National Gallery and the National Museum among other agencies-got the former Liberal administration into trouble.
It was knocked publicly on the basis that it amounted to a $100 gift for the eggheads at a time when the old age pensioners were being given a stingy $6 increase.
Dr. Albert Trueman who was appointed to run it, didn't help. He had a built-in reputation for extravagance and disregard of the tax dollar that did neither he, the Council or culture much good.
For he was the civil service brass hat who got his knuckles rapped, in the days he ran the National Film Board, for buying television sets at public expense for his staff.
This sort of comment is, in my view, nonsense. It is worthless, but it is the kind of criticism we can expect to find in certain quarters about the activity of an organization such as the Canada Council. I recall one man who whenever he got going on this theme used to refer to "culture vultures" or "those long-haired nut boys". It seems to me we have to keep a balance in this regard if we are in any way interested in education or the arts. We have just been talking about deficiency payments on grain. Well, the Canada Council represents the making up of a tremendous deficiency in the two fields I have just mentioned.
I would say the council is doing an excellent job. I could think of a number of criticisms, and I can think of one that is current in university circles, namely that too
10, 1959	1783
Reference of Report to Public Accounts much of the endowment funds have been devoted to the building of residences and having those residences qualify under the arts and humanities provision by putting in reading rooms. I know that a good many hon. members of this house who are familiar with university residences will realize that the reading rooms, however genteel and pleasant, are not the most important part of the building. This may be an example of an area in which the Canada Council should watch its expenditure. At the same time, no one who has been around universities will fail to agree-and I know you will not, Mr. Speaker-that residence requirements are very urgent. I know that you and other hon. members have been pressing the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) in this connection.
One of the other things we must keep in mind in connection with the Canada Council is that pressure by people with political influence in so far as scholarships and grants are concerned should be kept to a minimum. One of the general observations I would make about the academic and arts communities in Canada is that they are a little bit tarred with the puffing attitude to which we have become accustomed over so many years with respect to all Canadian literary and artistic achievements. We tend to blow them up more than they really merit by world or by North American standards.
And I think this sometimes applies to the kind of references which must be forthcoming from the Canadian academic community with regard to scholarships. This is a question which must occur to anyone who looks at the format of the various scholarships. I believe that the Canada Council should ask applicants to be as factual and as bald as possible. One could possibly find, reading the list of the people who have received scholarships so far, some who did not deserve them on merit. At the same time the list is a wonderful thing to look at when one remembers that until a few years ago the people in the fields of science and engineering had so many more marvellous opportunities for scholarships, both pre-doctoral and postdoctoral. This program has been a wonderful incentive to everyone in the arts faculties in Canadian universities.
I cannot finish my comments on this without saying how pleased we were in our particular area about having our own lake-head college of arts, science and technology recognized by the council. One of the things that concerned me when the early grants were going out was that contributions were going largely to the big establishments already in existence. It appeared from the first grants that those who already had were going to get, and that the new and
1784	HOUSE OF
Reference of Report to Public Accounts developing institutions which were going to mean so much to secondary and higher education were going to be left out. The latest list of awards scotched that feeling and indicates that the Canada Council has a wide point of view, and makes it clear that the growing and hopeful universities developing in northern Ontario, in Sudbury and in North Bay, are going to get a certain amount of help from Canada Council grants.
Perhaps this may destroy the validity of some of my early remarks about people in politics not pressuring, but there is one particular topic I should like to see supported by the Canada Council. Under the general principles outlined in the annual report on page 25, this particular project would not seem to qualify for grant. Nevertheless, I think this project should be dear to the hearts of all members of parliament because it relates to the collection of information which is of particular usefulness as far as parliamentary speeches are concerned. The Canadian library association is in charge of a project called the Canadian periodical index. Each year it indexes a host of Canadian periodicals, and any time one signs a request to the library in this area of research it is almost certain that this particular index will be used. Unfortunately this index is on a service basis, and we do not have in Canada at this time a wide enough demand for this kind of service.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member would allow me to interrupt him in order to comment on the course his remarks are taking. He has introduced with great ingenuity the subject of deficiency payments in connection with the reference to a committee of the report of the Canada Council. I should think the debate is not really a debate on the subject matter of the report of the council, though perhaps a few general observations about why the committee should deal with this report, or why it should not deal with it, would be in order.
I would ask the hon. member to keep his more detailed observations about the report for that time when it is before the committee.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I stand rebuked in that particular regard, Mr. Speaker, and will content myself at this time with asking the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) a question. I would assume that the officers of the Canada Council will appear before the committee. Does the Prime Minister believe that a certain amount of the work of that committee should deal with the policy of the Canada Council? I would like to know what the 

scope of that committee will be. I know he may say that is for the committee itself to determine but I believe he is also aware that his attitude will be very powerful in determining the scope of the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the house
that if the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall follow the
commendable example of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). I do not want to do anything to hold up the motion.
With respect to the question raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur I do not want to leave myself open to any suggestion that the course, scope, ambit or field of study of the committee will in any way be determined by me. That is a matter for the determination of the committee. Having regard to past experience I am sure that were I to suggest the course of that committee in any way the hon. member for Port Arthur would be the first to raise the strongest possible objection.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald Methuen Fleming: That the public accounts volumes I and II and the report of the auditor general for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1958, and the financial statements of the Canada Council and the report of the auditor general thereon for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1958 be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there
is any need for any extended discussion of this matter by hon. members of this group.
I commend the government for introducing this motion and particularly for pinpointing the report of the Auditor General as an early matter for discussion by the public accounts committee. I believe it has been rather fundamental in our practice in all years except last year that precedence is given at the beginning of the sittings of the public accounts committee to consideration of the report of the Auditor General. I understand that the steering committee has already met and indicated that we are likely to follow this practice again this year and that this will be the first item of business before the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Howard Charles Green: That items numbered 127 to 145, inclusive, as listed in the main estimates for the year ending March 31, 1960, relating to the Department of Fisheries, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, all I want to do at this stage is restate the position we took originally on this motion. We think that the withdrawal of these estimates from the committee of supply and their reference to the committee on marine and fisheries is a waste of time. We believe that to be the case because there are so many other things to do while the house is sitting and while we are getting ready for our work here. When these estimates come back from the committee they will all be discussed again and there will be no gaining of time as a result of this.
My purpose in rising is simply to restate the position we took earlier and to say that the sending of these estimates to the committee will save no time but on the contrary will result in a great deal of lost time.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this matter. I believe it is an important question but our position may be expressed in a few words. It would be most difficult if all the estimates of the house were referred to committees. It would make it almost impossible to carry on and it would certainly be impossible if the committees were to sit while the house is sitting.
On behalf of this group I want to say that the sending of departmental estimates to specialized committees or to the estimates committee is a useful practice. It is of interest not only to hon. members of these committees but to the public in general whom they represent if on periodic occasions at least certain departmental estimates are referred to a committee for particularized study. A committee calls before it officials of the department concerned and hon. members are able to conduct an interrogation and obtain information and answers it would be impossible to obtain on the floor of the house.
As far as this group is concerned as long as not too many estimates are referred at one time and as long as committees do not sit when the house is sitting we would say that judging even from the brief experience last year this is a good principle and should be continued. Fisheries are of vast importance
Fisheries
to the maritimes and to British Columbia and we in this group will support the present motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for the support given to this motion by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) on behalf of his group. I cannot quite understand the attitude being taken again today by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). I think he will agree that in years past the committees have not been given sufficient work to do and that in many cases the estimates of the departments could have been considered by a committee much more effectively than is possible when the house is in committee. Let us remember that these estimates always come back from the standing committees to the committee of the whole house.
Some years ago a start was made in having a standing committee consider estimates when the committee on external affairs was set up. As I have said on numerous occasions when discussing this subject in the house, that external affairs committee from the very beginning has done excellent work. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) and the under secretary have always appeared before the committee and been interrogated. General McNaughton has been called and any other officials who could throw any light on the functioning of the department have been quite ready to appear. I believe that the result has been a highly efficient and thorough consideration by the committee of the work of the Department of External Affairs.
Last year we set up a standing committee on veterans affairs. The same course is being followed in that committee with the same good result. I do not understand how anybody can reasonably criticize the work being done by the veterans affairs committee in considering the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I explained to the house last year that in the interest of efficiency and for no other reason we were going to try out the same system of referring the estimates of this and of some other departments to a standing committee of the house.
There was a committee on mines, forests and waters, which had not met once during the whole term of the Liberal government. From 1935 to 1957 I do not believe that committee was ever even called although it could have and should have been considering

Fisheries
questions which were of the utmost importance to the nation. Last year we referred the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to that committee and also the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, and I have never heard any complaint from any member of any one of the three parties who served on that committee about the work that was done. I think it was the unanimous opinion that that committee did splendid work. This year it has been considering the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and from what I heard by the grapevine it is again doing splendid work. It is the intention of the government to refer the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to that committee within the course of the next week or two.
The only other estimates which we are referring to a similar standing committee are these estimates of the Department of Fisheries. There again you have a specialized field. It is of great value to those members who are interested in the fisheries problems to have the minister, the deputy minister and the other officials of that department come and subject themselves to crossexamination. I do suggest that nothing but good can come from the deliberations of the standing committee on marine and fisheries in considering these estimates of the Department of Fisheries.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a question of the house leader? How many of those estimates are being referred to committees; how many of the departmental estimates are being referred to committees? What difference is there between those estimates and the estimates of the Department of Transport which it was decided were to remain in the committee of the whole?


Howard Charles Green: Now I see why the hon. member for Laurier did not want to have the estimates of the Department of Transport referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Last year we did refer the estimates of that department to that committee and I believe it did good work. This year, because the hon. member for Laurier was complaining so loudly about not wanting to have them referred, I fell in with his wishes and assured him I was not going to ask to have them referred. Now he comes out and asks, since we are not referring the estimates of the Department of Transport, why are we referring the other estimates? I did not realize that this was a come-on game he was pulling on me when he asked us not to refer the estimates-


Lionel Chevrier: Is there any difference?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, of course there is a difference. I departed from the practice of referring the transport estimates to please my good friend.


Lionel Chevrier: Why does the minister not please me a second time?


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid he is not going to be pleased no matter what we do.
I think the only other standing committee which will be considering estimates this session will be the estimates committee itself. To that committee we have already referred the estimates of national revenue and I presume there will be one, two or perhaps three other departments whose estimates will be referred to that committee, depending on the work it does.
I think we are entitled to a few good marks also for getting those estimates referred early in the session and getting the work done before the great rush of the last few weeks of the session commences. Under present conditions there is very little need for the committee to meet while the house is sitting and we are hoping that those estimates which have been and will be referred can be considered at sittings held in the morning so that nobody need feel that he is being overworked.
Really, we are trying to do the business of the House of Commons in a more efficient way than was the practice under the former government and we think we are succeeding.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: You are saying so.


Howard Charles Green: I think so. I think the hon. member for Ottawa East thinks so, too, even though he will not admit it. However, this motion is being made with the best of intentions and, as I said at the beginning, I am very glad to see that at least the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) and his associates in the C.C.F. party realize that we are trying to do something for the benefit of the country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Lionel Chevrier: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



LIVESTOCK


Edmund Davie Fulton: That the subject of humane slaughter of food animals be referred to the standing committee on agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, as I know the house will, that it is now some time since the government first undertook to introduce legislation which will ensure that food animals in Canada are killed by humane methods. The fact is that it has been a most difficult and complicated problem to devise legislation which would be effective and at the same time be fair and workable. I should like to give the house a brief history of the efforts we have made to accomplish this objective.
This government from the outset has accepted the necessity of additional legislation to ensure that humane methods are used in the slaughter of animals in Canada. This in itself marks an important step forward, for the fact is that our predecessors never accepted this position, or if they did they refused to consider that it was necessary or possible for such legislation to be introduced by the dominion government. There is as a matter of fact quite a lengthy history of discussion of the problem in the House of Commons and elsewhere, a history of efforts being made by members of the Conservative party when in opposition, on their own behalf and in support of the position taken by humane societies, to persuade the former government to take action and of the refusal of that government to do so. However, I shall not go into the details of the earlier controversy but will confine myself to an outline of the steps taken since we assumed responsibility and undertook to introduce legislation to carry out our policy in this field.
It is interesting and significant to note that since we have first begun to move in this connection the idea of legislation has not been opposed by the main spokesmen for the meat packing industry. In fact, their representatives on the meat packers council of Canada have at all times in their discussion with us agreed that legislation in this field is necessary and desirable. They have never opposed our efforts to find a practical legislative formula; their concern has been to find a suitable and fair scheme of legislation. They have co-operated with us throughout in working to this end.
At this point I should express the very real appreciation of myself and my colleagues in the government for the work done and the help we have received from all those who have been involved in this problem. I refer
Humane Slaughter of Livestock especially to the initiative shown by the various humane societies across Canada and their individual representatives; also to the co-operation of the meat packers council of Canada and the very extensive research that they have carried on. In general, although there has been some conflict and differences in points of view between those two organizations they have worked with a good deal of co-operation and harmony to achieve the desired end.
I should also express our appreciation to the officials of the department of my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, who for a number of years now has maintained a close and active liaison with the other organizations engaged in research in this field and also carried on extensive research on their own to develop humane killing methods which would be practical and applicable to the Canadian industry. I should mention also the work of the officials of my own department who have laboured long and earnestly, as the members of this house know, to devise legislation which will meet the problem. Finally, I should express thanks to our own members of parliament who, throughout the past two years, have given the benefit of their study and advice.
Our first approach to the problem was to seek an answer through the medium of the Criminal Code. There is already a general provision in the code regarding cruelty to animals, and inasmuch as the criminal law is within dominion jurisdiction, it seemed to us a logical approach to seek an answer by way of amendment to that provision.
A bill was accordingly drafted by my department during the first session after the election of 1957. This bill was introduced on December 21 of that year as Bill No. 241, and was given first reading on that date. In a statement reported at page 2713 of Hansard I outlined the government's approach and intention, emphasizing that the object in introducing the bill and giving it first reading only was to make it available to the house and the country for study. I stated that we recognized that this is a difficult and complicated problem, and that we hoped to receive the advice of all those concerned, including especially the provincial attorneys general who would be responsible for enforcement of the proposed law, with a view to studying their comments and removing any defects or weaknesses that might be shown to exist before reintroducing the legislation at a subsequent session.
As an indication of the government's approach to the problem that had to be solved, I should refer to the following quotation from that statement:
There is, then, general agreement that humane methods of slaughter exist and can be made

Humane Slaughter of Livestock applicable in Canada although there are still some problems to be solved. In considering our course of action we have had to bear the following factors in mind. First, that there is a measure of divided responsibility, and that in any criminal legislation to be introduced we must bear in mind that the responsibility for enforcement rests with the provinces. Second, that hasty action on the part of the government might force out of business abattoirs and packing plants and could result in a shortage of such commodities as bacon, etc. Third, that impracticable or unenforceable legislation does more harm than good. Fourth, that the provinces have an interest in the matter especially from the point of view of enforcement, and therefore should be consulted.
Following the introduction of that bill, and its distribution by us to various interested organizations and officials, we did receive some comments. These came mainly from the attorneys general of the provinces, six of whom replied to our letter. To be quite frank about it, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the attorneys general greeted the draft bill with something less than enthusiasm. The general effect of their comments was to question whether the bill as drafted was really sound criminal legislation, and two or three of them raised very serious questions about the problem that would arise with regard to its enforceability. We also received replies from some of the humane societies and others, these replies being generally favourable to the proposal.
We accordingly studied the matter further to give effect so far as we could to the observations that we had received. I must admit that in view of the criticisms that had been made we had some reservations about the course being followed, but after we had worked further over the bill in our department we felt that we had made a substantial step toward removing the objections, and accordingly introduced a further bill in the session following the election last year. This bill proceeded on the same basis as the earlier draft, namely by way of an amendment to the Criminal Code, and was given first reading as Bill C-32 on June 25, 1958.
I should tell the house now that we had been somewhat surprised that we had received relatively few comments and suggestions after the original bill had been introduced and made available for distribution. The fact is that it was only after Bill C-32 was introduced in June of last year that we began to receive some of the representations and suggestions we had hoped to receive earlier and which we had invited. These representations now came from a wide variety of sources and indicated a very real and legitimate concern about the effects of the new proposed legislation. Meetings were at once arranged with all those who indicated a desire to meet with us and very full discussions were held

in an effort to assess the exact nature of the problems raised in each case and the merits of the criticisms or suggestions advanced. Following these meetings, we made a further study of each proposal in an effort to see if we could amend the legislation to meet those points which we found to be substantial.
I will not take the time of the house at this stage to particularize all the criticisms and suggestions we received or the efforts we made to meet them. It will be enough to say that a number of them seemed to be substantial and legitimate. For a more detailed discussion of the situation in which we then found ourselves I would refer the house to my statement made on September 6, 1958, reported at page 4705 of Hansard for that date.
In essence, we found that in order to ensure the realization of our objective by way of legislation under the Criminal Code, and yet meet all the legitimate objections and criticisms which had now been raised, we would have to particularize to such an extent that it was doubtful whether the final result would be sound criminal legislation. We were driven to the conclusion that what would emerge would amount almost to a form of regulation rather than legislation, and it became very doubtful whether such a form of enactment would stand up as valid criminal law.
At this point, I should make it clear that the objections we received at that stage were not, as has sometimes been suggested, made by large packing concerns, but came in the main from some small individual packers, from religious organizations concerned with the question of ritual slaughter, and from individual farmers and farm organizations. In the result, we came to the conclusion as I advised the house at that time, that it was not possible within the time at our disposal before the end of the last session, to find a legislative formula which would resolve all the objections which had been brought to our attention. I, accordingly, advised the house that it was not our intention to proceed with Bill C-32 at that session, but to study the matter further and then refer the whole question at this session, together with the government's suggestions, to an appropriate committee of the house. As I then said:
It is my hope that in the meantime all concerned will give the matter further consideration and prepare their submissions, so that at an early date next session the committee may proceed with its study and hear evidence which should be helpful in enabling parliament to determine the best course to follow in bringing about a solution.
It may be helpful to the house and to the committee if at this point I summarize the

objections which we had received and which we felt raised points of substance, and which indeed led us to question whether it was possible to find a satisfactory answer by way of criminal legislation. The main objections are as follows:
1.	The best provision that could be devised for the Criminal Code failed to meet the legitimate demands of almost every interested group. This is illustrated by the following paragraph from my statement of September 6, 1958, which appears at page 4705 of Hansard:
The submissions which raised new considerations deal with such points as the problem of providing for those cases where slaughter, or preparation for slaughter, is carried out in conformity with certain religious ritual; the designation of approved appliances; the availability in Canada of equipment necessary particularly in the case of certain classes of animals; the desirability of defining 'humane method' in advance so those installing certain devices will know for certain that the expenditures made will not be thrown away; the problem of legislating in such a way that large commercial slaughterhouses will be covered without at the same time imposing conditions which it is impracticable or impossible for small concerns or individual farmers to comply with, all matters which present real problems when criminal legislation is concerned.
2.	Any provision prepared for the Criminal Code in an attempt to meet all or most of these points would have to be so limited or hedged about with qualifications that there must be some doubt that it is a valid criminal law.
3.	A Criminal Code provision must yet contain some such general expressions-such as humane slaughter-that it will be given different meanings in different parts of Canada, and even by different magistrates in the same general localities.
4.	It cannot be expected that local police authorities could obtain anything like 100 per cent compliance with such a provision in the Criminal Code. Enforcement would call for a specialized type of enforcement officer who would not be available to most of the police forces, and it was indicated to us that, in any event, more pressing problems of criminal law enforcement would, as far as our police forces are concerned, take priority over the inspection of packing houses.
5. A Criminal Code provision might force out of business many smaller plants who found that they could not afford the expensive type of installation which would undoubtedly be used by the larger plants and who, finding themselves unable to afford these sure-fire methods, would not be prepared to run the risk of using some other method and thus the risk of being branded as criminals. Such a development would
10, 1959	1789
Humane Slaughter of Livestock have the effect of further concentrating the meat packing business in the hands of a few large organizations.
6.	The attempt to particularize in order to meet legitimate objections would have the effect of turning the bill into a form of regulation rather than legislation and thus into one of doubtful validity as criminal law. On the other hand, or on the other side of the picture, if we merely enact a Criminal Code provision of broad general application in order to meet that objection, this would have the effect of extending its scope to such an extent as to make potential criminals out of farmers who kill animals on their own farm for their own consumption, for which purpose it is obviously not sensible to require the installation of expensive slaughter devices.
In the face of these formidable difficulties we sought an alternative approach which would not be open to this type of objection. We accordingly turned our attention back to a consideration of the Meat and Canned Foods Act which we had previously considered but had rejected in favour of the approach by way of the Criminal Code. That act provides for inspection of all animals intended for slaughter in any establishment as defined in the act, and also authorizes the governor in council to make regulations for the carrying out of the provisions of the act. In view of the difficulties we had encountered under the Criminal Code approach, we came to the conclusion that a satisfactory alternative might well be found by way of amendment to the Meat and Canned Foods Act which would establish, or give power to establish, the conditions and methods by which slaughter must be carried on in any establishment in order for it to conform to the requirements of the legislation.
I should point out that when we had considered this possibility previously it had been rejected on the grounds that there was at that time no agreement as to whether specific humane killing devices then being considered would in fact be effective or feasible for use in commercial operations. In view of this disagreement and uncertainty at that time it did not seem wise to contemplate making regulations requiring the use of specific devices about whose suitability there was such widespread question.
Since then, however, there has been a great deal of further active research. New devices have been discovered, and devices already in existence have been modified and perfected, particularly in the case of electrical stunning machinery. As a result of our latest discussions with experts in this field, we now
1790	HOUSE OF
Humane Slaughter of Livestock believe that it is practicable to make regulations which can be adapted to different types and sizes of operation, and yet ensure that in each case a properly supervised and workable method of humane killing will be installed.
There are, it is true, advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. In view of the advances and discoveries which have recently been made, however, the approach how being discussed by way of amendment to the Meat and Canned Foods Act seems to be the most feasible one. The main considerations in its favour are as follows.
1.	Since it is obvious that what is needed is regulation and supervision, action under the Meat and Canned Foods Act, which in its very essence is an inspection regulation scheme, will accomplish the objective most readily without any question of jurisdiction or validity of that legislation.
2.	The regulation under such an inspection scheme will be effective, uniform and scientific, and enforcement will also be uniform and effective, because enforcement will be under the supervision of one authority instead of widely diversified authorities with different interpretations resulting in confusion and hardship to a legitimate industry. Trained inspectors will be available for the purpose.
3.	Under such a proposal, the necessary detailed regulations can be made which will permit the ensuring of the over-all objective while at the same time adapting the requirements to the circumstances and needs of individual operators. Without relaxing the overall standard-namely that killing must be by a humane method-nevertheless there can be variation, under an effective scheme of supervision, as between different sizes and types of operation. Thus the absence of the element of rigidity necessary in criminal legislation will avoid making criminals out of those who have no criminal intent.
4.	This new approach should remove the objections which have been made by so many under the other approach, especially the objections of law enforcement officers, and thus should ensure that the objective is achieved with the co-operation of all concerned instead of arousing potential hostility and criticism from provincial authorities and farm organizations.
In the foregoing, Mr. Speaker, I have tried to summarize for the house the salient features of both these proposals which the government has so far worked out. From what I have said, I think it will be obvious that our view at present is that the second proposal is the best and most practicable way of achieving the objective upon which, I am sure, all are agreed. But the main purpose of this resolution is to enable a committee


of the House of Commons to study the whole question and to decide for itself what course it thinks is the best one to follow. It is the view of the government that in a matter of this kind we should not take rigid positions, and that the members of all parties should have an opportunity to hear and consider all the suggestions that may be advanced as to how the problem should be solved.
The government proposes therefore to make available to the committee, if this resolution carries, two draft bills, one embodying each of the proposals that we have so far had under study. The government will welcome the assistance of the committee in perfecting either of these proposals or, if the committee wishes, in working out and recommending any new legislative scheme which commends itself to the committee.
By referring this subject in this way to the standing committee on agriculture, the house will ensure that the fullest and freest inquiry is made to enable members to arrive at a determination of this problem. I should remind hon. members of the terms of reference of the standing committee, as found at page 803 of Hansard for February 9 of this session. By the usual routine motion made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) immediately the committees were constituted, this house provided:
That the standing committees of this house be severally empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.
If the resolution is adopted the committee would be enabled immediately to commence its inquiries and to call before it representatives of such interested bodies as may wish to come or the committee may wish to hear and whom the committee considers qualified and able to assist it in its study. The government of course will be only too glad to co-operate with the committee in making available officials from the Department of Agriculture and my own department, or any others who may be desired, to assist and advise. Since the committee is empowered to report from time to time its opinions and recommendations it will be possible for the committee to recommend which course it thinks most suitable or, if it wishes, to suggest some alternative proposal. It is our hope that the committee will commence this important work without delay. There are, I know, several organizations who are prepared as soon as they receive word to appear before the committee.
Mr. Speaker, the government regrets, as I know all members of the house do, that the difficult and complicated nature of this

problem has so far prevented a final solution. But I believe we are entitled to take some credit for the efforts that have been made so far; it is also fair to say that as a result of these efforts, and as a result of the readiness of this government to look for and implement an acceptable course of action, we are now very near a final solution. If this resolution passes, as I trust it will, then with the help of the committee to whom this subject is now being referred we expect and intend to bring in legislation at this session.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple resolution and one with which we find ourselves in complete agreement. Indeed, there is hardly any basis for disagreement, because the resolution simply proposes to send the subject of humane slaughtering of food animals to a standing committee. The motion itself does not give any direction to the committee, and the minister implied that this was not necessary because that is taken care of in the terms of reference of the standing committee on agriculture.
However, after listening to the long history of this subject and the experience which the minister himself has had now since he took office and became interested in this matter, and since he introduced bills to deal with this problem, one cannot help but think that the committee would be in a much better position to advise this house and help the government toward a solution of this problem if it were presented with a bill or some legislation upon which we could go to work. A study-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Excuse me, but perhaps the hon. member missed the passage in which I said it is our intention to lay before the committee two draft proposals, one which we think is best and one which we think is second best, so that the committee will have something concrete with which to work.


Chesley William Carter: I am very sorry. I knew there was reference to two bills, but I missed the point where the minister said it was to be referred to the committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They will be made available.


Chesley William Carter: Yes. They are draft bills only. Of course, this subject appeals to all of us, because the subject of the prevention of cruelty to animals certainly appeals to our humanitarian instincts. I think everybody would agree that that principle should be incorporated in our legislation. But if we bring in legislation at this time to deal with this problem no doubt we will take a great deal of credit upon ourselves, as the hon. minister has already done for his efforts in this matter and as other countries have
10, 1959	1791
Humane Slaughter of Livestock done who have already brought in similar legislation. However, I cannot feel very proud of the fact that we, as Canadians, are so insensitive and callous about animals that this kind of legislation is necessary. Surely it does not reflect very much credit on our attitude toward animals if such a thing is so widespread that it can be dealt with only in this way. Speaking personally, I think this legislation, while it may afford some sort of answer, is certainly not the best answer. Education is perhaps a better answer.
The hon. minister has referred to weaknesses in legislation in dealing with this type of problem. Perhaps the main weakness is that having once passed this legislation in this house we will be able to rest our consciences and say that we have done our job. But the end result is what is important. Even if we do pass a bill setting forth certain requirements with regard to humane slaughtering, unless it produces that result we are not any better off. What result is produced by any legislation which we pass in this respect depends, as the hon. minister himself said, upon the provincial authorities, because it is they who are going to enforce this legislation.
One of the things which has caused me concern since I came to the House of Commons is that we have put a great many bills and laws on the statute books and then washed our hands of them because we cannot do anything about them. Certainly if this subject does concern us so much, we should, if we are in earnest about it and want to come to grips with the problem, try to work out some sort of understanding with all the provinces concerned so that we would have their assurance that they, in turn, would make an earnest effort to enforce this legislation to produce the result we want. The fact that the hon. minister mentioned that some of the provincial attorneys general were not too enthusiastic about it does not reassure us that they will make a very great effort to enforce any bill we may pass in this house concerning this problem.
When we deal with the subject of humane slaughtering we are at once up against the fact that it is a very controversial subject. Different peoples and organizations have very different ideas as to what is humane and what is not humane. I do not know how the committee can prevent itself from getting into a sort of academic excursion on this kind of thing. At best, I suppose we can collect all sorts of opinions, but how are we going to get worthwhile scientific advice that a certain course is more humane than another? I was glad that the hon. minister said that the second draft made provision to take care of slaughtering under different situations. For
1792	HOUSE OF
Humane Slaughter of Livestock example, it would have to be realistic, and recognized that the individual farmer, the small concern, would not be in the same position to equip themselves with the necessary equipment as the large packing houses. I think we all heartily agree with that approach. However, I gathered from what the minister said that there were going to be variations in the method, and there would also be variations in the degree of humanity in the method.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I never said that for a moment.


Chesley William Carter: I know the hon. minister did not say that, but it certainly could be inferred from what was said.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to have the opportunity of clearing up any misunderstanding there might be. The point I was making there was that this would be done by regulation, sanctioned by an amendment to the Meat and Canned Foods Act, which regulation could prescribe a certain type for one type and size of operation, and another equally humane type of installation for a different type and size of operation. As I recall, I said it must be done without relaxing the over-all standard of killing by a humane method, but that under regulation there could be that flexibility to which I referred.


Chesley William Carter: I think I understand perfectly what the hon. minister says, but I still do not know how he can be so sure that each method is humane to the same degree. I would think that would depend upon scientific research and knowledge, which I doubt whether the committee would be in a position to assess.
The motion itself refers only to animals slaughtered for food. But if we are in agreement on the principle of humane slaughter of animals, why should it be confined only to animals slaughtered for food? The principle should extend to all animals. Perhaps the minister will tell us he is confining this measure to animals killed for food because these are the only ones which can be given effective protection. But certainly the principle is the same, and we cannot say it is a crime to slaughter animals intended for food in a particular way but that it is not a crime to slaughter other animals in the same way.
Along the coast of Newfoundland we have the seal hunt, and a great deal of concern has been expressed about the methods employed in the killing of seals. These methods have been handed down for generations; they have been born out of practice and perhaps it would not be easy to change them without upsetting the industry. These animals are not


taken for food but I think the same principle should apply to them as applies to other animals. I cannot see any logical reason in why a cow, for example, must be slaughtered humanely and why a seal need not be. In addition, of course, there are animals which are slaughtered in laboratories and in colleges for the purpose of research. Animals are also slaughtered in civic institutions which pick up stray cats and dogs and put them to death. Should we not be interested in their fate, too? Why should we confine our interests only to animals we are going to eat, such as cows, pigs and sheep.
To my mind, the principle is important. If we are going to adopt it, and if we really believe in it, let us not limit its application but try to extend it as far as humanly possible. No doubt all these matters will receive due consideration when the whole question goes before the committee.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, our group is most interested in the motion which is now before the house. I may also say I followed with close attention the closing remarks of the previous speaker because I have for a long time been interested in the entire field of legislation concerning the killing not only of animals but of birds; not only in the destruction of seals but also in the trapping of animals to provide furs for beautiful women and of birds to provide feathers for the use of beautiful women. It is a very broad and interesting subject.
However, this afternoon I wish to confine my remarks to the specific subject matter before us in resolution No. 11. We in this group support the motion. Having heard the remarks made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), I am able to say that fully and emphatically. We did have a few doubts on the basis of the wording of the motion itself. However, we remembered the interest taken by the minister in this subject of recent years. We remember Bill No. 241 introduced in December of 1957 and also Bill C-32 introduced in June of 1958 and the very definite statements made by the minister that specific action would be taken this session after interested organizations and individuals had had an opportunity to study the bill and its wider context. But we were a little disturbed when we saw in the motion provision merely for the reference of the subject matter to the committee on agriculture. We wondered just what was going on. However, now that we have the assurance of the minister that two draft bills will be placed before the committee on agriculture, we feel a great deal more content. As a matter of fact, we now look forward with a great deal of confidence

to something being done this session, in view of the minister's statement that as far as he is concerned it is the intention to have a bill introduced before the recess if he is able to get the report back in time.
As the previous speaker has pointed out, this is undoubtedly a matter on which there has been some controversy, though not on the question of principle involved. Certainly there could not be any controversy with regard to the principle of the humane slaughter of animals. I noted the remarks made by the minister when he began his statement commending certain organizations for the interest they had taken in this matter.
I should like to add one group to this list -one which I believe he left out inadvertently. I refer to the employees in the packing industry. These are the people who have to do the actual slaughtering and year after year, at conventions of the united packing house workers union, they have asked for legislation which would make humane slaughter of animals compulsory. When one looks at the subject from the point of view of these workers one can really understand the necessity for enacting such legislation. It is true that in this past year some of the packing houses have been making changes but formerly, at any rate, any hon. members who have gone through packing houses would have found animals being killed with sledge hammers. If the hammer hits right, the animal is stunned and that is it. But when you have a restive animal, or an animal with an unusually thick skull, if the hammer just does not hit right the animal does not lose consciousness and one must consider not only the terrible pain suffered by the animal but also the harmful reaction on the human being who has to wield the sledge hammer and who has to go back on the floor to try to knock the animal unconscious. After the sledge hammer, they use what is known as a shackling chain or a logging chain by means of which the animal is hoisted up. Sometimes the chain slips or breaks and the animal falls down from a considerable height on to the floor. It is understandable why the employees are so insistent and unanimous for the need of some changes being brought about.
I know the interest which the Minister of Justice has taken in this matter and I am not suggesting that there has been any stalling, but may I say that I never understand why this country, which maintains that it is so progressive, should be so many years behind the United Kingdom, Denmark and the Scandinavian countries which have been using methods of humane slaughter for many years.
10, 1959
Humane Slaughter of Livestock
As to referring this question to a committee for further study, I do admit to some doubt as to whether a committee would be in better position to decide which are the best methods of humane slaughter than, for example, the Department of Justice or the Department of Agriculture or the other organizations which are concerned, on the basis of the studies which have been carried out. I am not going to go into that. If the government feels a doubt but knows something has to be done concerning the problem what better procedure could be followed than to refer it to a committee of members of parliament from all parties? That is a basically good principle.
From my own reading and because of my personal interest in this matter I have learned that there are not less than three practical methods for the slaughter of animals. I shall not take up the time of the house in discussing these because this will be a question for the committee. However, I submit that if it is not already the intention, the Minister of Justice or the Department of Agriculture should prepare a factual, scientific presentation concerning the methods of humane slaughtering. As I said, there are three methods. There is what is known as the captive bolt pistol and concussion stunner, the carbon dioxide method and the one mentioned by the minister, the electrical stunner method.
I would like the assurance of the minister that a scientific brief on each of these methods will be immediately prepared for use by the committee setting out any objections that may exist to any of these methods. I have never heard any objections to the first or second methods I mentioned but I understand there is some slight objection to the electrical stunner method because unless the bleeding knife is used very quickly there can be a certain degree of blood coagulation which is not good with respect to certain types of meat when it goes on the retail counter. However, these are matters that undoubtedly will be considered.
At this time I should like to ask an indirect question which I know the minister will answer later. I am interested in knowing what is the interpretation of the words, "the humane slaughter of food animals." I take it that this would include poultry. Millions of fowl are killed for food in Canada each year. There are three methods in current use for the killing of fowl. You may wring their necks, cut off their heads or use an instrument that has many names but which I have frequently heard referred to as an ice pick knife. The latter is reputed to be the most humane method of their slaughter.

Humane Slaughter of Livestock
I understand that in Europe and in many parts of the United States a sure-fire method of the humane killing of fowl is used. I refer to the electric knife. I am wondering whether the humane slaughter of poultry will be included in the terms of reference of this question? We in this group feel it should be included.
There was one matter on which the minister did not enlarge. Perhaps I can understand why because it is highly controversial and delicate matter for discussion. However, it is not a question we can avoid. I was hoping to hear more from the minister concerning ritual slaughter. I appreciate that it presents a problem but it is a question we cannot ignore. This is a matter upon which there must be a clear understanding.
I personally do not wish to see action taken that would hurt the beliefs of any religious group with respect to their ritual but at the same time I cannot conceive of a religious group, no matter what it is, objecting to some form of humane slaughter. I know that last year this raised a problem in the mind of the minister. I do not have the record here but if I recall correctly the minister explained last year that the question of ritual slaughter represented one reason why the matter will be delayed for further study. I sincerely hope that in the interval an answer has been found that will not interfere with the religious beliefs of any group with respect to dietary practice and that will ensure the humane slaughter of animals.
I believe I have dealt with the main points we in this group have in mind. I am in accord with the approach the minister has taken with respect to priority being given to consideration of the Meat and Canned Foods Act. It is my hope that he will have a bill to introduce at this session. We appreciate the clear exposition given to us concerning what the minister has in mind with respect to the procedure to be followed concerning the bills. We in this group are heartily in accord with this procedure and support the motion now before us.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two comments that have been made by speakers in support of the motion which I think should be answered now in order that the answers may be on the record before the committee in so far as the intention of the government is concerned. Of course, the committee is the master of its own procedure but to the extent that it may be of assistance in terms of guidance to the

committee it may be useful to have this information on the record.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) referred to the difficulty-the sort of moral problem-we have here in enacting legislation in parliament and then perhaps being tempted to sit back and say, "we have now put the legislation on the statute books and so we have done everything that is necessary." As he said, we so often leave it to the provincial authorities to enforce these laws. That indeed was one of the weaknesses of the Criminal Code approach and it is one of the reasons why we felt that a more sound approach-once some other problems had been solved-would be by regulation under the Meat and Canned Foods Act because if it is done by regulation under that act then the enforcement will be a dominion responsibility and the same authority that has passed the legislation will have the moral responsibility of enforcing it thereafter.
The hon. member also mentioned the problem-the moral problem again, if you like,- of passing legislation to deal with one category of animals, namely food animals, and leaving out some others. He referred specifically to the question of municipal pounds and the municipal authorities who round up stray animals and have them destroyed. The only answer I can give to that question is that we can only take action and deal with those things over which we have jurisdiction and control. Where particular municipal authorities provide by bylaw for the destruction of stray or injured animals, I would think that it was no great problem at all for the municipal voters concerned to ensure that the municipal authorities will also see to it that slaughter is done by humane methods.
The same general remarks might be made with respect to one aspect of the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). I can assure the hon. member for Vancouver East that it is our intention to make our officials, both in my department and in the Department of Agriculture, available to give the fullest evidence, help and advice, if asked for, to the committee both with regard to the legal problems and the implications of those problems and with regard to scientific and technical aspects of humane killing devices. The Department of Agriculture particularly has one or two, if not more, that I know personally, very highly qualified experts who have done a great deal of research in this field, whose evidence would I think be very valuable to that committee.
The hon. gentleman also asked whether the use of words "food animals" in the terms of reference was sufficiently inclusive to permit

of the committee inquiring into the humane killing of poultry. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker,
I prefer the words "humane killing" to the words "humane slaughter" because it seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. I think the words "humane killing", while not altogether void of some contradictory aspects, are more logical and fitting to use.
In the draft bill we first introduced under the Criminal Code it is true that poultry were not defined as food animals, the reason being at that time we were informed that there has been no agreement that a device has yet been developed which was capable of application to the poultry killing industry all across Canada. I understand now-this is confirmed by what the hon. gentleman himself has said-there have been improvements made in the methods of killing poultry and, certainly in so far as the terms of reference are concerned, it would be my view that the term "food animals" is wide enough to include poultry. I can see no reason for suggesting that there should be any limitation if the committee wants to look into that. Again, the committee is master of its own procedure. If it wishes to discuss poultry under these terms of reference there would be no reason why it should not.
Lastly, with respect to the matter of ritual slaughter, I recognize fully it is a problem on which I think the committee will want to receive evidence. The problem there is not so much in the slaughter itself, the actual killing of the animal, as it is in the steps which must be taken in preparing the animal for the stroke of the knife. I am informed that, properly carried out, this method of killing the animal is as humane as any method yet devised. The stroke of the knife produces instant unconsciousness, but the problem in large packing plants is to find a method of controlling the animal so that it can be held steady for that scientific stroke of the knife. Frankly, under the Criminal Code approach we found that we either had to make a blanket exception of ritual slaughter, in which case we were told the inference drawn by those concerned was that we were branding their method of slaughter as cruel, -they said, "It is not cruel at all"-or else go into such detail in the proposed enactment that it would not have been criminal law at all; it would have been the purest and simplest regulation and a regulation which, as I said before, was not sound criminal law. It was one of the main reasons why we felt we should go back and have another look at the other approach. Under the other approach it was suggested that we could make detailed regulations which are valid, sound and enforceable as to steps
10, 1959	1795
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act that must be complied with in the preparation of animals for slaughter in accordance with religious ritual which you cannot do under the Criminal Code. Therefore, from that point of view alone it seemed to us that the new approach was much the soundest way to deal with the problem.
The committee will certainly have evidence on that subject before it as well as on all others which will enable it to make up its mind as to what is the best form of legislation to report back to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to provide in the proposed measure to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, Bill C-30, now before the house, that a guaranteed loan may be made to a person who, at one time, had an interest in a fishing vessel but no longer has such an interest or to a person who desires to acquire an interest in a fishing vessel for the first time.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


Mr. Howard:: Is the minister going to
make a statement?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,
the members of the committee will recall that when the resolution preceding Bill C-30 was before the committee of the whole for discussion on February 24, the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg put forward a suggestion, which was concurred in and supported by several other hon. members, that the scope of the lending provisions of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act should be enlarged so that a guaranteed loan might be made to a person who at one time had an interest in a fishing vessel but no longer has such an interest, or to a person who desires to acquire an interest in a fishing vessel for the first time. Such persons are not now included within the lending provisions of the act, and the present resolution is designed to permit the amendment of Bill C-30 to enlarge the provisions of the act in the manner proposed by those hon. members on February 24.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will you call it five
o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


The Deputy Chairman:: It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.
Progress reported.

Financial Administration Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills pursuant to standing order 15(3). There being no business under private bills, the house will now take up public bills.



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-9, an act respecting the printing of negotiable instruments in the English and the French languages.
Mr. Pigeon:: Stand.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order it seems to me that the hon. member has asked twice that this bill stand. The question is before the house and many members of the opposition groups are interested in this matter and would like it dealt with in a very short time by having a vote taken on it.


Howard Charles Green: This is not a point of order at all. The hon. member has a perfect right to stand his bill just as the other hon. members have stood theirs. No point of order whatever has been raised by the hon. member.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the former hon. member for Beauce has let his bill stand, as did some other Liberal and C.C.F. members. I am therefore entitled to do so today, if I am not ready.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: On the point of order, I may say that the hon. member who moves a bill, subject to objection being taken by the government, has the right to pass his turn under standing order 19 (1) which says:
Questions put by members and notices of motions, not taken up when called may (upon the request of the government) be allowed to stand and retain their precedence; otherwise they will disappear from the order paper. They may. however, be renewed.
(2) Orders not proceeded with when called, upon the like request, may be allowed to stand retaining their precedence; otherwise they shall be dropped and be placed on the order paper for the next sitting after those of the same class at a similar stage.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Frank Howard: the second reading of Bill C-16, to amend the Canada Elections Act (absentee voting).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, as indicated on the order paper, is to
[The Deputy Chairman.]
so amend our elections act as to allow for a system of voting called absentee voting. Perhaps I should explain that there is confusion sometimes in the minds of some people as between a system of absentee voting and the system of advance polls. The advance polls are special polling days, the Thursday, Friday and Saturday of the week preceding election day, upon which only certain selected classes of people may vote. The absentee system of voting is such as to allow an elector, on the normal election day, to vote at a polling station other than the one in which he is registered. It is an attempt to ensure, to the broadest possible extent, that the right of citizens to vote and the opportunity of citizens to vote at elections are guaranteed.
This bill, while it certainly may not be complete in all details, is as complete as it possibly can be, having in mind our present act. It was patterned after the system of absentee balloting now in effect in the provinces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan. In addition to that, it was drafted in consultation with the very capable law officers of the crown. Not only do we have this system of allowing people to vote if they are absent from their home town on election day in British Columbia and Saskatchewan, but there is something akin to it in the province of Ontario. However, in Ontario the provision is confined to one group of people, namely mariners. This is a system of proxy voting whereby a mariner who is absent may authorize a relative to cast a vote for him.
This bill envisages two types of ballot: one, the ordinary ballot to which we have all been accustomed with the names of the candidates printed thereon, and the other a special ballot paper which would be used by people who were absent from the constituency within which they are registered. This would be a blank ballot in order that the name of the candidate for whom the person wishes to vote may be printed in the blank space or blank spaces if there are multi-member constituencies involved.
There has been a considerable amount of discussion in past years about this, and in every session objections have been raised to the effect that it would be almost impossible to institute such a system as would extend from British Columbia to Newfoundland. The objection concerns the time involved when a person registered in British Columbia happened to be in Newfoundland on election day, and that ballot cast in Newfoundland has to be returned to British Columbia. In an attempt to overcome that difficulty this time the absentee voting is to be confined to the province within which a person is registered or to an adjacent province. In this way, three provinces

could be covered by the absentee balloting provision. An attempt is made also to lengthen the period of time between nomination day and election day. At the moment the act provides for a nomination day 28 days before the election day for ridings in the northern part of Canada in which the people are scattered far and wide. This applies to the riding I represent. The majority of constituencies in Canada have their nomination day 14 days before election day. This bill seeks to make the 28-day period between nomination day and election day universally applicable.
The purpose of this provision is to allow a sufficient length of time to prepare the ballots and get them out to all parts of Canada, that is the special and ordinary ballots. It would also allow the chief electoral officer to compile a list of candidates running in each constituency in the adjoining provinces so that each deputy returning officer, on election day, would have a list of the candidates running in each electoral district from which the absentee voter would be able to vote.
There are many hundreds of people in Canada who are now denied the opportunity to vote on election day because there is no such absentee balloting system in effect. They are denied this opportunity through no fault of their own. These people find it necessary, for business or other reasons, to be away from their home town or away from their home province on election day. I can think of a number of categories of people who find themselves in this situation. I would refer particularly to loggers who, because of the weather or because of their natural desire to get home, may find themselves either working or at some logging camp that is not in the same constituency as the one in which they were registered when the election was called. Fishermen are in somewhat the same position.
Many fishermen are not now able to fall within the provisions provided for them on advance poll voting, especially when they are some distance from the mainland and when they are away from their home town and when they operate out of camps and so on such as we do on the west coast. The advance poll system is not of too much benefit to them. The absentee system of balloting would afford them an opportunity to cast their ballot in the way that many others of us have the right to do. Our construction workers likewise move from one project to another, often times working for the same company. For some reason or another they are transferred to a different construction project and find themselves unable to cast their ballots. This absentee system would afford them that opportunity. Transport employees are in somewhat the 66968-9-114
Canada Elections Act
same category as are fishermen. Provision is there for advance poll voting but many of them do not find themselves at home within the three days which are allowed for advance poll voting.
Lawyers are another group of people who would be affected. On the day after the election in June, while I would not say I was accosted, I was speaking on the street with a good friend of mine who is a lawyer. I may say that I have a friend who is a lawyer. He was upset because he had been denied the right to vote because he had been away from his home town on a case. He was obliged to go to a sitting of the county court on election day. He had to go to some city, at any rate-I think it was of the county court-and he could not cast his ballot. Under this system he would be able to do so. Then travelling salesmen might be mentioned.
The list could be almost as long as your arm of people who, because of the category of work they have, because of demands on their time, because of the necessity of moving or travelling, find that they are not able to ballot. Candidates are in somewhat the same position, although there is some provision for them. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), for instance, in his crosscountry tour at election time could easily find himself away from his home constituency. I do not know whether that is Prince Albert or Ottawa. Whatever it is, however, he could very easily find himself away from it and not be able to cast his ballot for the candidate of his choice, whoever that might happen to be. The other cabinet ministers could certainly find themselves in the same position.
In recent years there has been some talk about cutting down the period of time for campaign purposes by reducing the number of days between the calling of the election or the issuance of the writ of election and election day itself. Those who believe that this is necessary, or believe that it should be done, believe that with the improvements in the mediums of communication and such we do not need a two month or three month period for election campaigns. They are also of the opinion that in order to cut down the time of holding elections we should have a system of permanent registration of voters. We have that system in some provinces. While a permanent voters' list is not provided for in this particular bill, nevertheless I think it is an integral part of establishing a system of absentee balloting, although it is not absolutely necessary. But if we are going to curtail the period of time for election purposes, we may find the result

Canada Elections Act
to be as has happened in the province of British Columbia where we did curtail that time. We found that the period for registration of voters is also curtailed and that people's opportunity of even getting on the voters' list is lessened much more than it is at the present time.
I am not particularly married to every word that is in this bill of which I have now moved second reading. I am concerned about the principle of ensuring to the greatest possible degree that people have the opportunity to exercise their right to ballot. As I have said, many hundreds are now denied that right for one reason or another, through no fault of their own. The speech from the throne indicated that the elections act would be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections. I for one wish that the government would hurry up and do it before this session is over so that we could start consideration of it. But, as I said earlier on another bill, if any hon. member would like to make a motion that this bill be not read a second time but that it be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections in order that they may deal with the subject matter only of the absentee ballot and report thereon to the house, I should be more than happy to accept that procedure. Does the hon. member wish to ask a question?


Mr. McGee:: Yes; I have a question. I was wondering what effect this bill would have, if it is passed, on balloting and the final result of any given election?


Frank Howard: I do not think it would have a great effect upon the over-all results of the election itself, unless the results of the election were close as, for instance, if we elected 125 of one party and 126 of another. On election night, with absentee balloting that could change one or two seats, we would not know the over-all results. Within the province of British Columbia we are able to know within three weeks or 21 days between election day and the final counting of the ballots.
The procedural problem is this. When a person casts an absentee ballot, he is given a ballot. He marks it and he puts it in an envelope. This is what is in effect in the province of British Columbia where we have a permanent system of registering voters. The voter signs a card when he registers. When he votes he signs his name on the front of an envelope. That envelope with the ballot in it is put in the ballot box. On election night it is opened and that particular one is then mailed to the returning officer of the constituency where the person voted and this period of time is allowed for all of these

ballots to get from each returning officer to every other returning officer. The returning officer then checks the signature on the envelope against the signature on the card. If they are the same, and it is the same voter, he opens the envelope, takes the ballot out and puts it in the ballot box. There is no violation of the secrecy of the vote, none whatever, unless only one absentee ballot was cast or unless all the voters voted for the same candidate, in which case it would not matter anyway. That happens in some instance where there is a 100 per cent ballot for one party or candidate or another.
But the time lag, as I mentioned, in one province may be longer than that, as the bill proposes, if we are to consider adjacent provinces. For instance the provinces adjacent to Quebec would be Ontario and New Brunswick. May be New Brunswick and Ontario would have a longer period of time. But with postal facilities as they are, I do not think it would be much longer than that time lag. Certainly the results would be known on election night unless the voting was fairly close so that a few votes one way or the other could alter the results. But so far as knowing the results of the election itself is concerned, we would know them on election night.
I think I have fairly well summed up the thoughts I have on the matter, Mr. Speaker. As I said earlier and as I should like to reiterate, the details of the bill are ones that I have envisaged. They are taken from our British Columbia legislation and were adapted to fit our present federal act. Has the hon. member another question?


Frank Charles McGee: I was wondering what percentages are involved. From the practical and actual experience in British Columbia, what percentage of the total vote take advantage of this opportunity?


Frank Howard: I have not the results here with me but I can give you an idea. I cannot give you the figures province-wide because I do not think they averaged out the full number of voters in the province, but I can give you an idea in constituencies. For instance, in Skeena, the provincial riding of the same name, use of this was made by 4.7 per cent of the voters voting by absentee ballot. In another riding, that of Atlin, which is to the far north, the occupancies of many people living there take them away from their homes at election time, which is normally in June, and it is up to as high as 12 or 14 per cent. However, I may be mistaken in those figures. In an urban riding it may be relatively small, depending on the occupancies of the people. I am not concerned with every little detail set

out in the bill. What I am concerned with is giving every opportunity to people to use their absentee ballot on election day. I am sure the committee will review the elections act, and I hope it will take this matter into consideration. I think it would be extremely courteous of this house if we were to say to that committee that we would like them specifically to study this particular matter if the house does not desire to give the bill second reading.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, this is an involved bill and one which has as its main objective something which every member of this house will, I think, be in favour of, namely to make it possible for the voter to exercise his franchise. I know in the previous session I myself had items on the order paper dealing with advance polls, and I believe that there will be bills coming up on advance polls all with the same idea, namely to make it possible for the voter to cast his ballot for the candidate of his choice.
There are, however, in the particular bill presented to us now certain aspects of operation which should be considered. I know that the hon. member will say that they can be considered in committee; but since this is the first time that this particular bill has come before the house, I think certain consideration should be given to these various phases. For instance, in Hansard of July 4, 1956, Mr. Barnett, the former member for Comox-Alberni, when the estimates of the Secretary of State were being considered, and in particular the office of the chief electoral officer, pointed out the difficulties which the fishermen in his riding were having in that an election poll during the summer months pretty well disenfranchised them. The same is true, as the hon. member pointed out, of construction workers, lumber workers, and so on. Mr. Barnett, in speaking of this, said, as reported on page 5667 of Hansard:
Actually the only feasible way I have been able to think of for dealing with it would be by the introduction into our election act of the absentee vote. I realize there may be a great many practical difficulties in the way of the introduction of the absentee vote into our federal elections act, particularly if it were to have application across the whole country. However, I do feel it could be written into the act in a form that would apply at least within the boundaries of a given province.
Of course, Mr. Barnett was referring to the fact that in the province of British Columbia we already have such a system in use in regard to provincial elections, as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has pointed out. However, I was interested in going back to the committee on privileges and elections for the year 1955 when the chief electoral 66968-9-1141
Canada Elections Act
officer appeared before that committee and where the very point that the hon. member has brought up was raised by various members of that committee. I do not want to quote at extreme length, but there is a statement by the chief electoral officer which bears on this particular bill. The statement starts at the bottom of page 53 of the minutes, where the chief electoral officer is attempting to tell the committee how such a system as is proposed in this bill would work. He says:
I cannot answer those questions.
They were questions by members of the committee in regard to the absentee vote.
I am not advocating that this system be adopted. I am merely explaining the mechanics it would take to provide extra facilities for electors to vote who are absent from their polling divisions in Canada or outside Canada. I am trying to explain the change which would be involved if such facilities are to be provided.
Some members of this committee have been candidates at the election with permanent lists in 1935. I think you will recall that that one experience turned out to be a failure. They had also provided absentee voting in 1935, and that experience also turned out to be a failure. At the same time this system is working out satisfactorily in other countries and I now wish to explain to the committee the mechanics involved. Taking the vote of people who are not only absent outside Canada-
The committee were there discussing people outside Canada, and that is not relevant. He goes on to say:
A permanent list requires a biennial, triennial or quadrennial revision.
That is where they have these permanent lists. These revisions are a house to house canvass. To a permanent list you attach these facilities. The first is by a postal envelope very similar to the envelope supplied to members of the Canadian forces. For people absent from their home polling division within Canada, they are supplied with a ba ot and an envelope and they write in on a ballot paper the name of the candidate for whom they wish to vote in their constituency, and that ballot is placed in the envelope and put in the ballot box.
Then the chief electoral officer went on to explain the varied safeguards which are necessary in the casting of an absentee ballot, and I am sure the hon. member for Skeena would not like to see any letting down of our guard as far as safeguards in regard to the casting of ballots is concerned. A system such as absentee balloting could lend itself to abuse if these safeguards were not present.
I believe it is not within the rules of the house that I should quote at extreme length, but the electoral officer goes on to explain the various safeguards which are necessary if a system of absentee balloting is to be used.


Frank Howard: May I ask the hon. member a question?

Canada Elections Act


Ernest James Broome: Yes.


Frank Howard: I wonder if the hon. member would agree that in our legislation in British Columbia sufficient safeguards are there to prevent abuse? I mean, as much as is possible to do so.


Ernest James Broome: I have not had the privilege, as the hon. member has had, of running in provincial elections, so I only have a nodding acquaintance with those regulations and I am afraid I am not competent to say whether there are sufficient safeguards. If the hon. member for Skeena says that there are, then I am quite willing to accept his statement.


Frank Howard: The member is very gracious.


Ernest James Broome: Further on in the discussions of this committee, the former member for Vancouver-Burrard, Mr. MacDougall, made the statement on page 55 of the minutes that every day in the city of Vancouver for 365 days of the year there are more than 475 changes of address. He went on to point out that this would, of course, apply in a greater degree to the cities of Montreal and Toronto, and also to Winnipeg. That seems a strange statement for someone coming from Vancouver to make, because the problems of Winnipeg would, of course, be much smaller.
This system of permanent lists means a permanent register and a permanent staff. If the list is taken on a biennial basis it means it is closed as of, say, February 1. Then if an election is held on July 1, all changes between February 1 and July 1 have not been entered on the permanent list. This presents a problem, and I am not sure how it would be overcome. Hon. members know that mailing out to constituencies even now represents a major problem, and so far as I can read in the record of the committee I find no place where either the officials or the members point out how that difficulty can be overcome. As hon. members know, under our present elections act, enumeration begins 48 days before polling day and carries on for about six days. Later, the lists are published and provision is made for revision in urban ridings. In rural ridings there are no courts of revision, and anyone can vote by making an affidavit and being vouched for by another voter from the district where the person desiring to vote claims to reside. All these are checks and safeguards which have been mentioned by the chief electoral officer and which constitute perhaps the prime responsibility borne by that officer, namely to see that the election is honestly carried out. I have felt that what worried this official most throughout his evidence was

that he could not be assured as to how well these safeguards would work under a system of absentee voting.
The hon. member for Skeena has limited the problem to some degree by making his proposal applicable only to provinces adjacent to provinces where the person concerned happens to reside, but this in itself seems to be begging the question. I think that if absentee voting is the right thing to have, and if it can be carried out it should be carried out on a national basis, providing it is worth while, as it is carried out in the United Kingdom or in other nations of the commonwealth. The fact that it adds to the complexity of the situation means only that it adds to that complexity by adding to the numbers and by adding to the time which must elapse before a definite result can be brought in.
There is an old political story which may have some application here, I will not say which party it concerns. Driving through a certain province, the leader of a certain party had one of his lieutenants for that province stop his car to visit the grave of a friend who was a member of the opposite party. He turned to his lieutenant and said: this man was one of my best friends but unfortunately he did not vote the right way. And his friend said: well, he has been dead for 16 years and he has been voting for me all those 16 years. That is an old political story, but it does illustrate that we cannot be too careful in regard to the safeguards applied to ensure against fraud, and I should think that the complications added by this system of absentee voting would immeasurably complicate the task which our chief electoral officer and his returning officers have to undertake.
The suggestion that this matter should be sent to a committee for study is, I feel, unnecessary because the elections act will no doubt be discussed as a matter of course, and there will be the same type of examination as was carried out in 1955 when amendments were made to the act on the advice of the officials who are charged with the responsibility for carrying on elections. For this reason I believe that anything we say here will most likely be repeated during the hearings of the committee. All I can do is emphasize the fact that according to everything I have been able to find out in regard to absentee voting, it hinges on a permanent list. The bill might just as well have included a provision for setting up a permanent voters list, because this is the only basis upon which a scheme of absentee voting can be carried out. The setting up of such a permanent list involves further

complications; I have only referred to some of these complications in the remarks I have made.
I know this system has worked in other countries and that it has worked in at least two provinces. At least I am taking the hon. member's word that it has worked well for him as a candidate in British Columbia, and I presume, therefore, that it has worked as well for other candidates. But with regard to the constituencies of Skeena and Atlin I must say that these are vast ridings and, as the hon. member pointed out, because of the nature of the activities of the people who work in those ridings it is normal for a large proportion of the population to be unable to attend the poll on the day of an election. But this would not be true of urban ridings to anything like the same extent.


Frank Howard: Do you know what the statistics are in regard to urban ridings?


Ernest James Broome: No. I am speaking on the basis of my own knowledge of urban ridings. Does the hon. member for Skeena have that information?


Frank Howard: I do not have it with me. Moreover, if I were to speak now I would be closing the debate, and I do not think that would be fair to other hon. members.


Ernest James Broome: I think the absentees in the ridings of Skeena and Atlin are high; I do not think they would be so high in urban ridings. Perhaps we should consider some system of broadening the scope of advance polls. I believe it is pertinent to mention advance polls while we are speaking on the subject, because the whole intent of this bill is to make it possible for all Canadians to exercise the franchise. I agree that the advance poll system is not as effective a mechanism as it might be, but it does offset some of the injustices which have been experienced. I am quite prepared to admit-and I have stated this before in this chamber-that the advance poll set-up needs to be reorganized. At present it is too limited in scope, and perhaps it is not in effect long enough before voting day.
Mr. Speaker, I feel I may summarize my position in these words. The question of allowing people to exercise their franchise is a matter of concern to all hon. members and it may be tackled in many different ways. This bill represents one way. From what I have been able to determine it lends itself to many complications. I believe every hon. member of the house should give each clause of the bill most intense study.
(Translation):


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to point out to the house
Canada Elections Act
that the hon. member for Skeena took twenty-five minutes to explain the contents of his bill, which proves that the bill is so complicated that we could not consider it all today. I understand the bill provides for certain amendments to the Canada Elections Act. In fact, I even wonder whether it is being introduced for the purpose of amending the act, or simply with a view to some political advantage. Besides, Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that such bills should come- (Text):


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Georges-J. Valade: I should think the hon. gentleman would let me continue my remarks before interrupting but I invite him to go ahead.


Frank Howard: It may be that the words that came over the translation system have given me an incorrect impression, but I take it that my hon. friend suggests that I should not have taken 25 minutes to introduce this bill. Am I to conclude that he feels I should have curtailed my remarks to one or two minutes in attempting to cover all the points that I felt were of interest to the house?


Georges-J. Valade: I did not mean that, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):
I was simply saying that, in view of the number of bills introduced by the C.C.F. party, in connection with the Canada Elections Act, that is Bill C-10, introduced by the C.C.F. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher); Bill C-ll introduced by the C.C.F. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters); Bill C-13 introduced by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard); Bill C-15, introduced by the member for Skeena; Bill C-16, introduced by the member for Skeena, and Bill C-17, introduced by the member for Skeena (all those bills provide for amendments to the Canada Elections Act, I wonder whether it is not an amendment race with regard to the Canada Elections Act, or whether our friends are sincere in introducing bills to amend an act which is as important as the Canada Elections Act. But, I will say, Mr. Speaker- (Text):


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is questioning my sincerity in introducing various bills. I request quite earnestly that he withdraw that statement.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I do not question the sincerity of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I am questioning the sincerity of the group he represents.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-

Canada Elections Act


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have only 15 minutes at my disposal and the hon. gentleman took 25 minutes to make his statement.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, my point of order will meet at least one of the objectives of my hon. friend. He will get to six o'clock quicker than he normally would if I speak again at this time. I have introduced certain bills which appear on the order paper in my name. The hon. gentleman who is now speaking has cast a reflection upon my sincerity with respect to those bills and I suggest he withdraw his remarks as far as I am personally concerned.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member continues I cannot be accused of killing his bill because he will have killed it himself.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Just so that we may clarify the matter may I say that I am under the impression the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) withdrew his reflection on the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) personally and is reflecting only on the bills the C.C.F. group has introduced.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, may I make it quite clear that I was not referring specifically to the hon. member for Skeena as a person. I will now return to the question and continue my remarks in French because I know my hon. friend enjoys the translation system.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I gather from the argument put forward by the hon. member for Skeena that this would allow people who are away at summer camps or taking summer holidays to remain at their cottage or their fishing camp as, under the act suggested by our friends to the left, they could cast their vote in a neighbouring community rather than have to go back to their own riding.
It is the duty of every citizen to go out and vote on election day. I realize that, in a democratic country, a number of people sometimes happen to be "disfranchised", either by circumstance or by illness, travel or professional obligations.
In a democratic country we cannot-and I stress this point so that friends to the left will understand-we cannot force people to go out and vote. We have laws laying down certain conditions with regard to elections, and people have the moral obligation to avail themselves of this opportunity and to exercise their franchise.
In my view this amendment reveals the socializing tendency of the C.C.F. party which would compel people to vote. Fortunately, the Lord is kind to us, Mr. Speaker,

and this great leftist group, which is very small in number, will not be able to impose its socializing laws during this or even several other parliaments-as the Conservative government will be in power for a good many years to come.
Mr. Speaker, the bill introduced by the hon. member for Skeena provides for a 28-day extension of the period between nomination of candidates and polling day. I cannot see how this could remedy election day absenteeism.
Extending that period of time will not correct absenteeism. In my view, that part of the bill is probably intended only to serve electoral purposes, and on this point I again emphasize that I am not personally accusing the hon. member for Skeena of being somewhat foolish in his ideas.
The proposal to extend by 14 days the period between nomination day and voting day, as a means of eliminating absenteeism is, I think, a nest of contradictions.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I feel that if we extended that period by 14 days, serious difficulties would result. Possibly the extension of the period might be useful, perhaps necessary, to the candidates in some ridings. Well, such a provision already exists today because schedule 4 of the Canada Elections Act provides for a period of 28 days from the closing day for nominations to the date of the vote in certain electoral districts.
Mr. Speaker, I note that the hon. member is leaving the house.
Schedule 4 of the elections act lists 21 electoral districts where 28 days must elapse between the last day for nominations and voting day. However, Mr. Speaker, such a situation would raise serious difficulties in urban ridings. It is well known that the holding of elections in an urban constituency is a very expensive proposition; candidates are up against tremendous publicity costs. There is also the matter of the meetings to be held which is a most important factor. We should really study this bill carefully before accepting the amendments proposed by our friends to the left. There are very few of them, both in the house and outside, and I understand that in view of their small number, they benefit more than others from this free time provided by the C.B.C. to political parties during an election.
For instance we saw, in the last general election, the obvious fact that no C.C.F. candidate, or practically no candidate, wanted to hold public meetings. They simply nominated candidates in order to get free time on Canadian television, thus spreading through their new organizer, Mr. Michel Chartrand-

(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I
must remind the hon. member that we are not discussing television time; we are discussing absentee voting, a bill to amend the Canada Elections Act. The hon. member will have to keep his remarks relevant to the principle of this bill.


Harold Edward Winch: How can he? He does not
know what it is all about.


Georges-J. Valade: I believe I was keeping within the spirit of this bill. According to the explanatory note, the purpose of the bill is to entitle an elector to vote on polling day by casting his vote in a polling station other than his own. I think it is relevant to discuss what might occur between nomination day and the polling day and I think I am discussing the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker. The members of the C.C.F. party wish to extend to themselves the benefit of television programs and I was just referring to the province of Quebec.
(Translation):
Not having campaigned in the province of Quebec, C.C.F.ers used television for their propaganda; that is a practice to which I object. I believe that policy tends to give the small group they represent free time on C.B.C. television, and they use this time for demagogic talk while the public foots the bill.
Mr. Speaker, a serious study of the clauses of this bill reveals that the adoption of subclause 46 A would create a dangerous precedent. It reads:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this act-
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I
must once again remind the hon. member that he cannot discuss the bill clause by clause. He must discuss only the principle of the bill. I am sure he understands.


Harold Edward Winch: Are you not being optimistic?


Georges-J. Valade: I shall take your advice, Mr. Speaker. The bill has 13 clauses. I was referring specifically to clause 4, subclause 46A of the old act. I was not dealing with all the clauses but just one particular clause of the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: We must
discuss the principle of the bill, which is the question of absentee voting. We must not discuss either one clause or two clauses.
Canada Elections Act
It does not make any difference; clauses must not be discussed at all. All the clauses must be discussed at once as the principle of the bill.


Georges-J. Valade: If the hon. member had
taken five minutes less time I could have had five minutes more. I will leave that and come back to the principle of the bill.


Harold Edward Winch: You have not even started
on it yet.


Georges-J. Valade: There is a principle in this
bill, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Canada Elections Act. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I notice there are three bills on the order paper to amend the Canada Elections Act.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks in French and I will stick to the principle of the bill. We notice that the true object of the bill is not to avoid election day absenteeism but rather to extend by 28 days the interval between nomination day and election day. In order to discuss this point, Mr. Speaker, I must-
(Text):


Frank Howard: You are incorrect.


Georges-J. Valade: I beg your pardon?


Harold Edward Winch: He said, you are incorrect.


Georges-J. Valade: I would like the hon. member to tell me where I am incorrect.


Harold Edward Winch: That will take the rest of the week.


Georges-J. Valade: The hon. member says it would take a whole week. Why did he present it at such a late hour?


Harold Edward Winch: There is a misunderstanding. What I meant was, to explain it to you.
(Translation):


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, in order to deal with the principle of the bill, I am forced to interpret subclause 46 B of clause 4 of Bill C-16, as introduced by the hon. member for Skeena. It is said in that clause:
-an elector whose name is on the list- (Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I am sorry but if the hon. member is not going to take advice from the Chair I will have to ask him to take his seat. The hon. member for Halifax.


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising at a very opportune time. I have not made up my mind as to how I shall vote cn this bill.

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act


Mr. Habel:: You have until six o'clock.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I do not intend to go further into the remarks of the hon. gentleman but there is one thought that does come to my mind-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. The hour for private bills having expired, the house will now revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Fleming (Eglinton)-Mr. Rea in the chair:
That it is expedient to provide in the proposed measure to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, Bill C-30, now before the house, that a guaranteed loan may be made to a person who, at one time, had an interest in a fishing vessel but no longer has such an interest or to a person who desires to acquire an interest in a fishing vessel for the first time.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
John Whitney Pickersgill: There are one or two points I should like to mention before the resolution carries, Mr. Chairman. In the first place, I notice that the resolution states that provision will be made in the bill that a guaranteed loan may be made to a person who at one time had an interest in a fishing vessel but no longer has such an interest, or to a person who desires to acquire an interest in a fishing vessel for the first time. It will not surprise the minister if I ask him whether he has considered whether this would bar any person in Canada who may have owned a fishing vessel at any time. Does he think that there may conceivably be a conflict between this proposed legislation and the Senate and House of Commons Act?
Having asked that question, I would now go on to something about which I expect a more serious answer from the minister. As the minister is well aware, we did have a very brief debate on the original resolution regarding this bill. I regret to say I was unable to be present at that time and so was not able to say a word or two on the proposed measure. I hope the minister will bear with me if I make a few remarks that are not strictly relevant because there are some points upon which I would like him to answer at the committee stage of the bill. What I should really like to be quite sure about is

that the bill will make provision for loans to fishermen who, because of the difficulties that were experienced in certain parts of the Atlantic coast and notably in Newfoundland last year, find themselves in very straightened circumstances and who, because of the bad weather, lost part of their gear. I should like to know if the minister feels the act covers that sort of situation.
In order to illustrate my point may I cite a letter which I received just the other day from one of my constituents in Bonavista. Perhaps I could make my point more quickly by reading this letter than in any other way. The letter reads:
Dear Mr. Pickersgill:
I am writing you a note to ask if you could give me any information concerning the fishermen's losses last summer. Is there going to be any assistance for us? I lost my cod trap and all its belongings except my leader-
That does not mean "leader" in the political sense, but that is a part of the fishing gear.
-and I am not in any position to replace it. With the loss of my trap and the very bad summer you can imagine, sir, why I am asking for assistance. I wrote Captain Strickland-
That is the provincial member.
-to ask the Department of Fisheries to help me with a gift or a small loan. I am man enough to pay it back yearly if they could arrange it for me so that I could get another cod trap to fish with. It is not much good for me to write the fisheries loan board for help because I don't want an engine or a boat. I would like to get a loan to use to my own satisfaction so as to cut out credit. Charges are too high on the fishermen. Now, Mr. Pickersgill, you should remember me because I drove out to our fishing place Mifflins cove with you and Mr. Max Little last spring and it is no easy place to work, either.
He is certainly right about that.
Now, sir, do you think you could spare time to drop me a line or two telling me how I can get some help.
This is not an isolated case. Not only was there a very poor fishery, but there was a lot of very bad weather and a great many fishermen lost their gear last year. If they are not able to get some credit in some way there are a great many of these people who are just not going to have the gear necessary to earn their livelihood. If the minister feels that this would be adequately covered by the bill-I am not sure myself whether or not it would-I would appeal to him to make a special appeal to the Bank of Nova Scotia which, after all, is the principal bank so far as the outports of Newfoundland are concerned, to ask them to take special note of this situation.
I am not suggesting for a minute that the minister should urge the bank to make bad

loans. There are many of these fishermen who in a normal year would be well able to pay back the loans. They are well known as reputable people. It would be of enormous help in a very, very difficult situation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, it is a little difficult to say on the facts as stated by the hon. gentleman whether the case will fall within the terms of the act. My hon. friend is aware of the terms of loans provided by the act. These, of course, are not government loans, but they are government-guaranteed bank loans.
The purpose of the amendment which is now before the house is to enlarge the lending provisions of the act to include persons who had an interest in a fishing vessel but no longer have such an interest and persons who desire to acquire an interest in a fishing vessel for the first time. Now, as to the position of the Bank of Nova Scotia, it would not be a proper thing for the Minister of Finance to intervene in individual cases. I cannot take them to the bank but I, of course, will be pleased to draw the remarks of my hon. friend to the attention of the management of the Bank of Nova Scotia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may say this one more word. The minister will recall that before he or I were in parliament the farmers in the western provinces, and particularly in Saskatchewan, experienced a severe drought. In many cases these farmers did not have enough seed grain, they did not harvest enough grain to have seed for the following year, so federal assistance was provided. The situation here is quite analogous. I do not mean to say you need seed for the fish, taut you do need gear to catch them. It is a very similar situation in many ways.


Frank Howard: I have one or two comments to make, Mr. Chairman. The indicated purpose of the measure is to aid people who intend to acquire a boat or acquire an interest in a boat. I have in mind the case of a person who, on his own, started to build a boat or fishing vessel and was able to get only part way through, say completing the hull, and then required financial assistance. As I understand it, under the act as it is now, this hull is not considered to be a vessel, so the person who finds himself in this difficulty is not able to get a loan to complete the vessel. I am wondering whether this proposal would apply in such a case.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I doubt if it would because section 2 (h) of the act defines a fishing vessel as follows:
-"fishing vessel" means any ship or boat or any other description of a vessel for use In a primary fishing enterprise, that has an engine for its propulsion, and includes the equipment affixed thereto 66968-9-115
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act for use in the operation thereof but does not include prescribed electronic equipment;


Frank Howard: This proposal, then, would not alter those circumstances?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, this resolution does not propose to make any alteration in the definition of a fishing vessel.


Frank Howard: If I may, sir, I submit that I feel it should. If a change is to be made to apply to a person who intends to own a vessel or intends to acquire one or, as I believe is the wording of the act, to acquire a prescribed interest in a fishing vessel, then it should be extended to apply to a person who on his own initiative starts to build a boat, is able to proceed only so far in the construction of it and wants to proceed further. I think probably additional amendments to other sections of the act should be considered in order to cover that individual case also. Perhaps that may be something that the minister could take into consideration and we can deal with it at a later stage. At least I would hope so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Several suggestions have been made with respect to amendments to this bill, all of them, I think I may say, designed to enlarge the scope of the bill. When the previous resolution was before the committee I said that these would be taken under study and they will be taken under study. The one that is before the committee now is one that readily commended itself and had some general support in the discussion, and it seemed to us to lend itself to early decision. That is the reason why the house is being asked to permit the amendment of the bill, in the course of its passage, to permit this enlargement in the provisions.


Frank Howard: I submit that the suggestion I have made is merely an extension of this selfsame principle. Here is a person who starts to build a boat. It is his intention to acquire a prescribed interest in the vessel. For one reason or another financially he is not able to complete it on his own. He then, in my opinion, should quite propertly be considered in the same light as the minister has considered the person who would be affected by this present legislation. That person should be able to go to the bank and be in the same position as anyone else would be if he fell within the scope of the provisions of the act. I think the principle is precisely the same. The individual fisherman may be just in different circumstances. One starts on his own to build a boat, or a fishing vessel as it is called, and the other does not start to build it himself but attempts to acquire it. It seems to me

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act that those two individuals should he placed on precisely the same footing so far as they are under this act.
There are a number of other matters concerning the present application of the act which are rather involved because they take into account the relationship between the native Indian as defined in the Indian Act who lives on a reserve and the banks which would make loans under this particular legislation. On the west coast, especially in the northern part from which I come, there are a great number of native Indian people and a great number of villages or reserves right on the coast line or right on the water. A great number of these native Indian people engage in fishing as their means of livelihood. Their sole means of income is through fishing. I know that this is the attitude of the bank which makes the loan to the individual and probably the bank looks at things differently than we normally would. There is a reluctance and in some instances there is a complete refusal in connection with granting loans to native Indian people who want to build their own fishing vessels and to go out and fish and to be on substantially the same footing as a nonIndian. Many of these native Indian people in years past have been able to get some sort of credit from the fishing companies, have been renting boats from fishing companies, renting their gear from them, getting credit from fishing companies for food and other provisions and at the end of the year find themselves still indebted to the fishing company for one reason or another.
A number of them that I know, particularly the Haida Indians or the Tsimshian, for some years have been engaged in fishing. Many of them want to get out of the clutches of the fishing company and want to get out and build, own and operate their own fishing vessel. They find it extremely difficult to do so under the act, as it is at the present time because of the reluctance of the banks to make loans to fishermen who are Indians. They say they have no right of recourse against the individual because he is an Indian and because he lives on a reserve. That is another matter which I think should be considered carefully by the department. I wonder whether the minister would indicate his feelings on this matter.
It would be my suggestion that inasmuch as there are a number of other thoughts about changes in the act and inasmuch as it does not apply equitably as between one person and another person because of the way in which they go about acquiring a boat or because of the colour of their skin or because of the way in which they live and so on, that these matters could very easily be dealt with in the


standing committee on marine and fisheries. While it is a matter of finance and comes under the minister's jurisdiction, nevertheless it also pertains to fishing. The committee on marine and fisheries, as a result of action taken in the house this afternoon, will be considering the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. I think we would be well advised to refer to the committee on marine and fisheries the bill that will arise out of this resolution. If the minister wants to select a banking and commerce committee because it deals with banking, that does not matter too much. However, I think the bill should go to some standing committee of the house in order that a fairly free and informal discussion may take place and that individual representations may be made to the committee with respect to additional changes in the proposed legislation. I should like to hear some comment from the minister about that particular matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: These suggestions that the hon. gentleman has made as well as the others that were made on the other resolution will, of course, be taken under study. Of course, these are matters that must be discussed with the banks because they are the primary lending institutions.
As to the second suggestion made by the hon. gentleman, namely that this bill should be referred to a standing committee, I regret that I cannot accept it. The hon. gentleman may be overlooking the fact which was very much in the minds of the committee when the previous resolution was before it, namely that the provisions of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act have in fact expired. They expired last December. This legislation is urgently necessary now in order to continue the legislation at all. At the present time the loans that are being made under the act by the chartered banks, credit unions or caisses populaires are being made simply on the strength of a request which I made of them, accompanied by an undertaking given to them to bring this measure before the house and to ask the house to make it retroactive to December 11, 1958.


Frank Howard: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I should like to pursue just a little bit further the question of the application of this legislation to native Indian people. I understood the minister to say that while certainly the loans under this legislation were at the instance of the bank itself or it was a matter for their determination as to whether they wanted to lend or not under the act, these matters would be brought to their attention. Is that what I understood the minister to say?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said that these suggestions-I refer to the suggestions made

by the hon. member as well as the other suggestions made on the previous resolution- would be brought under study. I pointed out that the lending that is contemplated by the act is lending by the banks. Therefore, before any change in the terms of the legislation is considered, it would be necessary to ascertain whether the banks are interested in lending at all under such terms.


Frank Howard: I would point out one thing, Mr. Chairman. If it is considered advisable by the department or by the minister to look in a favourable light on the application of this act to native Indian people I would point out to him one thing in his discussions with the banks and in discussions along this line. They say the banks do not have any recourse to enable them to get the boat back if he buys one, because the Indian lives on a reserve, and so on. May I point out that the fishing vessel itself is not on the reserve but for most of the time lies in the water. Often those Indians living on the coast have no other means of livelihood than fishing. If the banks would appreciate the fact that they would have a right of seizure of the vessel, which is the guarantee they require before granting a loan, then these Indians could be provided with the loans they need. If the banks wished to repossess the boat at any time they are able to do so as long as a vessel remains in the water. Even if the vessel is taken up on skids up on the beach, in most cases it is still not on the reserve because it is below the high water mark.
I hope the minister will make these thoughts known to the banks so that they will treat these native Indians with a little more consideration than they have in the past.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I make one point.
I quite appreciate what the minister said about the desirability of putting this legislation through quickly pursuant to the undertaking which he gave to the banks. For that reason, and for that reason only, I would not join with the hon. member for Skeena in pressing the suggestion that this particular bill go to a committee. But I do hope the government will consider the plea made by the hon. member for Skeena, in which I warmly join, that the whole problem of credit for fishermen be considered in exactly the same generous manner as the government in the speech from the throne promised to extend credit to the farmers. At an earlier stage some of us pointed out there was nothing for the fishermen analogous to the farm loan board. If the government is going to do something at this session, as it indicated in the speech from the throne, about farm credit, those of us who represent fishing ridings 66968-9-1154
10. 1959
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act suggest that equally effective provision should be made for credit for the fishermen.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I want to add my voice to the pleas made by the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Like the hon. members who have just spoken, I am a little disappointed to learn that this legislation is not going to be useful as it first appeared when it was referred to in the house. Hon. members will remember that when the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg made this suggestion in debate on an earlier bill and the Minister of Finance told the house he would take it into consideration, we had great hopes that this bill would mean what it said. I had understood it was to help the person who desired to acquire an interest in a fishing vessel. If it is only going to apply to fishing vessels which are already built, or interests which are for sale, then it is not going to be of any help in my province.
What we are trying to do in Newfoundland at the present time is this. We are trying to reduce the cost of production of fish by utilizing more modern boats. These boats have to be built. Our fishermen are well able to build them themselves, and I had hoped that under this legislation they would be able to acquire a small loan which would enable them to purchase the materials required to build a vessel and equip it, thus enabling them to put to productive use their own skill and ability. We need long liners which can go offshore, say 20 to 30 miles, and come in every day. That would mean a boat costing about $10,000, equipped with a diesel engine of 60 horsepower to 70 horsepower, and a suitable amount of fishing gear. If three men could get together and get a loan under this legislation, they could very well build that boat themselves under conditions which would enable them to repay the loan without too much difficulty. At the present time the provincial legislation does not cover that particular type of boat because the provincial legislation requires specifications which are difficult to meet and which run the cost of the vessel required up to about double what the fishermen can afford to pay. If this legislation is going to be restricted by the definition of the term "fishing vessel" then the usefulness of this legislation is going to be very limited, particularly in the province of Newfoundland.
Of course, as the other hon. members have pointed out, unless the banks are prepared to make loans and take these vessels as security then this legislation is of no use at all. The success of this legislation depends first and last upon the willingness of banks to make loans. Unless they do that we might

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act just as well not pass it at all. But assuming the banks will take a favourable attitude in regard to this problem, then I think we should go as far as possible to help the fishermen make the fullest use of it.


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to enter this part of the debate, because I had a few questions to ask at the committee stage when the bill is introduced. But in view of the reply given by the hon. minister a few minutes ago to the hon. member for Skeena, when the hon. member mentioned that when a fisherman starts to build a boat of his own and does not have the financial facilities to complete it he might not qualify under the act. I would note that the resolution which is before us now to study states that guaranteed loans may be made to a person who at one time had an interest in a fishing vessel but no longer has such interest. The second part states that a loan may be made to a person who desires to acquire an interest in a fishing vessel for the first time.
I think that latter part deals with the question raised by the hon. member for Skeena. When this person applies for a loan, he certainly intends to acquire a prescribed interest in a fishing vessel or in the fishing gear. We have not seen the amendment as yet, but under the terms of the amendment I am wondering if this person who desires to acquire an interest in a fishing vessel for the first time would not qualify for a loan. There may be a clause which states that a fisherman may have to place or install an engine in a fishing boat which he is building, or intends to build, and in that case I feel he would qualify under the act, especially after this amendment is introduced. I would like the hon. minister to clarify this point.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I do not know how I can clarify this any further. I have already dealt with the point in reply to the question of the hon. member for Skeena. I referred to the definition of "fishing vessel" under the act. The purpose of the amendment is to enlarge the category of persons who may qualify for a loan to include the person who desires to acquire an interest in a fishing vessel for the first time. A fishing vessel is described by the act in terms which seem to me to apply to a vessel in being, because if my hon. friend will look at section 2 (h) of the act, he will see:
(h) "fishing vessel" means any ship or boat or any other description of a vessel for use in a primary fishing enterprise, that has an engine for its propulsion, and includes the equipment affixed thereto for use in the operation thereof but does not include prescribed electronic equipment;
[Mr. Carter.!

I think it is quite clear from the language of that definition that it has reference to a ship in being, not merely to part of a ship or a hull.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, in this case it would give preference to fishermen who make application for a loan to buy a secondhand boat, and to the fisherman who wanted to acquire a new boat with an engine. After all, most fishermen now have engines in their fishing boats, and if a fisherman applies for a loan to buy a new boat with an engine, according to the minister he would not qualify because his boat is not an existing fishing vessel. This does not seem to be logical because it would limit a fisherman to the purchase of a secondhand or existing boat. I feel that fishermen should be given the opportunity to buy new fishing boats with new engines. I think this was what the hon. member for Skeena had in mind, and I believe it applies to practically every community. I do not see the use of broadening the application of the act if it is to be interpreted in the way suggested by the minister. If we are to broaden the application of the act I think it should apply to fishermen who desire to purchase new vessels.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the vessel is in being, there is no trouble about it. The hon. member speaks of the new boat. Of course, if the new boat is in existence it comes fairly within the definition. What the question originally raised presented as its problem was a hull or an incomplete structure. It seems to me that the definition in the act connotes a completed vessel.


Chesley William Carter: I should like to be clear on this point. Let us assume, for example, that the fisherman already owns his own engine and that he wants to acquire a new boat which is under construction. Let us suppose, as the hon. member for Skeena has suggested, that he builds this boat himself and that he already has invested $200 or so in the construction of the vessel and requires a loan to complete it. When the boat is completed it will have a propulsion unit as required by the act. It is my understanding that such a fisherman would qualify for a loan under the act, but I should like to have some assurance on this point.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are coming back to the same point. There is a definition of a fishing vessel in the act. I cannot change that. It is one that has been in the act from the outset, for the last three years. The purpose of the resolution is to permit the enlargement of the lending provisions to include a person who intends to acquire

an interest in a fishing vessel, that is, a fishing vessel as defined in the act.


Chesley William Carter: Before we carry this resolution, is it a fact that the vessel must be in existence? Is it the case that it cannot be a vessel which is under construction but that it must be a vessel which is already in existence and completed? Is that the only kind of ship for which this loan can be made?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think we are going over the same ground again and again. The definition is there, and it seems to me it is quite clear. It does not connote a portion of a ship. It connotes a fishing vessel and it seems to me the definition is clear in requiring that it should be a completed vessel. There is nothing, of course, to prevent a bank providing for assistance while a vessel is under construction or from lending money on a portion of a vessel, but the type of loan contemplated by the act under legislation which has now been in existence for three years is in respect of a vessel according to the terms of section (h), which obviously means a vessel in being.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister right about that? I have been looking at the act while this discussion has been going on and I see that section 2(h) merely provides a definition. The operational section would appear to be section 3, and section 3, subsection l(a)(i) defines two of the purposes for which loans may be made. These purposes are the purchase or construction of a fishing vessel. I may be wrong, but I am trying to assist the minister. I appreciate that the only person who can get a loan under the existing legislation for the purpose of purchasing or constructing a vessel is someone who already has an interest in a vessel and that what the minister is trying to do is to extend that to cover a person who, like myself, may at one time have had a vessel but who no longer has one, or a person who, like the minister, has never had one.
Anyway, there are three types of persons to be considered: a person who now has an interest in a fishing vessel; a person who formerly had an interest in a fishing vessel; and a person who never had such an interest. It would seem to me that if the minister's statement about enlarging the scope of this measure means anything it means that the present act is restricted to a person who already has a vessel but that in future it will apply to people who have no such interest, granting the same power or right to borrow as to someone who does at the moment have any such interest.
10, 1959
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act Such a person could borrow for any purpose set out under section 3 of the act, one of which is the purchase or construction of a fishing vessel. I do not know whether or not I am right in all this, but it does seerr. to me a sensible construction.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I am right, I think the committee is satisfied.


Chesley William Carter: If that is the case it is not what the minister told the hon. member for Skeena. I think the hon. member for Skeena asked whether a fisherman could get a loan if he wanted to build a vessel and was prepared to build one, and I understood the minister to say he could not. I am interested in utilizing this legislation in order to construct a vessel-


Donald Methuen Fleming: This resolution does not contemplate any change in the provisions of the act in regard to the terms of lending in any respect except to enlarge the class of borrowers who come within the terms of the act to include a person who intends to acquire a vessel in the future. The resolution does not take anything away from any provision of the act as it is at present. It does not reduce in any way the scope and terms of the lending powers.


Chesley William Carter: The hon. member for Bon-avista-Twillingate has pointed out that the original legislation permitted loans for construction.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, this does not take anything away.


Chesley William Carter: That is what we were worried about.


Frank Howard: I thought I had it clear once, but now I am not sure. After the assistance which was given to the Minister of Finance by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, is the minister still of the opinion that a person who starts on his own to build a vessel and who does not complete it would be unable to get a loan in order to finish the job?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It would depend on the terms. The hon. member says: can a fisherman get a loan on a hull? I do not think he could. But if it is a matter of the construction of a vessel as defined by the act, that is a different matter. The hull is not a complete ship. It is simply an in-* complete ship. I think there is a difference.
I thought the hon. member was asking me about getting a loan on a hull. A loan on a hull as such does not appear to me to come

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act within the provisions of the act. However, if it is a matter of the construction of a fishing vessel as defined by the act under section 2(h) I think it does come within the terms of the measure.


Frank Howard: A while ago the minister made reference to section 2(h) which defines what a fishing vessel is. He said this cannot be changed. I wonder why?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I said I cannot change it as one minister or one person. The legislation is not going to be changed by this resolution in any but one particular. My hon. friend is asking me about enlarging the terms of the loans under the act. I have no power in that respect whatsoever. But the purpose of this resolution, and its only purpose, is to enlarge the class of qualified borrower to include a person who although he has not acquired an interest in a vessel now intends to acquire one.


Frank Howard: One of the advantages of being a lawyer at some stage of your career, Mr. Chairman, is that you are able to interpret and apply things the way you would like them to be. Certainly as a minister of the crown the Minister of Finance has as much authority with respect to changing the definition of a fishing vessel as he has to changing the application of loans to include a fisherman who intends to acquire a fishing vessel. That is all I ask. Will the minister undertake to give that question some study and if he were to introduce legislation in the house I am sure he will not find any disagreement about it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, as I have already indicated to the hon. gentleman, his suggestion this evening and the other suggestions that were made on the previous resolution are going to be taken under study. I cannot do more than that. I cannot give an indication of what course of action may be taken in future with reference to legislation but all these suggestions will be taken under study.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, in view of another item on the legislative menu for this evening and the hope of future favours, perhaps I could assist the minister a little more in this respect. I refer, of course, to the resolution concerning parliamentary secretaries. It seems to me that if you had a hull as the minister has said and went to the bank 'and asked for a loan and were considered by the bank to be a good borrower, you would not have to start de novo to construct the vessel. You could surely start with the hull and get a loan to complete the vessel. It


surely does not mean you have to start with nothing. It seems to me that clears up the hon. member's difficulty.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend has stated the point, Mr. Chairman. You can obtain a loan if you are going to construct a complete vessel.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not imagine that any bank would lend money just to build a hull. I do not think anyone was suggesting that.
Resolution reported and concurred in and referred to committee of the whole on Bill C-30, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.



MEASURE TO PROVIDE POR EXTENSION OF LEGISLATION

Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill C-30, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.


Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to support the bill. I should like to associate myself with the remarks previously made by the hon. members for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Tucker), St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) and Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). My only criticism of the bill is that the scope is not great enough. I am thinking particularly of those fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador who through the failure of the fishery last year find themselves in a position wherein they will not be able to be outfitted for the fishery this coming season. The situation was severe enough due to the failure of the fishery but in at least certain parts of the province it has been aggravated by heavy seas and storms which have caused great damage on the coast of southern Labrador and in parts of northern Newfoundland.
This season the fishermen will be doubly handicapped. They will have no money to outfit themselves with normal equipment because of the poor fishery last year and in addition according to reports which as yet are far from complete it is indicated that much fishing gear and equipment has been destroyed on the southern coast of Labrador.
I invite the assistance of hon. members in seeking relief for these fishermen who through no fault of their own will find themselves unable to prepare themselves for the fishery this coming season. I particularly ask the insistence of the hon. member for St. John's East and the Minister without Portfolio from Newfoundland (Mr. Browne). I would point out that the season for outfitting for the fishery is not very far away.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, together with the resolution adopted this day in respect thereto, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Time within which liability may arise.
Donald Methuen Fleming: On clause 1, Mr. Chairman, this will afford me an opportunity to introduce the amendment contemplated in the resolution that has just been approved.
I shall move that Bill C-30 be amended in accordance with the terms of the resolution.
I have distributed copies to interested hon. gentlemen opposite. I believe the purport of the amendment is quite clear. It embodies in the first section of the bill as proposed to be amended the enlarged definition that the house has just approved in committee and then proceeds to re-number the clauses of the bill and to provide for the extension of the provisions of the act until June 30, 1962.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have some remarks to make but if the minister would like to have his amendment adopted first I could make my comments after the amendment has been adopted.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words before the amendment is adopted. I realize that the amendment just introduced by the minister would certainly broaden the scope of the act by extending the terms to bona fide fishermen which were included in the original act passed in 1955 but the amendment now introduced I am sure will not meet all the suggestions which were made on both sides of the chamber on February 24 when the bill was introduced at the resolution stage.
Judging from the impression which was left not only with hon. members in this chamber but also with the general public I feel that the amendment may not go far enough. I hold in my hand a clipping from the Charlottetown Guardian, dated February 26. I will not read the whole article. It might be too long, but it reads in part as follows:
Guarantees, it was suggested, should extend to loans for purchases of fishing gear that cannot now be insured.
Finance Minister Fleming promised "sympathetic consideration" of the suggestions.
I know the minister did mention this on that occasion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is my hon. friend reading a newspaper report of the debate in this house on February 24?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think my hon. friend should read from the Hansard record
10. 1959
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act of the debate, not some newspaper report of what happened in the house. I indicated I would certainly give consideration and study to a number of suggestions made. This particular one had some general approval and, for the reasons I indicated, has been incorporated with the approval of the house in the measure. But the other proposals- and there were a number of them-will have to receive study but we cannot deal with them at this stage.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am glad to have the minister clarify the impression at this time because I think the impression was left that the other suggestions would also be favourably considered. I understand the minister's position, because it would be difficult for him or for the government to include in this act certain items for certain fishing gear which may not come under the fishermen's indemnity fund. I also realize that a bank would not be interested in making a loan on types of fishing gear which cannot be insured under the fishermen's indemnity fund. I know that in this instance the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg and the hon. member for St. John's East were just as much interested as we were on this side of the house. We who represent fishing communities would like to have these loans extended. For example, we would like to see them extended to include sardine weirs and herring nets and other types of fishing gear. I understand the minister's position. These amendments are not being introduced tonight, and the others which were mentioned a few minutes ago, because these types of gear may not come under the fishermen's indemnity fund. But I would appreciate it if the minister would give further consideration to suggestions which were made when the bill was introduced in its resolution stage on February 24, because at a future date it might be possible to extend the application of the fishermen's indemnity fund so that these items could be covered under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. This is the suggestion which I make -at this time.
I also wish to express our appreciation of the amendments which are now being introduced by the minister. They will widen to some extent the scope of the application of the act but they will certainly not meet the requirements of the fishermen in the Atlantic provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I say a word on clause 1 before the clause as amended passes? I am saying this in a general sense, in the way in which the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra used to deal with clause 1 of bills when he was on this side of the

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act house, a precedent which I know will appeal to the minister. I should like to be as much assured as the minister can assure me that section 3, subsection 1(a)(2), which defines one type ol object of a loan means what I interpret it to mean. It reads: "The purchase or construction of fishing equipment." I would like to be as much assured as the minister is able to assure me from his knowledge of the regulations under the act which he administers that this would include cod traps or parts thereof.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not in a
position to give a snap answer to such a question. It would mean a matter of interpretation of the regulations. I should be glad to look into that and communicate that view to my hon. friend.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the minister would undertake to do his utmost within the limits of the power given to him by parliament to interpret that in the most liberal sense possible, and I use the word with a small "1".


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Before clause 1 is carried, can the minister answer the questions which I raised when the matter was discussed before? Before he answers those questions which I placed before him at that time I should like to mention a statement which he made on February 24, as reported at page 1353 of Hansard of that day. The minister said:
While the volume of lending has not been large it appears, in the experience of those charged with its administration, that in large degree contractors for the prime product have been financing the fishermen's operations.
This is true. He continued:
However, the current trend appears to be for fishermen to become more independent of the buyer and the opinion of those who are charged with the administration of the act is that greater use is likely to be made of the provisions of the act.
If we look at the table placed on Hansard on that occasion we find that for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1958 there were 136 loans under this act for a total of $149,960.43, and for the period April I, 1958 to October 31, 1958, there were 77 loans for a total of $87,891.51. This is for a period of only seven months but if we take the average we find that for the four-year operation-the act operated for only part of the year 1955-56; the first portion of the four years of operation consisted of only seven months and there were only 77 loans in that time-there was a decrease in the number of loans and also a decrease in the total amount as compared with the previous years. This really shows that the fishermen are not making


great use of this act. I again suggest that one of the reasons why the fishermen are not taking full advantage of this act is that the banks and the credit unions are reluctant to lend under this act. They are more reluctant to lend to fishermen than they are to lend to farmers under similar legislation.
I know the minister may not be in a position to do it at this time, but I would ask him to give further consideration to increasing the guarantee clause on the 20-15 basis rather than on the 15-10 basis as the act now states.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 1
carry?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Has the minister replied to the few questions I asked on February 24 in connection with the number of loans made to credit unions?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman, 1 have that information for the hon. gentleman. Several questions were asked on that occasion for which I would now be happy to supply the answers. The hon. gentleman asked at page 1347 of Hansard, how many pamphlets had been mailed and also how many had been issued in the French language. The answer is that there have been 7,637 pamphlets in English and 2,169 pamphlets in French distributed by the administration. These have been mailed to 110 separate addresses including head offices of chartered banks, individual branch banks in all provinces and to credit unions in British Columbia and the five most easterly provinces. At the time these pamphlets became available for distribution the head offices of the chartered banks and the credit unions designated as lenders were notified and were requested to submit their requirements to the department and distribution was made following receipt of requests.
The next question I was asked by the hon. gentleman related to the numbers and amounts of loans made by credit unions since the inception of lending under the act. The answer is that up to December 31, 1958, 54 loans totalling $110,180 have been made by credit unions. All of these were granted in the province of British Columbia.
The next question was by the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi who asked how many applications for loans had been refused. I stated at that time that the information was not available, and I am in a position to confirm that that is the fact. The applications are made to various lenders and not to the department.
Then I was asked a further question by the hon. member for Gloucester as to the distribution of the material. I think I have sufficiently covered that point. The only

other point about which I was asked was raised by the hon. member for Northumber-land-Miramichi and that is at page 1350 of Hansard. He raised a point about the maximum term of the loans. Some are presently restricted to a three-year term and he thought they might be extended to five or six years. I am informed that the loans in this particular category were restricted to a three-year term because of the rapid rate of depreciation of the subject matter involved. This, of course, is a matter of the views of the banks in regard to lending operations.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I thank the minister for giving us this information which is, I know, very valuable to those of us who come from the Atlantic provinces. I am surprised, although I mentioned it on February 24, that the credit unions have not taken advantage of this act. I am unable to find the real explanation for this attitude because we all know that credit unions are in existence in the maritime fishing communities. They are making loans on their own to fishermen and I think that a further step should be taken by the department to ascertain why the credit unions and the caisses populaires are not taking advantage of this act.
I mentioned before that they are in an even better position than the banks to take care of this type of loan because in many of the fishing communities, I would say in most fishing communities, the chartered banks have no branches. The only facilities in existence are those of the credit unions. I repeat that I am rather surprised to learn that in the Atlantic provinces where the credit unions and caisses populaires are so popular, they are not taking advantage of these facilities.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: By leave.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the third reading of the bill.


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


Gordon Minto Churchill: the second reading of Bill No. C-33, to amend the Public Servants Inventions Act.
10, 1959
Public Servants Inventions Act


Jean-Thomas Richard: Has the minister got an explanation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I might make a short explanation. This amendment is brought forward for the reasons that are given in the explanatory notes that accompany the bill. In 1954 the Public Servants Inventions Act was brought before the house and was proclaimed in 1955. At that time provision was not made for the proceeds that would come as a result of the inventions which were patented to go other than to the consolidated revenue fund. The practice has grown up over the last three years for the corporation which operates under this measure to hold these moneys and pay out the awards. The Auditor General drew attention to that, and this amendment will make regular a practice which has been followed during the last three years.
The explanatory note says that the proceeds of any patent or invention coming under the act would ordinarily go to the consolidated revenue fund. The purpose of the amendment is to permit the corporation to which the administration and control of a patent or an invention has been transferred to retain the money arising therefrom, and to require that the money be used for the purpose of this act and the purposes for which the corporation was established.
The remainder of the amendment simply makes it retroactive so that the amendment will apply to all assignments that have already been made as well as assignments that may be made in the future. This is the whole purpose of the bill which is now before the house. We are not introducing any practice that has not been followed, but are simply adding a clause to section 9 of the Public Servants Inventions Act so that the whole procedure will be in accordance with the statute.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I am any more in favour of the Public Servants Inventions Act now than I was in 1954. I do not think that at this time I can make a speech on that subject. However, the minister has just said that the purpose of the amendment is to vest the moneys received from any invention by a public servant into a corporate agency instead of the consolidated revenue fund. This, of course, is quite true and as it should be in certain cases.
I am not at all clear, however, as to how this is done because in some cases it is true that there may be some receipts from an invention by a public servant which should be vested into a corporate agency to which they have been assigned. However, there are

Public Servants Inventions Act some cases where an invention might be assigned to a private agency. Certainly, in that case I am wondering what that corporate agency would be. I feel, therefore, that I should reserve to the committee stage my attempt to ascertain what the situation may be as contemplated by the minister. I might also restate my stand and my reasons for being against the Public Servants Inventions Act.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I want to express the support of this group for this small measure. I must say that once again we are delighted to see the government giving effect to a couple of C.C.F. principles in this minor legislation. The first one, of course, to which effect is being given is in acknowledging the value of the principle of decentralization in the administration; and the second one is in desiring to promote, apparently by this amendment, departmental initiative and the initiative of the personnel of the departments in question. In his brief statement the minister mentioned that this small amendment makes it possible for the department or the government corporation in question or agency, I presume, to retain moneys, even to the advantage of the government corporation in question. We think that is a good principle because it is, in a limited way, giving effect to the principle which I have just mentioned previously. I noted that the minister said that it was now actually giving legal effect to something which had been accepted in practice for some time. I presume it is giving legal effect to the common sense of the people who were concerned with administration as a result of experience. We support this measure wholeheartedly.


[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-Administration of moneys.
Gordon Minto Churchill: I understand the interest of the hon. member for Ottawa East in this bill. I have read with interest the remarks he made in 1954 when the bill was first before the house. I was just going to suggest to him that if he has any technical questions he would like to ask, the president of Canadian Patents and Development Limited, Mr. E. R. Birchard, is in the gallery and could come down here to assist me. Are there any technical matters which the hon. member wishes to discuss in connection with this legislation?


Jean-Thomas Richard: Mr. Chairman, I think it is only a question of information that I should like to get at the present time from the minister. I do not think the questions will be technical. For example, in order to

satisfy myself I should like to know the number of patents for inventions which were granted to civil servants who signified their intention to the deputy ministers. Then I should like to know how many patents were granted. Would the minister require assistance? Perhaps he would.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have some of this information here. The hon. member asked about the ones that had been submitted to the deputy minister. I am not sure that that information is before me. As to the inventions that have been submitted to Canadian Patents and Development Limited since June 1954, I can give him that information, as to the total.


Mr. Richard (Otiawa East):: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, but that is much different from the scope of the act. Just in order to make things a litle bit clear, may I say this. This act states that any public servant who invents anything-for instance, a new pencil-cannot obtain a patent unless he first submits his invention to the deputy minister who, at his leisure, can decide whether or not he will accept the invention. I am greatly interested in finding out how many such inventions were submitted to the deputy ministers and what was done about them. I think this is the first opportunity I have had to do so. That is the first question. Maybe the minister will require some information from someone else.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps if I call Doctor Birchard down here he can supply us with some of that information. I do not see it in the documents that are in front of me here. I have lists of the types and the ones that originated or came from the national research council and those that came from other government departments but that does not give quite the answer that the hon. member is after.


Jean-Thomas Richard: No. I have never been very much worried about patents of the research council, atomic energy or some of those corporations. But the scope of the act is so wide that a public servant who invents anything, because of the fact that he is a civil servant, cannot obtain a patent anywhere unless he first submits it to the deputy minister who may be active or who may be lazy, and in the meantime he will lose his right to the patent because the superior employee does nothing about it. The patent laws, not so much in this country but in other countries, are very stringent. If the deputy minister should decide that he has not time to look at this invention, and it is a public servant who has invented this pencil, I will call it-and I am not interested in pencils-and he belongs to, let us say, the

Department of Trade and Commerce, he cannot apply in the United States because a year has passed, or for some other reason in some other country. I am just anxious to find out the situation. I can understand this section being limited to inventions of corporate agencies of the crown.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The difficulty that arises here is that the corporation handles only the inventions that are submitted to it. In order to get the information for which my hon. friend is asking each department would have to be queried. This corporation has not that information.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I quite understand the point of my hon. friend. My only point is this. What corporation is he talking about?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am talking about Canadian Patents and Development Limited.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Where do they come into the act? Just in order to help the minister out may I ask this question. Have we a new corporation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Section 9 of "An act respecting inventions by public servants" reads as follows:
9.(1) The administration and control of any invention vested in Her Majesty by this act and any patent issued with respect thereto are vested in the appropriate minister, and the appropriate minister may transfer such administration and control to any other minister or to any corporate agency of Her Majesty.
The practice is that these are referred to this corporate agency which we have been discussing, Canadian Patents and Developments Limited.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Mr. Chairman, I can quite understand the hon. minister's attitude and what he has said, but surely he is not making a broad statement that all inventions submitted by public servants are referred only to this corporation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not think I said that, Mr. Chairman; I did not say they were all referred. As I read the act, the appropriate minister may transfer such administration and control.


Joseph-Adolphe Richard: I only want to help the hon. minister. It may be sent to the research council, it may be sent to the atomic energy board, it may be sent to a number of places, and it may be kept with the minister who has received the invention. That is why I say that there seems to be no reason for this section, because there is no one corporate body, nor any corporate bodies as such, who receive all the inventions of public servants. I think my
10, 1959
Public Servants Inventions Act hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who sympathizes with the rights of ordinary people, will appreciate that in this case the section makes no sense at all, because there is no such thing as a corporate agency existing which will do this job, which is that it "shall be used for the purposes of this act and the objects and purposes for which the agency was established". Now, what is that agency?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member, who made clear to the House of Commons in 1954 when he was discussing the act that he has considerable knowledge of patent procedure, is rather beside the point here tonight, when all we are discussing is an amendment to a bill which will make regular a practice which has grown up over the past three years. The subject matter which he is introducing now goes beyond the amendment which is before the house. He is suggesting that the bill itself is inadequate for the purpose for which it was set out. I do not see that his remarks, important and interesting as they are, really refer to the amendment which we are considering.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Mr. Chairman, I would not mind helping the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I think this is a bad section, and that is very clear to a lawyer so eminent as himself, because the section says:
Where pursuant to this section the administration and control of any invention or patent has been transferred to a corporate agency of Her Majesty, any money received by the corporate agency in the course of the administration and control of the invention or patent may be retained by that corporate agency, and shall be used for the purposes of this act and the objects and purposes for which the agency was established.
All I want to know, first of all, is what are those corporate agencies; second, how many patents or inventions were transferred to this agency; and third, how many patents were obtained under this section? Of course, I will say to the hon. minister that that leaves a blank in this act, a great blank. What happens to the revenue, or what was the revenue received from other patents which were not transferred to corporate agencies? I think we should be entitled to a broad statement.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is not possible to answer my hon. friend's second question, because the agency, as I mentioned earlier, deals with those inventions which are referred to it. Others which are made but do not come forward, and are not referred to this agency, naturally are not known, and I cannot give
1816	HOUSE OF
Public Servants Inventions Act him that information at the present time. According to the act, section 3 states:
The following inventions, and all rights with respect thereto in Canada or elsewhere, are vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada, namely,
(a)	an invention made by a public servant
(i)	while acting within the scope of his duties or employment, or
(ii)	with facilities, equipment or financial aid provided by or on behalf of Her Majesty, and
(b)	an invention made by a public servant that resulted from or is connected with his duties or employment.
Canadian Patents and Development Limited is the agency which deals with these patents which are referred to it.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Is the hon. minister assuring this house that that corporate agency is the only one which is to receive patent rights of public servants?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, I am not saying that at all. I am not quite clear just what the hon. member is driving at. This agency deals with the inventions which are referred to it.


Jean-Thomas Richard: But does it, though? I am asking the hon. minister if he has proper advice that all inventions or public servants are dealt with by that particular agency?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are going back over what we have covered earlier, Mr. Chairman, because earlier on I read out the first subsection of section 9, which says:
The administration and control of any invention vested in Her Majesty by this act and any patent issued with respect thereto are vested in the appropriate minister, and the appropriate minister may transfer such administration and control to any other minister or to any corporate agency of Her Majesty.
It does not follow from that that every invention made by a public servant is referred to Canadian Patents and Development Limited.


Jean-Thomas Richard: That is the information I wanted to get. Therefore, this section would only cover such inventions on which patents have been obtained and which have been transferred to a corporate agency of the crown. Now what are the purposes of the corporate agencies of the crown for which this is to be used?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I must say the debate is ranging very far afield. When my hon. friend, the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate, was secretary of state and introduced this bill he outlined the purposes of the bill in the following words. He said, as reported on page 5008 of Hansard for May 24, 1954, that it:


-is to substitute a uniform legislative scheme for the various provisions on the subject contained at the present time in four different statutes.
Then he went on to say that the principle of the bill was that under the three circumstances set out there inventions made by public servants shall be the property of the crown. The then secretary of state pointed out, as the hon. member who is now asking the question realizes quite well because he participated in that debate, that it was just drawing together into one act things which were done under four different acts, namely under the Patent Act, under the Research Council Act, under the Atomic Energy Control Act and under the National Defence Act. They were drawn together into this one act, and this agency was set up to deal with inventions which were referred to it, which would obtain receipts from patents and pay out awards where it was deemed advisable.


Jean-Thomas Richard: That is quite true but I am not associating myself with anything that was done by former heads of departments under that government. I am still interested in knowing for what purpose this new section has been introduced. Take Canadian Patents and Development Limited. What can it be used for?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for Ottawa East has, I feel sure, all the knowledge for which he is now asking by way of questions. I am sure that he has looked at the report of Canada Patents and Development Limited, as I have done. The report shows the income which the agency receives, and it shows the money which is paid out by that agency on receipt of an invention, in arranging for meeting expenses in connection with patent attorneys-I assume the hon. gentleman is familiar with that-and in promotion expenses involved in getting patents accepted, in paying out awards to inventors and so on in addition to the salaries paid to the staff engaged in the work of that organization.


Jean-Thomas Richard: But I am too
familiar with the patent system not to think that the valuable patents which have fallen into the hands of this agency have already been paid for, because they were assigned to this corporation and the corporation receives royalties much in excess of the disbursements, I hope, otherwise we should scrap the agency in this case. But there is more than one agency. Does this apply to the national research council? Does it apply to the mines department? Does it apply to the atomic energy board, to name three examples?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think that for the third or perhaps the fourth time I should say that we are dealing with inventions which are referred to Canadian Patents and Development Limited.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Where does it say that in this section? I should be, if not happy, then fairly happy if it were said in this section that this was the case. But this is a small matter, Canadian Patents and Development Limited. The research council, the department of mines and all the others have in the past got some of the most valuable patents in this country. They do not belong to this agency. I think the minister does not have the right information.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are not talking about patents taken out under other agencies. This has reference to Canadian Patents and Development Limited.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Oh, Mr. Chairman, it says in this section-


George James McIlraith: Read it out.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I know that the minister feels the same way as I do about this matter, and he would like to understand it. I want to do this in a good-natured way. It says that where, pursuant to this section, and so on, a corporate agency- note that it says "a corporate agency" and not "the corporate agency." How many are there?


Gordon Minto Churchill: At the moment there is just the one to which we have been referring. There may be another set up-


Jean-Thomas Richard: Would not the minister so amend his section? I do not understand what good deeds this agency does. If we were dealing with a bill about the Red Cross I could understand it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It may be that some alteration should be made, as the hon. member is now suggesting. I am sorry he did not make these suggestions in 1954 when he was discussing this matter at great length. Obviously the intention of the act, on which he spoke at great length on that occasion, was that Canadian Patents and Development Limited should administer the Public Servants Inventions Act and this has been done now for the last three years in respect of the inventions and patents which have been referred to it.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I certainly
would not accept this bill, in view of the suggestion the minister has made, until such an amendment was included, because that point has now been made by the minister
10, 1959	1817
Public Servants Inventions Act himself and I thank him for his appreciation of the situation. I do not blame the minister at all, but his reply still leaves the question open. What is happening to the other inventions? Where are they going and what is happening to the money? I might also ask this: What is happening to the people who submit inventions? Are they getting fair treatment or not?
I suggest it would be well for the minister -because this debate could go on for a long time-that he should consult with his advisers and adjourn the debate on this matter until such time as he has drafted an amendment which would be appropriate to the circumstances.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I appreciate fully the remarks which the hon. member has made and I appreciate fully his interest in inventors, who he thinks may not be looked after as carefully as they should be. However, under this particular bill all we are hoping to do is to add a small amendment to section 9 in accordance with the suggestion made by the comptroller general so that the moneys that are paid in may continue to go to Canadian Patents and Development Limited as they have been going for the last three years, and as they did under the former Liberal government, instead of going direct to the receiver general.
It is in accordance with that suggestion that this amendment has been put forward. The corporate agency that is mentioned here was understood by all those who were dealing with this to be Canadian Patents and Development Limited and I think perhaps that was in the mind of my hon. friend as well.


Jean-Thomas Richard: No, Mr. Chairman, it never was. That corporate agency is a small corporate agency of the crown as far as patents are concerned. The Department of Mines and Technical Surveys has some of the most important patents in this country if not in the world and this is also true of the atomic energy control board. For instance, I could also make mention of Polymer Corporation and a number of other such agencies.
I find that I am raising my voice and this is not fair. I assure the minister that I am not directing my emotional outburst against him. I would not dare raise my voice toward the Minister of Finance because we are too friendly. That hon. gentleman is a lawyer and I am sure he would say, as a lawyer, that we should put this aside for a while and do a good job of it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, may I point out that Canadian Patents and Development Limited has been receiving revenue from inventions which have originated with the

Public Servants Inventions Act National Research Council, the Fisheries Research Board, the Department of National Defence and the National Film Board, to mention but a few. Surely that is an indication that the system has been working satisfactorily. I have heard nothing by way of complaint, criticism or suggestion until this evening. The hon. gentleman himself has not in the past raised the problems which he is now putting before the committee.


Jean-Thomas Richard: But oh, Mr. Chairman, I have. What the minister just said confirms my statement. If this is intended to place in the hands of a particular crown corporation the patents it receives the statement should be limited to that. If that is the case I would then be in a position to seek some information. I want to know a great deal about the number of patents that have been received by that particular corporation, the amount of revenue received and the plight of the inventors, et cetera. This section does not state to what corporation these matters are related.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, would it make a serious difference to my hon. friend if there were several corporate agencies to which this might apply? It happens to apply to Canadian Patents and Development Act.


Joseph-Adolphe Richard: Yes, it would make a difference because it would contradict the minister's statement. He just informed us to what corporation it relates. It mentions "a" corporate agency, not "any" corporate agency. There are many questions which would follow, of course.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, apparently the hon. member is not prepared to accept my statement that we are dealing with Canadian Patents and Development Limited which is the corporation that was considered when this amendment was introduced in the act.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I do not agree that it was considered at that time. I have never been at all satisfied with this act. Since registering my objections in the past this is the first opportunity I have had to find out what is happening to the inventions of public servants. I am very much surprised that my hon. friends who sit in that party to my right and who speak with such eloquence about the rights of men do not awaken and seek to find out what is happening with respect to the inventions of public servants and the benefits that accrue therefrom. Perhaps those hon. gentlemen feel we should socialize everything.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: If I may reply to that, Mr. Chairman, I would say that the hon. gentleman is confusing everyone more and more-


Joseph-Adolphe Richard: Especially the hon. gentleman who is now on his feet.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -and he is certainly confused himself. I feel that he actually misunderstood the real intent of this bill.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Mr. Chairman, with all the deference at my command may I suggest that the hon. gentleman completely fails to understand the meaning of this bill As a lawyer and as one who is interested in the rights of Canadian citizens I want to know what is happening to the inventions of public servants. I was very free in the criticism I made of this act under the former administration and I feel equally free to criticize this legislation now. This is a loosely drawn act that forfeits the rights of citizens perhaps simply because they are mere civil servants, as it were. As it is presently drawn any agency of the crown or any other body such as General Electric or Westing-house could take the invention of a civil servant and do what it liked with it paying only a certain royalty to be decided by the cabinet. I am sure my hon. friends would wish to see this section properly re-written.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to ask the hon. gentleman if this bill was not passed by the former administration?


Jean-Thomas Richard: Not this bill, Mr. Chairman.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I mean the act.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister if this organization, Canadian Patents and Development Limited, is the organization about which we have recently read something in connection with the electronics field and the representations to Washington that became necessary on the part of the Minister of Justice? Is this the agency or entity that is involved?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not this one, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 1 carry?


Jean-Thomas Richard: No, Mr. Chairman. After all, I have not been able to get anywhere with the minister. I quite appreciate that he realizes this is a bad section and it requires amendment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You said the whole bill is bad but you fellows passed it.


Jean-Thomas Richard: 
Mr. Stinson:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member could assist the minister and hon. members of the committee by asking his questions in a clear, concise and systematic way in order that they may be dealt with in the same fashion?


Jean-Thomas Richard: But surely, Mr. Chairman, I already have asked a number of questions.


Frederick Coles Stinson: Yes, but not clearly.


Jean-Thomas Richard: In the first place I want to know what is the corporate agency? I think it should be included in the bill. That is my first question. From there I am prepared to go on to ask how many patents have been sent to this agency, how many have been refused by the agency, how many people have lost their inventions because they were sent to the agency, what was the amount of revenue that accrued to the agency since its inception and what corporations have received assignments from the agency?


An hon. Member:: Put it on the order paper.


Joseph-Adolphe Richard: Mr. Chairman, may I inform hon. members opposite that they are lucky that I do not get up on my feet more frequently because as far as taking care of them verbally is concerned and meeting their silly innuendoes I am capable of doing it at any time. I am not worried about that at all. I have been pretty decent and kept to the law. We could talk in this way until 10.00 o'clock. I think the minister would agree with me that it would be much better to come around with a section that is properly drafted and also agree that somebody has drafted a bad section. It would not take much time on the next occasion to pass it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Some of the questions which the hon. member is asking go beyond the scope of the act. He is asking about matters with regard to inventions which do not come to the attention of Canadian Patents and
10, 1959	1819
Public Servants Inventions Act Development Limited. These questions can be put on the order paper and made applicable to each department, if he so desires, and he could get the answers to them. He is asking questions with regard to how many inventions have been refused by the corporation. These are things that could easily be put on the order paper and the answer could be produced and given to the hon. member at any time.


George James McIlraith: I would like to raise a point of order. We are dealing with an amendment concerning the Public Servants Inventions Act. The clause in the amending bill deals with the transfer of such inventions and patents to a corporate agency of Her Majesty. It could be any one of a great many corporate agencies of Her Majesty.
The minister is seeking to argue now that he does not have to answer questions as to the number of patents of public servants which have been granted within the time of the act, or of the inventions. Surely it is not tenable to hold such a position at all because how can the bill have any meaning if it is not to cover any of the inventions or patents of public servants, or if it is to cover part of them? What percentage is it to cover? Certainly the position is not tenable at all. Surely we are entitled to this information which is clearly within the purport of the amending bill now before the committee.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I am still looking for information, Mr. Chairman. If the-minister intends to make a corporate agency I want to have a statement from him as what that corporate agency is, and whether it is the only one within the terms of the act. I am entitled to find out how many inventions have been referred to this so-called corporate agency. I know the minister is busy with my good friend, the Minister of Finance, who will soon reduce the taxes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Go ahead.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I hope it is not the corporation which will give the revenue. As I said before, I am entitled to get this information from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who I am sure thought that this was an innocent bill. In view of his great respect for the rights of public servants who are already under the preceding section 9, in my opinion at least, treated in a very, as the Prime Minister would say, cavalier fashion-I am not trying to imitate the Minister of Finance when I speak in this way.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Go ahead, why not?


Jean-Thomas Richard: Well, it was very successful. I ask the minister what is

Public Servants Inventions Act the corporate agency? Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce not give to the committee information as to the number of applications as distinct from patents, because these are the two things which have been referred to this agency. My second question is, what did the inventors, or the so-called inventors, get out of it and, third, which is much more important, to whom are they assigned? To what private corporations are the inventions of public servants assigned for the receipt of a very small royalty? What were the receipts and to what use were they applied?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I cannot resist getting up in view of the hon. member turning and shaking his fist at this group. We wish he would be more concerned about the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the loggers in Newfoundland and the people in Newfoundland than he is over this minor, paltry matter which is essentially for the protection of the exchequer of this country.


Joseph-Adolphe Richard: Mr. Chairman, at this time, if I were the hon. member, I would be much more concerned about the deficiency payments than the rights of the loggers of Newfoundland.


Harold Edward Winch: We thought the government was worrying about that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to ask the
minister a question. He pointed out that this legislation was originally introduced by the secretary of state. At the time I happened to be the secretary of state who administered this act. How does it come about that it is the Minister of Trade and Commerce and not the Secretary of State who is sponsoring the amendment of the act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: At the time that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate introduced this act in 1954 he was secretary of state. He introduced it with some reluctance and in the course of that debate referred to the minister of trade and commerce to assist him. Subsequent to that it was decided by, I presume, the former government that the administration of this act might very well come under trade and commerce and that is how it happened to come to my attention.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is well aware that it is not possible to transfer the function of one department to another department
except by an order in council under the transfer of duties act. Can the minister give us the date and the number of the order in council which transferred the administration from the department of the Secretary of State to his department?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think we can get that information for the hon. member. Actually, I should have said this comes under the national research council and I happen to have some responsibility to report to parliament on behalf of the national research council. But if the hon. member wants that type of information I am quite sure that it can be given. In fact, any of the questions which have been asked tonight can be answered. There is no desire to conceal anything. Some of the information is right here. If the hon. member for Ottawa East had not taken up so much time I could have told him the people to whom the awards are being paid and the organizations from which some of those inventions have come forward and the amount of royalties which have been received, and so on, but the time has elapsed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the leader of the house if there is any change in the order for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall commence with the bill which has just been under debate and then take item No. 6, the resolution concerning the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act; then item No. 15, the resolution concerning freight rates; then item No. 4, second reading of the act to amend the Canada Shipping Act; item No. 1, that is the act confirming an agreement between the federal government and the province of New Brunswick respecting Indian reserves, and the motion to set up the committee to study the Indian Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it intended to go on with that business on Thursday or is it intended to go on with estimates on Thursday?


Howard Charles Green: I am not sure at the moment, but probably we would go on with estimates.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Questions