RAILWAY COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Bertrand (Laurier).

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by
an asterisk.)

Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Are Messrs. Carlson, Herrmann, Arnold and Kilkenny employed in the Dufferin shipyards?
2.	If so, what are their positions?
3.,Are they British subjects?
4.	If not, what nationality are they?
5.	What qualifications have they for their positions?
6.	On whose recommendation [DOT]were they brought to Canada?
7.	What salaries do they receive-also what expenses?
8.	Are they paid in Canadian or American funds?
9.	Are these salaries subject to Canadian income tax?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The above persons are employed by Toronto Shipbuilding Company, Limited (formerly Dufferin Shipbuilding Company Limited).
2. H. R. Carlson, works manager; L. G. Herrmann, assistant works manager; E. C. Arnold, general superintendent; T. E. Kilkenny, fitting-out superintendent.
3.	No.
4.	Citizens of the United States of America.
5.	(a) H. R. Carlson-He has been in the shipbuilding business on the west coast of the United States all his life. He is now a man of about forty-six years of age. He has a thorough technical training and is a trained naval architect and at the time of his employment was production manager for Los Angeles Shipbuilding Company, Limited, San Pedro, California, U.S.A.
(b)	E. C. Arnold-He has nine years' experience in shipbuilding. He is a skilled director of mechanical labour. He came from the same yard as Mr. Carlson where he was the superintendent on the second shift. As the said yard employs approximately five times as many men as Toronto Shipbuilding Company, Limited, even a shift superintendent has a very big job.
(c)	L. G. Herrmann-At the time of employment Mr. Herrmann was working at a shipyard in Los Angeles. He is thirty-two years of age, has a degree in business administration, has been working for eight years in the United States on personnel administration and for two additional years in the shipbuilding business. It is because of his experience in training personnel that his employment was recommended.
(d)	Thomas F. Kilkenny-He is forty-eight years of age. He was not employed at the time he was contacted by Toronto Shipbuilding Company, Limited, but was on his way to a job in a San Francisco Shipbuilding Company. He has twenty years' experience in shipbuilding. He is an engineer whose line has been mechanical work in connection with shipbuilding. Fitting-out is primarily the mechanical end of shipbuilding operations.
Questions

6.	Mr. Carlson was employed on the recommendation of Mr. D. A. Clarke, director general, shipbuilding branch. Messrs. Herrmann, Arnold and Kilkenny were employed on the recommendation of Mr. Carlson.
7.	H. R. Carlson, $700 per month; L. G. Herrmann, $500 per month; E. C. Arnold, $500 per month; T. F. Kilkenny, $400 per month.
They are also entitled to receive out-ofpocket expenses when travelling on business for the company.
8.	Canadian funds.
9.	Yes.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-J. E. COYNE
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Is James Elliott Coyne, deputy chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, a permanent emplovee of the government, or of any government 'agency?
2.	If so, what salary and other allowances does he receive?
3.	Is he married, or single without dependents?
4.	How much income tax will he pay on his 1942 salary, if that be his entire income?
5.	What is his age?
6.	Has he served in the armed forces, or has he been rejected as physically unfit?
7.	Was he employed as counsel, or otherwise, with the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations?
8.	What total salary or fees was he paid for this work, and on what basis were these calculated ?
9.	By whom has he been employed during the past five years?
10.	For how many years has he been employed by the government or governmental agencies ?


Mr. ILSLEY:: I wish to raise a question of principle concerning this matter. Questions such as No. 6, for example, which have nothing to do with government business, should not in my opinion be asked, and if asked I do not think the government should answer them. Otherwise hon. members will probably be asking about an unlimited number of civil servants, and featuring them in such a manner as to indicate to the public that there is something unpatriotic or unworthy about their conduct. On the other hand, if it were asked whether a person had been certified as eligible for appointment to the public service because, although physically fit and of military age, his appointment was necessary in the public interest, I think that would be a proper question, because that is done under order in council as a matter of public business. I suggest to the hon. gentleman who put this question on the order paper that he should reconsider it.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: That
applies only to part 6 of the question, I understand.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There may be something in what the minister says, but on principle that would not appear to be a proper answer to make on a question of this kind. Here is a young man who perhaps may be of military age, physically fit, who ought to be under arms, let us assume.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That cannot be assumed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very well, but the government has within its knowledge whether or not that is the situation. I object to the minister's limitation. With respect to the other questions I assume that there is no objection. I will look into what the minister has said, and perhaps question No. 6 can be redrafted. In the meantime perhaps the whole question could stand.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Question No. 4 is a matter
of computation only. I would object to answering anything about the income tax anyone would pay, but this is a matter of computation and therefore should be dropped.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, we
will think about that, too.
Question stands.


&quot;O CANADA&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
Will the government soon reach a conclusion as to the status of the national hymn "O Canada", which according to the Minister of National Defence has been referred to the government by the defence council for consideration?
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: A statement
will shortly be made.


HONG KONG COMMISSION-COUNSEL
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the counsel engaged in the Hong Kong investigation?
2.	What fees were charged by each and have same been paid?


James Lorimer Ilsley: 1 and 2. George A. Campbell, K.C., Montreal, $9,568.20; R. L. Kellock, K.C., Toronto, $7,298.77; R. M. Fowler, Toronto, $4,084.26; Lt.-Col. George A. Drew, K.C., Toronto, no account submitted. .
Payment has been made in full settlement of the accounts of Messrs. Campbell, Kellock and Fowler.


* LABOUR CONDITIONS-PARRY SOUND SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION WORKSHOPS-WAGES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
What wages per hour are paid to the following groups employed at the small arms ammunition workshops, Parry Sound, Ontario:

toolmakers, leading hand, second class, third class (specialists) ; stationary engineers, first class, second class, third class; machinist, first class, second class, third class (helper machinist); oiler; blacksmith, assistant blacksmith; plumbing, plumber, pipe fitter, welder; saddle maker, assistant saddle maker; tinsmith, assistant tinsmith; welding, oxide and electrical welder, assistant; settler machinists (machine hand); garage, garage hands, garage mechanics, truck driver (explosives), assistant truck driver (non-explosives), assistant; foundry work, painter, moulder, chauffeur, weigher, day labourers; painters, plasterers, day labourers for general work, charwomen; lead shop department, antimony, press operator, junior lead machine operator; department No. 32 A.B. cordite, labourers (general), labourers (shop); millwright, assistant millwright, armourer; small arms artillery department, leading hand, chronograph operator, machine gun operator, cleaners, labourers, drum washers, cooks, assistant cooks, waitresses, mixing department, loaders, powder pressers, tinfoil and small press operators, department cleaners, cleaners of 25 A and B, inspectors, male and female, inspectors of production, male and female, carpenters, seamstresses, laundry workers; gas mask department, eye adjusters, mouth adjusters, examiners, cutters, shippers; stores, clerks, shippers ?
Mr. HOWE; I may repeat what my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) said, that there is no small arms ammunition workshop at Parry Sound, Ontario. As a matter of fact, all small arms ammunition workshops happen to be in the province of Quebec. I would ask that the question be dropped.

Mr. CORMAN:: What are the percentage enlistments for active service in each military district in Canada, as compared with the total enlistments from the whole of Canada?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: It is assumed that this question refers to enlistments in the Canadian army. As of 31st May, 1942:
Military
Districts	Percentage
1	  7-29
2	  19-62
3	  10-15
4	  12-00
5	  4-37
6		-	 8-12
7	  5-73
10		 8-81
11	  8-53
12	  7-11
13	  8-14
United Kingdom	 -13
Questions as Orders jor Returns


ASSISTANCE TO GENERAL DE GAULLE AND FREE FRENCH FORCES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Did the government have a conference with Admiral Muselier, the commander of the Free French navy? If so, where and when?
2.	What members of the government did he confer with when here?
3.	What action was taken by the government to aid him?
4.	Is any form of assistance being given to aid General de Gaulle in his work for our allies in this war?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The government did not have a conference with Admiral Muselier.
2.	Admiral Muselier called on the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services and on the late Senator Dandurand when he visited Ottawa in December, 1941.
3.	No action was taken.
4.	It is not considered in the public interest to answer this question at the present time.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	On the headquarters staff of the Department of National Defence (Army) were there, on June 1, 1942, any persons holding a rank in the army, who have been employed in any capacity in that department since (a) the South African war, (b) the first world war, and (c) the present war, and who have never been in any theatre of war?
2.	If so, who were they, in each case, (a), (b), (c) of the previous question?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Return tabled.


SALVAGE CONTRACTS, PORT OF HALIFAX
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	Has any individual, firm, company or group been given rights in Halifax respecting salvaged goods, such as crafts, war material and products lost off the port of Halifax?
2.	If so, (a) give name or names; (b) what are the arrangements; (c) how are returns made; (d) must individuals act through parties appointed; (e) are payments from government made directly to individuals who salvage articles, or through parties appointed; (f) what check has the government on parties operating?


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-PUBLICITY
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Has a publicity bureau been established in connection with the wartime prices and trade board ?
2.	If so, on what date?
4022

Questions as Orders for Returns
3. What are the names of the personnel, positions held, location, salary, expenses and allowances of each.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Return tabled.



HOUSING

Mr. CHURCH:: Will any action be taken to provide necessary housing accommodation in large cities, (a) for war workers in industry; (b) for soldiers' families; (c) to improve the housing situation among toilers in industry?



J. B. COYNE

Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	What position has J. Bogus Coyne, K.C., now of Ottawa, formerly of Winnipeg, held with the government, or any of its boards or commissions ?
2.	What has been paid him in each position as salary, living allowances, travelling and all other expenses?
3.	Are any members of his family working for the government, or any of its commissions? If so, how many and what is the total sum paid each of them?
4.	Are any of them returned soldiers, or did any serve in the great war or this present war?



CHARGES AGAINST COLONEL DREW-HONG KONG COMMISSION

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has a prosecution been ordered by the Minister of Justice, against Colonel George A. Drew', of Toronto, by bill of indictment or information, and before whom, aDd on what charge ?
2.	What law officer of the crown recommended it?
3.	Was the Attorney General of Ontario consulted about the case?
4.	Under whose authority is the enforcement of federal laws?
5.	Who is the prosecutor in this case?
6.	What is the total detailed cost of the inquiry held under the Public Inquiries Act in the Hong Kong case?
7.	Who has been retained to prosecute the case, and why not legal officers of the Department of Justice.
8.	How many prosecutions, by provinces, have been laid for injury done to recruiting under this section of the defence of Canada regulations, or other statute or rule, since the war began?



IMPORTS OP CANNEL COAL PROM UNITED STATES

Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	How many tons of cannel coal were imported from Kentucky into Canada in each of the years 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, and up to the end of June in 1942?
2.	How much foreign exchange has it cost
Canada to purchase this coal in each of the years above mentioned?	.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS ' EMPLOYMENT IN GOVERNMENT SERVICES OP MEN OP MILITARY AGE

Thomas Langton Church: ^For a^return showing-1. How many men of 17 to 45 years old, of military age, are now employed in each government department, under each separate ministry, and each separate commission, under the control of each ministry.
2.	How many have been released to the three forces of his majesty for enlistment.
3.	How many have been replaced by women, or by members of the women's army.



PUBLIC SERVICE-DEPARTMENT COSTS-NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, 1938-1942

Thomas Langton Church: For a return showing-1. The cost of operating, during the fiscal periods ending March 31, in each of the years, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, the following departments and branches of government: agriculture, auditor general's office, chief electoral officer's office, civil service commission, external affairs, finance, fisheries, governor general and lieutenant governor, insurance, justice, labour, mines and resources, national defence, national revenue, pensions and national health, post office, prime minister's office, privy council office, public archives, public printing and stationery, public works, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, secretary of state, and munitions and supply, including salaries and wages paid to executives and clerical staffs.
2.	The number of employees in each of the above departments, in the years 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942, and the total salaries paid.
3.	The number of employees engaged by permanent commissions under the federal government, (a) civil-for the above years; (b) war

by years since established.
4.	The total number of staff and employees of all departments and commissions in existence in 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Practically all of the information. asked for in this motion is contained in the auditor general's reports, or other reports; and if the motion is passed it would be only on the distinct understanding that it would be answered simply by reference to those reports. Perhaps my hon. friend does not want that, but if he does not I would have to ask that the motion be not passed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The objection really is, I assume, to the amount of labour involved. It seems to me, in scanning the motion, that the only branch omitted from it is the legislative branch of the House of Commons. The hon. member might confer with the minister, and perhaps they

Motions for Papers
may be able to reach some arrangement. I realize that it would be a tremendous job to get all this information and put it in concrete form. I should like to see some of the information brought down; I am sure the hon. member wants something concrete, so I would ask him to consult with the minister.


Thomas Langton Church: I would ask the minister to give me the pages in the auditor general's report. The information is not in that report, nor is there any reference in that report to any commission. This is purely special pleading by the minister, trying to keep the public from getting the facts.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will write the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Langton Church: That is what it is; and the minister is very expert at that, too.
Motion stands.



HONG KONG COMMISSION

Thomas Langton Church: For a complete copy of the records and of all the evidence given before the royal commission, appointed under the Public Inquiries Act, regarding the Hong Kong expeditionary force, together with all papers, letteis, telegrams, and other correspondence relating thereto, and a copy of the addresses of counsel in the case, other than that already tabled.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have already given the house, on two or three occasions, the reason why much of the information asked for in this motion cannot be given. The order asks for a complete copy of the record and of the evidence given before the royal commission regarding the Hong Kong expeditionary force. The record, as my hon. friends must know, includes many communications from the British government to the Canadian government and other communications that are of the most confidential character and which could not possibly be disclosed without giving to the enemy information which should not be given. The commissioner, the chief justice of Canada, has embodied in an appendix to the report those parts of the evidence which he regarded as essential and in the public interest to publish; and _ I should think the known standing of the Chief Justice of Canada, who was commissioner in that inquiry, should be sufficient reason for the acceptance of his statement that the information which is essential is included in the report.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to take issue with the Prime Minister with regard to the substance of his statement. In the first place the Prime Minister indicated, in reply to an inquiry by the hon. member for
Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), that some facility would be afforded for discussing the Hong Kong report. At the same time, on every occasion on which this material has been asked for, the government has taken every means within its power to frustrate any debate on this important topic, first by withholding the evidence or such portion of it as it would be in the public interest to have tabled here, and second by resorting from time to time to an alleged rule that a certain inquiry is sub judice and therefore cannot be discussed. A further reason advanced has been that the inquiry was held in camera. That I submit is no reason at all why we should not have the evidence. All these factors combine to make it impossible for this House of Commons, denied all the evidence and all exhibits, to come to any real conclusions as to justification for the report, not of the Chief Justice of Canada but of a royal commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act.
Since when has there been a rule that this House of Commons should not criticize a report of a royal commission? The implication that is made by reference to the Chief Justice of Canada is merely a method to evade a proper discussion of this report; and I protest against it. It is not the Chief Justice of Canada who made the report; it is a royal commissioner appointed by this government. Further, if we are to have any debate on the Hong Kong report, how in the world can we arrive at any dependable conclusions; how can this House of Commons come to any conclusions at all, unless we have the evidence before us to ascertain whether the conclusions of the royal commission were justified or not?
I submit that it is within the right of this House of Commons to order that the evidence, such as is not inter-governmental-and I reserve judgment on that for the moment- should be tabled. Without that the government makes it impossible to discuss this report or to arrive at any just or dependable conclusions with respect to the accuracy or otherwise of the report of the royal commissioner. I submit that this motion, either in its present form or in some amended form, should as a matter of right be passed by this House of Commons.


Thomas Langton Church: Under the rules of the
house, I admit, I am bound by the Prime Minister's statement. It is about the same as that which was given in the British House of Commons on June 11 by Mr. Attlee in answer to Mr. Stokes. I should like the Prime Minister to look that over. I may say that on March 11, Mr. Eden, in the British House of Commons, gave details of the whole
Motions for Papers

story. It is no reflection on anyone in the government here, but if the information had been given to the country weeks before that, Singapore in my opinion would not have fallen. It would have been better if the men at Singapore had died with rifles in their hands so as not to have the murder of prisoners as at Hong Kong, and Singapore would have been saved. What was done at Hong Kong with our men was known to Canada, because the same thing was done to the Chinese in 1933, and it shocked the whole civilized world. While I am bound by the rules of the house on a motion of this kind, I urge upon the Prime Minister the advisability of acceding to the request that has been made. I do not wish to embarrass the government but I really think that in the future it would be far better to let the people of Canada have the whole facts. No one knows what the Japs may do next. If they come to Canada we may expect the same savagery.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: First of all, may I say to my hon. friend (Mr. Hanson) that the government has not sought in any way to frustrate a debate on the subject of the Hong Kong commission's report.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What I said was that the effect of the government's attitude was to frustrate it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I indicated that opportunity for debate would be given, and it will be given. My hon. friend requests that all the evidence be tabled. May I remind hon. members that when the subject of the inquiry into the Hong Kong expedition came before the house it was at first suggested that the investigation should be by a committee of this house. On reflection, all leaders of the different parties in the house were agreed that it would not be advisable to have the inquiry made by a committee of the house, in that among other reasons, much of the information that would be essential might, if given in public, afford information to others, the enemy in particular, which it was not desirable they should have. Much of it would necessarily be confidential, and it was decided that it would be better to have the inquiry conducted by a royal commission.
The next point that came up in considering the personnel of the commission was whether or not the inquiry would necessarily be in camera or in public, or in part one and in part the other. There again the understanding, or at any rate the feeling, was that the inquiry would necessarily have to be at least in part in camera, and that the commissioner himself should be the judge of the extent to which publicity should be given the proceedings. It

is in that connection that I referred to the office which the commissioner holds at the present time.
The commissioner was the Right Honourable the Chief Justice. The Right Honourable Chief Justice Duff was chosen for that position as commissioner because it was felt that his knowledge of procedure in matters of the kind, his judgment as to what it might or might not be in the public interest to disclose with respect to the significance of the Hong Kong inquiry, would not be questioned from any source.
If I am not mistaken, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition said from his seat in the house-if he did not say it from his seat in the house, he said it to me personally- that in his opinion no better choice could possibly be made than the chief justice to conduct the inquiry, that he had implicit regard for the integrity of the chief justice, and that no question would likely be raised with respect-


Richard Burpee Hanson: No one is attacking his integrity.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, but I am explaining the reasons why it was thought advisable to appoint a royal commission, and why the chief justice was chosen. It was the knowledge that of necessity the inquiry would have to be held in camera, if not in whole at least in part. So that to that extent at least there are the strongest of reasons why only such evidence should be produced as the chief justice himself has thought advisable. The commissioner, in addition to his report, has presented an appendix to the report which gives what he, the commissioner, says is the evidence that he regards as all that is essential to make public. This does not mean that what the commissioner has withheld is something that is withheld for any political reason. No one in the world would say that Chief Justice Duff, as commissioner, would withhold any evidence from a motive of the kind. Any evidence which the commissioner had not thought it advisable to have made public, and which is not published in his report, has been withheld undoubtedly for reasons which in his judgment are of first importance in the public interest. That reason and that reason alone is the one which actuates the government in declining to place further evidence on the table.


Mr. HOMUTH:: The Canadian end of it should not be secret.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not propose to set my judgment up against either my hon. friend's or that of the commissioner.

Motions for Papers


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It would not compare very favourably.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I had to choose between the two I should prefer to take that of the commissioner. As to there being a right to criticize the report, no one has said that this House of Commons has not that right. Any hon. member may say whatever he pleases with respect to the report and criticize it in any particular. That is his right and, may I say also, his responsibility.
My hon. friend speaks of the matter being sub judice as having been made an excuse for not having a debate on the subject. The matter is not sub judice at the present time: The report, has been laid on the table of the house and it is available for discussion. The reason for our not having had the discussion up to the present time is that matters of more immediate importance have been before the house since the time the report was laid on the table.
In conclusion, may I remind hon. members that following the procedure the government had before it the example of another inquiry which, if not of greater significance, was at least of equal significance. I refer to the inquiry made by the government of the United States into the Pearl Harbour situation. A judge of the United States court and others were appointed commissioners. The inquiry was held in camera. The commission made its report, and so far as I know no request has been made for the production of the evidence. Certainly the commissioners have thought it inadvisable that the evidence should be made public.


Mr. ERASER (Peterborough West):: They took action.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What action does my hon. friend propose that we should take?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Let us have the evidence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend cannot suggest any other action but, "let us have the evidence." Where he stated that the United States commission had taken action, it was immediately after I had said that none of the evidence was placed before the country by that commission. However, this is not the time to argue the matter of the Hong Kong inquiry. For the present, all I wish to say is that the government does not feel that it is in the public interest to comply with this request, and the government will not agree to the motion.


Thomas Langton Church: Was a copy of the Duff report and blue book sent to the British government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All these important matters are communicated to the British government.


Thomas Langton Church: Will the right hon. gentleman be good enough to look at Mr. Stokes' question in the British house on June 11, and Mr. Attlee's reply? I sent it over to him. He says that the Chief Justice of Canada wired to ask the British government to release the telegram which was sent, by Great Britain asking for this expedition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have just been handed a copy of the Parliamentary Debates of the House of Commons of Great Britain, official report, dated June 11, 1942, from which I quote:
Mr. Stokes asked the Prime Minister whether the decision to reinforce Hong Kong shortly before its fall was recommended by his military advisers; and how long it was anticipated that such reinforcements would enable Hong Kong to hold out?
Mr. Attlee: His Majesty's government have ne further statement to make on this matter at the present time.
Mr. Stokes:	Are the government likely to
receive a copy of the report by the Lord Chief Justice of Canada to the Canadian parliament on Hong Kong, and will they study it?
Mr. Attlee:	There is a later question on
that subject.
Mr. Stokes asked the Prime Minister -whether his attention had been called to the report of the Chief Justice of Canada, made to the Canadian House of Commons, on the organization, authorization and dispatch of the Canadian expeditionary force to Hong Kong; and why permission to reproduce the telegram inviting the Canadian government to send reinforcements to Hong Kong was refused by His Majesty's government?
Mr. Attlee: Yes, sir. As regards the second part of the question, it was felt by His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom that publication of the document in question would be contrary to the public interest at the present time.


Mr. COLD WELL:: When will an opportunity be afforded to discuss this report? The Prime Minister says that it is on the table; will there be an opportunity to discuss it at an early day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There may be some special reason why my hon. friend feels that the discussion of this report should proceed before discussion on such important matters as the budget and the amendment to the National Resources Mobilization Act are finished. When the report was tabled I intimated to the house that those two matters would be disposed of before the Hong Kong
[DOT]4026
Labour Conditions

matter would come before the house for discussion. I cannot see that any interest, either Canadian, imperial or international, wiir be adversely affected by what to that extent there may be in the way of delay.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am not suggesting that these other important matters should be delayed, but I do want to be assured that some opportunity will be afforded by the government, which arranges the business of the house, for a discussion of this matter before the house adjourns.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have given that assurance to the house on at least two or three occasions, and I referred to it again this afternoon. If my hon. friend cannot accept my word, I am afraid there is nothing else I can do or say.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On division.


Georges Parent: Dropped on division.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I should like to make an inquiry of the Minister of Labour, arising out of press reports, particularly in Nova Scotia papers, to the effect that certain credit and banking arrangements in connection with coal have been made by the government in order to relieve the acute situation that exists in Nova Scotia. In view of the fact that this matter has been discussed in the house on several occasions, I should like to know if the minister is in position to make a statement as to just what arrangements have been made.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I have stated previously in the house that the reason for this condition is a lack of transportation of a particular kind. It is hoped that an early improvement will result because of efforts that have been made to make greater use of the railways. A plan is now being studied to provide additional transportation by rail. I assure my hon. friend and the house that the several departments of the government having to do with this problem are leaving nothing undone that might bring about a solution.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand that there are facilities for the banking of 500,000 tons of 
coal which will be urgently needed this year, and that the cost of banking and loading would be about $1 per ton. It is in the national interest that this should be done. Why is it not being done? Why are these miners being allowed to work only one or two days a week? The situation down there calls for immediate attention. These measures are open to the government at any time and could be put into effect by the stroke of a pen.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will be frank and say that I have no knowledge of what my hon. friend says, but I shall be glad to look into that aspect of the question.


Clarence Gillis: I realize the government is doing everything possible in connection with the marketing problem. According to reports I have seen, certain subsidies have been granted in connection with the banking of coal, and credit arrangements have been made for the customers who might purchase coal ahead of time. The minister should place on the record exactly what these arrangements are.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think we all understand what is the real difficulty in Nova Scotia. It is brought about by conditions over which neither I nor anybody else has any control. As I said before, the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition will be looked into. Hon. members may rest assured that the government are just as much interested in the miners of Nova Scotia as any hon. member of this house. I want to state that quite clearly.



CANADIAN NAVY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I should -like to ask the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) what cooperation or active help is being given by the Canadian navy to the free French fleet which is helping our allies guard the St. Lawrence and the Atlantic and the islands off Newfoundland?


Georges Parent: That question should be placed upon the order paper.


Thomas Langton Church: That means it will never be answered, because I did try to get it on the order paper.

War Risk Insurance



WAR RISK INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, July 3, consideration in committee of Bill No. 56, to [DOT] make provision with respect to insurance of property against war risks and the payment of compensation for war damage.-Mr. Usley. -Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 2-Definitions.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, when the house was in committee on the bill on Friday last I was not able, owing to arrangements I had made, to be present during the discussion. But I have read the debate since, and I find that in answer to requests that individual fishermen owning boats or gear should receive some protection from this type of measure an order in council was passed, quite independently of the scheme, under which payments on the basis of compassion are to be made to fishermen through the Department of Fisheries at the will and pleasure of the Minister of Fisheries.
I read the minister's statement in giving that information, and I gather that the order in council was not available at the time the discussion took place on Friday last, and has only since been distributed, but I am unable to arrive at a proper comprehension of the reason why this method was adopted dehors the bill itself and why it should not be made part of a comprehensive scheme of insurance even if the anticipated recipients are not paying any premium, and of what the insuperable difficulties are to including this provision in the statute itself rather than in an order in council which may be repealed at any moment at the whim and pleasure of the minister.
The objection to this method of procedure by order in council is that it is the most temporary kind of legislation. It can be wiped out by a stroke of the pen. There is no^cer-tainty about it. It has not the force of a statute inasmuch as a statute can be repealed only by parliament, while this may be repealed by council on the recommendation of the minister, and I take the ground that that is not good enough for these fishermen if they are in a position where they require protection of this kind.
Furthermore, I object to this order in council on the ground that it leaves everything to the whim of a minister, who, if he wanted to be arbitrary, could take action whereby not one dollar of compensation could
be paid to any person. The power is purely discretionary on his part. Section 2 of the order in council reads:
The minister may pay compensation to any person in the amount, not exceeding $2,000, of each diminution of value caused by war damage in any fishing boat of which he is the owner; provided that if any person is a joint owner his compensation, hereunder, shall be limited to his proportionate share of the said $2,000.
The compensation with respect to gear must not exceed $400, and in no case shall small claims less than $25 be paid. The whole thing is left to the discretion of the minister.


Mr. TOTTIER:: In the insurance bill it is the same way.	.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That may be. I am dealing with one particular thing, and may I say with great respect to the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare, that I am asking the minister for an answer to my question just why this method was adopted, and why this protection is not incorporated in the bill. Would it upset the whole balance of the scheme to include it in the bill? I have not formed an opinion, because I realize that this is a technical matter, and I presume that there have been calculations, mathematical, actuarial and what-not, in relation to the whole scheme, and that this is an intrusion on the scheme; I think it is fair to say that. It is a new element being injected at the demand of hon. members who, very properly, have made this demand. But just why is it impossible to put this in the bill and make it part of a statute instead of an order in council, which depends in large measure upon the good-will and bona fides of a minister?
If I wanted to be very critical I could say this, that in the hands of a politically-minded minister-and we have seen this sort of thing worked in days gone by in other fields of activity, not particularly in the maritime provinces, but further west, we will say-the granting of public money might be open to the very gravest abuse, open at least to charges of favouritism, open at least to pressure, open to some form of duress, especially if pay-day came around about the time of a general election. Can one imagine any instrument in the hands of an unscrupulous minister that would be better fitted to drive right into the ballot boxes the votes of the would-be recipients of this largesse, because it is to be granted on grounds of compassion; it is not a grant ex gratia, not a grant as of right.
The principle seems to be absolutely wrong, and unless there is forthcoming a satisfactory answer I do not think we can accept this.
War Bisk Insurance

assuming always that the principle contended for is a correct principle, namely, that there shall be compensation under an enlargement of the scope of the original scheme which was set up in the bill now before the house and which was given careful study by the banking and commerce committee. I wish the minister would be good enough to let us know the exact position.


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) :: Mr. Chairman, the provisions of the
order in council referred to by the leader of the opposition were carefully considered. Members of this committee will recali that when the insurance bill was first before it, several members representing constituencies where fishermen reside pointed out that there was no provision in the bill for state insurance of fishing boats.
It was then stated by the Minister of Finance at my suggestion that the matter of protecting fishermen against loss by war damage was under consideration; that damage to the person of a fisherman by war accident was already provided for by order in council under the War Measures Act; that the protection of the personal belongings of a fisherman when lost by reason of war activity was also provided for by order in council; that the matter of protecting the implements of his trade-his boat and his gear-was under consideration, and that it was the intention of the government to provide some compensation to those who would lose through war activities the implements of their calling. The principle was to provide for replacement at government expense of whatever implements of trade might be destroyed, in order to keep these people in production without any delay, because most of the fishermen who carry on this occupation as a method of earning their livelihood would be too poor to replace their implements if these were lost in large quantities. On that basis it was thought in the public interest to give assurance to the fishermen that they would be taken care of; that their implements would be replaced if they were lost; that that would encourage them to stay in the industry, which, we were told, some were threatening to abandon because of the great risks to which they were exposed.
At the time this matter came up, the whole of the regulations of the scheme had not been embodied in any legislation or order in council but was being elaborated by the officials of the Department of Fisheries. Since then we have been able to bring into concrete form what we thought would be fair provision to compensate those who might suffer losses of their fishing gear. This is the reason why this

was presented in the form of an order in council under the War Measures Act, as a sequence of other measures taken for the protection of the persons and personal belongings of fishermen.
As to why the administration of the pro-* visions of this order in council is left to the* Minister of Fisheries, I see no special reason, except that apparently the governor in council had enough confidence in the minister of the department to leave this function in his hands.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And the minister's department put it up to the government.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It was proposed to the governor in council, and somebody had to be designated to administer it. Practically all matters of this kind are left to the administration of the minister of the department under whom they come. For example, the insurance provisions will be administered under the authority of the Minister of Finance; provisions regarding the administration of regulations to compensate farmers are to be administered by the Minister of Agriculture. Otherwise there is no particular reason why the administration of these provisions is left to the Minister of Fisheries.
As to why the provisions are not included in the insurance bill, that is a matter for the Minister of Finance to explain to this committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has added just exactly nothing to the sum total of the information which we have.


Mr. MacNICOL:: That is not very much.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, no, I would not say that; he has not added anything to our knowledge. The fact of the matter is that this is in the form of a dole handed out at the whim of the minister, exactly on the basis of some of the doles which have been distributed among the agriculturists of this country under other forms of order in council. Now he says that damage to the persons of fishermen was taken care of by an order in council under the War Measures Act. I submit that that was an emergency procedure, in anticipation of enemy action, but that this is a scheme looking toward compensation and protection of the fishermen of this countiy, on both coasts and, if you will, in the interior as well. I see the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) raised that question the other day in the house. This should be part and parcel of a general scheme and incorporated in the bill, so far as I can understand the position. Why it has not been done I would not expect the Minister of Fisheries to state, and I am

War Risk Instirance
not criticizing him in that regard. But I do object to the principle of a sum being allocated to one minister to hand out here, there and everywhere, wherever he wants to, under a provision of an order in council.
The whole principle of dealing with public money on this basis is wrong. It should be done under a statute, and it should not be left to the discretion of the minister no matter how fair-minded he may be. The principle is wrong: it is wrong in the fisheries department, in the agriculture department, in every department of government. You are dealing here with taxpayers' money. I wonder what the people of this country, who are now being called upon to pay more and more and more in the way of direct taxation, will think when they find out that 25 per cent of all the taxes they pay for the purposes of the war effort is being diverted to other objects. That is the indictment against the budget: 25 per cent of the money which the people are to contribute is being frittered away on useless agencies which are costing huge sums of money and are in no way connected directly with the war.
It will be argued, of course, that this arises out of the war. In a measure that is true, but I think there are many instances where large amounts of public money, contributed by people who are already being taxed up to the limit, will be paid out under the authority of orders in council for purposes not directly connected with the war. The people of Canada are willing to give to the war, but they are not willing to give carte blanche to this government or any minister of this government to switch war taxation to purposes which are not directly connected with the war.
I object to the principle of this order in council. I object to the power being left to the minister. With respect to the order in council passed under the War Measures Act, compensating for life or property damage of fishermen or others, that ought to be included in a statute of this parliament. The principle of legislation by order in council has gone absolutely beyond all limitation in this country.
Our control over government expenditures is gone. I wonder if the public realize that. I cannot emphasize it too much. I am not saying it especially in connection with this bill, but we see the principle illustrated every day-violation of the right of parliament to deal with public expenditure in matters that are really not war expenditures at all. I protest against that principle and against the operations under it. It is a wrong principle, and the operations are wrong. Parliament should not give its imprimatur to this class of legislation. The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg says, "Is this wrong?" No, this
is right; the theory underlying it is absolutely right. The fishermen have to be protected. That is why hon. members on all sides raised this question, in order that the government should do something. But I am objecting to the method, not to the principle. I believe I am right, and I think in his heart the hon. member knows I am right.


Mr. KINLEY:: Like the leader of the opposition I did not have opportunity to be here last Friday, having been in Nova Scotia. But I read the record in Hansard and I know what the discussion was about. I shall not attempt to discuss the bill, which I think is a splendid piece of progressive legislation, especially beneficial to the maritime provinces in war time. The leader of the opposition talks about extravagance. I know there is extravagance; we all know there is extravagance in war. But when he says this is not war-time legislation, I think he is at least exaggerating. I am sorry he picked out the fishermen as the object of his complaint about extravagance-


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member cannot attribute anything like that to me. I think the fishermen ought to be looked after, and I did not say anything which could be interpreted in any such way as the hon. member suggests.


John James Kinley: I admit that the hon. gentleman is very sympathetic with what we want to do for the fishermen. But he made an oration about extravagance, and coupled it with a little bill to give war-time protection to the fishermen of the maritime provinces. It did not sound in harmony, that is all.


An hon. MEMBER:: This is an order in council, not a bill.


John James Kinley: The hon. member says that it is an order in council. We have a bill before this house. In the committee some hon. members who are especially interested in the fisheries said there was a problem with regard to shore fishermen on our coast. We find that complementary legislation to look after the fishermen has been brought down by order in council. Much has been said about orders in council in war time, that we are governed by order in council. It seems to me that in war time the order in council procedure is especially needed. This legislation, because it is an order in council, will have more flexibility. If you put a law on the statute book it is fixed; it cannot be changed except by the House of Commons and the Senate, whereas the minister and government can amend this legislation in a moment if the occasion calls for it. In this serious crisis we
War Risk Insurance

might have damage on the coast that would demand further action. We think the order in council method is commendable for that reason, because by it the government can deal with the situation at a moment's notice.
The leader of the opposition talks about the powers of the minister with regard to this legislation. I have always been taught that an order in council had the same effect as a statute, that the minister is governed by the provisions of an order in council just as he is governed by the provisions of a statute. That being so, all he can do is act as trustee and administer the order in council according to its provisions. I do not think the fishermen of Nova Scotia or of Canada generally would expect anybody to do better in this regard than the head of this department, who has special knowledge of and is especially concerned with the problems of the fishermen.
The words in the statute and the words in the order in council are the same-"may" in each one. The hon. gentleman, who is an astute lawyer, has overstated his case a little with regard to the difference between the statute and the order in council.
We must remember, in thinking of this legislation, that the fisherman has the same protection with regard to his house and furniture and chattels as is accorded to other citizens. To an extent this is extra legislation for the benefit of the fishermen, but only to an extent. Let us look at the practical end of it and see how it works out. The shore fisherman lives in remote fishing districts, on the headlands. As a rule he has a humble house. His house and furniture are not worth a great deal of money. In my county the houses of the shore fishermen are clean and sanitary, but not expensive. The hazard to the fisherman's property so far as a war damage insurance scheme is concerned is not as great as in the towns where buildings are closer together and extensive damage can be done. So that there are two reasons why the fisherman's situation is different: his property is not worth as much as property in the town, and the hazard is smaller because his dwelling is in a remote place.
Under the general law we agree to pay to the extent of $3,000 on real property, according to the assessed damage. We pay up to $800 for goods and chattels, and $400 if a man is married, $100 if he has a child. So that a married man with one child-this includes the fishermen-could get $1,300 for his effects. But there are very few shore fishermen on our coast who would be able to show an assessed damage of $1,300 on the effects they have in their homes. On the other hand the fisherman's floating property

is excluded by Bill No. 56. A fisherman who has a humble home might still have fishing gear worth thousands of dollars. He cannot get insurance on his gear. The shore fishermen in Nova Scotia, even in peace time, were unable to get insurance on their boats and equipment. This order in council provides that $2,000 can be paid to a fisherman in respect of loss of his boat by war damage. $400 for the loss of gear-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not as insurance.


John James Kinley: It is compensation; that is the word used in the bill. The question has been raised that only one boat can be included. I think this is a weak feature of the order in council, because a poor fisherman may have two or three small boats, and the more prosperous fisherman may have a boat worth well on to $2,000. In that case the better-off fisherman could receive up to $2,000 and the poor fisherman could get compensation for only one boat. In Nova Scotia the fisherman usually must have two or three boats. I am told that it takes eight boats to haul and spill a fish trap, and a man who has a purse seine will need more than one boat in order to carry out his operations. Then usually in the poorer districts there are no wharves for a boat to use, and a fisherman must moor out in the stream, so that he must have a boat to return to his fishing boat. Usually he should have a dory in which to take his fish ashore, a small boat that can go up on the shore and also can be easily handled in the surf.
I am saying these things because this is legislation by order in council; and while I do not want the bill amended, I believe that when you go to council you might be able to amend this order so that the standard will be the amount of the insurance. That is, you give a fisherman $2,000 compensation for war damage. If he has in his possession fishing boats that are damaged to the extent of $2,000, he should get that $2,000, but it seems to me it is not fair to say that he can get compensation for only one boat. The principle of the order in council is that the government is willing to pay $2,000 to a fisherman for war damage; and if he has fishing equipment which is damaged he should be able to invoke the aid of this legislation.
I understand there is a problem on the Pacific coast. I do not know much about that coast, and I am not going to speak about it. But in Nova Scotia we have a deep sea fleet. In my own riding, in Lunenburg we have sixty-eight vessels in the deep sea fleet and in Queen's another eighteen, while

War Risk Insurance
in Lunenburg we have 651 fishing boats getting the bounty and in Queen's another 167, making a total of 818 boats and eighty-six vessels. The lobster fishermen are not included in that number, and there are many 'boats in the lobster fisheries which will be [DOT]covered by this legislation. Deep sea vessels [DOT]cost about $50,000 to-day. They can get insurance from the line companies-


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: At what rate?


John James Kinley: I am not sure about the rate; it changes according to the hazard.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It has
gone up, anyway; there is no ceiling on it.


John James Kinley: I know that they usually insure with American companies, and that we follow very closely the practice in the United States. A vessel of more than ten tons can be registered, and I believe that a registered vessel can get insurance. I am not concerned, for the purposes of this debate, with the rate; this legislation was intended for the protection of property in Canada, where private enterprise has failed to provide the protection. It was pointed [DOT]out to the committee that boat fishermen could not get insurance, and this legislation is to provide protection for those fishermen. I do not think I would like very much to get only $2,000 as a start for insurance on our Lunenburg fishing fleet, but they can get private coverage; they are getting it, and they are doing very well. It is a question of expense. It seems to me we have gone a good way when we accept the idea that in this legislation we should not invade the field of private enterprise, where that private enterprise is being restricted because of increased hazards and because the volume of business is decreasing.
There is one part of the bill about which I should like to be sure; that is, what damage will be insurable? I know the Department of Transport is now changing the method of life-saving in the province of Nova Scotia. The old idea of a life-saving station is now outmoded, and they have the idea of getting the fishermen of the province to keep their boats ready for rescue work if a ship should go ashore or be attacked by a submarine on our coast. I should like to be assured that if these fishermen suffer damage while engaged in that work, they will be protected under this order in council, as I believe they will.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to know how.


John James Kinley: I will read the clause to my hon. friend; it is paragraph (ii) on page 4 of the order in council;
"War Damage" means,-
(ii) damage occurring, whether accidentally or not as the direct result of measures taken under proper authority to avoid the spreading of, or to mitigate the consequences of, such damage as aforesaid.
It seems to me that is broad enough to include life saving in the province of Nova Scotia.
I do not wish to deal with the problems of our friends in British Columbia, but representing perhaps the largest fishing interests on the eastern coast and perhaps the greatest number of deep-sea and shore fishermen, I think this bill will be eminently satisfactory if the minister will extend it so that it will not be confined to one boat. It is very easy for us to get up here and say we want something better. We speak without having the responsibility of government, without handling the money of this country. Hon. members of the opposition talk about extravagance on the one hand, but at the same time they ask for greater expenditures in certain directions. I think this legislation is a step in the right direction; I believe it is good legislation. Let me say to my friends in British Columbia that when I was home over the week-end I was confronted with this question: "Why are the fishermen in British Columbia given a bounty of $150 per ton to build fishing vessels there, while there is no such legislation applicable to Nova Scotia?"


Mr. NEILL:: If I may ask the hon. member a question, do not the maritimes get $160,000 every year for that purpose?


John James Kinley: No.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, you do.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What do you get for lobsters?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No subsidy for lobsters.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There was last year.


John James Kinley: This $150 per ton is a big subsidy to build fishing vessels, and that legislation was initiated by the minister who is promoting this legislation.


The CHAIRMAN:: I am afraid the question of subsidies is a little foreign to the subject matter before the committee.


John James Kinley: I am not complaining; I am comparing, as I think I have a right to compare, the minister's actions in connection with this measure with similar legislation affecting
War Risk Insurance

another part of the country. We did not complain about that other legislation. I would not complain if the minister gave British Columbia more, but representing a fishing district I do say we should support this legislation. Furthermore we should not forget that the government has passed an order in council protecting fishermen and sailors against enemy action to the same extent that soldiers, naval men and airmen are protected. This is new legislation, never before thought of in Canada-


Mr CRUICKSHANK:: Did we ever have a war like this before?


John James Kinley: When we talk about what is being done for the fishermen of this country we must not lose sight of the fact that the government has done a great deal; and while the leader of the opposition complains about the procedure, I am sure he is ready to approve the objects of the legislation.


Mr. REID:: When this matter was before
the committee the other evening the Minister of Fisheries stated that a fisherman could afford to insure his boat, and then if anything happened he could collect from the insurance jompany. The Minister of Finance also stated in answer to a question that the fishermen eould obtain insurance for their boats. Since those statements were made information has come to hand from British Columbia. The information which I have before me is that a certain class of fishermen owning boats worth between $3,000 and $6,000 cannot obtain insurance, and that those who have boats worth between $3,000 and $6,000 are called upon to pay premiums of from 35 per cent to 45 per cent for their insurance. What does that mean? It means that if a fisherman who has a boat worth $4,000 and who is compensated only up to $2,000 under the order in council, wishes to insure his boat fully, he must forgo the free insurance or compensation. If his boat is worth $4,000 he will have to pay up to $1,800 or $2,000 by way of premium. What fisherman earning his livelihood, making perhaps altogether not more than $2,000, would pay up to $1,800 or $2,000 to insure his boat?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is
that yearly insurance?


Thomas Reid: Yes.


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: What would the premium be for war risk damage?


Thomas Reid: That 45 per cent is on account of war damage. That would cover all.
Let us compare the fishermen owning one of these small boats with the owner of a house. The government has pointed out that houses are insured for $3,000. While we all

agree that $2,000 in the case of the fisherman is splendid as far as it goes, at the same time we cannot help comparing that with the insurance in the case of the owner of a house, and looking at the matter from the point of view of the risk of the fisherman's livelihood. There have been submarines off the Pacific coast, and the fishermen know it. They are greatly alarmed about the presence of these submarines, because they realize that if they' are out on the fishing banks and a submarine shows up it is not only the boat that is in danger, but their very lives, because a submarine might endeavour to sink the boat and drown the men so that no information will get back which will disclose its whereabouts. The fishermen have that in mind, and it is a serious thought. We are endeavouring to catch all the fish we possibly can in order to feed the people of Great Britain, and yet the fishermen are told that if they insure their boats to the full extent they will not be covered by this $2,000 compensation which the government has brought down by order in council.
We are not asking for something as a matter of the "gimme's"; the fishermen are asking for what is fair. Despite the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has said that we are' insuring houses for $3,000 and that the fisherman's boat is in an entirely different class, I submit that we must consider all the circumstances when we compare the two. Homes remain stationary; if an aeroplane passes over and drops a bomb, a house may be demolished. That is true, but on the other hand the fisherman goes right into the danger, and that makes all the difference. I believe there would be greater satisfaction all round if the government would amend the order in council and put the fishermen on the same status as owners of houses that are insured. I do not think it is asking too much. The government could do this up to $3,000, and if a fisherman had a boat worth $6,000 he could go to an insurance company and insure for the other $3,000. Under the order in council, however, if he asks for more insurance he is deprived of the $2,000. There is no comparison between the compensation given the fisherman and that given the man who owns a home.
I was sorry to hear the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Kinley) bring in the question of boats being built in British Columbia receiving $150 a ton subsidy. I have always deprecated the cry of those in the east that the west gets too much, or that British Columbia is specially favoured. I have refrained from raising any such question in this house.

War Risk Insurance


John James Kinley: Mr. Chairman, I believe I said it kindly and not in a complaining tone.
I said I was comparing, not complaining.


Thomas Reid: But the mild language which the hon. member used did not detract at all from the fact that he was complaining.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There was a little sting in it?


Thomas Reid: May I tell the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg why that subsidy was given. At the outbreak of the war the naval department -was short of ships, and a number of large new fishing vessels had just been completed. The naval department took them over without permission. They just notified the owners that they were taking over the new boats, some of which were splendid, new vessels costing as much as 845,000. I am speaking of the fall of 1939. Some of these vessels had only recently been launched. In my opinion it was a mistake to follow that policy. The government should not have bought these boats outright. The naval department should have leased them and had naval boats built; and, when their own boats were built, they could then have returned the other boats back instead of retaining fish boats in the naval service. These fish boats are not adapted to the protection of our coasts. They are good enough for surveys and for scouting, but it is not possible to place anti-aircraft guns on such vessels because it would shake them to pieces. The reason why the 8150 subsidy was given is that, since 1939, prices have increased, and to enable the cannery men to order new fish boats adequate for their work an inducement was held out whereby the government undertook to pay the difference in price as between 1939 and 1942. There is nothing unfair about it, and I hope that we shall hear no more complaints from the mari-times about what British Columbia is getting. If ever that argument starts we shall have a free-for-all, and we can tell plenty about what the maritimes have received.
The minister, I submit, should reconsider the order in council. We are not asking too much when we plead on behalf of the great class of fishermen who own boats worth from $2,000 up, that the same provision be made for them as has been made for those people who own homes. These fishermen cannot obtain insurance. The statement was made by the Minister of Finance that they could, but they come back with a different statement, indicating that they are unable to procure insurance. In the light of all the facts; in view of the great danger that exists on the
Pacific, and the fact that we want all the fish we can possibly catch, I urge upon the government the importance of reconsidering the order in council.


Alan Webster Neill: May I take just a minute to deal with a personal matter? When this question was up before-in fact, when it was under consideration in May-I made a slip in connection with some figures which I should like to correct. I spoke about the Pacific coast boats numbering 1,800. I was thinking of a limited area. Taking all the boats on the coast, including halibut boats, the number would be between 8.000 and 9,000. It is impossible to tell exactly the number of boats in British Columbia. There are some 13,500 licenses issued, but some of these fishermen have two licenses and there is, therefore, some duplication. There are more boats on the Atlantic coast, but they are worth less because the boats are smaller and the engines are not so good. Apparently they do not need such expensive engines, because they do not go so far from shore. They get an old engine out of a Ford car, but on the Pacific they must have first class diesel engines. When we were dealing with this matter on May 28 the debate was adjourned. I had moved an amendment to eliminate the boats on the great lakes. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) has since indicated that he will probably take this step, because it would be hard to justify including them in the bill and not including the coastal fishermen. By the way, I was criticized strongly for that.
I should like to deal with some of the arguments put forth by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Pottier), if they can be called such. When we were dealing with this matter in May he thought that everything was lovely, that this was the best of all things in the best of possible worlds, and the government was just all right. Apparently his party loyalty got ahead of his sound judgment; for he has the reputation of being a smart lawyer. He advised us to take what we could get-which was just exactly nothing-and hope for more. Did you ever see a man who had attempted to live on hope? Punch once published a picture which looked like a piece of attenuated rope, and they said that it was a picture of a man who had tried to live on hope. After representations had been made by British Columbia members the Minister of Finance kindly agreed to take some action. I give him credit for doing this. This is not a political attack; there is nothing in it of that kind1 for me. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Fisheries got together and agreed to pay some attention to the representations we had made.
War Risk Insurance

They decided to help the fisherman on the coasts. The only difference between us now., if there is one, is one of extent. This afternoon the Minister of Fisheries stated that it was intended to deal with those people who were too poor to build another boat. Can you tell me how a man who has a boat worth from $2,500 to $6,000 will be able to build another boat for $2,000? These men do not build boats just for the sake of appearances. They do not spend a nickel more than they have to, to make their boats strong enough to weather the storms. When a man spends $0,000 on a boat you may be sure that every dollar is required. A man cannot replace a $6,000 boat with [DOT] $2,000. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare takes exception to the benefits now being obtained through the efforts-


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: On a point of order, I
think that statement should be withdrawn. I never objected to any benefits being obtained by the fishermen, and my hon. friend knows that as well as I do. I think he should withdraw any implication of that kind.	.


Alan Webster Neill: I will read what the hon. member said.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member must accept the statement of the hon. member. If an hon. member says that he did1 not make a statement, attributed to him, his statement must be accepted.


Alan Webster Neill: Unless you can produce the evidence.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I quote from page 3928 of Hansard, where the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Claire said: "I think we should leave it as it is now."


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Leave what?


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) has quoted from one place in Hansard. I will later quote another. I do not see why the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare should take exception. Because of our efforts, the ministers have agreed to do something; when we try to get a more complete form of justice his party loyalty comes to the front and he says, "It is all right". In this case it is more than party loyalty, it is parochial loyalty as well. There is something here that definitely meets the needs of the fishermen in his riding. With the exception of L2 per cent of the boats there, they are all cheap boats. Consequently when the government passes an order in council providing for the payment of $2,000, he is quite satisfied. I am told on the best of authority, by a man who comes from 
down there, that you can buy the whole of that fleet for $2,000 a boat. Naturally he is quite satisfied. What does he care about British Columbia?
My hon. friend behind me, speaking this afternoon, taunted us about getting $162 a ton to help to replace boats taken away by the navy. The government are not doing this because they want to help the fishermen; they are doing it because they need more boats in order that more fish may be obtained for the British market. He forgets the fact that Nova Scotia gets $160,000 every year for the promotion of deep sea fishing. We are fishermen in British Columbia, but we do not share in any part of that.


John James Kinley: Does the hon. gentleman refer to the fishing subsidy?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, deep sea encouragement.


John James Kinley: That is an old story.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, it is an old story, and a sore one. I am not going to say anything more about that. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare says that he thinks that $2,000 is fair, for the reasons I have just given. Let me quote what he said. But here first, is an article in a paper giving a list of Japanese boats they are trying to sell in British Columbia, those that are left, the poorer and cheaper ones. Here are some of the values:
Glendale V	 $14,500
May 8	 8,750
Springtime V	  12,400
That gives you some idea of the value of the boats that we must have. Here is what the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare said, as reported on page 3927 of Hansard:
I hope we do not get to the radical point

the "gimme's" such as we see from western Canada. That is apparently what this is developing into-"give us this," "give us that." I am willing to back them up in what is reasonable, but we cannot adopt a policy of digging into the treasury to support this and that and extend this and that luxury to this and the other.
Let me give you a picture of the "luxury" the hon. gentleman refers to, and I know of what I speak. The best fishing for these fishermen is for about an hour at dusk and an hour at dawn. They may fish in between, but those are the best hours. In order to get to the grounds at dawn they must leave at about two o'clock in the morning. At this time of the year dawn is about three o'clock and it takes about three hours to get to the fishing grounds, which are about thirty miles offshore. So that they must leave shortly

War Risk Insurance
after midnight. They fish on the way out for what they can get, then they fish for an hour or so at dawn. They then hang around all day, since it would not pay them to come back and go out again in the evening. They may fish through the day and get a few, but they generally try to snatch a few hours' sleep. They are out in the open Pacific where there is no barrier between them and Japan. They fish in what is known as the graveyard of the Pacific, where they are subject to the full swell of the Pacific ocean. You can imagine the comfortable sleep a man will get under conditions like that. At dusk he goes fishing again, and then he starts for home, getting in about ten or eleven o'clock. He may have a good catch, or he may have only three fish. I have seen a man come in with only three fish worth 45 cents apiece. He must sell his catch. He has to wait his turn. There may be 150 men waiting at the buyer's float. Then he has to go to another place to get his gas, and to another place to get his food. Then it is time for him to start out on his next morning's work. This is the day after day life of the fisherman which is described by the hon. member behind me as a life of luxury. If I could tell him what the western fishermen think of the life of a lawyer, and particularly a Nova Scotia lawyer, it would do him good, or at least would be illuminating. These fishermen take all the risks of the sea and of poor catches. However smart a fisherman may be, he is not responsible for the whims of a school of fish, which may happen to run 100 miles further out or fifty or thirty miles away. It may be that he has no luck at all, but fishes all season and does not catch enough fish to pay for his gas and oil, let alone the upkeep of his boat. On top of all that, he now has this further hazard of being bombed. The lighthouse that was bombed by the Japanese was in my district, right in the centre of the fishing industry.
I wish to quote from a letter I received the other day from the Kyuquot Trailers Cooperative association, one of the finest instances of cooperation I have ever heard of. Twenty years ago they were poor, dissatisfied, hard-luck people, barely able to make a living. Then they got together and said: "We will cooperate." Without any government assistance at all, they put in their nickels and dimes and dollars and established their cooperative organization, and now they have a fine business community. They run their own packer, and so on. This man writes on behalf of the whole association, and incidentally I might say to the Minister of Finance that this man would like to see insurance covering fish packers and seiners as well as trolling boats. This is the letter he writes to a member of the ministry:
As you may not be aware, the fishermen joined together in this association produced 3,500,000 pounds of salmon during the season of 1941; and that, owing to the removal of the Japanese fishermen from the west coast, the white fishermen now alone must brave the dangers of the sea, and in addition, be subject to surprise attacks by any lurking submarine, which may do great damage, and when fishing offshore, might prevent these small boats from reaching shore.
As all the salmon suitable for canning has been earmarked for British consumption, and the fishermen have been urged to go out and produce as much as possible, irrespective of the dangers to which they expose themselves, we were quite surprised to learn from the new proposed bill for "war risk insurance" submitted in the House of Commons that salt water fishermen had been excluded, while the inland fishermen, who might be considered almost out of danger, could have their boats and equipment covered.
We wish to point out that most of the fishermen have invested their all in their boats and equipment, and they are not alone risking their property, but also their lives in trying to produce the foodstuff which is so urgently required; also, we might say that they expose themselves to the same dangers as the naval forces, who at least will be looked after, and their dependents compensated in case of loss of life.
He goes on to speak of submarines being off the coast and says that the white fishermen have made a very successful attempt to replace the Japanese fishermen and that their output is on the increase. Then he says, and this bears out what the hon. member for New Westminster said:
As far as is known to the writer there is no "war risk insurance" available to this type of boat, varying in value from $2,000 to $6,000, and if it could be procured the premiums would likely be so high that the fishermen could not afford it.
If you could assure these fishermen that they would receive the same consideration as the other classes of Canadian citizens as regards property, although it may be classed as floating, we feel sure you will have rendered the producers of an essential foodstuff a great service and the returns from that source would justify your support for an all-out effort in production.
You should not forget that these small boats help to protect our west coast by assisting the naval and air forces with any information they may gather without any military standing.
Here is another letter, only a short one:
What in the world is the matter with the government, when they are prepared to insure boats on lakes and fresh water rivers but not those who go to sea?
Take the case of us fellows at Kyuquot, we are fishing daily, anywhere from three to twenty miles offshore in the open Pacific. If there is
War Risk Insurance

any commercial activity going on anywhere, that is exposed to as much potential war risk, I'd like to hear of it.
I value my boat at $5,000. It represents ten years of struggle and savings. I can't afford to carry even the ordinary insurance for fire and wreck for this district.
Ask the Minister of Finance to get out an atlas of Vancouver island, then run his finger along the -west coast till he comes to the promontory of Cape Cook, then ask him how' he'd feel, fishing offshore from there twenty miles, in a 36-foot troller.
Fishermen generally, accept as their lot the ordinary hazards of this business, but feel they should be covered by damage from enemy action.
That is a genuine man. I can certify that he is a first-class fisherman and a fine type of man.
The minister says tha-t he is introducing this change by order in council. I do not go to the extent the leader of the opposition did in suggesting all the dreadful things the minister might do under the order in council. I think the order in council will be administered fairly. There is no reason why it should not be, but I regret that this scheme was brought into effect by order in council, instead of by legislation which we could have discussed. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, if you wanted to be mean-of course, you would not be-you could rule that it was out of order to discuss the order in council because it is not before the house. It is the bill that is before the house. Why was not this order in council or its contents put before the fisheries committee? Why has not the fisheries committee had a meeting for years and years? If we had had this order in council before the fisheries committee it would have been put into better shape, but it was not sent to that committee at all. It was sent to the banking and commerce committee composed mostly of financial men who would not know a fisherman from a haystack if they met one. A lot of time would have been saved if the order in council had been put before the fisheries committee; both the ministers would have then been better informed, and they would have had a better order in council to put before the house.
We asked that the order in council be read into Hansard, but even that was not done. We were told that, instead, the order in council would be put on Votes and Proceedings. But we cannot get Votes and .Proceedings in any quantity -without paying ten cents apiece for them, ten cents for a little bit of paper. The price is prohibitive if one wants to send tw'o or three hundred to the fishermen. I was able to get only a dozen. The order in council should at least have been put on Hansard, and should have been sent to the fisheries committee, where we could have discussed it.

I object very strongly to this compensation being called "compassionate relief". Where is the compassion? Where is the relief? Is it not a just and a right thing? Are you telling these fishermen that they are being treated compassionately? I object to the suggestion that it is a hand-out. It is not like the $160,000 down in Nova Scotia, two dollars and a half to this boat and eight and a half to that boat, engaged in deep-sea fishing. I would call that political relief, and it has been going on for a long time. If a soldier or a sailor or an airman is killed, we do not call the care that we take of his widow and orphans compassionate relief.
There is another objection to the order in council. It will not allow the fishermen to insure beyond the $2,000 that will be granted by the government. They allow a man to insure his house beyond that. The house owner can insure his house up to $50,000 if he likes, and why in all fairness should we not allow the fisherman to do the same? But if the fisherman insures beyond this amount of $2,000, he loses the compensation granted by the government. The fishermen cannot get commercial insurance anyhow.
Under the bill the government are going to have a scheme of insurance of their own on buildings. It is to be done through an insurance agent, but the government pays the money. If you can insure a house through the government, why not a fisherman's boat? The Minister of Finance says that marine insurance is a new form of insurance to him, with which he is not familiar and that he does not care to go into marine insurance. The marine insurance people will take care of that. All we ask the Minister of Finance to do is to foot the bill, and in the last resort it always comes to the government.
An hon. member sitting behind me has pointed out the objection to having only one boat- insured. As I said the other day, a cannery must have a number of boats or it could not.keep the cannery running; and if a fisherman cannot afford more than one boat the cannery will lease him one. The fisherman and the cannery man must be able if they need, to have more than one boat. By the way, the order in council reads differently from the statement made by the Minister of Fisheries-quite inadvertently, of course-in the house the other day. He told us clearly and distinctly that there would be only one boat and only two men on a boat. And now the order in council-


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Oh, never.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Nothing about "two men".

War Risk Insurance


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I don't think I said that.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister did not say it would be for only one boat?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: One boat, yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Oh, yes; I did not mean to say "only one man". You are allowed two men in a boat. The minister said they would be allowed payment for only one boat. According to the definitions in the order in council:
"Person" means any person, firm or incorporated cooperative association or society of fishermen, excluding, however, any other corporation,
That is the definition of "person". Then the limitation states:
No compensation shall be paid any person under this order in respect of the diminution of value caused by war damage at any one time, in more than one fishing boat owned by such person, except where such person is a firm or is an incorporated cooperative association or society of fishermen.
That seems to me involved. The definition distinctly says that "person" will include a firm, and then the limitation says compensation will not be paid for more than one boat "owned by such person, except where such person is a firm or" -not "and"-"is an incorporated cooperative association or society of fishermen." Take the position of a fishing firm, the B. C. Packers, which is a well-known firm out there. The point is a difficult one; I do not propose to express an opinion; but the minister certainly said compensation would be paid for only one boat.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think the hon. member's point is well taken, and that "firm" is in section 5 by mistake. I believe it should come out. The intention is, if I am correctly advised, to give the privilege of more than one boat to cooperative associations only. But that is a matter which can be considered.


Alan Webster Neill: I am glad to hear the minister say that as to the Co-op, but the cannery men need the same privilege. If the minister would withdraw that paragraph it would make that all right.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, no.


Alan Webster Neill: And if he would grant a fairer sum for compensation, the order in council would be a reasonable thing, but the compensation is too small. I understand the situation. The minister's advisers have been drawn largely from Nova Scotia, or other places in the maritimes, where, it happens, these boats are small boats of no great value.


John James Kinley: I have eighty-two boats in my riding worth $50,000 apiece.


Alan Webster Neill: And we have thirteen thousand.


John James Kinley: You are talking about the whole of British Columbia; I am speaking of my riding alone.


Alan Webster Neill: I state positively that the boats in the maritimes are worth on an average much less than those in British Columbia, and that two thousand dollars to them is a much bigger sum per boat than it would be in British Columbia. Therefore it would be only fair to raise the 82,000 to 83.000. Even then they would take a huge loss, and why should they take a huge loss individually for what is the common loss and debt of us all? I am not suggesting that 83,000 should be given to everyone who comes along; claimants will have to prove their losses, just as an insurance company makes you prove your loss, and if they do not have a boat worth $3,000 they will not get that amount. I think that would be the reasonable and fair thing to do. The minister, who has shown fairness throughout this matter, could well afford to raise the limit to $3,000. Even then, I may tell him, in many cases a huge loss would be sustained. As the president of this association points out, boats cost from $2,000 to $6,000 each. The boats to which he refers are what are known as trailers. Trailers do not need a net; they need only lines, which run out behind the boat, and they have hooks and lines and the expense is quite small. But there is the gill-netter, which has a net worth 8250 or $300, and it is only good for one year. Then there is the seine, which will cost around 81,200-that is the salmon seine- and the herring seine costs a good deal more. These big boats which go out with the seines will run as high as $25,000.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: And some, $45,000.


Alan Webster Neill: Then there are these packers as well, which this association asks me about. I believe that, legally speaking, they are not deemed to be fishermen, and yet they are employed solely in the fishing trade. Their business is to pack the fish which has been caught in a certain spot and take it to the cannery, and it has been found that it is cheaper to pack the fish to a cannery centrally located than to build the cannery in a remote spot. They are engaged solely in fishing, and I plead with the minister to include "seiner" as a fishing vessel, at least while employed in packing fish.
I have spoken with very little preparation, and have not put the matter as well as I would have liked. But I will take a chance on the order in council being administered properly if it is extended in these two points -increasing the amount to 83,000, allowing

War Risk insurance

them to insure with the government, like property on shore, and also putting packers in the definition.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I think we should have another bill, instead of the order in council, to take care of this question of war risk insurance only, for 'boats of one kind and another. A number of hon. members seem to be getting this question of rates for war mixed up with full marine coverage rates. Can the minister tell the committee what premiums are charged, for war risk insurance only, on boats on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts?
While I am on my feet I should like to say something else. To placate some of the people who are not covered under this bill in connection with boats, the minister has seen fit to withdraw the privilege of insuring boats on the inland waters. Well, the war risk attached to boats on inland waters is practically negligible, and by taking this step the government of the day are just throwing away two or three hundred thousand dollars in premiums which they might very easily have, and which would help to pay for the extra risk which is assumed by the boats on both coasts. There is far greater risk there.
I do not think this coverage for boats on both coasts should be dealt with by order in council. It goes much further than provision for fishermen. Either you can get insurance at the present time or you cannot. I should like to know. We have been told that it is not obtainable: then I think it is up to the government to introduce a bill which will make it obtainable, and to insure a great many boats on the great lakes so that the cost to the government will be cut down very considerably.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Just before the Minister of Finance gives an explanation of the details pertaining to the insurance aspect of this question, I should like to say a few words oy way of further explanation and try to satisfy the minds of some hon. members as to the terms of the order in council, what it is intended to cover, and what protection it is intended to give to fishermen.
There are about 32,000 fishing boats and vessels used in the fishing industry in Canada. No census has been taken of them, for the reason that boats of the smaller class are not registered. No provision is made for their registration under any law or under any regulation governing qualification for any bounty or subsidy. But occasionally officials of the department make a general survey of their districts and report tons the number of boats that they list. These boats are worth from 
$25 to $150,000 each. There is the small tender, twelve feet or over in length, used by a certain class of offshore fishermen-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Does the question of
registration affect the insurance?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In regard to insurance,
but not to the fishing boats; that is another matter. Boats of ten tons and over, large enough to register under the shipping act, are called vessels. Of course certain insurance companies and interests make provision for marine and war risk insurance of these vessels. In fisheries parlance we distinguish between a boat and a vessel. A boat is a smaller type of craft used by individual fishermen and offshore fishermen; a vessel is a craft of ten tons and over.


Alan Webster Neill: And the insurance companies do not care about insuring anything that is not registered.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes, that may be so.
But it does not take a very large craft to be classified as a vessel of ten tons register.
Besides the small boat used by the Atlantic offshore fishermen we have boats powered with gasoline or oil engines, such as the schooner of the Lunenburg type, a particular type of large boat costing $40,000 to $60,000; some of them cost $70,000 in these days. We have also the still larger type of boat operated by steam.
On the Pacific coast there are used in the fisheries various types. First there is the gill-netter, used by those who fish with gill nets for salmon. They are the more numerous of the classes of craft used there. Next comes the troller. The troller is in some instances in a larger class than the gill-netter. Then there are the large purse seiners, the halibut fishing boats, the carriers that are used in the canning industry, the packets and the tenders.
In extending protection to the fishermen a line had to be drawn somewhere, and we thought we should draw the line to cover the boats which are more numerous and are operated by the larger class of fishermen, the class which is least in a position to replace them and could not insure them, but are the largest factor in the production of the raw material of the fishing industry. We drew the line at $2,000, because, according to reports and information, we have been able to gather, it covers all the class of boats that we intended to cover. As to the Pacific coast there may be something in what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has said. It applies to the Kyuquot district where they have cooperative trolling, a very successful organization of fishermen; they have been improving the quality and size of their boats,

War Risk Insurance
because they are very progressive, and their business has now been made very profitable on account of the method they have adopted. There is in that section a class of trailers which costs more than $2,000-between $2,000 and $6,000. The exact number of those boats we do not know, but we are getting the information. There may be some scope for reconsidering the order in council if it is found that these boats cannot be insured. They may call for some special treatment. As to the other boats, I think they are pretty well covered.


Alan Webster Neill: What about packers?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: These come in the class owned by people who we think can afford' to insure, or if the boats are not insurable they must take the loss, because we cannot cover them all. There are packers, there are purse seiners and all kinds of boats, and if we started to raise the level we do not know where it would stop, because naturally each branch that is interested is trying to get as much protection as possible. That is to be expected. But we had to draw the line somewhere, and I think that for the time being we should be satisfied to protect the largest class and the class which is least able to protect itself.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What has this to do with war risk insurance?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It is not insurance, but it is a war risk. It is protecting them against damage caused by enemy action.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Under the order in council the limit is $2,000, what has that to do with the thirty-five thousand?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I am simply mentioning that as an example, to give a picture of the situation, and to indicate what part of the fishing fleet we intend to replace and protect by the order in council. As to the rest, that is a matter to be considered-whether they should be insured, and in what way, by public insurance or private. I am simply explaining the application of the provisions of the order in council for gratuitous bounty to, or gratuitous replacement of, boats for a class of fishermen who could not by themselves do it, and who could not be kept in production if enemy action destroyed their fleet.
Another point has been raised by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, concerning the small fisherman who has two or three boats, which we in the east call his fishing unit, the three of them together not worth more than $2,000 but needed in his operations. This will be looked into, and if in order to protect him-this is the very class we want to protect-it is necessary to amend the order in council, we will do so.
44561-255^
To give the committee an example of the' general average value of the fishing boats on the coast, may I say that at the opening of hostilities we took away from the Japanese-nearly 1,200 boats. We had them appraised by an independent board in Vancouver, composed of the best men we could find for the work. I think they did a good job. The average appraised value of the boats was $1,280 each. There were a few boats of the bigger type, not many, which were operated by the Japanese in a commercial way, and which were listed in the magazines and offered for sale by the board; but they were the same type of boats that are operated by canneries or companies on the Pacific coast, the type which it is not the intention of this order in council to cover. But in the average figure of $1,280 I think we get a fairly good appreciation of the value of the common run of fishing boats on the Pacific coast.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What would be the total value?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Between one and two million dollars. We have disposed of some of them for nearly a million dollars.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The minister said we had 32,000 boats.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In all the fishing fleets of Canada.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What is the total value of those boats?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I could not give that figure, because some are worth $30 and some are worth $100,000. They range in between those figures.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to ask a question, though I do not know whether I am in order under this particular section. While I represent one of the largest fishing ridings in British Columbia, frankly I do not know anything about fishing. I am quite in accord with what has been said by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi and the hon. member for New Westminster, because With the exception of the Minister of Fisheries they know more about fishing than anybody else in this house, and I endorse everything they have said. While I know nothing about fishing, I think in that respect my knowledge coincides with that of the Department of Finance. The question I wanted to ask is based on a wire which I received from the Vancouver board of trade. For the benefit of those who are not well acquainted with British Columbia, let me say that Vancouver happens to be the third largest city in Canada. I am not a member of that board of trade, though I do belong to another
War Risk Insurance

board. Perhaps one reason why I am not particularly familiar with the operation of boards of trade is that in western Canada they are generally regarded as Tory organizations. But when a wire comes from the board of trade of Vancouver, representing the principal business men and men in all walks of life-	*


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Tories.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There are many good Liberals in it, too.


Thomas Vien: Order, please.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, I do not mind him. I am particularly interested in this wire, which was sent to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) with copies sent to each British Columbia member. It reads as follows:
Due to imminent danger further damage caused by raids either air or sea on this coast we strongly urge that insurance companies he instructed to immediately accept on behalf of government applications for war risk insurance. All applications to be accompanied by cheque amount this deposit to be set by government. This procedure will establish fair basis for considering claims made under the retroactive feature of bill if damage precedes passage of war risk bill. Cannot stress too strongly our recommenuations. Situation urgent and public apprehensive.
In view of the fact that this telegram is dated July 3, that it comes from such a body as the Vancouver board of trade, and that at least one hon. member from British Columbia is rather apprehensive as to what may happen to-day or to-morrow, I think we are entitled to an answer on this point by the Minister of Finance.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have been trying to get myself in a position to give a satisfactory answer to inquiries such as this for two or three months. I have been trying to get this bill through, and I thought I might shorten the discussion by sending the bill to the banking and commerce committee and having them discuss it there, but it has come back to the house and, as hon. gentlemen know, a considerable amount of discussion has taken place. We have passed only one section; we are now on section 2, and I want to get back to section 2 as soon as possible. But this debate on the protection of fishermen came up. As I said the other day I felt that we would have to meet the situation in some way, in order to clear the way and get ahead with the bill, though I hoped the discussion on that point would not last too long. Probably it was not strictly in order, though ships are referred to in this section. However, I could not really raise a point of order, because in any event IMr. Cruickshank.]
the discussion probably would run outside the bill, and I had no objection to hon. members discussing this fisheries order in council.
I received the wire which the hon. gentleman has read, or one like it, and I replied to it at once, stating that I could not authorize the insurance companies to accept applications or to write insurance policies now, because I did not have any legislation. I want to remind the house that I had power, or the government had power to enact legislation by order in council. That was express power under legislation, not under the War Measure Act but under the War Appropriation Act. Section 2 of every war appropriation act from 1915 up to the present time has contained this as one of the powers- granted to the government:
(c) promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or in any other manner whatsoever

I hope I am not making a statement that is at all shocking to the democratic sensibilities of hon. members of this house, but if I had the matter to do over again, contrary to what was said this afternoon by the leader of the opposition, I would have drawn up an order in council. Then I would have had a system of war risk insurance in operation, and I would not be embarrassed by telegrams such as the one just read by the hon. member. We have done things almost as important, or more important, by order in council, but we decided to bring this to the House of Commons. As a result here we are, on the 8th day of July, considering the bill in this house for perhaps the fifth or sixth time, after it has gone through the banking and commerce committee w'here it was discussed day after day.
I am just saying this because I want hon. members to realize that it is very important that this legislation get through. The hon. member for St. John-Albert spoke about it the other night. It is all very well to talk about bringing everything before the House of Commons, but under conditions such as these the House of Commons must assist as much as possible.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to take four or five minutes with reference to this bill-


James Lorimer Ilsley: I still have the floor, Mr. Chairman. That was just by way of answer to the hon. member for Fraser Valley. The hon. member for St. Paul's asked what the rate of insurance is on our coasts; that is, war risk insurance, not marine insurance. I obtained the information by telephoning to Montreal this morning. The rate of insurance on the Pacific is II per cent for three months,

War Risk Insurance
provided the vessel does not go west of cape Spencer, which I understand is on Skagway. I think only the large boats engaged in halibut fishing go that far, and if the smaller vessels wanted coverage the rate might be less. I have no information which confirms the statement made this afternoon that insurance is not procurable. My information is that war risk insurance is procurable at these rates, which are substantial rates but not beyond reason. If for instance a company or a fisherman or anyone else had a boat worth $3,000 which he wished to insure against war risk at this rate, it would amount to 5 per cent for the whole year.
That is $150 of an operating charge which he would have in this time of war, more than in time of peace. It is $150, but it is a business expense which is assumed by all kinds of owners of fishing craft. On the Atlantic coast the rate is 2 per cent for three months and, as the member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Kinley) said, they put it on. They insure their schooners there. What is being asked of the government this afternoon is in effect that we should cut down all these policies by $3,000, and pay the premium for these fishing companies on the first $3,000 or the last $3,000, because the moment we say that we will assume the first $3,000 free, then every policy of $20,000 comes down to $17,000, because they get the premium paid by the government instead of paying it themselves. They are not asking for that, and I do not want to do that.
The comparison has been made between fishing boats and houses. There is no comparison. The fisherman gets the same protection as everyone else gets on his house, the same protection as everyone else gets on his furniture. Further than that, he gets free compensation for certain effects if they are lost at sea, and he gets insurance against personal damage or death, the same as members of the forces under the Pension Act. Now we come along and are taking a piece of business property, a piece of his capital, and are giving him free compensation for that, in addition, up to $2,000. I do not think we should be asked to go further.
If marine rates go out of all reason and there is a need to be met there, then the government may be compelled to adopt and put into effect a government marine insurance scheme. But I certainly will not, if I can avoid it, incorporate that in this bill because it is a different class of risk, a different kind of business. I would have to have a different set of advisers, people who know marine insurance, rather than fire insurance, because this is comparable to fire insurance. Marine insurance is the sort of insurance we are dealing with here.
I suggest that hon. gentlemen accept what has been done and allow the government to get ahead with this important bill. The leader of the opposition asked why we did not put this provision in this measure. I made it clear that it does not belong in this bill. It is entirely foreign to the bill, and that is the pressure which I have been obliged to resist from the beginning, to incorporate into this measure provision for property which does not belong with the property covered under the bill, as to which the risk is different, the business is different, and so forth. It would ruin our whole scheme if we did that.
The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) said what was true when he stated that we are throwing away $200,000 or $300,000 of easy premiums by cutting out ships on the great lakes. Why am I cutting out ships on the great lakes? I am doing so in order to avoid the charge of discrimination. Would there be a charge of discrimination? Certainly there would be. There are such charges in two of the letters which were read to-day by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). The charge is that we are discriminating in favour of big companies against small people. There are $200,000 or $300,000 of premiums which, it is said, we might as well have as not, but we are eliminating the ships on the great lakes so as to avoid charges of discrimination. I cannot stand here and have it said that I am sacrificing the people on the coast in favour of big interests in Ontario and Quebec.
The hon. gentleman dug out something from the order in council to indicate that a firm can get free compensation for more than one boat while the poor fisherman cannot. If I have my way, that will come out to-morrow, so that the firm will get compensation only for one boat. That is what I will do, because I will not have charges made of discrimination in favour of the big people as against the small men, or in favour of inland as against coastal interests. I cannot do it. The government has to be careful about these things.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The question of these boats on the great lakes falls more within the category of inland transportation insurance. It is not really a matter of marine insurance. I think the minister could easily get over the question of discrimination and still obtain these premiums, which he is otherwise throwing away, by having it understood that it would be on that basis. Not only that; it is not a question of discrimination at all but a question of allowing these people in the interior of Canada to have an opportunity of contributing toward those people on the coast in connection with the compensation they get with respect to losses sustained.
War Risk Insurance


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman is arguing as I did the first day on which the bill came up. Now I have abandoned that ground because I have heard two letters read from British Columbia this afternoon. Indeed, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) has another, and I have one also, accusing the government of favouring inland fishermen as against those on the coast. I cannot have that. I am sorry. I should like to have that $200,000 or $300,000 in premiums but we have to forget it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The remarks I am about to make are not in any sense critical, but I would point out to the minister the view held by a representative body, the Vancouver board of trade, in this matter. As I understand their telegram, it is not with reference to small fishing boats-


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not fishing boats.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We happen to be-


Joseph Enoil Michaud: If you let this bill pass you will have it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: One thing I resent, and I resent it also on the part of the Minister of Finance, is the suggestion that any private member is tying up this legislation. Certainly, if there is any tying up it is not by the members from British Columbia. We are elected to protect the interests of our constituencies, our province and the dominion as a whole, and I repeat, if there is any tying up we are not doing it. I am not quarrelling with the order in council. This is one of the few times when, in my opinion, action can be taken only by order in council. Obviously, as the minister himself said, conditions may change. The amount might change to-morrow as war conditions became either more serious or less so, either on the Pacific coast or elsewhere. But if the government can do that, there is no tying up on the part of private members. The tying up is being done by the government itself if it cannot put into effect the request of the Vancouver board of trade, that the insurance companies be instructed immediately to accept, on behalf of the government, applications for war risk insurance, all applications to be accompanied by a cheque representing the amount of deposit. Surely the government cannot say there is any tying up. We are here representing British Columbia, and the Vancouver board of trade, a representative body in that province, is simply asking that this suggestion be put into effect at once and be made retroactive, to be paid for if the government sees fit, in connection with ships of $2,000 or $3,000 or $10,000.

That can be covered when the time comes. In the meantime, the government or its advisers-so far as this bill is concerned- apparently do not realize or have never heard of Egypt, and they have certainly never heard of the Japs. The danger is imminent and we must have action now. Surely, therefore, the government can instruct the insurance companies to accept the risk, subject to any provisions of this bill or of any other bill or order in council in the future. I expect to have the minister's answer.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman-


George Alexander Cruickshank: There are no fishing boats in Toronto. I want the minister's answer. I should like to know if there is going to be some action in this matter.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think it would be proper that the bill at this stage should be enacted by order in council, behind the back of parliament, in order to meet that particular situation.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not wish to interfere with the hon. member for Fraser Valley getting a reply. I have read what he said about this bill and I have respect for his views. I wish, however, to continue my protest of three weeks ago against the policy of this bill and the change in the definition by order in council, the change in the whole bill, from the first clause to the end. In the first place, by this order in council the government is changing every definition in the Interpretation Act. You have to read the order in council into the last clause of the bill, which is the most important one of all, and the regulations are set out in nearly two pages of the bill. Is this parliament going to act as a sort of agent, a sort of life-saver for the insurance companies of the country, at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer? The only insurance we have in Canada to-day in connection with war damages of all kinds for fishermen was restricted by the committee, in the bill, first, to inland waters and extended subsequently. This bill should have been extended in the first place to coastal waters and to fishing boats and appliances which are near the danger zone on the Pacific and the Atlantic. Are we now going to relieve these insurance companies? I attended one of the meetings of the committee, and I am surprised at the action of the minister. The minister has a likable personality, but he is always very clever at special pleading for what I call certain sections of the country. He is not slow to plead the case of his own section of the country in regard to apples, potatoes,

War Risk Insurance
codfish and everything else. But when it comes to the central provinces, who are paying such a large part of the taxes, they get little or nothing. I do not represent any insurance company or loan company. I suggest that if the minister had kept the loan companies' agents out of the committee, it would have been better for everyone concerned. This country cannot stand the expense which has been imposed by the minister, assisted by his controllers and bureaucrats. These things are done by means of orders in council passed by these bureaucrats over the head of parliament.
I have no objection to war risk insurance in certain cases. These insurance companies came to parliament and asked that all kinds of risks be covered which were never contemplated either during the great war or this war. They said they were prepared to cover these risks and private bills were introduced into parliament. I opposed three or four of them which originated in Toronto. This is simply a utopian scheme which will never be carried out. We do not know just what is the real situation on the Atlantic and the Pacific. I made an appeal to the minister. Dwellings are to be covered up to a value of $3,000, but I do not know of any industrial worker who has a dwelling worth that much. We all know the deplorable state of our finances to-day.
This order in council changes many of the definitions in the interpretation section of Bill No. 56. We have the diminution value covered, applicants and so on. Where is the minister going to get this insurance? Some of these large insurance companies have made fortunes out of the premiums paid in, and they are doing very little to help the war. They do buy victory loans with trust funds, with the people's money and not their own. By this bill and the order in council the minister proposes to give these insurance companies the power to act as agents in this particular class of insurance. Power is being delegated to them to collect premiums and there will be no check on them. These companies will be a law unto themselves.
When this bill was before the house previously I objected to the second reading. At that time I said that there were two classes in the country which were not being covered, and apparently they have no special pleaders in this house. I refer to the industrial workers and the soldiers. The industrial workers used to have some property, but if we have many more of these budgets and controllers they will have property no longer. If the minister wants to do something he
should inaugurate a system of national insurance. That would do far more to cover risks on the homes of industrial workers than this bill. The rates now charged are 5, 6i and 7 per cent; the minister should take advantage of the power he has under the War Measures Act and cut this rate to 4J per cent. When it was proposed that an order in council should be passed under the War Measures Act in order to check insurance rates and mortgage rates and to institute a system of national control of mortgages, the answer was, "oh, no." These companies have made fortunes out of the poor people, and parliament should give the poor people some protection.
I know of men who have gone to the war leaving everything they had. Their property should have been covered by an order in council passed under the War Measures Act. They are more capable than three-quarters of the men in the minister's department; they gave up jobs that were just as good.
In conclusion, I say that this bill and the order in council are class legislation of the worst kind. They do not provide protection for the property of the people I have mentioned. In my opinion the government has adopted a wrong principle. I am a warm supporter of protection for the fishermen because I know of their sufferings. I have been to both coasts, and I know how they suffered during the depression. The best that this parliament can do for them is not good enough.
There should, -however, be some protection for the other two classes I have mentioned. With the present budget the fisherman or the soldier or the industrial worker will not have any property. With these budgets and controllers any property owned by the small retailer or the small wholesaler will be eliminated.	_
So what is the use of talking about a risk up to $3,000 on a dwelling, or on a fisherman's property? Under the definition as amended, what is the use of owning anything? The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man, and he and all his regiment of officials cannot take away that right. It existed before he was born, when the people of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales came out here as pioneers and settled this country. But to-day all incentive to thrift has been abolished in this country. This bill and the order in council help only 50 per cent of our population, and the other 50 per cent are left to shift for themselves. Here we are reversing the policy of Macdonald, Laurier and Cartier and all those other great statesmen. I should like to see everybody own some property, whether it be some small
War Risk Insurance

business, a retail store, a mill, farm machinery, or even a cow. It is the private ownership of property that has helped to build up this country, and now we are seeing private property abolished.
I can tell the insurance companies that they had better look at the handwriting on the wall. Some of these insurance companies invested in common stocks and lost millions of dollars of the premiums that had been paid in for life insurance, and the result was that some of these companies were allowed to come to parliament and get a certificate, to which they were not entitled, to allow them to carry on.
I have every sympathy for the fisherman but I do not believe the fisherman will ever get a cent under this bill. I do not think anybody will get a cent under this bill. It is a technical bill designed by the dreamers and Utopians of all kinds who have been trying to meddle with private business in this country, with wholesalers and with retailers and the ordinary business man. The bill will never attain the objects for which it was designed.
Why is not something done about a national scheme of insurance for the soldiers? If you say anything about the soldiers, you are told: The soldier owns no property. But I know soldiers who have given up all their property, who have lost everything, even life itself, and nothing is done to insure them; but dreamers in the insurance department can present a bill like this to parliament. If this is the way we are going to do our business, it is no wonder that parliament is fast losing its influence and the respect of the taxpayers of this country. Here we are, after talking for several months, and we have not yet considered one dollar of the minister's estimates.
There is no protection provided for the industrial worker. He has lost his property already through taxation.
I suggest that this bill be left over until next year, and let us close up parliament and get home as rapidly as possible. If the minister persists in going on with bills like this we shall be here until next October. Some of these bills will have to be dropped if the louse is to close within a reasonable time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, I have two
amendments to propose to section 2 which I will ask my colleague to move. The first reads:
That paragraph (f) of clause 2 of Bill 56 be amended by deleting the words "a line drawn from lather Point to Point Orient" in lines 3 and 4 on page 2, and substituting therefor the following: "the west end of the Island of Orleans;"


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I move accordingly.
[Mr. Church.)


James Lorimer Ilsley: The amendment that has
just been moved narrows the definition of inland waters. It has been considered that the present line, which is from Father Point to Point Orient, is too far east, and that there is no justification for drawing the line any further east than the last point of transshipment for vessels from inland waters to vessels that are seagoing. Quebec is the point farthest east where such transshipment takes place.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James Lorimer Ilsley: The next amendment is:
That paragraph (j) of clause 2 of Bill 56 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:-*
"(j) 'property' means buildings, machinery, fixtures or other structures erected or placed upon, in, over, under or affixed to land, and all movable corporeal property in Canada, but shall not include:
(i)	land, exclusive of any structures aforesaid ;
(ii)	growing crops, plants and trees;
(iii)	ships or vessels other than ships being built or equipped in Canada prior to their being completed, launched and/or equipped;
(iv)	machinery, tackle, fishing gear or furniture of ships or vessels;
(v)	property or goods laden or freighted in ships or vessels other than goods laden or freiglited in ships used solely in inland wale rs;
(vi)	money, negotiable instruments, securities for money, evidence of title to any property or right or of the discharge of any obligation, or any documents owned for the purpose of a business;
(vii)	such other property as may be excluded by the terms of any contract of insurance or by any regulation
and does not include use and occupancy, profits, earnings, consequential loss, accounts, debts or any incorporeal property."
The main change that is being made by this amendment I have already explained to the house several times; that is, all ships are now taken out of the bill, but personal property, that is the goods laden or freighted in ships on inland waters, is still left in the bill. I have explained the reason for coming to that decision.
Before this amendment, paragraph (vi) in the printed bill included the words "does not include the use and occupancy of buildings," and so on. We have cut out the words "of buildings," because that is not necessary. Then we have put in that it does not include "consequential loss."


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does not that have a technical meaning? There is a legal interpretation of it I think.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It has a technical insurance meaning, and I am advised that it should go in.

War Risk Insurance


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, I am not just sure what the meaning is. The minister has not the meaning before him?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I move the amendment
accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have just one suggestion to make to the minister, namely, that in paragraph (vi) he should include the words "evidences of indebtedness". I think it would be desirable to put that in.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I accept the suggestion of the leader of the opposition, that "evidences of indebtedness" go in after "securities for money", so that paragraph (vi) will read:
money, negotiable instruments, securities for money, evidences of indebtedness, evidences of title,
And so on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It would make it more certain. Otherwise that might be left out.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Has the minister excluded what is now subparagraph (vi), or included it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Now that becomes subparagraph (vii) "such other property as may be excluded . . ."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Thomas Vien: Shall section 2 as
amended carry?


William Chisholm Macdonald: There is just one question I wish to ask before this section is carried. Is it intended that damage occasioned by an accident such as the Halifax explosion of 1917 shall be insurable under the act? In other words, would the words "munitions or explosives being lawfully . . . transported in Canada" in paragraph (1), subparagraph (iv), include munitions or explosives carried in a ship under way or at anchor?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is intended to cover an explosion in a harbour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is quite clear that it does.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Before the section carries, there is another whole aspect of it which I think should have some attention from the committee, and I fear that we shall not have time this afternoon to give it that attention.
I should like to say in a general way that I have been impressed by the work of the committee this afternoon. Those people who
are running about the country talking about the deficiencies of parliament, its carelessness and so forth, would, I think, have been enlightened had they been here to-day and observed the solicitude with which the various hon. members were looking after the interests of their constituents. After all, that is what we are here for-to look after our constituencies, which comprise Canada. I think the minister has honestly attempted to be fair to all concerned. I think he has listened with due sympathy to the requests of the various hon. members.
The matter I wish to discuss is the meaning of "value" in this bill. I note that paragraph (m) of section 2 was deleted. I was a member of the banking and commerce committee which deleted that clause, but I was never satisfied as to the reason why it was deleted. It is, I think, an important matter. The paragraph served as a sort of criterion by reference to which the minister's agents might hope to determine the extent of damage which had been done to a given piece of property-the value of the property. I wonder what, in the minister's mind, compensates in the bill for the loss which it has sustained by the deletion of that paragraph from the section. What is there in the bill now to enable those who will administer it to determine the value of a given piece of property which has been damaged?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I was informed that the section, perhaps, did not quite represent the result of the court decisions as to what is the value under an insurance policy, and I understood that the members of the banking and commerce committee felt that the definition should be eliminated, that there should be no definition of value, and that value should be settled now as it is under a fire insurance policy, in accordance with legal principles. I understand it is very difficult to define. I know that Mr. Leonard thought he had defined it about in accordance with the results of the decisions, but some members of the committee disagreed with him, and it was decided to cut it out.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It will leave the legal remedy. I think that is fair.


John Horne Blackmore: It seems to me that the bill is decidedly deficient without some such paragraph in it. If what is to be used is the ordinary legal agreement concerning values as in a fire insurance policy, it should

Questions

be so stated, but I certainly would not approve of it without some explanation that would satisfy me.


Thomas Vien: Shall section 2 carry?


John Horne Blackmore: No, Mr. Chairman. I think this matter is important. Although I have sat as a member of the banking and commerce committee pretty well all through its deliberations, and listened with most attentive care to all that has been said here in connection with the bill, I find confusion resulting from an attempt in the bill to defer to two points of view. I should like to have a discussion to clarify certain matters before it is passed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should
like to ask my hon. friend if when we meet again he will give his attention to subsection 3 of section 3 and explain the reason for that arbitrary power and let us know at the next sitting. I was a member of the committee but I did not attend.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, July 9, 1942