Mr. REID:

Not in committee.

Mr. LACROIX (Beauce):

A standing vote.

Section agreed to: yeas, 36; nays, 18.

Section 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. STIRLING:

I wonder if the sponsor of the bill would be good enough to make an explanatory statement? My recollection is that he did so on a previous occasion, on the second reading, I think, but I am unable to turn it up in Hansard.

Mr. McILRAITH:

On May 29. To save time I might give the explanation again. The bill is very simple. The Canadian Dental association has been in existence as an unincorporated body since the year 1902. The dental profession have incorporated bodies or associations in each of the nine provinces, and these provincial associations have been consulted and have consented to the present bill. The membership of the association is in the neighbourhood of 4,000. The scheme of the bill follows exactly the scheme used in the Canadian Medical Association Act, which act will be found as chapter 62 of the statutes, 8-9 Edward VII.

Private Bills

The objects are set out in detail in section 2 of the bill. It will be seen from these objects that the licensing and control of qualifications and the practice of the dental profession are not covered by this act but are left with the provincial associations. I think that is perhaps all that I can usefully say at the moment, but if there are any questions I shall be very glad to answer them so far as I can.

Will the passage of this act mean the setting up of a body to pass on the qualifications required by this association?

Mr. McILRATTH:

No; this association will have no control over the licensing or over the qualifications of the profession. The real object behind the incorporation arose from practical difficulties in connection with the publication of their magazine. This magazine has a wide circulation, but when it came to making contracts for advertising and other matters in connection with the magazine it was necessary to have the contracts signed by each of the nine provincial associations or incorporated bodies. This involved a great deal of delay and many practical inconveniences, and it was because of these difficulties that incorporation was sought.

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West); Is this body to deal in real estate? Section 6 provides that the association may:

(i) acquire by purchase, lease, gift, legacy or otherwise any real and personal estate and property,-

And:

(iii) sell, manage, develop, lease, mortgage, dispose of or otherwise deal therewith in such manner as the association may determine: Provided that real estate held by the association shall not exceed in value at any one time the sum of five hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. McILRAITH:

That section I believe is copied from the act- of 1909 incorporating the Canadian Medical association, I know that it is not the intention of this association in any way to deal in real estate, but it is the practice in these acts to enable the association to hold real estate for its own purposes as incidental to the main purposes of the organization, and that top limit of $500,000 is put in as the limit for any real estate the association may own. That is my understanding of the purpose of the section.

Mr. D. A. McNIVEN (Regina City):

I wish to make a few observations with regard to this bill-not, I may say, with any desire to oppose it. I understand that the companies named in the bill have from time to time constructed their electrical transmission lines over certain streams or rivers which are now declared to be navigable, and the object of the bill is to remove any doubt as to their right so to construct them. I understand that the applicants are subsidiaries of the Aluminum Company of Canada, which in turn is a subsidiary of the Aluminum Company of America.

Power has been developed on a big scale in that part of Quebec's hinterland known as the Saguenay river basin. Owing to the demand for aluminum in the construction of aeroplanes, power construction has been stepped up very considerably, and within the last year or year and a half, a million horsepower has been developed in that area, making a total development of approximately 1,750,000 horse-power of electrical energy.

The 1941 production of aluminum at the Arvida plant was 500 million pounds. It is estimated that 1942 production will be between 700 million and 800 million pounds, and that this amount will provide all the aluminum that is required for approximately 80,000 planes.

There are huge dams, reservoirs and power stations stretching from lake St. John right back to James bay. For this undertaking there were shipped into northern Quebec some 1,900 tons of equipment, approximately 750 men, and a large number of horses and oxen, by aeroplane. It is probably the largest aeroplane movement of freight ever undertaken in Canada. From this it will be gathered that it is a tremendous undertaking. In recent months the aluminum company was searching for additional power which it endeavoured to obtain in Manitoba. Arrangements could not be made there, and I was surprised to find within the last couple of weeks an announcement in the Financial Post that the aluminum company had decided to develop a site at Toronto covering some 48 acres and had started construction of office and other buildings at a cost exceeding $500,000.

Private Bills

The area involved indicates another huge undertaking of a war character being developed in eastern Canada. May I emphasize the fact that already one million horse-power have been developed in the Saguenay area, and there must be some close association between the location of this new plant at Toronto and the recent announcement of the Ontario government that it proposes to develop the Carillon site at a cost of $40,000,000.

This parliament is being asked to approve the use of a natural resource for the development of power in an area which four years ago had a surplus of power which the producers sought to export, because we were told that hundreds of thousands of horse-power were annually going to waste. If that is so, then I suggest, and I suggest it forcibly, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), and the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), that some direction should be given to these companies which are being heavily subsidized, to the end that future construction will serve some useful purpose in post-war development. It is but another step in the perfecting of that industrial Frankenstein which we are rapidly building 'up in Ontario and Quebec in war industries.

I am not critical of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, whose responsibility it is to obtain war production in the quickest way possible. But while that was true a year or two ago, it has not the same force to-day as it had then. War has broken out on the western front, and I suggest that the transportation of goods east or west and the possibility of attack on either the west or the east coast would justify the installation and establishment of some of these war industries in the prairie provinces, and particularly in Saskatchewan.

What relation has this request to the subject matter of the bill before the house? We have in Saskatchewan unlimited coal deposits that could be used to develop a very large head of power if an enterprise such as the aluminum company or some other company would undertake its development. There is no large head of power developed in Saskatchewan at present. It would have a post-war use, because the power could be transmitted to the farms and the small towns; it would be a means of inducing small industries to come into the province to supply the demand of its million people, and it would help as nothing else would to correct the badly balanced economy of the prairies. Everyone who has given the matter any thought has stated in the most emphatic terms that some development of that kind must take place,

otherwise the plight of the people on the prairies, in Saskatchewan particularly, is going to be an unhappy one for years to come.

I ask pardon for intruding that thought upon the introduction of this bill, but I did want to bring it to the attention of the Minister of Mines and Resources and the Minister of Finance.

Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.

Mr. GREEN:

When this bill was before

the committee on a previous occasion hon. members on-all sides of the house urged upon the minister that the bill be extended so that fishermen on the two coasts of Canada might be able to get coverage. The section stood at that time with the understanding that the minister would look into the situation. We were all hopeful that he would be able to work out some plan whereby these fishermen could be protected. Is the minister in a position to make a statement?

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):

Yes. We are on section 2, and some points came up when the section was before the committee last. The main point was the protection of fishermen. It was urged that the bill be amended so that fishermen could insure under it. I expressed my opposition to that suggestion on the ground that the bill is designed to cover property within the country, not property outside the country, because different considerations apply, different rates and so forth.

But I thought and, I believe, intimated that some plan might be worked out independently of the bill which would give a reasonable degree of protection to fishermen. I have conferred with my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud), and we have worked out an order in council which I think fairly well covers the situation. That order in council has been passed, and my colleague will either read it to the committee or make some statement about it after I resume my seat.

That was not the only point which arose. Another matter which was discussed under

War Risk Insurance

section 2 was whether ships generally, any ships, should be covered by the bill. Certain hon. members pointed out the apparent discrimination between treatment accorded ships on inland waters and that accorded ships on the high seas. I found it difficult to justify the discrimination. From one point of view, of course, the coverage of ships on inland waters is defensible, because the degree of risk is certainly comparable with the degree of risk to buildings and personal property on land. At the same time I have said several times that it is not the object or intention of the government to supply coverage which can be obtained in a commercial way, and ships on inland waters can be insured with the insurance companies. In view of the fact that it is very hard to explain to a person operating a ship on the coast why he will be unable to get insurance under this bill, while a shipowner operating a ship on the great lakes can, I have decided that the best thing to do is to take ships, whether on inland waters or outside the country, out of the bill altogether. That does not apply to ships in course of construction, but it does apply to ships which have been launched. I shall propose an amendment accordingly.

The definition of "inland waters," the extent of the area covered by that term, has been reconsidered. The government has already made its selection of the advisory committee which is provided for under one of the sections of the bill, even though the section has not been passed by the house, because of the urgency of advancing the scheme. I have therefore had the benefit of the advice of the members of the advisory committee, which advice has been very helpful on a number of points, and as a result of discussions with them and consideration of the matter generally it has been decided to draw a line farther up the river than the line found in section 2 (f). I will propose an amendment in that sense.

When we come to the other sections of the bill-perhaps we shall not reach them this afternoon, though I hope we may-there are two or three other points I shall have to lay before the committee. I will do so after having given them all very careful consideration, and I hope the views of the committee will coincide with my own views. One suggestion relates to the question of taxation. Since the bringing down of the budget the reasons for leaving the section in the form in which it was originally drafted appear to me very much stronger even than they were before. Although the banking and commerce committee rejected that section, I am going to urge in committee of the whole that the section be restored in

44561-248|

exactly or at least substantially its original form, because I think anything else under the present taxation provisions would be indefensible. I will propose one or two other amendments to the bill as we come to the various sections; but with regard to personal property on ships in inland waters it has not been deemed advisable, and I do not deem it advisable, to remove those provisions from the bill. Very awkward situations will arise if they are removed. For instance, grain is sometimes stored in ships. Grain will be insurable in elevators on the great lakes, and I consider it desirable that this coverage of grain should continue after it is loaded into boats on the great lakes. Therefore there will be provision that while ships in inland waters are not insurable under this bill, cargoes of ships in inland waters will be insurable.

I think that gives the committee a fair idea of the result of the thought that has been given to the bill, and perhaps now it would be advisable to have the Minister of Fisheries state to the committee the provisions of the order in council having to do with the protection of fishermen.

Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries):

Mr. Chairman, when this bill came before the committee some weeks ago, several hon. members representing constituencies in which there were numbers of fishermen, made requests to the effect that those fishermen should be given protection against war damage. It was then stated to the committee that the persons of the fishermen were protected against war risks, if they met with accident due to enemy action; or, if they met with death, that their dependents were protected. In addition, their personal belongings are protected by virtue of a special order in council under the War Measures Act, because all these matters are really war measures.

Mr. NEILL:

Would the minister give the number of the order in council?