Mr. Bell:

The point I am making is that you are seeking to put in an extra section in the middle of the act, and there are other sections which make definite mention of Newfoundland when it was not a part of Canada. While section 18 has no direct bearing on clause 1 (c) and might not be in conflict with it, I am certain that section 39 is.

Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):

I hope the hon. member will indicate in a clearer manner just how section 39 comes into conflict with the proposed amendment.

Mr. Bell:

I appreciate that it is confusing, but you are taking a section and adding it to the middle of part III of the Telegraphs Act. I maintain that some of the other sections of the Telegraphs Act are in conflict with that section you are reading because at the time the Telegraphs Act was drawn up Newfoundland was not a part of Canada. There are instances in some sections where Newfoundland is referred to as a separate country. I feel some consideration at least should be given to these sections that are farther on in the act.

Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):

I must admit that I do not see the point which the hon. member is trying to make. The existing sections in the Telegraphs Act are not being amended, and will have the same effect as they have had since this act was put into force. Whatever is said in section 17 of the act, either in the two existing paragraphs (a) and (b) or in the new paragraph (c) which we are adding today, will be governed by whatever is said in the following sections. I should like the hon. member to explain further how these sections could come into conflict with the proposed amendment.

Mr. Bell:

Well, section 17 of part III of the Telegraphs Act begins by saying that this part applies to every company, and then goes on to list them. They are in the act now. You are adding paragraph (c), and that is fine, but the other sections of part III of the act which come along from section 18 onwards were drawn up at a time when Newfoundland was not a part of Canada. I maintain that there is some law in those sections concerning Newfoundland as a separate country which is in conflict with the addition you are making to the act. At least, I ask for consideration of that point. I do not want to be dogmatic about it. That is the only point I want to make on it.

The Deputy Chairman:

If the parliamentary assistant wishes, we could call it six o'clock, and he could answer the question later.

Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):

I do not think the hon member has clarified the point he wishes to make. However I can assure him that the law officers of our department have thoroughly considered the amendment before submitting it, and I am certain he can take it there is no conflict between the proposed amendment and the existing sections of the Telegraphs Act.

Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources) moved

the second reading of Bill No. 167, to amend an act respecting the national battlefields at Quebec.

Mr. Power (Quebec South):

Mr. Chairman, over a very long period of years I have taken a great interest in the subject matter of the bill now before the house. For that reason I am beholden to thank the minister for the 83276-142J

National Battlefields at Quebec interest he is taking in this question-and that, notwithstanding his great preoccupation with the enormous task he has before him in the development of those great last frontiers of Canada, the new regions of our north country. I am sure that he, in the interest which he takes in the preservation and conservation of the memorials to those who have gone before us, will find inspiration for himself and his associates in the great task they have undertaken.

My interest, as I have said, creates in my imagination an almost proprietary or vested interest in the objects which are covered by this bill. Back in March of 1920 I moved in the house-

That, in the opinion of this house, the ancient walls and fortifications of the city of Quebec, having for all military purposes become obsolete, it is expedient in order to better preserve these valuable heirlooms as a historical monument for future generations, that their upkeep and control be now vested in the national battlefields commission.

This resolution was repeated on one or more occasions. But in connection with this matter let me say that, as a member of parliament, I went through almost the entire gamut of human emotions. There was fervour, crusading zeal, a certain amount of encouragement, setbacks, small successes, long years of patient waiting, and finally almost partial achievement-and, I regret to say, at the end a good deal of disillusionment.

Encouraged by the somewhat favourable comments of the then existing government, in 1920, I fondly imagined that when a friendly government should come into power what had been encouragement would become decisive action. But, like a great many of that generation following the first war, I was carried away by the slogan that the 1914-18 war had been a war to end all wars. And in my firm belief in that theory I was bold enough, and imprudent enough, to move in 1922 that the estimates of the militia department, including the salaries of the military heads, be considerably curtailed. After that, may I tell the house, the walls still remained in the control of the Department of National Defence, and my most impassioned pleas to preserve their historic interest met with brazen hearts and cold words from the heads of the department.

After a term of years, proceeding along; these lines, it occurred to me that the interest which I had intended to suscitate might better be covered by an appeal to another element of the thinking of the ministry, the political element. And I raised the question in this house of the possibility-yes, and the probability-that these walls, if their upkeep and fortifications were not kept in proper repair by the Department of National Defence,

2232 HOUSE OF

National Battlefields at Quebec might some day crumble, and fall upon the inhabitants of the quarters situated below the hill, thus wiping out a substantial Liberal majority.

In those days the Liberal party had not achieved the state of respectability which it now enjoys, and those of us who wished to be returned sought and obtained considerable support from below the hill-or "below the track", as they would put it in other constituencies. The result of these representations was that, within a short space of time, moneys were voted by the Department of National Defence for the repair of these walls. And by strange coincidence, once every four years more moneys were voted, with the result that the Quebec walls, taken by themselves, are today in a reasonable state of preservation.

But it did take over 30 years for the government, as a whole, to be moved to the point where the control of the upkeep and maintenance of these historic monuments was taken out of the hands of the Department of National Defence and transferred to a civilian department. This took place some time in 1950. It was announced that, from now on, these properties would be looked after, maintained and kept by the then department of resources. But unfortunately, I believe through some slip, or perhaps because the military mind was not existent in the civilian department, in the transfer there was an oversight in that whereas the walls themselves, that is to say, the mortar, the rock and the brick, were turned over to the department; the approaches, the fortifications, which I believe to the military mind are part of an entire fortified city, such as the glacis, the clearance made for the path of fire, and so forth were transferred to the national battlefields commission. The result is that today we appear to have two authorities dealing with what, in the opinion of many, should be exactly the same property. I am going to suggest to the minister, not for immediate action, because I realize that there will be many obstacles to overcome, that he take under the immediate control of his department both the actual concrete buildings, walls, bricks and so on and the approaches thereto consisting of the glacis, the cleared terrain which lies in front of it, and that having the two together he might proceed to the development of this great historic site of Canada in a manner which befits the government of Canada.

May I suggest to him that he has very valid reasons for undertaking this in his department. The national battlefields commission of itself has neither the facilities, the personnel nor the equipment to undertake anything like reasonably large capital expenditure such as the building of approaches and the giving

of access to the more important parts of the fortification. I would suggest to him that he do not at once abolish the commission, but that he retain it in a consultative capacity within his department, and that the one or two permanent employees-and I do not think there are more than that-be also taken over and become employees of his department.

Should he-and I think perhaps he may- meet with some local prejudice, may I suggest to him that if he looks over the debates which took place in this house at the time of the creation of the national battlefields commission in 1908 he will find that at that time there was some objection, and serious objection also, from a great leader of public opinion in our province, the late Armand LaVergne, who objected to the creation of such a commission with a constitution as laid down in the act, which I believe is still in existence, whereby persons from other countries and from other provinces could on the subscription or contribution by that country or province select a commissioner on the national battlefields commission. Mr. LaVergne raised the question in this house, and as a matter of fact divided the house on the subject. It may be that at that time there was considerable justification for the constitution of the commission as it was then formed, since the figures given to me by the department indicate that outside of the contribution of the government of the day, which was I think $300,000, there were gifts from provincial governments amounting in all to $260,000; gifts from Canadian municipalities; a gift from New Zealand; gifts from teaching institutions in Canada, in Great Britain and in other parts of the empire; gifts from historical societies, from commercial institutions and so forth, amounting to $556,787.24, which was certainly to some extent a justification of the peculiar constitution of this particular commission. But I submit, sir, and suggest to the minister that at the present time the function of this commission is restricted almost wholly to that of maintenance. There are eight or ten commissioners, I do not know which, all of whom are men of standing and prestige in the community, and it is hardly likely that men of that particular executive capacity and standing would do very much in the way of attending to the work of laying out paths or deciding which particular type of shrubbery, be it mistletoe or holly, should line the different paths, byways and roadways in this particular park.

Again my suggestion to him is that he retain the services of these very eminent and estimable persons as consulting authorities in matters relating to this great national battlefields park, and that his department

undertake to do whatever there is to be done so as to bring the national battlefields park of Quebec, which after all was the first one constituted in this country and which from the standpoint of history does represent a great deal in the early and even in the later life of this great country of ours, on a par with all the national parks throughout the country. If he were to undertake the work which should be done by his department, I am sure it would not be long before the national battlefields park in Quebec would have the facilities and the appearance which would make it at least on a par with other national parks throughout the country.

Mr. Lesage:

Mr. Chairman, I want to say only a few words to comment on what has been said by the hon. member for Quebec South. In doing so I might be a little embarrassed because one has to remember that he is my own member; I live in the constituency which he represents; he is also my ex-senior law partner. Therefore it might not be too easy for me to comment on what he has just said.

Of course he knows the situation and the history of this park better than I do, even if he has been living for a great number of years at one end of the park and I also have been living for a great number of years at the other end of the park.

He has mentioned the reasons why the constitution of the national battlefields commission is what it is. Since it was thought at the time that the provinces, private societies and private individuals, or even other countries, might contribute to the creation and maintenance of the park, it was felt that there should be an independent commission to administer the park. But since 1912 all the money necessary to maintain and improve the park has come from the federal government with no contribution coming from any other source. The question of whether the time has come to change the constitution of the park to bring it directly under part II of the National Paries Act is difficult to answer. I am certainly delighted to have had the views of the experienced hon. member for Quebec South on this matter.

Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved

the second reading of Bill No. 250, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.

Animal Contagious Diseases Act

He said: Mr. Speaker, in order to abide by the general rules of the house it is necessary that a minister move the second reading of this particular bill, but as my parliamentary assistant handled the matter at the resolution stage I am going to ask the house to permit him to make a speech in connection with this bill at this time.

Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):

Mr. Speaker, in this amendment of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act it is intended to change the basis of compensation. Under the act as it now stands we paid, in the case of swine, $50 for purebred and $30 for grade hogs; in the case of sheep the compensation was $50 for purebred and $20 for grade types. Under this new amendment we are going to pay the market value of sheep that have to be destroyed because of any disease that may occur. We have been most fortunate over the years in not having many diseases in sheep, but other countries have not been so fortunate and we may be faced with this problem in this country.

In the case of hogs, for many years these animals have been afflicted with cholera, particularly in the province of Ontario where we had a serious outbreak last year. The government feels that it would be in the interests of hog producers to increase the compensation to be paid. For that reason, instead of the $30 paid formerly for grade animals and $50 for purebred animals, we are now going to pay the market value of hogs when they are slaughtered.

I may be asked, What is meant by market value, slaughter value or any other term that I might use? Anyone who is a farmer will understand that in the case of small pigs they might be worth $10 or $12 when they are six to eight weeks old. If such pigs were slaughtered, $10 or $12 would be paid.

A pig ready for market might be worth in the neighbourhood of $50, and $50 would be paid for such a pig when slaughtered. A brood sow might be worth in the neighbourhood of $75, $80 or more, and if she were slaughtered, $75, $80 or more would be paid.

By this means we hope to help to eradicate any disease that may occur. We feel confident that this legislation will be favourably received by the producers and they will appreciate what we are trying to do to help them.