CANADA HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES OFFICIAL REPORT SECOND SESSION-TWENTY- SECOND PARLIAMENT 3-4 ELIZABETH II BEING THE 97TH SESSION FOR THE PERIOD 1867-1955 VOLUME IV, 1955 COMPRISING THE PERIOD FROM THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY, 1955, TO THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE, 1955, INCLUSIVE INDEX ISSUED IN A SEPARATE VOLUME EDMOND CLOUTIER, C.M.G., O.A., D.S.P. QUEEN'S PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY OTTAWA, 1955 3485 HOUSE 0F COMMONS Thursday, May 5, 1955 The house met at 2.30 p.m. HOUSE 0F COMMONS CONGRATULATIONS TO MR. SPEAKER ON ANNIVERSARY 0F BIRTHDAY Righi Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted on behaif of ail members of this house, and I amn sure a great many outside of this house, to extend to Your Honour our congratulations and our very good wishes on the occasion of your birthday anniversary. -Hon. George A. Drew : 1. During the past winter did the governnient conduct studies of the effect of the Canso causeway on ice conditions, tides and climate in the strait of Canso? 2. If so. what did such studies reveal? DIESEL FUELS, RAIL WAYS-DRA WBACK Mr. Johnsion (Eow River): Do the railways get any assistance whatever from the federal government by way of subsidy. drawback, etc., on diesel fuels when used by the railways? CIVIL DEFENCE COLLEGE Mr. Dinudale: 1. How many persons to date have taken courses at the civil defence college at Arnprior? 2. What courses are ofiered there, and how many persons have been trained in each course?3. Eow are these trainees distributed by prov- inces and cities? 4. What has been the total cost of these courses? 5. How la this cost dlstributed between federal government, provincial goverruments. and munici- palities? 50433-2191 Inquiries of the Ministry SITORMS SASKATCHEWAN-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE On the orders of the day:, Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker 3487 Inquiries of the Ministry the damage in previous occurrences which have been declared of national disaster pro- portions? Mr. St. Laurent: I sincerely hope the prop- erty damage that has been suffered in those localities does not amount to $50 million. Mr. Diefenbaker: That is the estimate in the press. Mr. St. Laurent: Yes, but our experience has been that there is always a first estimate of the extent of the damage that is far in excess of what it proves to be when an in- vestigation is made and the figures of the actual damage suffered in each locality are added up. There has been participation in assistance by the federal government in cases where the actual damage was much less than $50 million. Now, as to the first part of the hon. gentle- man's question, to my knowledge we have always dealt with the provincial governments in working out federal participation in the measures to alleviate damages resulting from a national disaster within a province. [Later:] On the orders of the day: Mr. W. G. Weir (Portage-Neepawa): May I ask the Prime Minister a question supple- mentary to that asked by the bon. member for Prince Albert. In the event that damage from floods and other circumstances arising in the province of Manitoba is beyond the capacity of the local people to meet, would the same type of consideration be given as has been suggested by the hon. member for Prince Albert? Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): Of course the same type of consid- eration will be given to Canadians in any part of Canada, but I do not think there has been any case where the interference with the growing of future crops has entered into the calculation of the physical damage that was taken into account in arranging for assistance to those suffering the damage. NATIONAL REVENUE APPOINTMENT OF CUSTOMS OFFICER AT PORT CHURCHILL On the orders of the day: Mr. G. D. Weaver (Churchill): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has a deci- sion yet been made as to whether the Department of National Revenue will be able to make arrangements for a customs port at Churchill for the 1955 season? [Mr. Diefenbaker.] Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue): Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Revenue will be prepared to provide complete customs clearance facilities at Churchill, Manitoba, during the 1955 naviga- tion season, if assurances can be given by a substantial number of importers, boards of trade, or other interested associations that they will take advantage of the service and will see that customs brokers and forwarding agents are established at the port to facilitate passage of documents through customs and the movement of the goods after clearance to destination. TRADE FLOUR-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PRICE DIFFERENTIAL On the orders of the day: Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia): I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister discussed with the minister of trade and industry for Jamaica his statement that Cana- dian flour can be purchased in Liverpool and Trinidad at from 20 to 27 cents less per hundred pound bag than in Jamaica? If this situation prevails, can steps be taken to bring these prices into line? Hon. Robert H. Winters (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce): The minister of trade and industry for Jamaica did discuss this question with me and others while he was here during the present week. I understand there is some differential in the price of flour as related to certain specific brands. The government of Jamaica and the millers are in communication with each other, and officials of the Department of Trade and Com- merce have also been in touch with the millers. We hope some satisfactory arrange- ment can be worked out. POSTAL SERVICE WHALLEY, B.C.-CHANCE IN NAME OF SUB-POST OFFICE-LETTER CARRIER SERVICE On the orders of the day: Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Post- master General. In view of the representa- tions made by the Surrey council, the North Surrey board of trade and the junior cham- bers of commerce in that region, when does the department expect to change the name of the sub-post office in that area to North Surrey, and when does it intend to put the letter carrier service into operation? Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Parliamentary Assistant to the Postmaster General): Mr. Speaker, I 3468 HOUSE OF COMMONS presumne my hon. friend has in mind the question of the naine of the postal station now known as Whaliey. The department is prepared te go ahead with the change cf name to North Surrey, presuming that this is the desire of the patrons. As regards letter carrier delivery, ail the details have been prepared and the depart- ment is ready te go ahead as soon as the question of the name is decided upon. This matter has been recentiy brought to the atten- tion of the Acting Postmaster Generai, and he has given instructions to proceed with the letter carrier deiivery and the change of the name te North Surrey. This, cf course, is assuming that ail conditions governing letter carrier delivery are compiied with. FERRY SERVICE YARMOUTH-BAR HARBOR-LAUNCHING DATE 0F FERRY "BLUENOSE" On the orders cf the day: Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth- Clare): May I direct a question to the Minis- ter cf Transport? With reference to the ferry Bluenose which is to operate this summer between Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and Bar Harbor, Maine, is the minister now in a position te tell us the launching date? Hon. George C. Marier presented the first report of the special committee on radio broadcasting. [Later:l Mr. Gauthier : Mr. Speaker, to begin with I should like to refer to the rernarks of the last speaker. I suggest that probably he and the Minister of Citizen- ship and Immigration should get together and bring their influence ta bear upon the governrnent, because there seerns ta be sorne question as ta how the increase in the popu- lation of the land should be brought about. Possibly their combined influence would be of sarne help in solving thîs very vexatious problem. 3579MAY 9. 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Unemployment Insurance Act In so far as criticism is concerned, I think perhaps I can go along with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) and the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) when they say that the Minister of Labour is doing a remarkable job and should not have this government's errors of omission and commission chalked up against him. They said he was not to blame, that his depart- ment is concerned with unemployment and finding work for the unemployed, that is pro- viding some form of subsistence within the framework of the Unemployment Insurance Act for those who are out of work. Well, if he is not to blame, we must look elsewhere. This government have taken credit for everything that has happened in this country for the last 25 years; therefore we have to place on their doorstep the blame for the unemployment condition that exists in the country today. Whether or not we can tie the responsibility down to any particular minister is questionable, but I suppose in the aggregate they have to take responsibility for what the government does. I should like to follow up the criticism offered by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) concerning the unem- ployment insurance bill that has been sub- mitted to this house. It is contended this bill improves the act, but there is one weakness in that argument or at least it is not on very solid ground. The minister has said that there is going to be a change in the amount of bene- fit the unemployed can receive. For instance, in explanation of the move he said that those receiving benefits for from one to 19 weeks made up 90 -1 per cent of the total. Those receiving benefits from 20 to 29 weeks com- prise 6-4 per cent, and those receiving bene- fits for over 30 weeks comprise 3-5 per cent. The reason he gave for reducing the benefit period from 51 weeks to 30 weeks was that the average claim was for 9 weeks. However, the supplementary benefits are to continue when the unemployed have exhaus- ted the regular benefits they have built up. In other words, the total period during which benefits can be received will now be 45 weeks. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) mentioned certain abuses in con- nection with the operation of the fund. I believe this is an outstanding example of a place where abuses do not exist, according to the minister's own submission. It is quite apparent to everyone in the house that there has not been any abuse, and that the inherent honesty of these people is so great that they have not attempted to exhaust their benefits. They went back to work as soon as possible. This speaks very well for the people covered by the fund, and I feel that people who show [Mr. Small.] such outstanding honesty should not be sub- jected to any abridgment of their rights. The benefit provision should remain as it is be- cause, as we all know, during the last two or three winters the period of unemployment has been gradually extended and the numbers of unemployed have been increasing. There is not much argument, therefore, for reducing the number of weeks for which benefits can be received. If the government do pass this provision, they are working an injustice on the people by reducing the period of benefit from 51 to 30 weeks. The supplementary benefit period is 15 weeks, and when it is all added up it makes 45 weeks. Under the old scheme the unemployed received benefits for 51 weeks plus 15 weeks, but now that is to be reduced. Before reducing this period the government incrcased the amount that could be received both during the 51-week period and also dur- ing the supplementary benefit period. This is a kind of double shuffle game. It is the old shell game; first you see it and then you don't. If the benefit period were left as it was and the payments increased, that would be worth while. The minister should be highly commended for the increase in the payment, but I think the government should be severely criticized for this double shuffle hocus-pocus that has been delivered to the unemployed. Then there is the provision concerning those who retire at 65. These people have been paying into the fund but have never received benefits and were never expected to receive any benefits. They are compelled, under force of circumstances, to retire. It is quite true that they are given a three-year reprieve; nevertheless they are deprived of something to which they are justly entitled. I think the minister would be well advised to reconsider that provision and bring it more into conformity with the principles of justice. There is one other point that was men- tioned by the hon. member for Hamilton West concerning clause 3, paragraph 4. It reads as follows: A commissioner may be removed by the governor in council at any time for cause, and a commis- sioner ceases to hold office upon attaining the age of 65 years. I should like to put added emphasis upon that clause, for the simple reason that I have received suggestions on many occasions from labour department brochures that some means should be found of amplifying the opportun- ities for employment of those people who are unfortunate enough to have reached 65 and are going to lose their position. The suggestion has been that something should be done to broaden the field of employment for MAY 9, 1955 these people. Here we find the gavernment setting an example for everyone else ta follow. I believe the members of this hause have had the fact brought home ta them rather forcîbly upon learning that some of the stenographers who have served long and well are going ta be retired at 65, whether -or flot they are giving goad service. I think probably the government shauld search their souls on this question. I do not want ta dwell on this point, but if the government are going ta emphasize it in the general labour fields they should support it. The hon. member for Cape Breton South said the civil servants were supposed ta have a guaranteed annual wage or a guar- anteed job, yet we find they have not. Some o! them have been let out. Some of thase who have been let out were probably within two or three months of ten years' service, but they were put on the skids. They are being gradualiy let out, sa the civil service does the very same thing of which. business is accused, in that it lays off its empioyees. We see that most of these glaring exampies have taken place in civil service groups, whether they are employed by provincial or federal governments. If it appears that the time is near when they will be classified as permanent employees, then on some pretext or other an excuse is faound f or letting them out before they qualify as permanent em- playees. And I have no doubt this goverfi- ment has resorted ta that sort of practice. I suggest further consideratian should have been given befare this measure was brought in, with a view ta giving work ta aider people. Before passing on to another point, I would direct my remarks ta the statement by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnstan) that he would like anyone to point out any time in this country's history when an un- employment situation had been solved. He proceeded ta say that his question could not be answered. Let me tell hlm that it can be answered. Mr. Johnston (Bow River): I did not say that at ail. Mr. Small: What did you say, then? Mr. Johnston : Mr. Speaker, it must be obvious to the Minister of Labour from the speeches that are being made today that there are quite a few improvements that stili have to be made in the Unemployment Insurance Act. Surely it is significant that suggestions as to shortcomings in the act are being made not; only by members in opposition groups but also by those members of the Liberal party who thus far have participated in the debate today. It seems to us, now we have had a chance to study the actual bill since the debate on April 4, at which time we had the resolution and first reading of the bill, that the main improvements in the bill are in the nature of administrative changes. Most of these changes are to the good. As has been pointed out, there are some which although administra- tively are an improvement are not too bene- ficial to the workers. However, our complaint; is that although there have been many admin- istrative changes there has not been enough change in the act in ternis of pollcy and in ternis of real substance. As I pointed out when I spoke during the resolution stage on April 4, we feel that the action the goverrnment took in 1940, in asking parliament to concur in a resolution seeking an amendment to the British North America Act to write unemployment insurance into section 91 of that act, had the effect of obligating the government, morally if not Unemployment Insurance Act legally, to federal concern over unemploy- ment and federal responsibility for all unem- ployed. Government spokesmen may make different comments on the subject now, but we feel that the acceptance of that moral obligation arising from what was done in 1940 was confirmed by the green book pro- posals of 1945, when the federal government talked in terms of full federal responsibility for the employable unemployed. Even we in the opposition could not com- plain too strenuously when the first Unem- ployment Insurance Act failed to go all the way in that direction, but surely when the time has come for an overhaul of the Unem- ployment Insurance Act the government should be making further progress in the direction of the moral obligation that was undertaken in 1940. In our view the govern- ment should now meet the commitment that we feel was made in this field by the govern- ment in 1945. However, we look in vain in this legislation for any broadening of the acceptance by the government of federal responsibility for all unemployed Canadians. On the other hand, at the second reading stage on April 26, which was the same day the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made his speech to the federal-provincial confer- ence in the railway committee room, we had the statement of the Minister of Labour that in certain circumstances he regarded what was proposed by the Prime Minister as more appropriate than unemployment insurance. I must be fair to him and say that he was speaking particularly of people along in years who at present are able to qualify under certain circumstances for 51 weeks of unem- ployment insurance benefits but who under the terms of this new bill will qualify for only 30 weeks of benefits unless they are able to qualify for supplementary benefits for a few weeks. It does seem to us a shameful admission an the part of the government for the Minis- ter of Labour to say that what was proposed by the Prime Minister, namely a form of relief-that is what it is, even though it is to be shared among three levels of govern- ment-was more appropriate in some cases than unemployment insurance benefits, which as we know have been built up in this country as something the workers have as a matter of right. We feel that this is a retreat in principle; we feel that this is a retreat from the green book proposals of 1945; we feel that it is a retreat from the moral obligation which the federal government accepted when in 1940 it asked that insurance against unemploy- ment be written into our constitution, into section 91 of the British North America Act. IMr. Knowles.d Therefore, although the government and the unemployment insurance commission may have some feeling of satisfaction that when this bill is through the act will be in better form administratively than it was before, it is a disappointment to us that it does not move further in the direction of full federal responsibility for all employable unem- ployed. When some others have talked in this vein the Minister of Labour has tried to suggest that this was an attack upon the actuarial soundness of the fund. The minister knows that some of the responsible labour bodies in this country have urged that those outside of unemployment insurance as we now have it should be covered by the federal govern- ment, but that the administration of what- ever payments need to be made to these people should be under the unemployment insurance commission, with any additional grants of money that may be necessary to be made from the consolidated revenue fund. We feel that an approach of that kind would be much better than the one now being con- sidered because it has been proposed by the Prime Minister. We feel that it would be more in line with the sound principles which the federal government laid before this country in the green books of 1945. Because I spoke at some length on April 4, and because I expect to be a member of the committee to which this bill will be referred, I am not going to speak at length now. Neither am I going to raise all the issues which I feel we must raise when the bill is before that committee. However, there are one or two items which it seems to me are of sufficient importance that attention should be called to them now. As I indicated in the reference I made a moment ago, I join with others in protest- ing against the reduction of the maximum period from 51 to 30 weeks. Here we have a case of the government giving with one hand but taking away with the other. I recognize that for three years after this bill comes into effect there will be no loss in actual dollars compared with what one would have had under the old act, but once that three-year period is over we will be down to the 30-week maximum rather than the 51-week. This will come at a time when the employment situation in Canada is still a question mark. We will be faced with all the various factors, including the tremendous factor of automation. We feel that this is no time to be reducing the maximum period for unemployment insurance benefits. We feel that there is a deficiency in the new legislation in that although there are slight increases in the rates of benefit, the gap between the rates of benefit to be drawn 3584 HOUSE OF COMMONS by insured workers and their wages before gaing on unemployment insurance is forever widening. The increase in benefits does not keep Up with the increased, cost of living, which is refiected in part i increased wages. Workers who go on unemployment insur- ance today, or after this act goes through, even though they may get more dollars than was the case in 1940 or in 1945 will find the gap between what they are getting on unem- ployment insurance and what they were getting before they became unemployed much wider than it was. We feel that con- sideration should be given ta, the need of a higher rate of benefit. I should also like ta draw attention just in passing to a change which concerns me and which I have found in the section having ta do with what we caîl the fair employment practices aspect of the Unemployment Insur- ance Act. As I read the section in the old act, which was put in only a few years aga, there was a small loophole i it. I admit that loophole was there, but it was a loophole of only twa or three words. In the new act that loophole has been enlarged ta twa or three Uines or even mare. It seems ta me that was a fairly important amendment, and I arn sorry ta see the loophole being made larger. Likewise, Mr. Speaker, as an example of a type of change that is being made, may I say that I find the position of those em- ployed by municipal public utilities is being altered. Under the old act the wording was such that employees of municipal public utili- ties were, by statute, made workers in insur- able employment. Under the new act that is a matter o! regulation; at least the com- mission can, by regulation, rule such em- ployees ta be excepted frorn the category known as insurable employment. I mention that point, Mr. Speaker, because I am concerned about it in its own right, and also because I think it illustrates my point that in this legislation many changes have been made which seem ta have as their aim. the desire ta make it a little easier ta ad- minister the legisiation. I sympathize with the unemployment insurance commission in the tremendous job it has and the good job it does in administering this act, and I under- stand it wanting ta have things so that they can be worked smaothly. We understand its desire ta have leeway here and there s0 it can adjust things ta fit variaus situations. But we do not like ta see groups o! people Who were specifically covered put in an uncertain category, as is the case with those working for municipal public utilities. Mr. Speaker, I arn going ta keep ta my promise that I would save most of the points Unemployment Insurance Act I want to raise on this bill until we get into committee. 1 arn glad the minister has agreed that this bill is to go ta the committee on industrial relations, where I know there will be representations from interested bodies and organizations. After we have been able ta go over it in that committee I hope we shall be able ta bring it back ta the house a better piece of legisiation than it is at the present time. But even after we get such improvements as we can win in the Unemployment Insur- ance Act, I remind the government that this is flot the whole answer ta the tremendous problem of unemployment facing Canada at the present time. Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland): Mr. Speaker, I discussed these amendments at the resolu- tion stage of the bill, and I shall now take only two or three minutes of the time of the house. At that time I think the minister said that 95 per cent of the unemployed drew benefits for 30 weeks or Iess. Mr. Gre gg: Twenty weeks or less. Mr. McMillan: This means that 5 per cent of the unemployed will be worse off than before. Their position would not be as favourable unless, of course, their unemploy- ment exceeded this time by a very short period, in which. event they would gain by the increased paymnents, or if the termination of their regular benefits came at a time when they could qualify for seasonal benefits. This 95 per cent mentioned by the minister has reference to an over-ali percentage for Canada. I know that for certain depressed areas, where there has been considerable unemployment, there would be considerably more than 5 per cent unemployed after the 30-week period during which it is now pro- posed to pay regular benefits under these amnendments. I would appeal to the minister ta extend this period beyond 30 weeks, for the follow- ing reasons. I think most Canadian workmen prefer to pay into the unemployment insur- ance fund and draw benefits while they are unemployed. They want ta retain their self- respect. They do not want ta be obliged ta depend on relief and charitable measures. If the unemployment insurance were paid for this full tîme, I thînk there would be less need for these relief measures. In these de- pressed areas I thînk it is fair ta say that the people are less able than they otherwise would be ta raîse money for charitable pur- poses. Rents and taxes are in arrears. The people and the municipalities themselves are less able to raise money than when their economy is normal or buoyant. MAY 9. 1955 3585 3586 HOUSE 0F COMMONS Unemployment Insurance Act We must flot assume that a man who bas flot found work in the 30-week period does flot want to flnd work. I know of a number of good, responsible men who have travelled across Ontario at least, getting rides with motorists, in an effort to find work. They have been unable to flnd work, and their benefits have expired. I was glad to see the seasonai banefits increased earlier this session. I amn also glad to see the regular benefits increased under this act. However, I regret to see tha tima shortened with respect to payment of these regular benafits. We live in a country of plenty, one with agricultural surpluses. I do flot lika to sea anybody in this country go hungry because of our inability to deal with this particular phase of unemployment. I fully agree with the Prime Ministar that we sbould not class thosa in need as employable and unemploy- able. The terra "unemployable" is in many instances a relative one. Medical men are oftcn puzzled to know how to classify these people. For example, a man might be unem- ployable as far as haavy, laborious work is concernad, but he might be better off physi- cally and mentally if he had some lighter work to do. In the debate at the resolution stage of this bill I empbasized the difficultias ex- perienced by older workers in flnding work, particularly the difficulty experienced by thosa 45 years of age or oIder in flnding insurable employment undar this act. Retirement at too early an aga is causing a real social prob- lem. In many cases it resuits in early physical and mental break-up. I have observed this result many times in my practice, and I am sure that is true in the case of other physi- clans. I would hope that our government will give consideration to this problem of the older worker, with a view to helping hlm proiong his years of contentment and usefulnass. I do not propose to deal with the other matters that I dealt with at the resolution stage of the bill. I then talkad about wider covarage, but I tbink I shail leave that matter until the bill is in committee. (Translation): Mr. Andre Gauthier (Lake Si. John): Mr. Speaker, the govarnment has sbown raalism and vision in bringing to this act such amend- ments as are likely to benefit the unemployed. Moreover, as evidenced by the proposals racently submitted to the provinces at the preliminary faderai-provincial conference, the government clearly bas no intention of sbirking its responsibilities in connection with [Mr. McMillan.] unemployment and is resolved to implement whatever measures are necessary to solve this problem. There is notbing surprising in the fact that this new bill respecting unemployment insur- ance is more generous and liberal, wbile imposing on the worker as small an increase as possible in tbose contributions necessary to give effact to this splendid social legisiation. The ministar bas triad to make this legisia- tion more flexible by requiring that contri- butions be now collected on a weekly rather than on a daily basis. The increase in bene- fits from $24 to $30 for married people and frorn $17.10 to $23 for single people will maka it easier for these unemployed to provide for the basic nacessities of life. An important point to considar is that the integration of seasonal benefits, granted early this session, together with the advantages that wîll corne out of this redraft, aimad at allevi- ating current unemployment, are not a rasuit of a temporary measure merely for the dura- tion of the prasent slack period. On the con- trary, it will remain permanently in our statutes and, for yaars to corne, citizens affected by seasonal unemployment will bene- fit from it. I wish to command the government for its enargetic efforts to ease the people's burden and for its evident desire constantly to im- prove the lot of the workers. Like evterybody aise in this bouse, I arn eager to sec this bill adopted, although I think it my duty to cali the attention of the government to certain aspects of that legis- lation which have to do with men employad in lumbar camps. In tha province of Quabec, employment in the lumber trade and industry bas been insurable since April 1, 1950. I might racaîl that, early in the flrst session of hast parliament, I insisted on having lum- berjacks covered by the Unemploymant Insur- ance Act, because I feit that tbose wbo are most aff ectad by the ups and downs of the employment situation are in the greatest need of protection. The commission then thought that most workars in that industry only worked part of the year. That is why it was daclarad seasonal and a subsequent rulhng imposed additional reservations witb regard to the raceipt of unemployment insurance benefits during the off-season. In the province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker, this off-season extends fromn April 1 to September 30. Conditions in which lumbering operations take place tend to change fromn year to year. Automation, for instance, bas contributed to 3586 change the lumber industry into a year- round proposition. Thus tractors and trucks are put to use as early as September and October and, very often, lurnbering operations start just after the floating of the timber, usually between May 15 and July 15. The off-season for the lumberman therefore actually extends from July 15 to September lst, while during the rest of the year he is actively engaged in cutting and other related operations. That is why I arn requesting that seasonal regulations be lifted in the case of lumbermen. I arn well aware that enforcement of these regula- tions is a source of misunderstanding, mis- apprehension and bother. By exernpting the lumber industry fromn seasonal regulations, the commission would only generalize a situation which is already prevailing in the sarne industry in western Canada, especially in British Columbia. I would not like to resurne my seat with- out a word on behaif of the farrner who, during the slack season on the f arrn, goes out to lumber camps. Because of regulations governing seasonal employrnent, he does not qualify for unemployrnent insurance benefits unless he can prove that he has worked at least 135 days during the active farrning season. Mr. Speaker, those regulations are out- moded and complicate the life of everybody, including the insured people as well as the administration. I know that the intention of the governrnent in making this revision is to apply the benefits of the act to more people, s0 as to extend the scope of this excellent social legislation. I arn therefore satisfied that the commission, which is being authorized by the present act to draft regula- tions, will take rny suggestions into account. Mr. Speaker, I live ini a district where lurnbering operations are of prime importance. I know lumbermen very well and I know too o! their needs and o! their problems. That is why I arn confident of speaking on their behaif when I request that they be exernpted from the regulations regarding seasonal ern- ployment. The srnall farmer and the settler, who has to work away from home in the wintertirne to earn a living for their family would undoubtedly be grateful if the com- mission decided to show more generosity towards thern when drafting the new regula- tions, so that they may benefit, in the same proportion as other workers, frorn the unernployrnent insurance stamps they have in their books. (Text): Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert): Mr. Speaker, ordinarily I would not be too Unemployment Insurance Act happy about dragging out the debate on second reading of a bill that is to go to a com- mittee for special consideration, but the other day the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) referred to certain things in connec- tion with myseif and unemployment. I should like to refer briefiy to what he said and con- nect it with the thoughts I have respecting the legisiation now before us. It is true that in a speech I made the other day 1 perhaps invited a reply, but I was a bit disappointed that the hon. member for Charlotte could not find any criticism except the one he levelled at me. I do not refer toi this matter now in any malicious way, but I should like to read what he said on that occasion. At page 3484- Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Bell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might just say that the hon. member for Charlotte sug- gested that I did not get up and speak on unemployrnent during the debate on that sub- ject a short while ago. Last year I spoke on unernployment in the throne speech debate, in the unernployment debate and on the budget. This year I spoke on unernployrnent in the throne speech debate and was prepared to speak during the unernployment debate when I realized that the debate had gone on for a longer period than perhaps was desired by both sides of the house, and refrained from making rny remarks at that tirne. However, at the first opportunity, during the budget debate, I referred to the unernploy- ment situation in Saint John. I mentioned that it was much better, and I thought I gave the government full credit for that. I realize that the provincial situation is another story. However, I did want to clear up the matter since I arn a member of the industrial rela- tions cornrittee, corne from a labour riding, and arn concerned about these matters. Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask the hon. member whether he should not deal with the so-called accusations or other remarks the hon. member for Charlotte has made affecting hirn when we resume the debate on the bud- get. I notice that the hon. member spoke on the amendinent to the amendrnent but has not spoken on the arnendment. The hon. member for Charlotte also spoke on the amendrnent to the arnendment, which has now been dis- posed of. The hon. member may deal with hlm further ini the budget debate. Mr. Knowles: Neyer turn down Mr. Speaker's invitation. Mr. Bell: I believe you are quite right, Mr. Speaker. I was merely suggesting rny reason MAY 9. 1955 3587 HOUSE OF COMMONS Unemployment Insurance Act for taking part in this debate on second read- ing, and saying it was not perhaps so serious. I wanted to leave it at that. Then looking over Bill No. 328, which is now under consideration, I think perhaps the entire bill has been covered both at the resolution stage and now on second reading. The history of the Unemployment Insurance Act was reviewed. This is a complete revi- sion of the act, 121 sections. It is divided into five parts, and I think we ail give the minister credit for introducing this in a businesslike way. There is one phase of the life of our people that has not been covered in this bill to the extent I believe it should have been. I feel that perhaps we are not aware of this group of people to the same extent we are aware of the entire labour and employment field. I was pleased to hear the previous speaker, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan), refer to the older age group who are increas- ingly becoming a problem in our community lif e. There is a new interest in this age group. Those of us who represent industrial ridings and have calls for employment assist- ance, relief and other considerations, would probably ail agree that people from 55 to 65, the non-veteran group, are a serious problem. Recently the Canadian Welfare Council published a special issue dealing with this problem. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that per- haps this legislation could take more cogni- zance of this age group than has been the case. Some interesting facts in connection with this group are contained in this special issue, but I shall not go into them. The entire issue presents the case for this group, and I merely suggest that this legislation does not seem to be completely in conformity with the present plans of the department. The department published an interesting booklet concerning the problems of the older worker, and I have looked it over. It is probably fair to say that it does show an interest, but that interest was not carried through into this legislation. I refer specifically to the controversial pro- vision in this legislation which has been men- tioned by nearly ail the speakers so far, concerning the reduction of the maximum benefit period in the year from 51 to 30 weeks. It is true that less than 4 per cent of those receiving benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act during the year take the full 51 weeks now available. It is true that the transition period which has been planned for the next three years does assist this situation. It is true also that the seasonal benefits which were added this year do add 15 weeks of benefit in some cases, but I suggest this matter has not been covered completely in this reduced period. [Mr. Bell.] I have some figures I should like to mention that are contained in the annual report on benefit years established and terminated under the Unemployment Insurance Act for the calendar year 1953. The source is the dominion bureau of statistics. Persons over 60 receive a relatively high proportion of the total benefit days paid. Such persons received 8,125,160 or 18-2 per cent out of a total of 44,660,188 benefit days paid on benefit years terminated during the calendar year 1953. While they received 18-2 per cent of the total benefit days paid, persons over 60 accounted for only 10 per cent of the total benefit years terminated in 1953. I think it is fair to say that elderly people are apt to be eligible for the maximum duration of regular benefits. Retired persons who have paid into the fund for some time, therefore, constitute the group most largely affected by the reduction in the maximum benefit allowed from 51 to 30 weeks. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, while this legisla- tion is welcome to some extent, this reduction is going to create a hardship on our older citizens, those who have been forced to retire at 60. In the past they were able to take the full 51 weeks' benefits, but now that is being cut down to 30 weeks, with a possible exten- sion through supplementary benefits. I do suggest there is a slight inconsistency in the attitude of the department toward this age group when they send out propaganda in connection with them, yet do not consider them to the fullest extent in this change that is being made. No reason for the change was given by the minister, except that only a small percentage would be affected. I do hope that when the measure is before the committee every con- sideration will be given to the employment problem of this older age group, which is becoming such a sore spot in our community. Mr. Barneti: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker? At six o'clock the house took recess. AFTER RECESS The house resumed at eight o'clock. Mr. T. S. Barneil (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, when one rises at this stage of a debate he is apt to discover that not ail of his thinking on the principle of a bill, such as the one we have been considering, has been completely unique or original. So per- haps I shall take as read some portions of the speech I had intended to make. Nevertheless there are some matters which have not yet been touched upon by other hon. members which I feel are of sufficient importance to menit consideration at this stage. I should like to mention those while I have the opportunity, and before this bill goes to the committee on industrial relations for consideration. May I say that, .along with a good many other members, I am very happy that this type of study is to be given to the bill. I think it becomes evident that one's reaction to the bill and the changes it pro- poses to make in our Unemployment Insur- ance Act depends very much upon the con- text in wbicb one is considering it. One or two hion. members from this group who have preceded me in the debate have pointed -out that the bill, and the general set-up of unemployment insurance, come f ar from meet- ing ail the needs that arise in respect of unemployment and the problems connected therewith. I would suggest that those short- comings arise largely fromn the fragmentary and piecemeal nature of the various measures of social security which thus far we have seen put into effect ini Canada. However, if one does consider the bill in a narrower context, that is in relation to the present Unemployment Insurance Act, then I for one arn inclined ta feel that on balance this bill does represent something by way a! a step forward in our unemployment insurance legisiation. For that reason I am happy to see many a! the provisions the bill pro- poses to introduce. Along witb others 1 bave been giving special tbought ta those sections o! the bill whicb have ta do with the qualifying period, and the changes made in respect of tbe dura- tian of the benefits. I think we must recag- nize that while this bill applies ta a broad group of Canadian citizens, nevertheless under the present act, and even if the bul naw proposed becomes law, the fact stili remains that those able ta secure benefits under the unemplayment insurance legisla- Lion will remain in effect a privileged group of Canadian citizens. It can be argued that under certain cir- cumstances the clause in the bill wbicb changes the qualifying arrangement from tbat o! sa many contribution days ta that of 50 many contribution weeks daes make it samewbat easier for persans ta achieve quali- fication under the bull. Nevertheless it stili remamns a long way framn providing that principle of camplete insurance caverage wbich I suggested in a former speech could very weli be applied and must be applied befare this legishatian is ail that it should be. 1 suggested that, follawing through witb the generally accepted insurance principle, it should be passible if ane bad paid, in effect, one premium under unemploymient insurance, Unemployment Insurance Act such person should tbereby become qualified to benefits if, through no fault of bis own, the need for such benefits became apparent. I still feel that shauld be our objective. Obviously the present measure fails far short of measuring up to that kind of require- ment. I do appreciate that section of the bill which increases the minimum period of benefits, the period during which people who have not achieved a great lengtb of contribution under the bill can receive bene- fits, if they become qualifled. To my way of tbinking that does go some distance toward meeting the needs of those who are most likely to require the benefits. There bas been a great deal of talk over the fact that tbe maximum period for wbîch benefits can be paid is being reduced from 51 to 30 weeks, and I know that various labour groups in the country have been making representation on this point. So long as the generai situation in Canada continues in its present state, representations are going to continue to be made on that point. How- ever, it bas become apparent to me that the approach the government bas taken toward the question of unempioyment insurance coverage is stili basically that outlined some time aga by the minister, wben he said it was designed to meet the needs of frictional and seasonal unemployment. I suppose it might be argued that under the Unemploy- ment Insurance Act as we have understood it thus f ar in Canada, that is alI this par- ticular legisiation is designed to do. This particular proposai in the bill makes it clearer than ever that that is still in the mind of the Minister of Labour and in tbe minds of bis colleagues in proposing the present measure. I might point out that the fact this pro- posai is being advanced makes it more evident than ever to me tbat there is a need in the country for something over and above what we have in our Unemployment Insur- ance Act. It may be true, as the minister bas pointed out, that the proposai contained in the bill wiii meet the needs of those requir- ing unemployment insurance benefits or at least a large percentage o! them. However, that stili does not alter the fact tbat there are people in the country who are gomng ta need something more than that; and when one hears talk about develaping automation, and when one gets littie glimpses every Sa often of the speed with whicb technological change is taking place in the country, then, should the bill return to the house for third reading with the proposai for a 30-week maximum intact, it will become more appar- ent than ever tbat we do need to have 3589MAY 9. 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Unemployment Insurance Act developed some other forn of insurance which will cover those the present act is not designed to cover. I am glad to see that provision is made in the bill for a three-year period during which the present arrangements can be tapered off. I should like to suggest that in that three-year interval the government might give serious consideration to the pro- posals advanced in the form of the resolution I had on the order paper last session and again this session, having to do with a new national insurance plan covering individuals against dislocations caused by technological advances, changed marketing conditions and other related causes. If we can have some serious indication from the government that they have some such proposal in mind in order to deal with those other problems re- lated to the unemployment question which, it bas been made plain by the statement of the minister, the present Unemployment In- surance Act is not designed to cover, then there would be a good deal less concern over this proposal to reduce the maximum period during which benefits can be paid. I hope that in the tapering off period to which I have alluded serious study will be given to the manner in which some such pro- posal as I have suggested can be brought into being in this country. I might suggest, of course, if some of our present economic trends continue, the need for something of that kind will become increasingly apparent long before the three-year tapering off period is over. I shall not deal at any great length with that subject, but there are two or three points covered in the bill with which I should like to deal briefly. In clause 27- Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. member be good enough not to refer to sections at this stage? We are discussing the principle of unemployment insurance, and this is not the time to go into the various sections of the bill. The hon. member will have to wait until the bill comes back and is con- sidered in committee of the whole. Mr. Barnefi: Mr. Speaker, I am quite will- ing to bow to your ruling in that regard. It was not my intention to go into a detailed analysis of the section. It was merely for convenience of reference that I mentioned the number. I hope Your Honour will agree that in a bill of this kind complex principles are involved. I wish to discuss the matter of excepted employment. Reference has already been made in the debate to one particular aspect of the subject, namely the fact that employment [Mr. Barnett.] in the fishing industry is still excepted em- ployment. I am very glad to know that a number of hon. members have taken up this matter. The present bill still proposes to except those who are employed in the great fishing industry of this country from the coverage of unemployment insurance. This is a matter on which I feel very strongly myself. It is a fairly complex matter. I should like to have some assurance from the minister that when this bill goes to the committee thorough consideration will be given to all aspects of that matter so hon. members can discuss in detail the pros and cons that it is not possible for us to discuss at this stage of the debate. I hope following that discussion the bill will come back to the house with an arrangement whereby those in the fishing industry will come within the provisions of the bill as we finally pass it. One other group of people are mentioned as being in excepted employment, and I should also like to refer to them. It is a fact that those employed in a hospital not operated for purposes of gain are still listed among those in excepted employment. Unless my under- standing of the situation throughout this country is completely wrong, the proportion of hospital beds involved in institutions which are operated for gain is very small indeed in Canada. Therefore, for all practical purposes the section eliminates from the coverage of the bill those who are employed in hospitals. I notice that provision is made for the commission, with the consent of the employer, to include those who are employed in hos- pitals that are not operated for purposes of gain. That principle is embodied in this bill. I feel that the sections which deal with it are completely at variance with the basic principle embodied in the bill. I suggest this section should be taken out of the bill. The fact that this bill makes the employees of the hospitals of this country subject to the whims and fancies of the employers is most repug- nant to me. What does this mean? It means, for example, that a stationary engineer work- ing in a sawmill or in a factory is in insurable employment, but if he moves into a hospital he disqualifies himself for the benefits of un- employment insurance coverage. I might point out that another princiole is expressly set out in the bill. It says that in determining whether any employment is or was insurable, regard shall be had to the nature of the work rather than to the business of the employer. I understand that representations have been made on this question by those who are managing hospital institutions. If such repre- sentations have been made, I would suggest MAY 91 1955 that they represent a very serious blind spot in the thinking of those who may otherwise be carrying on a most useful and desirable function in the life of this country. I would suggest to them that the time has come, if they still hold those views, for them to revise their opinions. Because of the way in which some hospi- tais and charitable institutions are run in this country, it may not be possible or desirable to have complete and universal coverage in that connection; but I would sug- gest that if that is the case this section could be much more desirably drafted by having it read in this way: "At the request of the employees, the commission shahl bring these people into insurable employmient". In the province from which I come the hospitals are supported by the populace as a whole. It is a very poor situation when many thousands of workers who are supporting the hospitals are themselves covered by unem- ployment insurance, yet their feilow workers, who may be called upon to minister to them ini their iilness, because of some whim of the hospital board, are denied what to those who are patients is a right and privilege which they enjoy as Canadian citizens because of this act. There is one other group of citizens of this country which is in effect an excepted group, although they are not named as such in the Unemployment Insurance Act. During my visit last year to Newfoundhand I was surprised and shocked to learn that many hundreds and probably over the course of time many thousands of my feilow Canadian citizens in that province receive no benefits whatever under the Unemployment Insurance Act because they are or have been emphoyed on certain leased bases in that province. I became interested enough in the situation to do a littie reading on the subject to find out how it came about. 1 realize, as ai members of the house do, that basically it arose out of a treaty to which Canada was not a party in the first place. I discovered that this treaty has been modified sînce the time New- foundland became a -part of Canada, and I assume there is a possibility that some fur- ther modifications might be made in that respect. Apparently such modifications as have been made have flot been su-eh as wouid cover those who are employed, for example, by a civihian United States contractor at a leased base. As far as I can see that is flot a good situation, that is not something which, Canada as a whole should -continue to countenance. I notice that article 28 of the original treaty makes provision for giving sympathetic con- sideration to any representations which either Unemployment Insurance Act party to the agreement may make from time to time after the agreement has been in force. I notice also that after Newfoundland became part of Canada certain modifications were made. On page 46 of treaty series 1952, No. 14, it is pointed out that arrangements were made whereby exemption from Canadian income tax, which apparently had been in effect, was removed from United States contractors or contractors ordinarily resident in the United States in respect of profits arising from work performed at the leased bases. I suggest that when such modifications of the treaty were made it would have been desirable at the same time that a further modification be made to require such contractors to have their employees covered by the Unemploy- ment Insurance Act. However, I understand that was not done and, as I say, over the years many thousands of the citizens of New- foundland have been denied the right to build Up unemployment insurance coverage. Unless the Minister of Labour can persuade the Secretary of State for External Affairs to make some immediate adjustment in the arrangements with the authorities of the United States of America, I would suggest that when this Unemployment Insurance Act is being revised provision should be made to cover these people. Those of us who live in the rest of Canada and who directly or indirectly were responsible for the partial alienation of what is now Canadian sofi should be prepared to accept the respon- sibility of seeing that no citizen of Newfound- land is thereby deprived of his right to unemployment insurance. If it is necessary to draft an arrangement whereby the unem- ployment insurance commission will assume the employer's share in connection with workmen engaged in these areas, I think that is something this parliament could very well support. I realize that there are a number of matters in respect to this bill which have not been touched upon either by myseif or by other hon. members. There may be other hon. members who wish to take part in the debate, and certainly there wiil be opportunity for f ull discussion of ail sections of the bill when it gets into committee. Therefore I shail not prolong my remarks at this time. Mr. H. W. Herridge (Icootenay West): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for York South have as usual offered the constructive criticisms and suggestions which are put forward by this party and other members of our group. There is no necessity for me to Unemployment Insurance Act take up the time of the house to repeat them, but I do want to bring to the attention of the house and the minister two or three groups who are excluded under the present bill whom many of my constituents would like to see included. Before proceeding with this matter, I must say that I was most interested in listening to the debate this afternoon to note the exceptionally large percentage of Liberal members who spoke in the debate who had criticisms to make of the bill and suggestions to offer to the minister. I was most interested in listening to the two hon. members from the province of Quebec who spoke just prior to the recess at six o'clock, and I noticed that both hon. members put forward criticisms very similar to those I am going to make at this time. First of all I refer particularly to farm workers. A good many of the people I represent are very sorry that farm workers are not included in the coverage of this legislation. Farm workers should be covered by the act. In my opinion the present exclu- sion of farm workers is unfair to the farn worker and to the farmer. I say it is unfair to the farm worker because it penalizes him for doing a most essential job, a job which is not popular with a great number of people in this country at this time. We should do everything possible to keep our farmers on the land and encourage farm workers to assist in the working of those farms. A farm worker usually works for lower wages and in many cases he has less security than the industrial worker. If any section of workers needs it, he needs this pro- tection. I think we should do all we can by amending this legislation and in other ways to make employment on the farms of this country as attractive as possible. I say it is unfair to the farmer because it makes it very difficult under some circum- stances for him to obtain farm labour at the right time, particularly casual labour. I know that in my own constituency quite fre- quently a man would like to go to work on a farm for a month or two, but if he has any choice of employment at all he will accept employment where he is covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think it is most unfair to the farmer as well as to the farm worker, because it puts the farmer in a difficult position when it comes to com- peting for necessary labour, particularly at certain periods of the year. This is an extremely important matter to the farmers in my constituency, particularly those engaged in the fruit industry who usu- ally do their pruning in the spring months of the year while the snow is on the ground, [Mr. Herridge.] then have considerable thinning to do in the summer months-ihere is a great deal of hand labour in orchard work-and then in the fall require extra help in the harvesting and packing of the fruit. It affects fruit farmers particularly, and other farmers as well. I say that the exclusion of farm workers from the terms of this act is unfair to the farm worker himself-it is distinctly unfair to him-and presents an unnecessary problem to the farmer. Of such great concern is this matter to the farmers in British Columbia that I know it has been discussed at numerous farmers' conventions and farmers' institutes. I have heard it discussed at institute meetings in the Kootenay district and in other districts in British Columbia. It was the subject of con- siderable discussion at the recent convention of the British Columbia fruit growers' associ- ation held in Kelowna on January 18, 19 and 20. I might say that this is a convention of all tree fruit growers in the province of British Columbia covering the Okanagan, the Koote- nays and the main-line points along to the west of Kamloops. This subject was of such great importance that it was raised on the first day of the con- vention, and considerable discussion took place. Then it was decided that it would be a good idea to get the head of the unemploy- ment insurance office to come and address the convention, to inform the convention of the terms of the act and so on. This gentleman kindly came to the convention and gave an informative address to the delegates. Follow- ing his address there was a thorough discus- sion of the whole problem and by unanimous vote the delegates to the British Columbia fruit growers' association convention adopted this resolution: Whereas in almost every other industry there are unemployment insurance benefits. Therefore be it resolved by this 1955 British Columbia fruit growers' association convention that steps be taken through the proper channels to persuade the dominion government to include full-time farm workers in the national unemploy- ment scheme. I support that resolution, Mr. Speaker. I might say that I am one of those who have been asked to try to persuade the govern- ment to give effect to that resolution. In addition to provision for full-time farm workers, I think provision should be made for part-time or casual farm workers. In our dis- trict we find a situation which is similar to that described by the Liberal member from Quebec who spoke prior to the recess at six o'clock. There are a great many farmers who carry on a combination of farming and lumbering. We have lumbermen who are willing to put in a few weeks on a farm, or 3592 HOUSE OF COMMONS who would be willing to put in a few weeks on a fanm if they couid continue to be cover- ered by unemployment insurance benefits and s0 oni. I urge the minister to give serious con- sidenation to these representations froni the British Columbia fruit growers' association and othen organizations, and to the requests that have been made In the house by mem- bers of the various parties during this debate. I also hope the cornmittee will Inquire thoroughly into this aspect of the question, because I arn distinctly of the opinion that the exclusion of f arm workers is unfair to those working on fanms and is distinctly uni air to the farmens. I now want to deal very briefiy with another group. On April 4, when the resolu- tion preceding this bill was under discussion, I raised this matten but, after listening to the minister and after carefully reading the record, I note that the minister did not rise to my bait. I arn therefore now going to cast another fiy in his direction. I want again to brlng to the attention o! the minister the unfafrness suif ered by certain gnoups, par- ticularly in British Columbia. I refer to cer- tain people who are employed in the forest branch to carry on tnee planting, snag felling, land clearing and the burning of brush in order «to provide forest protection and con- servation. Here is what to me Is a pecullan thlng. By an arrangement between the fedenal government and our provincial governiment the clerical staff, the research workens, the draftsmen, the mechanics, the scalers and the truckers of the British Columbia forest service receive unemployrnent insurance benefits, but the very men of whom I have spoken are not covered. These men are usually ernployed in the months of the year when there is no snow on the ground, and quite frequently they are laid off as soon as the first snow cornes. At that tirne o! year it is often extremely difficult for thern to obtain ernployrnent. These men who work i the fonest brandi oni forest con- servation are the very ones who should be bnought under the ternis of this act. I hope the minister gives consideration to that aspect of the probleni, and I also hope the committee wrnl study the question. I cannot understand the logic of the present arrangement. These rnen are doing almost exactly the sanie type of work as are the lumbenmen in the woods, those working in the sawmills and for the logging companies. For instance, 1 was in a camp last sunimer in which men doing this work were not covered by the act. But the truck driver in the camp was covened, and the cook in the camp was covened. It is a situation that 50433-227 Urêemployment Insurance Act creates sorne unfairness to these men who are willing to go in the woods i the suminer and do this forest protection work. I ask that their case be given consideration by the minister and by the cornnittee. Before concluding, I want to support aU those hon. members who have presented the case of the fisherinen. I understood the minister to say that the matter was under study and was receiving careful consideration. I ar n ot well acquainted with ail the com- plexities of that occupation, but judging from the representations that have been made to members of this house and the representations that have been made by members of this house from ail parties to the minister, I arn quite confident that there must be a great deal of validity in the arguments put forward. I trust that the position of f ar workers, those engaged in the forest service of British Columbia ini the conservation of our forests, and those employed in the fishing industry wiil receive frorn the minister, froni the corn- rnittee, and flnally frorn this bouse the con- sideration that their situation and their con- tribution to our production deserves. Mr. G. B. P.arkos MAY 91 1855 3595 3596 HOUSE 0F COMMONS The Budget-Mr. Robichaud the people of our province. To take advan- of power demaflds for the province. The solution taeof this opportunity we need large quanti- to tsvr motnt problemn rests in the haflds ties of relatively cheap power. We are in fteNwBusikgvriet favour of federal financial assistance to the In the statement I have just quoted, Mr. Beechwood project. We are just as anxious Riggs has mentioned the smelter owned and as the members of the opposition to see that operated by St. Joseph Lead in Josephtown, this project is carried through to a f ull and Pennsylvania. The power for this particular successful conclusion. smelter is supplled by the Duquesne Light Company. Approximately 50,000 kilowatts While discussing power I want to place on are produced from steamn turbo generating the record my personal opinion on this mat- plants, and coal is used exclusively. It is ter, so as to make my personal stand on the true the cost of their coal is f ar below the need for power in my native province quite cost of any coal that can be produced any- clear. I have some doubt that the 135,000 where in the maritime provinces. maximum horsepower, or I should say the emsnoovroktepsiltyha possible 90,000 to 95,000 average horsepower, Wyre mutr notvelooknthe poilty thain that may be derived from Beechwood willhdrecti dveomnswlntben have any effect in accentuating the mining ath siio to supply the necessary power for expasionnow nderprogess n tNe operation of a smelter and other regular Bruanswick. wune ror i e mîning developments in northern New Bruns- Brunsick.wick. But I want to stress the fact that I arn not entirely convinced that proper we have quantities of coal available in New steps have been taken to assure the possibility Brunswick, and should the quality not be of water storage in the upper regions of the satisfactory for economical use we still have Saint John river and its tributaries. The the possibility o! transporting coal by water report o! the international joint commission from Cape Breton to the proximity of the on the Saint John river have made it clear mines in the Bathurst area at a low trans- that the storage possibilities are in territory portation cost o! 50 to 75 cents per ton. We outside of the jurisdiction of the province, have in Gloucester county, at Pokesudi, year- It has been made clear that most o! the round water facilities which would be of storage areas that could serve generating sites great advantage in the erection o! a steam in New Brunswick are not; under the control generating plant to serve the adjoining mining of New Brunswick but under the control O! district. One must not overlook the fact Quebec and the state of Maine. This province that the demand for power will expand at and state must have their say before the such a rapid rate in New Brunswick that over-ali development of the Saint John river steam will always play an important part in can become a reality. Federal financial assist- the generating facilities. ance to power development within the prov- As stated by the manager of Brunswick ince of New Brunswick is not impossible, Mining and Smelting Corporation, Beech- but it will have to result from. the adoption wood and even the proposed Saint John by Ottawa o! a new federal policy which river development do not have sufficient could be made applicable to other provinces potential power to, operate a smelter in vîew in similar circumstances. o! the additional normal growth of power I amn not entirely convinced that New demands in our province. If coal is not the Brunswick can or should depend on hydro- practical answer to our power problems, if eletri poer orthereaizaio ofitsminngit is too expensive, no one can deny or should expnsin pogrm. n sppot o ths vewtry to .minimize the importance o! atomic expasio prgram Insuport ! tis îew power in the generation of electricity. In this I should like to quote a statement by Mr. L. connection I want to quote and have on record Riggs, manager of Brunswick Mining and part of a statement by the Canadian Press Smelting Corporation, with head office atapaigi h ttw ora fWd Bathurst. As reported in the Norther& Light, nesday, April 27, last: under date of January 20, 1955, hie said: A foreseeabie limit to Canada's ability to produce The company plans this year are to make a low cost electricity by hydro and coalisl the study of the mining and miliing of are. The major incentive for the development of atomic problem of whether or flot there is to be a refinery pow er stations in this country. in New Brunswick depends largely on the avail- Research at the Chalk River, Ontario, atomnic ability of cheap power in large quantities. Mr. energy plant and eisewhere in the world has Riggs gave as an example that the zinc smeiter proved that it is practicable to produce electricity owned and operated by St. Joseph Lead in Joseph- with atomic energy. However. it is flot yet possible town, Pennsylvania, osed more electricai power to do this cheaply enough. in 1954 than was devcloped by the New Brunswick Canada must design atomic Power stations hydro commission in the same ycar. He stated that capable of producing eiectricîty at a cost of rive he was informed that Beechwood and the entire to seven milîs a kilowatt hour. Any higher cost Saint John river proposed development woold would not be economical in Canada because eiec- flot have sufficient firm power to operate a similar tricity now is being produced by coal-burning type smeller in addition to the norm al growth plant at that figure. [Mr. Robichaud.] The United Kingdom and other countries lacklng cheap coal and other thermal fuels may be ahead of Canada in starting to use atomic power to produce electricity. It will be economical for themn to operate atomlc plants which produce power at a cost greatly in excess of five or seven mills a kilowatt hour. "This will not mean that Canada will be behind in the field of industrial atomic energy", said Dr. G. C. Laurence. director of the reactor research and development division of Atomnic Energy of Canada Ltd.. during a recent tour of Chalk River plant by newspaper men. "The United Kingdomn and other countries pay the equivalent of 10 to 15 mailla a kilowatt hour to produce electricity by coal," he said. "If they can produce electricity by atomic power at the same Price it wlll be economlcally advantageous." Research here now la aimed at solving problems preventing Production of 10w-cost electriclty by atomnic plants. Processes are sought to permit 10w- cost production of metals. equlpment and fuels reçuired to build and operate a power plant. At the same trne. design work ls Proceeding on a srmail experimental atomnic plant to produce electrlcity. When it is announced that the United Kingdom is prepared to spend $840 million for 12 atomic power stations, to produce power at a price equivalent to that for power generated by conventional means, one must not fail to recognize that atomic energy is of crucial importance to the future of our national economy. It ia recognized that ail available sources of hydro power in Ontario, even with the development of the St. Lawrence seaway, will be used by 1962, according to Dr. D. A. Keys, scientific adviser to the president of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Some additional source must be found, and atomic energy is obviously the answer. The first prototype of atomic reactor to be created in Ontario will develop 20,000 kilowatts of electric power, and is expected to be ready in 1958. From this small reactor will follow much larger units and electric power gen- erated £rom atomic energy will then be used on a commercial basis. Great possibilities are offered in this par- ticular field by the application of atomic energy to provide the power which is neces- sary for the advancement of industry in New Brunswick. Not longer than ten years ago if anyone had stated in this house that in 1955 the entire deep-sea fishing fleet of Gloucester county would be 100 per cent diesel powered, the hon. members of the opposition would have suggested that he was not practical. If anyone even five years ago had stated that in 1955 diesels would be the main source of Power for our Canadian railways, here again someone would have objected and stated that he was not practical. I want to take this opportunity to place on record before this house my personal convic- tion that atomic power could easily be the answer to the low-cost electricity so urgently The Budget-Mr. Robichaud needed in the mining areas of New Bruns- wick. I do flot agree with the statement made in the course of this debate by the hon. mem- ber for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell), when speaking of the federal government he is re- ported at page 3231 of Hansard for April 27 as follows: By some devious method they elther hinder our chance to, take part in the atomic power develop- ment or they completely exclude us from it. Further on he said, as reported at the same page of Hansard: Again there is an amusing and ironical element about the matter. They had edged us and coached us along. It is discouraging to see the way in whlch Nova Scotia, in their bid for hydroelectrlc power, was encouraged along. It had the first application in. It was told by the Minister of Trade afld Commerce at varlous times that it was belng considered; it was given to understand that its application was first, or No. 1. But what happened? There again it went to industry in1 central Canada. The hon. member shouid have enough understanding to realize that an experimental pilot plant should be logically located not too far away from the Chalk River atomic plant. Can you imagine the scientists from Chalk River and from the industries interested travelling daîly back and forth from Chaik River to any point in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia in connection with the construc- tion of such a plant? However, when the experiment has been completed and the first pilot plant of this kind in Canada is in operation, I feel that the province of New Brunswick and the Bathurst area with its huge mining possibil- ities sho3uld be the logical location for the construction of the first commercial electric plant operated by atomic power. Tonight I ask the government to give this request first consideration, and on this I arn convinced of the support of ail members of this house, We ail realize that immediate additional power is needed to carry on with mining expansion in northern New Brunswick; and personally, as I have stated, I arn not entîrely of the opinion that such power can be sup- plied from Beechwood. Tremendous amounts of power will be generated at Bersimis; and the immediate partial and temporary solution to our problem could easily be a short 10 or 15 year contract with the government of the province of Quebec to supply power to nor- thern New Brunswick mines until the atomic power generating station can become a reality. It is not right, Mr. Speaker, to try to leave the impression in this house that the federal government is completely neglecting the maritime provinces. Even the hon. mem- ber for Saint John-Albert was proud to quote during the course of this debate fromn the "Supplement to Private and Public Invest- 3597MAY 9. 1955 The Budget-Mr. Robichaud ment in Canada, Outlook 1955, Regional Estimates". I want to quote from his remarks as reported at page 3231 of Hansard: I followed along by saying that in New Bruns- wick things are beginning to move. We definitely have a good optimistie mood down there now. We have a new government. They have tackled our economic problems in a sensible way. We have invested in ourselves, Mr. Speaker. That is some- thing which a great many of the other areas of Canada cannot say. We have led in that invest- ment in ourselves in the last few years, and I put the figures on the record for everyone to see. The figures which were placed on the record by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert showed that in 1953 New Brunswick had an industrial expansion of 7-9 per cent, and in 1954 it again led the way with an expansion of 27.7 per cent. What the hon. member failed to prove in the course of his remarks was who is responsible for this large increase in the capital expenditures made in the province of New Brunswick in the last two years. To answer my hon. friend I shall quote, from the annual report of the province of New Brunswick, department of industry and development, 1954, as tabled in the provincial house during the last session of the New Brunswick legislative assembly by Hon. R. J. Pichette, minister of industry and develop- ment of New Brunswick. I shall then answer my hon. friend by quoting from a report originating with a provincial government which he is supporting, as are the hon. mem- ber for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Mont- gomery). I quote: While industrial development in the province this year did not reach the tempo we had expected, It is quite evident that the impetus to our economy being provided by Camp Gagetown and the sus- tained program of mineral exploration, spreading to almost all sections of the province is beginning to attract the favourable attention of a wide range of manufacturer3, and services firms. Unquestion- ably, as camp Gagetown reaches full operational status and mining reaches the producing stage, we can expect industrial growth to keep pace. Camp Gagetown, a federal project, and the mines financed by private enterprise are then responsible for this increase in capital expenditures in New Brunswick about which my hon. friend feels so proud. One must not neglect the importance to New Bruns- wick's economy of the construction of Camp Gagetown. While contracts amounting to $30 million have been awarded by Defence Con- struction Limited, as at February 1 of this year, it is estimated that further tenders amounting to $20 million will be let on this project within the next 12 months. This does not include the construction of 1,400 houses at a cost of approximately $16 million by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, a project which will be undertaken in the near future. [Mr. Ritbichaud.] One must not forget that the 10,000 service- men training at this army camp and a per- manent staff of 1,500 to 2,000 will add substantially to the general economy of the province of New Brunswick. I hold in my hand a bill to incorporate the town of Oromocto; a small village, previously un- known, will become a town owing to the federal project at Camp Gagetown. Already tenders are being called for the supply of perishable food, such as large quantities of bread, milk, and meat which will be used during the long training periods at this army camp, the largest in Canada. When a decision has to be made on the construction of a central heating plant, there again consideration was given to New Bruns- wick and a central furnace will be installed which will use from 40,000 to 50,000 tons of Minto coal a year. In view of the numerous challenges which we have received in this house from opposition members, I feel it is my duty to place on the record figures which will tell the truth about the situation so far as New Brunswick is concerned. Let me outline some of the federal expendi- tures for New Brunswick during the fiscal year 1955-56: Department of National Defence at Camp Gagetown, $50 million; at Chatham air base and Ste. Marguerite, $7 million; De- partment of Public Works, $16 million; Department of National Health and Welfare in hospital construction grants, $976,000; other health grants, $1,287,000; old age security, $12,600,000; old age assistance, $1,250,000; Blind Persons Act, $265,000; family allow- ances, $15 million, or a total of $104,378,000. In other words, three of the federal depart- ments will spend in New Brunswick this year over $100 million, which is over twice the total amount of the provincial budget for the same period. Furthermore, out of a total budget of $54 million the province of New Brunswick will receive in 1955 over $17 million from the federal government under the 1947 tax agreement, which is close to one-third of its total proposed expenditure. These are the figures, Mr. Speaker, that I want to place on record in answer to the challenge from the hon. members of the opposition. I welcome the announcement by the Min- ister of Finance of the appointment of a royal commission with instructions to look ahead and examine carefully our future economic prospects. The maritimes are today placing their hopes in the field of mineral develop- ment. It has been recognized that to make the most of it, these minerals should be refined on the spot, and the erection of a smelter should be followed by the necessary plant for the production of acids and fertilizer from the HOUSE OF COMMONS3598 large suiphur content of its ores. The achieve- ment of these objectives is only possible, as I have just sa.id, by the introduction of a missing element, namely cheap electric power. The flrst duty o! this royal commission should be to launch without delay a complete study o! the maritimes' general economy and its possibilities. It appears to be an estab- lished and well-recognized factor that the maritime provinces, and particularly New Brunswick, are not in a position to finance adequate power projects to permit the normal expansion of potential developments which could revolutionize the entire economy of tis particular section of our great country. We cannot expect to salve our problems over- night; but we, as representatives o! the Cana- dian people, have assumed a responsibility which none of us can deny. It is our duty to unite our efforts and assure the participa- tion of the maritimes in the Canadian boom which to an astonishing degree is stiil con- flned to the industrial areas of central Canada. These are my concluding remarks in the budget debate, Mr. Speaker, but before re- suming my seat I want to assure hon. mem- bers of the opposition from New Brunswick, that I, as a sitting member on the govern- ment side, am in favour of any assistance and any government measure that wiil add to our provincial economny and to the welfare of our people. Mr. IR. H. Small : Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I m3ve: That the report of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year 1953-54, tabled on February 23 last, together with the report of the board of grain commnissioners for Canada for the year 1954, tabled on April 6 last, be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. Motion agreed to. EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SALE 0F STOCKS IN UNITED STATES-REPORTED INVESTIGATION BY UJNITED STATES COMMITTEE On the orders of the day: Mr. H. R. Argue : Mr. Speaker, the governinent lias not received any officiai information to indicate that a United States congressionai committee intends to investigate the sale of stocks from Canada in, the United States. However, Senator Wiley, the minority leader in the Senate committee on foreign relations, wrote the Canadian ambassador on April 16 asking for the opinion of the Canadian government on ways and means by which our respective nations can further co- operate towards the end of protecting in- vestors. I do flot think it would be appropriate or helpful for me to comment on a possible Senate investigation until we are in receipt of definite information that such an investiga- tion in fact is planned. Mr. Argue: Is any investigation being con- sidered in Canada? Mr. Martin: I should think that normally that miglit be a question for the attorneys general o! the provinces, but as this aspect of the matter more appropria-tely concera the Department of Justice I miglit throw the bail back ta the Minister of Justice. Mr. Garsan: Mr. Speaker, this almost seems like a tennis game. My hon. friend the acting minister of external aI! airs is quite riglit in his suggestion. The responsibility for the administration of the security laws which are passed by the provinces is that of the pro- vincial authorities, as is also the responsibil- ity for enforcement; of the Criminal Code. Therefore it is only in those cases in which extradition is being souglit of some Ainerican offender who, having escaped into Canada, lias been apprehended here, that the facil- ities of the federal department are invoked. SUGGESTED INTERVENTION TO SECURE RELEASE 0F 16 POLISH WAR 'JETERANS On the orders of the day: Mr. Donald M. Fleming : A littie con- fused, that is ail. Mr. Quelch: The hon. member for Assini- boia went out of his way to criticize what the leader of this group had had to say regarding parity prices. If it had flot been for that I probably would flot have mentioned the sub- ject at ail. At page 3459 of Hansard the hon. memnber had this to say: In his opening speech this session the leader of the Social Credit party had some remarks to mnake about parity prices. H-e said that his party was in favour of flexible parity prices, in other words, prices that were only a percentage of parity and which did flot give the farmer the full equitable treatment he deserves. Let me say that statement is absolutely false. I amn not suggesting it was deliberately made as false; nevertheless it is an absolutely untrue statement. Unfortunately I think the hon. member for Assiniboia has allowed his political astuteness to pervert his mind in this regard. The trouble with the hon. mern- ber for Assiniboia is that he apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "flexible". He takes it for granted that the word "flexible" means iess, but of course it can mean more or less, above parity or below parity. If it were considered desirable to expand the production of any one commodity and reduce the production of another, then it might be considered desirable to increase the support price above parity on the com- modity you wanted to expand and decrease it on the other. There is no indication that by flexible support prices the leader of this group meant price supports below parity. Then the hon. member for Assiniboia went on to say: In case the hon. member may think I arn misrepresenting wbat he said- Let me point out there is no doubt about that. -I shall quote his exact words as reported on page 47 of Hansard for January 10. 1955: "There is a very good case that can be made in favour of the adoption of such a flexible systemn here in Canada, the percentage of parity that is uised of course to depend upon the amount of incentive which ought to be provided to achieve the amount of production that is required to, meet the need." That is the statement on which he bases his contention that we were advocatîng less than parity and an inequitable treatment of the farmers. If he had gone on a littie further he could not possibly have fallen under that delusion. Let me quote fromn the samne page 3623MAY 10, 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Mr. Quelch he quoted from as to what the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) stated: The problem we face in this country is to adopt some policy and some technique which will guar- antee the farmers their fair share of the national income. The figures will bear out what I say. The farmers who make up approximately 20 per cent of the population of Canada, received in 1953 only 9-9 per cent of the national income . . . I say the problem to be faced in a country like Canada is ta adopt a policy which will guarantee the farmers a fair share of the national income. It would be only just and right if the farmers as a class make up 20 per cent of the total population of our country, they should receive something like 20 per cent of the national income. There has hardly been a time in the history of this country when this has been the case. To achieve that, we advocate flexible parity prices based upon a two-price system, and I will be dealing with that later in my remarks. I think that is all I need to say to clarify the situation regarding the charge of the member for Assiniboia that we are advocating parity prices of an inequitable nature. He did suggest to me that I should straighten that out when I spoke. Mr. Argue: I suggested that you should straighten out your leader. Mr. Quelch: There are a number of points that are generally raised in connection with the subject of parity prices. If you are speaking to people down east about western agriculture they will invariably say, "What right have the farmers of Canada to expect the government to underwrite their prices?" I think it is quite a reasonable question. To answer it you have to go back a number of years. You have to go back to the depression years before the war, when farm prices were at a very low level, far below parity. When the farm organizations protested about the low prices they were told that the cause was the international situation, that prices were low in the world market and the farmers could not very well expect to get more than the prices in the world market. So prices continued at a low level in those pre-war years. Then the war came and within a couple of years the prices of farm products started to rise, but the goverrrment considered it desirable to place a ceiling on those prices. Let me point out that you cannot have it both ways. If you say the farmers should take low prices when world prices are low, then surely the farmers are entitled to high prices when world prices are high. But they were not allowed to have those high world prices. Ceilings were placed on them at the very time when the farmers had an oppor- tunity to make up the losses they suffered when prices were so low in the depression years. [Mr. Quelch.] The government of the day apparently realized the situation was not fair so far as agriculture was concerned, and the prime minister of the day, Right Hon. Mackenzie King, had this to say in a radio broadcast on December 4, 1943: I wish tonight to thank the farmers of Canada for their magnificent contribution to the battle of production. I wish again to appeal to them to continue to help hold the front line against infla- tion by continuing ta support the price ceiling. If, to help win the war, the farmers are asked ta accept a ceiling on prices, we believe they are entitled to a floor under prices ta ensure them against an agricultural depression after the war. As an essential part of its post-war policy, the government intends ta ask parliament at the next session to place a floor under the prices of main farm commodities. The government lived up to that promise and instituted the Agricultural Prices Support Act. Under that act the principle was estab- lished that prices for farm products should be maintained at a level that bears a fair relationship to the prices of other commod- ities. The question, of course, that is in the minds of many farmers is whether the gov- ernment today is living up to that principle. I was interested in that point. I was wonder- ing whether the support prices of farm prod- ucts today were in line with the principle laid down under the Agricultural Prices Sup- port Act, so I wrote the chairman of the agricultural prices support board. On a former occasion I had written to the bureau of sta- tistics but the Minister of Agriculture told me I had written to the wrong body, and I should have written to the agricultural prices sup- port board. This time, therefore, I wrote to the board. The letter was as follows: Dear Mr. Shaw: Could you please send me a list of the com- modities that are being supported today and the level of the support price. In addition, could you also give me what the price of these products would be if the price of farm products today bore the same relationship to the prices of other commodities as existed in the base years 1943-44-45. I would like to get that information on cattle, as well as hogs, eggs, cheese and butter. I received a very courteous reply from the agricultural prices support board, and I will just quote the last three paragraphs. They read as follows: In connection with the second aaragraoh of your letter I am not quite certain as to the inter- Pretation but I assume you are referring ta the basis of relationship mentioned in subsection (2) of section 9 of the Agricultural Prices Supoort Act which states: "The board shall endeavour to ensure adeauate and stable returns for agriculture by aromotine orderly adjustment . . . and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other Producers." The Budget-Mr. Quelch little plug for the government because the comparison was quite favourable in s0 far as the government of Canada is concerned. I want to comment briefly on the table so I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, if I could place it on the record and then comment upon it. Mr. Depuly Speaker: Has the hon. member permission to place this table on Hansard? Somne hon. Members: Agreed. Mr. Quelch: The table is as follows: In order ta illustrate the relationshiv on the basis of the five commodities which You mention the following table shows the Position of each commodity mentioned as well as indjcatjng« the United States Prices which, wh.1e not exactly comparable may be used as guides to prices in that country. The United States market prices for the last four years have been included as a basis of comparison. You will aise, be aware that eggs and butter have been under Prnce support continuously for several years. I might mention that I did not ask for the prices in the United States, but I can quite understand that he was anxious to put in a Estimated parity using 1943-45 as base pcniod Average market price United States market prica Cheese- 1943-45................... 1951............................ 1952 ................. .... 1954........................................ First grade creamery butter- 1943-45.................................... 1951........................................ 1952........................................ 1953........................................ 1954........................................ Good steers- 1943-45.................................... 1951........................................ 1952........................................ 1953........................................ 1954 ........................ Hogs BI dressed- 194345.................................... 1951........................................ 1952........................................ 1953........................................ 1954........................................ Eggs grade A large- 194345 .............................. 1951 .................................... 1952............... . 1953............... . 1954............... . (cents per pound Toronto) (cents per pound MontreàI) Plymouth-Wisconsin 39.5 37.9 35.1 31.2 Butter-grade A Wholesale New York 73.6 71.5 65.5 59.0 (up te 1,000 pounds-dollars per cvst. Toronto) Chicago 11.64 18.11 19.14 18.88 18.58 11.64 32.60 25.15 19.97 19.53 (dollars per cwt. Toronto) 17.35 27.00 28.54 28.14 27.69 17.35 32.85 25.70 30.82 31.10 (cents per dozen Montreal) 34.80 29.32 20.79 20.77 Barrows and glts dressed carcass Chicago 30.12 24.32 30.15 30.48 Midwest mixed fancy heavy weights New York 59.2 48.1 54.2 40.4 This table gives the estimated parity price for a number cf commedities, using 1943-45 as the base period. Taking cheese, we find that in Toronto in the year 1954 the parity price should have been 34.3 cents per pound and the actual price was 32-5 -cents. This Would be 95 per cent cf parity. The parity 50433-229 price for first grade creamery butter at Montreal shouî'd have been 68-6 cents per pound and the actual price was 59-8 cents. This was 87 per cent of parity. The support price for butter was 58 cents, which was only 84-6 per cent of parity. 3823MAY 10, 1955 The Budget-Mr. Quelch For good steers up to 1,000 pounds in 1954 at Toronto, parity price would have been $18.58 per hundredweight and the actual price was $19.53. This was 105 per cent of parity. In so far as hogs were concerned in 1954, parity price at Toronto would have been $27.69 and the actual price was $31.10, which was 112 per cent of parity. The support price was $23 per hundredweight, which was 83 per cent of parity. For grade A large eggs at Montreal in 1954, parity price would have been 68·5 cents per dozen and the actual price was 52-1 cents, which was 76 per cent of parity. The support price was only 38 cents per dozen, which was less than 56 per cent of parity. I did not include wheat in the list of com- modities for which I had asked prices because grains do not come under the Agri- cultural Prices Support Act, but I did get figures from the bureau of statistics. The parity price of wheat in 1954 would have been $2.27 per bushel. The actual price was considerably below that. Today a large number of farmers are actually having to take less than half that price for the wheat they are selling. I believe that using the period 1943-45 as the base period is satisfactory provided the principles contained in that act are lived up to in the fullest degree, and so long as it is made clear that this is a long-term program and that any change in support prices will be announced well in advance to give the farmers a chance to make any changes in their operations they may wish to make as a result of the change in the support price. The interprovincial farm union presented a brief to the government this year and they also, I believe, talked to the caucuses of all the political groups. When they appeared before us we asked them to go beyond their brief and explain just exactly how they would apply support prices. They gave us a paper on support prices, and in that paper they suggested a base period of 10 years instead of the three-year period. They sug- gested the period 1940-49, pointing out that this period took in the low years as well as the high. Well, actually using 1940-49 as the base period instead of 1943-45 does give the farmers a slightly higher support price. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture in their brief advocated the years 1925-29 as the base period. Personally I think the period used by the government, namely 1943-45, is about as good a base period as we can get. Actually the base period 1943-45 gives the farmers about 1 per cent more than the base period [Mr. Quelch.] 1925-29. This can be ascertained by refer- ring to appendix A on the last page of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture brief. You will find there that using 1925-29 as the base period, the period 1943-45 gives 101 per cent instead of 100. I cannot see, there- fore, any great argument for changing the base period from 1943-45 to 1925-29 or even to 1940-49. The next point of importance regarding support prices is the most equitable way of applying them. The interprovincial farm union advocated a two-price system. In this group we have been advocating a two-price system for a number of years; that is, that the domestic market for farm products should be supported at 100 per cent of parity and that farm exports should be sold at the best prices obtainable in the international market, preferably under international agreement but supported by a reasonable support price. In other words they advocated a flexible support price which would be the average of the price obtained in the international market and the domestic market, the domestic market being maintained at 100 per cent of parity. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture advocated that certain products be supported at all times, that they be announced well in advance and at a range of from 65 per cent to 85 per cent of parity, established on the basis of 1925-29. As I say, this is only partially flexible because it has the ceiling of 85 per cent on the support price. It is also interesting to note that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture only advocated the two-price system in regard to wheat, and that is found on page 9 of their brief where they said: In respect to the price of wheat charged to domestic consumers, we would recommend that this price be not less than the existing maximum price under the international wheat agreement. In other words they are advocating that wheat in the domestic market be sold at the maximum price under the international wheat agreement, and the balance sold at contract prices. The farmers would get the average of the two. The two-price system is far more important in regard to other commodities than it is to wheat, for the simple reason that a far larger percentage of other farm commodities is consumed la Canada. As I say, we have supported the two- price system for some years, and we believe it can be fully justified. The two-price system is in line with the general practice in secondary industries. They set the price for their goods to be consumed in Canada, a price they consider will return them a fair profit, and then their surplus production is HOUSE OF COMMONS3626 exported and sold at the best price they can obtain. In many instances the price in the world market will be substantially below that charged for the same commodities in this country. I have personal knowledge of that fact in connection with farm machinery. I have priced Canadian farm machinery in other countries and have found that it was being sold at substantially lower prices in those countries than it was being sold in Canada. The situation in regard to agriculture is altogether different. The world price has always been allowed to dominate the domestic price, although only a small per- centage of farm products is exported. Apart from wheat, 94 per cent of farm products is consumed in this country. Yet we allow the 6 per cent that is exported to dominate the price of the 94 per cent consumed in this country. Therefore we in this group advocate that the domestic price should be held at parity, and that the best prices possible should be obtained for goods exported to the world markets. Preferably they should be sold under some form of international agree- ment, such as the international wheat agreement. Someone might say, "Well, if we adopted a policy of that kind, what would be the reaction of labour?" It is interesting to note that at their conventions labour endorsed the principle of maintaining farm. prices at a fair relationship with the prices of other commodities. So apparently there would be no objection from labour in that regard. I believe the most efficient way to apply the two-price system would be through boards similar to the wheat board. On the other hand I realize that you cannot possibly sell all farm products under compulsory boards, unless the farmers themselves are in favour of the adoption of such a program. And, whether we like it or not, it is quite clear that many farmers are opposed to such procedure. In Alberta and Saskatchewan they are paying considerable attention to the esta- blishment of a livestock board. In my own province the federation of agriculture has held a number of meetings. Meetings have been held in my constituency regarding the establishment of a marketing board for live- stock. In the town of Hanna, one of the important points in my constituency, when they took a vote at the close of a meeting the farmers voted heavily against the establishment of a livestock marketing board. I say therefore that it would be a very great mistake to try to establish a board of that kind against the wishes of the farmers. 50433-229J The Budget-Mr. Quelch It would be doomed to failure before it got started. If the farmers can be convinced that it is in their interest to adopt compul- sory boards for farm products, then such a procedure should be instituted, but not until that time. However, I believe there are a number of ways by which the two-price system could be put into operation without the formation of boards. For instance, let the government estimate the percentage of a commodity they believe will be consumed in Canada, and the amount that will be exported abroad. Then let them figure out the total price for the commodity that will be sold in Canada, at parity, and the total price for the commodity that will be exported at the best price that can be obtained. Then guarantee to the farmers a price equal to the weighted average of the two. For example, if it was estimated that 90 per cent of a commodity would be consumed in Canada and 10 per cent exported, with a parity price of $1 per unit and an export price of 70 cents the weighted average would be 97 cents, which would mean that the farmer would receivé 97 per cent of parity for the whole commodity. The main argument that has been used against the parity price is that it might create surpluses. Yet we should always keep inmind that at the present time over 50 per cent of the population of the world is under- nourished. Until such time as people inother countries are obtaining ail the food they need there should be no suggestion thatwe are producing too much food. The prob-lem is that of finding ways and means ofdistributing that food to the people whoneed it. Mr. H. H. Hannam, president of the Cana- dian Federation of Agriculture, speaking before the annual convention at Edmonton, referred to the conference of the international federation of agricultural producers held at Nairobi. His comments are to be found at page 16 of the booklet containing his speech. In this speech he sets out the main conclu- sions and recommendations, to some of which I shall refer. He said: The answer to the lack of balance between present producing capacity and effective demanddoes not lie in the restriction of production. Theworld needs enormous quantities cf food andfibre. At the same time it should be recognized that, temporarily, Important shifts in productioncould be made to advantage and should be made. And again: The conference recommended that governments of countries possessing unwieldy surpluses take steps, where practîcal, te dispose cf some surplusstocks in their domestid markets-by improved marketing efficiency, special welfare programs, special feeding programs for certain vulnerable groups, etc. MAY 10, 1955 1 3627 Canada Grain Act And again: The IFAP agreed that, while some sales of products abroad at less than domestic prices may be inevitable for some commodities under present circumstances, every effort should be made to use the consultative machinery referred to above in respect to any new programs in order to avoid damage to the interests of friendly countries. And again: It recommended that priority be given to disposal of surpluses in underdeveloped countries, which is particularly important where such disposal pro- grams are linked with programs for general economic development. And again: The concluding thought, however, which refers to many of the recommendations already men- tioned, is that the best answer will be found on the side of demand-in those programs and pro- gram features which aim to widen and improve distribution and raise purchasing power to provide effective demand. Mr. Speaker, as it is now five o'clock, per- haps I might be permitted to continue my comments after we have disposed of private and public bills. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It being five o'clock the house will proceed to the con- sideration of private and public bills. CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR FAIR ALLOCATION OF BOX CARS The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Argue for the second reading of Bill No. 22, to amend the Canada Grain Act. Mr. Rene N. Jutras (Provencher): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday when we were discuss- ing this bill I was interrupted at six o'clock. Since then I have had the opportunity to read the speech made on that occasion by the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Assiniboia, and in the few minutes left at my disposal I should like to refer briefly to one statement he made. First of all let me say that I was struck, when reading his speech, by the number of times the word "arbitrary" appears in it. It seems that the hon. member was carried away by his eloquence in the course of the discussion. I wish to refer more particularly to the statement which appears on page 3412 of Hansard, and to quote the last sentence of the second paragraph and the last sentences of the third paragraph. In referring to the action of the government, the hon. member said the government- -bas permitted the transport controller to step in and block the farmers' action by cancelling the car order book. [Mr. Quelch.] The same thing is repeated In the third paragraph in different words, as follows: Apparently there is no one in the board of grain commissioners or in the ranks of the cabinet who wishes to restore to the farmers this fundamentai right. They would far rather continue this con- spiracy to deprive the farmers of a fundamental Canadian right. The hon. member went as far as he could without being unparliamentary, because there are certainly imputations of improper motives here. The suggestion that the controller or the government deliberately set out to deprive the farmer of a fundamental right is, of course, nonsense in this instance. This takes us back to the time when the car order book was suspended. It would be well to put on the record the facts of that particular case. Surely the hon. member for Assiniboia knows very well what were the reasons for the suspension of the car order book at the time. They were certainly not the reasons suggested in these two paragraphs. At that time, as we all know, there was a demand for a particular grade of grain, a grade other than the prevailing grade of grain that was produced in that area. The result was that the Canadian wheat board found themselves in a difficult position because they were unable to obtain, or could not readily get, the particular grade for which they had sales. Therefore they had to issue special shipping orders to get that particular grade wherever it was available. Conse- quently, under conditions such as these the car order book was very difficult to operate. I believe the controller suspended the car order book at the request of the Canadian wheat board. At any rate, at that time every- body agreed that it was the logical thing to do and it was done by the controller in order to fill the orders the board was getting for the sale of that grade of grain. Surely everybody still agrees that it was wise for the wheat board to try to sell as much grain as possible. These were the only reasons the car order book was suspended. Last year, as the situation changed, the pools were the most insistent on having the car order book reinstated. As we all know, the minister suggested last year that the car order book be reinstated, and it was reinstated. I understand that after a year's experience with it the pools are con- templating requesting that it be suspended again. The suggestion that the transport con- troller, or any other agency, and the cabinet ministers had purposely set out to prevent the farmers from getting box cars through the car order book is simply ridiculous. It is not a fair statement to make. HOUSE OF COMMONS3628 Again and again in his speech the hon. member referred to the government directly or indirectly denying to the farmer the right to deliver to the elevator of his choice. He even went so far as to suggest that in this instance the government had taken away the right of the farmer. Earlier in his remarks- and this is what I want to refer to before I conclude-he proceeded to give advice to the people of eastern Canada on this question of box car distribution. I think I should reread for the record the remarks of the hon. member, since he is a member of the socialist group. He said, at page 3411 of Hansard: The right is that any Canadian, when he decides to sell his produce-whether it be agricultural produce or whether it be his labour-has a right to sell that product to the firm of his own choosing. To say that western farmers today have that free- dom would- be to deny the truth of the state- ments by thousands of farmers that have been received by members of Darliament and by the government. We know that other people of whom the hon. member spoke in a derogatory way later on in his speech have been using this very statement in their publicity. Apparently everybody agrees on that, but if the purpose here is to clarify the situation for the eastern members, we might as well state the facts exactly as they are. As far as the selling of our products is concerned, a few years ago we all agreed and I think we still agree-or at least a very large majority of the farmers of western Canada agreed-that they would forgo the right to sell to any particular firm. By insti- tuting the Canadian wheat board we agreed to. let that board be the sole agency to buy our products, and we retained the right to choose the firm to handle our grain. We all have the same right today. It has not been denied to anybody; it has not been taken away by anybody. The situation today is that in some instances we find that the exercise of this right has been curtailed to some degree. It has been curtailed in varying degrees, depending on the area and the place. For quite a few years it has never been possible to exercise that right in full, because no matter what we do, what distribution we make or what scheme we have, in a centre where there is only one elevator the farmers cannot have the right until that situation changes. Therefore, in effect, no matter what anybody does, this right will be curtailed and has been curtailed to some degree. If there are enough box cars we all have the right to deliver to the elevator of our choice. If there is more than one elevator in a centre we may have that right again. But, I repeat, if there is only one elevator we have not the choice because, under the quota system, it has not been possible to devise a means by Canada Grain Act which a farmer can deliver to more than one point at a time. Therefore the various sug- gestions, including the bill introduced by the hon. member for Assiniboia, may improve conditions in some ways but the problem will remain with us to some extent as long as there is an acute shortage of box cars. As I said, we have been circularized and presented with another suggestion by the Saskatchewan wheat pool. It is suggested that this matter go before the agriculture commit- tee. There is no doubt that it will be dis- cussed at some length, but I suggest that if we passed this bill we would preclude consid- eration of the suggestions of the pool. It would not be timely. I suggest that this be left until we have a chance to hear more of the details of the other suggestions that are being made by the pool. I am convinced that Bill No. 22 is not workable and cannot be made workable, and there is also some question as to its being constitutional. At any rate, the matter of the distribution of box cars will come up for discussion in due course and some further light will probably be thrown on the subject. Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia): Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Assiniboia upon bringing this measure before the house again, because it is of vital importance to the grain growers of western Canada, especially so long as the quota sys- tem continues. On previous occasions we have always supported similar amendments, and we shall do so at this time because we believe the farmer should have the right to deliver grain to the elevator of his own choice. The hon. member for Provencher pointed out that the farmer never had that full right, and he gave as an example that there might be only one elevator at a certain point. That might be true in a particular case, but we know there is more than one elevator at the majority of points in western Canada. Simply because there might be only one elevator at one point should not deny the farmer the right to deliver grain to the elevator of his own choice. Mr. Jutras: I am sure the hon. member does not want to misinterpret what I said. I was not using that as an argument against any of the schemes, but simply to indicate that a full choice was not always available. Mr. Quelch: I quite understand that the hon. member was not presenting it as an argument, but I assume he was considering it as a factor in the case' or he would not have mentioned it. He must have had some reason for doing so. MAY 10, 1955 3629 3630 Canada Grain Act The principle of this amendment has been endorsed by all the major farm organizations in western Canada such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the interprovincial farm union and the three western pools. We support it on the ground that the farmer should have the right to deliver grain to the elevator of his own choice at the time a quota is established. Second, this would help to restore competi- tion in the purchase of grain by elevator agents. Many of us who have had experi- ence in the marketing of grain in western Canada know that at times the popular eleva- tor will be plugged and if a farmer wishes to market his grain he must take it to one of the other elevators. I know it will be argued that all farmers will be treated in the same way, but that is not quite the case. We know that all elevators look after their special patrons. If an elevator should be plugged and a car is available, the agent will phone his special patrons and tell them to bring in some wheat. Those farmers will load up two or three trucks and bring thern in and by the time the other farmers hear about it the space is gone. I am not blaming the farmers for that situation, nor do I blame the elevator agents; it is just a situation that exists. The whole problem arises from the fact that cars are allocated on the basis of one car per elevator. I know it has been argued that this is not a fact, and it may not always be true; but so far as I know that is the general practice. I have been told that it is the general practice at a number of points. This practice is not followed as far as manu- facturing establishments are concerned. The factory with the large production will get the greater number of cars; but in the case of grain elevators, no matter how much wheat farmers may want to take to a specific elevator they all get the same number of cars. This is the result of a state of conges- tion. As a result of this practice farmers are forced to take wheat to elevators other than those of their own choice if they desire to market their grain. This amendment would help to restore competition. At the present time there is little if any competition because an agent knows quite well that the grain will come to hirn when the other elevators are full. Consequently he is free to undergrade, underweigh and overdock because he knows he is going to get the grain in the long run. Farmers are quite often forced to haul their grain to a particular elevator even though they do not like the way it will be handled. No doubt this is one reason the overages in country elevators are so large. Some rMr. Quelch.] people may say the pool elevators also have overages. This is true, but the farmer knows that if he hauls his wheat to a pool elevator and there are overages he will get the bene- fit of those through patronage dividends at a later date. That is why so many farmers are anxious to haul their grain to pool elevators. They are not satisfied with the way their grain is being handled by the other elevators. If they haul to a pool elevator they will benefit from any overgrading or underweigh- ing that may take place when the final settlement is made. If this amendment carries, cars will be allocated to elevators in keeping with the farmers' individual expressed preference. The railways say they are quite willing to do this and are merely waiting for direction from some source. The wheat pools have suggested a somewhat different procedure through an amendment to the wheat board act and the grain act. I am not at all certain in my own mind whether this amendment or the amendments suggested by the wheat pools would be best, but I think we could all agree on the principle of this bill, that the farmer should have the right to deliver his grain to the elevator of his choice. It seems to me the best thing the house could do would be to approve the principle of this bill on second reading and then send it to the agriculture committee, where it could be amended in line with the best interests of the farmers without changing the principle. We would be able to bring down representatives frorn the pools and other farm organizations and try to whip this amendment into the best possible form. Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkion): Mr. Speaker, in rising to support Bill No. 22 I want first to comment upon the fact that the hon. mem- ber for Provencher bas said repeatedly that we ought to let this matter stand for a little while longer until we see what the committee is going to do about it. I suggest to him that the wrongs and injustices which have existed in this field have been allowed to go on too long. This bill should have been passed three years ago, and the right of the farmer to deliver grain to the elevator of his own choice established. When you take that right away from him you stir him very deeply, particularly when the elevator which he has built represents years of struggle and sacrifice, education and fight. We do not want to go back to the old days when the Winnipeg grain exchange con- trolled the price of grain when purchased from the farmer and the price at which it was sold to the ultimate consumer or to other HOUSE OF COMMONS parts of the trade, and then pocketed the difference. As stated in the explanatory note: The purpose of this act is to remove discrimina- tion in the allocation of box cars by providing in a new section of the car order book a rule for the fair allocation of box cars among elevator companies at a marketing point where the car order book, as presently constituted, is not in effect. By allocating their seeded acreage among the elevator companies at a marketing point, producers themselves will determine the distribution of box cars at that point. Many people are somewhat at a loss to understand why there should be so much noise about the right of a farmer to deliver his grain to the elevator of his choice as, after all, he is selling it to the wheat board, and the wheat board is the sole agency to handle it. But there is more than that in- volved in this. The farmer, in continuing the fight he has carried on for some 30 or 40 years, has established this elevator system to which he wants to deliver. He bas been delivering his grain to his elevator for many years. It is part of his life; it is part of his struggle; it represents years of work. He sees a tremendous injustice when box cars are allocated to the elevators at that particular point, and he finds when he wants to deliver grain to his own elevator that there is no room. Why is there no room? Because somebody, in spotting the cars that came in, spotted the cars in front of the other elevators. The effects of the situation are shown clearly in the annual figures of the Saskatche- wan wheat pool, which is the one mostly affected in the past. They found that the annual percentage of business which they have been able to do has gradually fallen off until this year the figure is below 40 per cent. The hon. member for Provencher this after- noon made the point that if you have a siding with only one elevator you have no choice. That is true, but this is what has aggravated the farmer. He finds that if it is a siding with one line elevator that is where he and the farmers in that district deliver their grain. Eight miles further down the line there may be another siding with another elevator, but in this case it is the wheat pool elevator, his own elevator. He finds that the cars are not spotted at the elevators in the right proportions. Sometimes there are two or three times as many cars going to the Une elevator company as to the point where there is only the wheat pool elevator. After they have taken out all the allocated grain which is under quota for that Une elevator point, the farmers throughout the country cannot make further delivery. Then suddenly this point is opened up and farmers are allowed to deliver where there is only Canada Grain Act one elevator, and that is a line elevator. The result is that farmers are unable to sell the grain. They are short of money. They can- not deliver the grain because no box cars have been delivered at their point. They have no cash and they cannot pay their taxes. Finally in desperation the farmers are. forced to deliver the grain to the line elevator company. Figures show that gradually, in the last four or five years, this business has gone from the wheat pool. The percentage going to the line elevator companies is increasing. They are gaining in strength. These com- panies were the foundation and the basis of the old Winnipeg grain exchange. This stirs up within the farmers the fear that perhaps the wheat board will be thrown out when the big line companies get strong enough again, when they are handling a large enough quantity of grain that they will be able to re-establish the grain exchange. The farmers are afraid that the wheat board will be done away with and that, after fighting for 50 years, they will be left to the mercy of the line elevator companies and the grain exchange. This is a battle that has been going on for many years, and the farmer will fight desperately to keep himself out of the clutches of the Une eleva- tor companies. When the wheat pool first started, years ago, the line elevator companies tried to meet their competition but were unable to do so. The wheat pool has grown over the years. In the province of Saskatchewan over 1,100 co-operative wheat pool elevators are handling the business for co-operative farmers. Now they find they are unable to deliver their grain there. Something must have prevented them from doing so, and it was not competition. They beat the line elevator companies in compe- tition every time they met, and they drove the line elevator companies out of business at many points by doing business better and by returning to the farmers the profits of their organization. The farmer got his profits on the grain he delivered there in proportion to the business he did. But somehow, through machinations in the allocation of box cars- this is the weapon which the opposition to the wheat pool has used-the pool elevators find themselves strangled. We have been trying to find out who was responsible for the allocation of box cars. The transport controller denies that he is responsible. The railway companies say that they do not get any instructions from any- body, and it is simply that freight crews go down and happen to leave a box car at one place or another. They may say al the MAY 10, 1955 3631 HOUSE OF COMMONS Canada Grain Act elevators are filled and so, if there are four cars, they will send one to each elevator. That means.that the farmers' co-operative is only getting 25 per cent of the business and that is all it can get. Perhaps 75 or 80 per cent of the farmers have been delivering their grain to that point. They want to deliver their grain to their own elevator but they have to haul it to the line elevator companies. Those in control of the line elevator coin- panies have exploited the farmers. When the fariner is forced to deliver his grain to the line elevator companies, the agent will say, "We will give you a good grade on this. I think you had better bring your permit book here, so we will handle all your grain." A regular battle has gone on for some time to win over the fariner. We can easily understand why the Winni- peg grain exchange wants to get back into business. If they can handle the farmers' grain again and manipulate prices to suit themselves the fariner will have to take the price offered him. They will be permitted to manipulate the price and nobody will be interfering with the principle of private enterprise. They say that the law of supply and demand will be operating again. The wheat pools and the wheat board will be out of the way. The statement of the pre- sident of the Winnipeg grain exchange in the past year showed very clearly that what he is aiming at is to restore the line elevator companies and bring back the open market set-up that existed before. The farmer is alive to that. The chief obstacle to the old grain exchange is the co- operative wheat pool and the Canadian wheat board. The farmers see in this serious be- hind the scenes set up, where nobody seems to understand the basis upon which the allo- cation of box cars is made, a sinister move to destroy their organization. That is why they are aroused. That is why they are putting in their protests. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows that thousands of letters of protest have come from the farmers of Saskatchewan. At any rate hundreds have come to the desks of members of parliament, urging them to support a bill which will give the fariner the right to deliver his grain to whatever elevator he wishes. If he wants to deliver his grain to his own elevator he should be allowed to do so, because it can easily be done. It could be based upon the seeded acreage which each farmer has in the district. It could , be arranged in such proportions that each permit holder would tell the station agent at that point exactly the acreage he is seeding and how much of that grain he [Mr. Castleden.] wishes to deliver for the crop year to his own wheat pool, into Pacific, or into Federal Grain or the U.G.G. or whatever company it is. On that basis, with the cars coming to that point, the local station agent can allo- cate then to the elevators proportionately. It might not be exact, but at any rate it would give the fariner the right to deliver his grain to the elevator of his own choice as nearly as it is humanly possible to do so. We had diffi- culty presenting this case in the standing committee on agriculture last year. We had difficulty making people understand that underneath this whole thing was a basic prin- ciple for which the fariner was fighting, and which he wanted established because he saw without it great danger to his own organiza- tion and his own rights. The matter was brought before the commit- tee at the meeting of the 20th of May, 1954, I believe. The question of congestion was explained, but it still did not prove to us why, if the wheat pools wanted to do 70 per cent of the business at a particular point, they should not get 70 per cent of the box cars and should be allowed only 40 per cent. The box cars were there. It is the farmer's own business, and surely he should not be compelled to take his business to the opposi- tion. I think the people of Canada doing busi- ness would protest most vehemently if they were compelled to do business with other than their choice. At that time the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, as found at page 517 of the proceedings of the committee: I think the problem in the farmers' minds is: how much grain can they market, not with any one particular agency, but how much grain can they market? That is the over-all problem. That was a problen too. They can still deliver the saine amount of grain through the saine box cars. The pool elevator agent will get out the box cars just as quickly as the line elevator company if they are spotted in front of his elevator. The minister went on to say: We are going to try to solve this problem of car distribution, but if we do not solve it no great -principle is going to be violated. No one is going to have any serious loss. There may be no serious loss in any one year. Perhaps it is only 4 or 5 cents a bushel, but bit by bit it adds up. The minister said no great principle was being violated. I should like to inform the house that we and the farmers feel a very serious and basic principle is being violated. The fariner sees a personal right being taken away. He sees the organiza- tion he has established being ruined. I should like the house to understand that the opera- tians of the Winnipeg grain exchange prob- ably represent private industry carrying on 3632 MAY 10, 1955 business at its worst. If the people who sup- port private enterprise want to know why the western farmers are against private enter- prise, the best evidence they can find is the way private enterprise operators on the Win- nipeg grain exchange have become million- aires over the years at the farmers' expense. The only weapon the farmer has with which to fight is the co-operative organiza- tion built by himself. That is the means by which he has fought the battle throughout the years. When he sees his organization being destroyed by any means at all, but particularly when it seems to be in an under- handed way and he cannot get at the root of the trouble, then he feels very deeply about it. I have a letter here from a farmer in my constituency. He says that car distribution is terrible at that point, and goes on to say that the local agent has dropped from about 42 per cent last year to 28 per cent. In other words, he used to be getting 42 per cent of the grain at this point and it has dropped to 28 per cent. It used to be one of the best co-operative points in the whole district, but the agent is down to 28 per cent this year. The rest of the wheat pool farmers in that district have been compelled to deliver what grain they have delivered to the private com- panies which have been their opposition. What disturbs them is the danger that this situation may become permanent. It is get- ting worse and worse. Each year the wheat pool reports a smaller and smaller percent- age of the grain handled going through their elevators. More and more each year wheat pool farmers are compelled to deliver to the other elevators where there is space. The space is there because of the allocation of box cars. Wheat pool elevator points have found the situation particularly difficult, even in the areas where they are the only eleva- tors at the particular points. They find that box cars are sent to other points and not to them. The situation looks rather serious to the farmer and the wheat pool because they feel that through the allocation of the box cars their whole business is threatened perma- nently. They see what the Winnipeg grain exchange and the line companies would like to do. Their attack on the wheat pools is an effort to discredit the wheat pools and the wheat board. You can discredit the Canadian wheat board if you can get the farmers feel- ing that there is something wrong. You can discredit the wheat pools if the farmers think there is something wrong with the way cars are allocated. We feel that a serious mistake was made in the past year in that through some machinations the Canadian wheat board 50433-230 Canada Grain Act undertook to allocate orders to the various grain companies on a particular basis. We have had difficulty in finding out exactly how the board does operate, but I understand that when they sell a certain quantity of grain they allocate the grain orders to the various companies. If they allocate so many hun- dreds of thousands of bushels to the wheat pool they say, "You are to send us 400 cars of No. 4 wheat". I understand that the wheat pool, as nearly as I can find out, is then supposed to say where it will get the No. 4 wheat and the different points to which the box cars should be sent. As a result the farmers in one area will say that they are in the wheat pool eleva- tor at that point and cannot get any cars. Apparently the head office has sent the box cars somewhere else. I do not think any better method could be found to make the wheat pool committees and supporters angry at their own head office. If that is the system under which the matter is being handled, then I suggest it is time something was done about it. Earlier this session I put certain questions on the order paper in an attempt to find out what was the basis under which cars were being allocated to the various companies. These are the three questions I asked: 1. What is the basis for the allocation of grain shipping orders to the various elevator companies, as now used by the Canadian wheat board? I just asked what the basis was. 2. When was the present system of order alloca- tion put into operation? 3. How were the percentages for shipping orders as between elevator companies arrived at? Has it been a 10-year basis? Have they taken any one particular year? Have they taken a free delivery year? The farmers would like to know the basis under which the wheat board is operating, because that will deter- mine to a large extent the percentage of the business the wheat pool now is allowed to do. If they are only going to get 48 per cent of the shipping orders then they are only going to do 48 per cent of the business that year. If the wheat board decides under this system that they are only to get 42 per cent, then that is all the business they can pos- sibly do even though 60 per cent of the farmers in the province of Saskatchewan may desire to do their business with the wheat pool. That is where the danger lies. These are the replies I received: 1. It is not the policy of the Canadian wheat board to disclose details of its current operations nor the competitive position of various elevator companies in their capacity as agents of the board. The answers to questions 2 and 3 were, "See answer to No. 1." I was not asking them Canada Grain Act to disclose their current operations. I wanted to try to find out by some means how ship- ping orders were at present being allocated, on what basis, and how the board determined which elevator company would be chosen. I say that because they can determine per- manently whether an elevator company will grow or will be wiped out, through the alloca- tion of these shipping orders and box cars. This is the kind of information we want. The thing that makes farmers particularly suspicious about this is that in past years the box cars that went to various points were apparently taken there by the elevator com- pany, and apparently the elevator company shipped them out to the particular districts under the orders of the transport controller. The man who was on loan as transport con- troller was a member of the board of grain commissioners. Now, that member of the board of grain commissioners was previously president of the Winnipeg grain exchange, and as transport controller be had wide powers. We cannot find out today who is responsible for this thing; we can only look at the result. The result has been that the line elevator companies have been in- creasing in power and the wheat pool co- operative organization has been decreasing in power. The farmers see in this a threat to their organization built around the establishment of the old co-operative, the only weapon they have with which to fight for justice. It is for this reason we are introducing this bill now for the third time. Under the provisions of the bill the allocation of box cars at delivery points would be made according to the farm- ers' wishes. It is only a simple, basic right. Surely its administration is not too difficult. If cars were going to be delivered to a point they could be delivered at the elevators in proportion to the farmers' wishes. It does not help to hide the whole thing behind a screen of uncertainty, or to say no one knows whose responsibility it is. It does not help to give answers like this, that it is not our policy to disclose the operations of the board. I was not asking for disclosure of the operations of the board, but surely the allocation of box cars and the allocation of business is the busi- ness of the farmer. The members of the farm co-operative organizations are aroused. For years they have accepted the excuse that the trouble was due to congestion and nothing could be done about it. They were told, "You want to sell grain, and we are doing what we can. We might not get all the cars out to each elevator." The farmers have taken that ex- cuse for five or six years and each year the [Mr. Castleden.] result has been exactly the same. They have ended up with less and less business and the opposition bas had more and more business. Today the wheat pool is making its protest. In the past year at their annual meeting the members of the wheat pool organization pro- tested loudly and stated they felt there was an injustice to them; their patience was exhausted. They have heard excuses. They have heard people passing the buck and say- ing, "It is not my responsibility, it is his." Another says the responsibility belongs to the railways, and the railways say it is the trans- port controller. The transport controller says, "I have nothing to do with it." I am going to say, Mr. Speaker, that in this fight the farmer is not going to give up easily. There is a basic right here that be feels is being violated. It is a right that should not be denied to any Canadian. It is part of his fight for existence. He bas seen years of toil go into the production of wheat which be had to sell at less than half of what it cost him to produce. On the other hand, in the years before the wheat board he has seen the annual crop of millionaires coming out of the Winnipeg grain exchange and he is not going to see the wheat board wiped out. He is going to fight through his co-operative organization. If this protest is not enough, he will make a more violent one. In this fight I can say this, that we are all very proud to be on the side of the farmer. Mr. Irvin Studer (Swif± Current-Maple Creek: It is somewhat disadvantageous to have only one hour for the discussion of a matter of such great interest to the farmers of western Canada. The hon. member for Provencher took about 10 minutes of this hour, the bon. member for Acadia about 10 minutes and the bon. member for Yorkton between 20 and 25 minutes. Since hon. members on the government side of the house are always invited to express their opinion, it does not leave too many minutes in which we may do that. I can assure you that I shall try to do so in less time than it has taken the bon. member for Yorkton. Much of the discussion has centred around the wishes of the farmers in western Canada. During the last several weeks many of us have received letters from farmers, not relat- ing so much to this particular bill but merely expressing the opinion of those who wished to deliver to the elevator of their choice. I do not think there has ever been any government that has been more susceptible to the wishes of the western farmer than this government. Unfortunately what we are trying to decide, or at least what I am trying 3634 HOUSE OF COMMONS to decide, is how many farmers in western Canada want this bill. Who are the farmers in western Canada who asked the mover of this bill to introduce it in this House of Commons? That is what I want to know, and that is what I am going to find out. During the course of the last few weeks we have received a great number of letters. The letters are not all in agreement. I think they are mostly from pool members, and some of them are from pool delegates. Some of them are from farmers saying they want the right to deliver not only to the elevator of their choice but to more than one elevator. They happen to be living between two towns, and they want the right to change from one town and elevator to the other. It would seem to me, from the contents of the letters, that the farmers are somewhat fearful of being frozen to one elevator. Unless they choose one elevator and stay with that elevator for a crop year, then I see no advantage whatever in permitting an amendment to the Canada Grain Act that will allow a farmer to stipulate the elevator of his choice. We want more unanimity of opinion on this matter. I do not know of one Liberal member who has received one letter from any grain grower in Alberta or Manitoba favouring this bill or suggesting that he be allowed to choose an elevator. Now, shall the government enact legislation to suit one area of this country, or shall the government take into considera- tion the wishes of the farmers of western Canada, or of all Canada for that matter? They are all affected. I would suggest to the farmers of western Canada that they get together and make a decision as to what they want. After they have made that decision they will not find any government that will be more sympathetic to their wishes. We have heard about the wishes of the farmers of western Canada. We have heard that the farm organizations of western Canada are in favour of what is here pro- posed. I want to know what farm organiza- tion asked the hon. member for Assiniboia to introduce this bill into this House of Commons. Would he kindly stand up and answer? What farm organization in western Canada asked the hon. member for Assiniboia to introduce this measure into this House of Commons; that is what I want to know. I am waiting for an answer. If there is not an answer, then there is only one conclusion, and that is that the farmers of western Canada do not want it. Because if they did want it they would not ask an opposition member who has no responsibility, particu- larly a socialist member who has absolutely no influence in this House of Commons or 50433-2304 Canada Grain Act anywhere else, to bring a measure of this kind before a responsible government. If farm organizations did ask him to do that, then why do not those same farm organizations go out into Saskatchewan and ask the Liberal opposition members in the legislature to bring the Rand formula, or any other measure for that matter, before the socialist government in that province? If a Liberal member ever did that, then I say such legislation before the socialist govern- ment in Saskatchewan would last about as long as a snowball in hades. I want the hon. member for Assiniboia to tell us what organization asked him to bring this measure before the House of Commons. And if he was not asked, why has he brought it here? I would ask him what political organization asked him to bring it here. Perhaps he will say it was the farmers' union. The situation that has been described here is one that would lead us to believe that the farmers in western Canada are very mad. Personally I would like to deliver to the elevator of my choice, because I was brought up with farm organizations. I was one of the original signers of the wheat pool agrée- ment, and I have never missed an opportunity to support not only the wheat pools but other co-operative organizations. If the farmers are mad now, then I would not like to face them two months after this legislation, if it were accepted, was brought into operation. I would not like to see their looks if there was a shortage of box cars, with one elevator full of grain and other elevators empty and the farmers without money. If they were not given the right to move around, then I would like to know how long this legislation would last in western Canada. So I say the farmers would be a whole lot madder after the passage of legislation of this kind, if severe congestion conditions developed. Such conditions would not be the result of government policy, or government organization, but would be the result of natural conditions that could not be elimi- nated or helped by anyone. It might be that some would favour those conditions, because we have had some crop during these last years, for which most of us are grateful. But why attempt to compel the government to enact legislation to correct a situation that natural conditions brought about? After those natural conditions have passed I do not think anyone in western Canada would suggest that those same conditions would often be repeated. They have not, up to this time. The wheat pool organizations have had as high as 53 per cent of the wheat in western MAY 10, 1955 3635 HOUSE OF COMMONS Canada Grain Act Canada, and they are now reduced to about 43 per cent, or a 10 per cent reduction. The farm grain handling organizations in Mani- toba and Alberta perhaps would do even better under the present distribution of box cars than they would by an allocation of box cars through designating the elevator of one's choice. That is why we do not receive letters from pool members in Manitoba and Alberta. That is why we do not receive letters from pool low-point deliveries in Saskatchewan, where the pools have been receiving only 23 per cent of the grain during these past years. Those pool members would like to increase their deliveries at those points. What works in one place works differently in another. But the over-all picture is one of reduced handling by pool elevators. If there is any member in the house or any member of any organization in western Canada-any grain handling firm, pool organization, farmers' union or anyone else -who is willing to take on the allocation of box cars in this country, let us have his name and we will give that name every consideration, and wish him good luck in his new position. Because immediately he will have to endeavour to satisfy everybody in western Canada. This does not mean that we are indisposed. All we are looking for is something that will work in the interests of all the people of western Canada. We have no guarantee that this will work; and until we do have, then I do not think any socialist or any other government would consider legislation that at least would not have some assurance of success, or that would have to be repealed within a very short time. If the farmers of western Canada cannot agree on what they want in the matter of deliveries at grain handling points, then do not expect the government to force agree- ment upon them. The initiative must be left with the farmer. That is the place to apply it, with the farmers themselves. They should decide what they want. It should not be just one group of farmers or a certain number of farmers in any organization. It should be all the farmers, before any responsible gov- ernment can cater to their needs. I repeat that no government is more willing to give consideration to the matter than this one. So I say to the hon. member for Assiniboia that his bill does not come here with the authority it should have. I say to the hon. member for Assiniboia that he should with- draw the bill on his own authority, per- sonally, if he bas no authority from any farm organization. An hon. Member: You are afraid to vote on it. [Mr. Studer.1 Mr. Studer: Name your farm organization, and we will show you what we are afraid to vote on. Get up and name it. Be a gentle- man. I hear no one. I take it silence gives consent to what I have been suggesting. Whenever legislation is presented in the interests of the farmers you will find all the Liberal members voting wholeheartedly in favour of it, because we are anxious to satisfy and please the farmers. The government accepted the wheat board, and it did not accept the wheat board simply because a majority of the people of Canada wanted it to do so. It accepted the wheat board for the welfare and the interests of the farmers of western Canada. With the world organizations we now have in connec- tion with the handling of grain, and the trading in that commodity, the government does much of the business that co-operatives formerly endeavoured to do. All of us will remember that when the co-operatives, such as the wheat pools, endeavoured to find a solution to the problem connected with the disposal of their grain-"From producer to consumer"; that was the slogan in those days-we ran into difficulties. The govern- ment came to the rescue of the wheat pools. It was a Conservative government that came to the rescue, a Conservative government in Saskatchewan, by guaranteeing the losses and the continuation of the farmers' own organ- ization in western Canada. Some hon. Members: Six o'clock. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite): At eight o'clock the house will resume con- sideration of the business interrupted at five o'clock. At six o'clock the house took recess. AFTER RECESS The house resumed at eight o'clock. THE BUDGET ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means. and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell. Mr. Quelch: Mr. Speaker, just before five o'clock I had quoted from a speech by Dr. Hannam regarding the conference of the international federation of agricultural pro- ducers held at Nairobi. We in this group agree with the findings of that conference. We feel MAY 10, 1955 that surpluses should not be eliminated by a reduction in production but rather by an ex- pansion of markets through distribution of goods to needy people. At home we feel we can expand markets by increasing social services and welfare payments; and to the extent that expanding markets and private enterprise fail to provide jobs, national pro- jects should be instituted by the federal gov- ernment in conjunction with the provincial and municipal governments, thereby expand- ing the purchasing power of the people and still further sustaining demand. Abroad, when foreign exchange and balance of payments difficulties occur, we should be prepared to accept sterling and in certain cases also currency of other foreign nations. In the United States of America, under the agricultural trade development assistance act, $1 billion is being made available for that purpose. Goods worth $1 billion can be sold for foreign currency. Unfortunately, in the United States they allowed the situation regarding these surpluses to get out of hand before instituting proposals of that kind. Instead of continually criticizing the United States for making surplus goods available to foreign nations by means outside the ordinary channels of trade, we should do likewise in this country. We should give strong support to the proposals that have been made from time to time by the food and agriculture organization to set up a world food board, or agencies such as the international com- modity clearing house. We believe the adop- tion of a two-price system would help to stabilize farm prices at a fair level; but the only real solution is to provide a total market. That would require a change in our financing so that a deficiency of purchasing power, resulting in a lack of effective demand, could be met by financing through the Bank of Canada. (Translation): Mr. Gerard Legare (Rimouski): Mr. Speaker, the budget speech delivered to the house in April by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) opens the door to an innumerable variety of subjects for discussion. The press has had a great deal to say about the budget and com- ments have been largely favourable. It has even been likened to an election budget, or a convention budget, as the member for Broad- view (Mr. Hees) said, among others. Had the present government not enjoyed the confidence of the people for such a long time, and were not this confidence continu- ously increasing, I hardly think the budget would be such as to save an administration The Budget-Mr. Legare in distress. It is a practical budget, based on present economic conditions and possibilities for the current year. The new minister, then, deserves the congratulations of the house and of the whole country for this, his first budget. A greater tax reduction would have been quite popular but anyone familiar with the present international situation and mind- ful of the threat of aggression will admit that, against its will, parliament has still to devote large amounts to national defence which could be used for a number of other purposes if peace were established. I shall limit myself today to two topics only, immigration and the economic survey, announced in the budget speech. The present government policy with respect to immigration causes me to wonder some- what. Should we continue to admit some 150,000 immigrants a year to Canada until such time as the employment situation is more stabilized? Some economists believe that immigration, even intensive immigration, is the key not only to our expansion but to our economie progress. We are told that our natural re- sources are plentiful, that our production should be larger and that an increase in popu- lation would mean a greater number of con- sumers. So far so good, and the majority of the people will go along with that equation. But what price that equation when we read in the newspapers that thousands of immigrants are out of work in western Can- ada, while hundreds of others are looking for work in the province of Quebec. It seems that a large proportion of immi- grants turn to seasonal jobs, such as farming in western Canada or mining or forestry in the province of Quebec. Consequently thou- sands of men, with a large proportion of immigrants, are thrown on the labour market during the off seasons. On the other hand, we cannot contemplate offering permanent jobs to the immigrants while leaving the seasonal jobs for our present population. Therefore, so long as our climate remains as changeable as it is today, our seasonal industries will keep on disturbing our labour market. Quebec was once in a much more favour- able position than it is today, especially when lumbering operations were conducted in wintertime. Our farmers or their sons, as soon as the crops were in, were then making for the forest to take up lumbering. Many HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Mr. Legare labourers from our urban centres also took advantage of the interruption of public works and house building during the winter to take up wood-cutting. Today, as I already mentioned previously in this house, the pro- cedure is reversed, and lumbering operations often start in the summer, with the result that the number of unemployed is much larger in the winter. There are also the Ungava mines where operations are to be interrupted during the winter on account of the temperature which prevails during that season; thousands of workers, of whom many are immigrants, will become unemployed. And these are only a few examples. The problem, in my opinion, is more complicated than one would imagine and the co-operation of all the industrial leaders and the govern- ments will be required in order to bring it to a solution. I am in favour of immigration as long as the country benefits from it and its present population does not suffer from it. The immi- grant himself, who has been attracted to Can- ada by the popularity of our country abroad, does not deserve to suffer the hardships of unemployment, particularly if he left a regu- lar and permanent job in his own country. When too much attention is given to the economic aspect of immigration, the human aspect is often forgotten. Our country needs consumers and is able to absorb millions of them, but these consumers represent an asset for us only as long as they produce and are not unemployed. This problem which is one of the main causes of concern for the government should be placed on the agenda of the royal com- mission which is going to examine our economic position and its future. Our economy is linked to our productivity, which in its turn is dependent upon our population and foreign markets. Today, there are two seem- ingly weak links in the web of our economy: our production cannot find enough consumers and our consumers do not enjoy stable enough employment. In my humble opinion, the proposed royal commission should more particularly try to find the causes of unemployment, study the eifects of seasonal industry on the labour market and suggest the remedies which would help not only to give employment more sta- bility, but to find work for a greater number of immigrants. Until then, if the hon. Minister of Citizen- ship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) or the [Mr. Legare.] bon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) can bring evidence before the house to show that our immigration policy does not tend to increase the number of unemployed, I know they will render a great service to many hon. members in this house. I have listened closely to the brilliant speech of the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) in favour of immigration, and, despite his many quotations, he was unable to dispel my doubts. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of increasing the population of this country by all accepted and acceptable means, but only when it can be proved, otherwise than with theories, that the arrival of immigrants, far from increasing unemployment, is creating new jobs. I am satisfied that the opinion I have just expressed is shared by a number of my fellow citizens. They do not know what to think of our immigration policy, and they are right. To go in for selective immigration, to attract here foreign skilled labour which is not to be found in this country, that is fine. But that we should admit and attract from overseas unskilled workers, farmers who have never in their lifetime so much as touched a farm implement, jacks of all trades without a trade, as we now have them in this country by the thousands seeking employment, that is what many people cannot understand. Oh, I know very well that the Progressive Conservatives in this house would like to see the government intensify immigration. We never take in enough immigrants, according to them. Instead of 150,000 we should admit 200,000, 300,000 and 400,000 annually. But who is it, in this house, who have been crying blue ruin because we have thousands of people out of work? Who, among them, could tell the house where the unemployed are capable of finding work at this time and where the thousands of immigrants who are about to disembark will find jobs? Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by expressing the hope that soon the government will be in a position to show the house with figures to prove their contention that immigrants are not responsible for the present employment situation and that the present immigration policy is such that it is truly beneficial to this country. (Text): Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon): Mr. Speaker, the subject under discussion is supposed to be the budget. I use that expression because 3638 I think almost everything has been discussed in this debate as well as the budget. This budget does not seem to inspire any particu- lar enthusiasm. I have heard it dissected by those who are opposed to the government; I have heard it praised by those on the govern- ment benches, and I still lack enthusiasm for it. It is not an inspired budget. It is a milk and toast budget. It is a wishy-washy budget. It does not get anyone very excited, least of all myself. I was interested in hearing the comments of my own townspeople in regard to it, and I found the same apathy there I have noticed elsewhere. However, I should like to report one or two of the things some people talked to me about in regard to these financial measures. One was the injustice of the $60 ceiling on the contribution toward old age pensions under the income tax. In my opinion that is unjust, and most of the people with whom I talked agreed with me. Another thing they talked to me about was the refusal of the government to make medical expenses deductible from the first dollar for purposes of income tax, as has been recom- mended at various times in measures intro- duced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). When we talked about the fact that there was a little ease- ment in income tax the question immediately arose as to why the level of exemptions was not raised; why that method was not used rather than the other. To the man with the small income the actual dollar relief is small indeed. Those are some of the things they talked to me about in connection with the budget. Then I had a visit from some of my friends who are automobile dealers and who indicated to me that they felt they had been treated with some injustice. While they welcomed the re- mission of 5 of the 15 per cent excise tax on automobiles, they resented the fact that they had some new cars on hand on which they had already paid the tax and there was no means by which they could get back that tax money unless this government was prepared to return it. They approached me as they have other hon. members. I have heard their plea put forward here by members of al political parties, including the government party, that something might be done in that regard. As one might suspect from my treatment of the budget, I rise tonight to say a word or two about something else, namely the catastrophe that bas just occurred in my own province and city. We had entered upon this year of 1955, this fiftieth anniversary, with pride and high hope, and it was a tremen- dous disappointment to us that we had to The Budget-Mr. Knight suffer at the hands of the weather as we have done during this past week. I am referring to the storm which occurred in Saskatchewan. My city was in the path of that particular storm, which did a great deal of damage. Hon. members no doubt have been reading the headlines in the papers. I have one here, but I would draw attention to the fact that these headlines refer not to the day after the storm but to the day before the storm, or to the day on which the storm occurred. The storm completed the devastation. The Saskatoon Star-Phœnix of Tuesday, May 3, indicates that there will be a drastic eut in wheat acreage amounting to an estimated one-third to one-half in some areas. We are told that this was the wettest April on record. The normal precipitation is -5 inches, but this month we have had 3 -38 inches. Anyone who has lived in Saskatche- wan as long as I have, which is 45 years, will appreciate that this is a most unusual occurrence in the month of April. Generally all through the spring we look with anxious eyes at any cloud formation and hope we may get a good shower before June, or better still in June after the crop has been seeded. To start out in a welter of water such as there is this year is something so completely unusual that it has created a great deal of astonishment. In a different column of this paper it is stated that cattle are being drowned in the Meadow Lake district in the overflowing streams, and that most roads in the province are impossible quagmires. These are some of the things that have happened to us this springtime, which we usually think of as being a warm and beneficent time of year. This year it has become something frightful and menacing. As to the city of Saskatoon itself, there was an immediate disorganization of power, light, telephone and some transportation facilities. When the transportation broke down the mayor of the city declared a state of emergency. All three radio stations were off the air for some 15 or 20 hours. All this makes one think about what might happen in case of a war emergency. We all remem- ber how the city of Montreal and some of the eastern cities were tied up by the great snowstorm of five or six weeks ago. This makes one realize what the danger would be if something more harmful than a snow- storm happened to one of these cities. The city of North Battleford and some of the towns close to Saskatoon get their power and light from that city. When the power went off in those towns and cities they im- mediately tried to wire or phone Saskatoon MAY 10, 1955 3639 HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Mr. Knight to find out what the trouble was, and of course they discovered they could not get through. All means of communication-and when I say "all means" I mean it-had broken down. There was no way of getting any information as to what had happened. It was the next day before the people in those towns and cities knew what had hap- pened to our city. This storm is calamitous in more ways than one. If there had not been so much wind, as well as the snow, sleet and rain, we might have escaped comparatively free; but we had a combination of rain with sleet and snow. May I say that sleet, although it is common in this eastern part of the country, is very uncommon in the west. When the sun came out again people got around and tried to assess the damage. In the city com- munications began to be restored, traffic got under way again, and the temporary isola- tion was put to an end. Here one should pay tribute to the people who handled that crisis; the city engineering departments and people who, I am told, worked for as long as 48 or 50 hours without a break, and the citizens who co-operated with these departments by lending their trucks and cars, the men of the Saskatchewan Power Corporation and of the Saskatchewan government telephone company, working un- selfishly to establish communications. How must one assess the damage from this particular storm? The provincial govern- ment was probably the public body which suffered most, because the provincial and municipal roads were washed out and in many cases impassable. The Saskatchewan Power Corporation, which supplies power and light to a great part of the province, and the telephone system were crippled. For miles the poles were down on the roads. The high voltage wires were down, which in itself formed a danger to the community. The damage to farms is incalculable and cer- tainly, as yet, uncalculated, particularly in the eastern part of the province where there is water everywhere. I have seen only one estimate of the dam- age, and that is by Professor Harrington, who is the head of the field husbandry branch of the University of Saskatchewan. His esti- mate was $50 million in terms of loss of the potential wheat crop. Notice that I said "wheat crop". We are well aware-in fact, it bas been stated here today by one or two members who have spoken-of the important place wheat occupies in our national econ- omy. On the basis of that loss alone one might claim that what has happened in our prov- ince might be termed a national disaster. [Mr. Knight.] There are three ways, of course, in which this water will produce loss of wheat. The first is that land flooded in the low places will not be able to be seeded at all this year. Second, although they may dry up later, it will be too late to sow the flooded lands to wheat and they will have to be sown to coarse grains instead. Third, the late seeding of lands will produce a decreased yield and will make the crop a great deal more liable to an epi- demic of rust, which hurt the province to such an extent this last year. The same thing, of course, applies to frost. There is no partic- ular date when wheat should be seeded in the province of Saskatchewan, within a week or two, but Dr. Harrington estimates the date that wheat should be seeded is about May 7. An hon. Member: How would you know when to seed wheat in Saskatchewan? Mr. Knight: Would my hon. friend do me the courtesy to keep quiet? I have listened to his silly drivel often enough, and I have never interrupted him. I inay say that I was growing wheat in this country when my bon. friend was coming across from North Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I beg your pardon for laughing, but my hon. friend always amuses me. Mr. Gardiner: He should make you angry. Mr. Knight: I do not want to get into an argument with the Minister of Agriculture. May I be allowed to continue. The sad part of this storm and the resulting damage is that a great many people who suffered last year are going to suffer again this year. I am thinking of the northeastern part of the prov- ince, Carrot River, Kamsack, and Nipawin districts where they suffered greatly last year and where this year the situation is going to be even more difficult. Perhaps this catas- trophe will affect a greater number of people over a greater area than any of the Canadian catastrophes of late years. If there is one good thing about catas- trophes it is that they engender in people a spirit of help and co-operation. They bring people together. When a catastrophe happens, one remembers the pioneer days. When a person's barn was burned down or there was a prairie fire, or something of that kind, people came to help. In these catastrophes we may expect some assistance, and we are certainly expecting some assistance, from the dominion government. I know it is not a popular philosophy, and in this house of practical men I almost hesi- tate to advance it, but perhaps we do at times emerge from hardships or struggle better and stronger for the suffering we have endured. MAY 10, 1955 As I have said, that is not a popular phil- osophy and I do not expect my hon. friends to accept it. But we do need help, from our neighbours and friends. I believe that Sas- katchewan, after this catastrophe, will once again prove its resilience. It is not the first time we have suffered catastrophes, whether of drought or of hail or of rust or of grass- hoppers, and we have won through. In fact we have been able to contribute help to other parts of the country that have suffered the same sort of thing. To come to the practical angle of this help for which we must ask the dominion govern- ment, we have been told in the last day or two that the premier of our province, Mr. Douglas, has been in touch with the Prime Minister in regard to this matter. Let me say that I thought the Prime Minister's attitude was reasonable when he stated that we must have an assessment from the provincial authorities as to what the damage actually is. Then we hope favourable consideration will be given by the dominion government, who might be reasonably expected to contribute a considerable amount in the way of help. That is my plea and the reason I rise tonight. I have said something about the loss of provincial services, roads, light and power wires, and so on. Losses to individuals will of course be heavy. When I read about people, for instance, who have lost their cattle, I presume there will be property com- pensation for the loss of cattle, for buildings damaged by water, etc. But actually the great loss will be suffered by those to whom the making of a livelihood by the growing of grain will be denied for this year. We may as well face the fact that these people are going to be in dire straits by next winter, and the government may count on that in planning their assistance. Someone has suggested an immediate start on a drainage program, and I think that is a good idea. So far as the land in the north- eastern part of the province is concerned, I do know that the provincial govern- ment instituted a work and wages program in that region to compensate the people for the loss of their incomes last year. I hope that will be continued, but I suggest it will have to be continued on a much larger scale. I think the northeastern part of the province has some of the finest land in the world, certainly the finest land I have seen, but under present conditions it will have to be drained to be used at all. That is one place where co-operation between governments might result in an immediate start which would have, as well The Budget-Mr. Hellyer as its ultimate objective, the result of pro- viding some work for people who for this year at least will not be able to make their usual living from their farms. Therefore my plea is that the government should co-operate immediately with the provincial government in starting some such program. That is the immediate necessity. In the long run the government should give generous considera- tion to whatever claims for assistance may be advanced by the province of Saskatchewan after some assessment of the damage has been made, and should render such assistance as may be judged reasonable in view of the experience with similar disasters in the past. Mr. P. T. Hellyer (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to say that I for one was very pleased with the budget brought down on April 5 by the Minister of Finance. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear. Mr. Hellyer: I think it was a definite step in the right direction and will provide a very beneficial stimulus to our economy generally. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear. Mr. Knowles: Are they the ones who helped you write your speech? Mr. Hellyer: The additional purchasing power left in the hands of individual tax- payers will form the basis of increased demand for consumer goods and services. Inventories will be depleted and the tempo of our giant industrial machine will be accelerated. The reduction in corporation tax will have a beneficial effect too, but only subject to the following conditions. If the increased profits are used for further industrial expansion it will provide jobs, while at the same time increasing our productive potential even fur- ther. If, on the other hand, the tax reductions are passed on to the consumers through lower prices for all products where there is an elastic demand, consumption and hence employment will increase. Helpful as these improvements are, even coupled with the upswing in economic activity which appears to be taking place at the same time, it may still be necessary for something further to be done in order to provide jobs for those unemployed at the present time and those entering the labour force. There are many ways in which economic stimulus can be provided, but some of them are much more effective and more suitable than others. I should like to discuss one of these pos- sibilities. HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Mr. Hellyer I think the time has come when the federal government should embark on the con- struction of a system of federal roadways, and I should like to suggest that $2 billion should be earmarked for this purpose, to be spent over a five-year period. The reason I say a federal system of roadways is that I believe only in this way can a country of ten individual jurisdictions hope to have a consistently adequate arterial road system. It is true that a start has been made in the form of the joint enterprise known as the trans-Canada highway. It is because of the experience associated with this road that I propose that the federal system should be built, financed and maintained by the federal government. Some of the provincial govern- ments have shown considerable ineptitude in getting proper value for money expended on highways, in particular where the money was raised by the federal government and handed over to them. I think we could expect good value if such a project were administered by this government, and there is no one better qualified to direct such a project than our own Minister of Public Works. What are the implications of such a system? They are material to a number of individual problems, and it is necessary to examine several of them. First let us consider com- merce. There is no need of reciting all the developments which inevitably follow new transportation routes. I do not think anyone will deny that along such a system of roads would spring up new towns and cities, new factories and facilities, new enterprises and developments of all kinds. The stimulus to our commerce generally would be so substan- tial that it is difficult to project. It can be safely stated, however, that it would be sufficient to warrant the expense and in the long run would repay the cost many times over. A direct and immediate function of such a system of arterial roads would be la tremen- dous improvement in our civil preparedness. There are those who state that in this day of atom and hydrogen bombs civil defence is merely a myth. I cannot and will not sub- scribe to such a theory of hopelessness. There is an excellent possibility that we would obtain three or four hours' notice of attack by any prospective enemy. With even such a short notice, provided the necessary high- ways for egress from our cities had been built and our civil defence organizations had been properly trained, we could hope to evacuate a large proportion of the inhabitants from any or all of our major cities. Under today's conditions any plan would be very difficult to implement. An attempt to evacuate the city of Toronto at the present [Mr. Hellyer.] time would cause one of the most fantastic traffic jams in history, and it would take hours to untangle it and get the people either out of or back into the city. To be effective and even moderately adequate we would need three or four eight-lane limited access highways leading out of the city in various directions. This would involve a number of arterial collector roads running through the city itself, such as an extension southward of the present highway 401, an eight-lane Don valley expressway from the waterfront right north to the city limits and beyond, the Spadina road extension, and a widening of the Toronto by-pass highway to a minimum of eight lanes. It is interesting to note that the usual lack of foresight has been shown in respect to this last-mentioned road, which is only four lanes and will be inadequate 48 hours after it has been opened from the Queen Elizabeth highway to the Kingston road. The eight-lane provision would have to extend outward from our major cities at least 200 miles, because otherwise the congestion at the end of the wide road would work backward and destroy its usefulness. By having several such roads leading from each city it would be possible to use all of them, with the exception of the one over which severe radioactive fall-out would be expected, having due regard to the direction of the wind at the time of any imminent attack. These facilities for egress should be pro- vided for all our major cities, and proportion- ate facilities for any others which could reasonably be expected to become even secondary targets. This would certainly in- clude Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Cal- gary, Vancouver, etc. Should an attack come and as a result of our lack of foresight the necessary escape routes not be available, it would be a dreadful thing to feel responsi- bility for such a grievous error. A third important aspect of a continent- wide highway system would be our tourist trade. It was most disturbing to me to note that in the year 1954 we had an adverse balance with the United States in respect to tourist business. Something must be done to reverse this situation. An examination of the complaints of United States tourists shows that only two are significant, our roads and our accommodation. We have so many wonderful attractions which our United States friends are anxious to enjoy that it seems a shame we are our own worst enemies in making it so difficult for this great luxury loving tourist inflow. The first half of the problem would be overcome by a really adequate system of MAY 10, 1955 transcontinental and defence arterial high- ways. The system would, of course, have to b6 joined to the United States system at all important border crossing points such as St. Stephen, New Brunswick; Rouses Point and Stanhope, Quebec; Cornwall, Niagara Falls, Fort Erie and Windsor, Ontario; Emerson, Manitoba; Estevan, Saskatchewan; Coutts, Alberta; and Pacific Highway port in British Columbia. There may be others, new places, which would also be worth while connecting up. It should also, of course, be connected with subsidiary highways into our various playground areas. The other half of the tourist problem is, of course, to encourage the building along and throughout the system of great new accom- modation centres such as our United States friends patronize and enjoy. These centres should be complete with facilities for sleep- ing, eating, automobile servicing and, where possible, recreation. Naturally such new and modern centres would be appreciated not only by our visitors but by our own citizens as well. Their building and maintenance would provide a great number of new job oppor- tunities. We could, at the same time, further develop the art of service which is so ap- parent in some countries which specialize in the tourist business. We should also specialize in Canadian foods and fly the Canadian flag as our United States friends come here to enjoy something different and not just to witness an endless repetition of facilities similar to their own. It is a fair question to ask how we could finance such a system of roadways. I propose that they should be paid for not out of current revenues but rather by having the cost amor- tized over a period of 20 or 25 years. The mechanics of this method of financing would have a tremendously stimulating effect on our economic set-up and the results, direct and indirect, would be most gratifying. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think it is reasonable to affirm that any project which would have such a beneficial effect on our commerce, provide the foundation of civil defence and safety for millions of our citizens, and in many parts of our country increase our tourist trade three or fourfold, while at the same time providing directly and indirectly tens of thousands of new jobs for our people, is so important and so urgent that it should be proceeded with as quickly as properly en- gineered plans can be prepared. Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre): I propose discussing tonight, Mr. Speaker, the subject of dominion-provincial conferences. This subject is closely related to the Minister of Finance's budget speech, The Budget-Mr. Churchill because he devoted several paragraphs to federal-provincial relations. I know that the word "dominion" has becôme a rather naughty word but it is not yet an unparliamentary expression, so perhaps I shall be able to use it during the course of my remarks. As I have consulted the reports of earlier confer- ences, I have found that until very recent years they were called dominion-provincial conferences. I find it so much easier to use that term. I want to talk about what I call Canada's other parliament, that is the dominion-pro- vincial conference which assembled in Ottawa just two or three weeks ago and which will reassemble in October. Canada's other parliament is composed of the Prime Minister and the 10 provincial premiers, assisted by their respective cabinet ministers. At the meeting on April 26 there were in attendance approximately 80 persons, repre- senting all the provinces and the dominion government. You will recall that meetings were held in the railway committee room. The first meet- ing was open to the public, with the result that there were more members of the House of Commons sitting in as observers than there were in this chamber. In fact for the two days of the conference the House of Commons could very well have been adjourned. The Prime Minister, and I presume the senior cabinet ministers, were either in constant attendance or very close at hand. I believe we were not able to continue the budget debate on Tuesday because the Minister of Finance wanted to be present at that con- ference. The press gallery had no other interest except the conference, and the public at large was awaiting with eagerness the reports of the conference because it was recognized that on it hinged much of great importance to Canada as a whole. The Prime Minister recognized the great interest that was taken in the conference and, thanks to his kindness, I have in my hand a copy of the proceedings at the preliminary meeting. It is the unrevised edition, and the only words I propose to quote from it will be the words of the Prime Minister himself. Since he is present this evening, if there is anything wrong with the quotation he can make a correction. I notice on page 4 that he said: Though this is only a preliminary meeting for the 1955 conference, it seems to have attracted a large amount of attention outside as well as Inside this chamber. I certainly agree with that; it attracted a great deal of attention. I propose to examine for a few minutes the history and purpose. of dominion-provincial conferences. I will sug- gest that serious thought must be given to 3644 HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Mr. Churchill their development and to the long-term effect the premiers of the other provinces to attend on the prestige, authority and development an interprovincial conference in the city of of the parliament of Canada, with particular Quebec. Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Bruns- reference to the House of Commons. wick and Manitoba accepted the invitation. My attention was directed to this subject Eight days were spent in deliberations for two reasons, the first of which I have among the premiers who were there, and the given; that was the intense interest in the subjects they discussed were annual subsi- conference which assembled here at a time dies paid by the dominion to the provinces when the House of Commons was in session. -which they wanted to have increased-and The second reason was that at that conference amendments to the British North America the Prime Minister took the opportunity of Act. making a considered statement with regard Fitteen years later, in 1902, at the same to unemployment and set out certain pro- place, another interprovincial conference was posals of the government. held. Five premiers and nine cabinet Consider the circumstances. Parliament ministers from the provinces were present, was in session, and had been sitting since and the same topics were discussed. early in January. The subject of unemploy- In 1906 the then prime minister, Sir ment had been under debate for a very con- Wilfrid Laurier, was persuaded to assemble siderable time on an amendment proposed a conference at which the premiers of al by Her Majesty's loyal opposition. Eight nine provinces were present, along with days of debate had been devoted to that their advisers. The conference, however, was subject and many members on both sides of mainly provincial. There were sessions at the house had spoken. Time after time the which members of the dominion cabinet sat Prime Minister was asked to make a state- in with the provincial premiers. The subjects ment, to disclose government policy, but discussed were subsidies, and a resolution remained silent. Yet on the opening day of was passed urging that the conference the dominion-provincial conference, in his assemble annually. opening address to the assembled delegates Then in 1910 and 1913 two further inter- the Prime Minister dealt at some length with provincial conferences were held, at which no the subject of unemployment and presented representatives of the dominion cabinet were the government's plan to deal with the present. Similar subiects were discussed, emergency. plus representation in the bouse of Commons This to my mind, or in my experience, was which, at that time, affected Nova Scotia one of the most outstanding instances of by- particularly. passing parliament. Frequently members of Then in 1918 Sir Robert Borden called a the opposition complain when cabinet dominion-provincial conference. He and nine ministers make statements of government of his cabinet ministers were present. For policy at public meetings, or by means of the first time the chairman at one of these press releases, when the House of Com- conferences was a dominion cabinet minister, mons is in session. We think they should the then minister of public works, Mr. Carvell. inform the House of Commons first. On this The conference was assembled just one week occasion the Prime Minister declared his after the armistice, and the subiect of post- policy first to the dominion-provincial con- war development of Canada was naturally o! ference. some importance. The main subjects which came up at that conference were soldier The question arising, then, is this. Is the settlement, general land settlement, and the dominion-provincial conference a superior return of the natural resources to the prairie governing body in this dominion? Before provinces. As nine cabinet ministers were that question can be answered one should present the opportunity was taken, during the look at the history of dominion-provincial course of the four-day conference, to discuss conferences. That is exactly what I have such matters as demobilization, reconstruction, done, and I shall pass on to the house the employment, civil re-establishment, taxation, information I have gained. The subject, of housirg, technical education and highways. course, is large and all-embracing, and the At the conclusion of the conference Sir time at my disposal this evening is limited. Robert Borden thought it was rather useful, I do not propose now to deal with all the and suggested that similar conferences might aspects of dominion-provincial relations or be held at 10-year intervals. go into detail to any great extent on some In 1926 a three-day conference was held, of these conferences; but here is the history attended only by the premiers of the prov- I have found. There were no conferences of this nature inces and their cabinet ministers. There was during the first 20 years after confederation. no representation from the dominion. Again Then in 1887 the premier of Quebec invited they discussed subsidies and taxation. [Mr. Churchill.] The year 1927, Mr. Speaker, was the turn- ing point or the watershed in so far as dominion-provincial conferences are con- cerned. The seven preceding conferences I have mentioned, with the exception of the one in 1918, had been interprovincial, and in the matter of agenda and subject matter had been largely under the control of the provin- cial premiers; and attendance, except for a few dominion cabinet ministers at three ses- sions in 1906, had been limited to provincial representatives. The year 1918 was the exception. Since 1927 there have been seven dominion- provincial conferences, if I may count the two in 1950 as one. They have been called to- gether on the initiative of the dominion gov- ernment, and the conferences have acquired an importance in national affairs greatly ex- ceeding their importance prior to 1927. It was at the 1927 conference that the dominion government exercised its full weight and influence. Of the 46 persons present at the conference of cabinet rank, and I include premiers in that term, 18 were from the dominion. Similarly, in the conferences of 1935 and 1945 the dominion cabinet as a whole participated. These three conferences, those of 1927, 1935 and 1945, set the pattern of procedure and organization of dominion- provincial conferences. I am omitting ref- erence to the conference of 1934, which was very briefly reported; I could find very little about it. I am omitting reference to the con- ference of 1941, which lasted two days, and I am omitting reference to the two conferences of 1950, one of which assembled in January to discuss constitutional matters, and the other in December to discuss fiscal arrangements. These three conferences, of 1927, 1935 and 1945, have established a pattern for dominion- provincial conferences which is well worth examining. For example, in 1927 seven days were taken up in a discussion of a total of 40 subjects. These were grouped under three main headings, constitutional, financial, social and economic. Some of the subheadings selec- ted at random are as follows: Senate reform, regulation of aircraft and flying operations, federal subsidies, taxation, customs and ex- cise duties, agriculture, health, immigration, old age pensions, fisheries and Canadian nationality. In one form or other, ail these subjects are under discussion almost every year in the House of Commons. In 1935 the conference lasted five days. Six committees were set up to consider sepa- rately the following subjects: tourist traffie, mining development, agriculture and market- ing, constitutional questions, unemployment and relief and financial questions. All of these The Budget-Mr. Churchill again are subjects familiar to the House of Commons. The purpose of the committee dis- cussions and reports of 1935 may be discov- ered in the words of Mr. Dunning, who was then minister of finance. He said, and I quote from page 37 of the 1935 report: We are receiving these reports in order that they may be submitted to the appropriate legislative and administrative authorities as a foundation upon which these authorities can base effective policy. In other words the conference was designed to provide a guide for the development of legislative programs. At the same conference the then prime minister, Mr. King, looked forward to establishing the dominion-provin- cial conferences on a permanent basis and this is what he said at page 9 of the same report: This arrangement of continuity and permanence is necessary because co-operation between the dominion and the provinces is too vital a matter to be left- entirely for intermittent conferences, and to correspondence between governments. Our secretarial arrangements and our proposed organ- ization are based upon this desire to have perman- ence and continuity. At the conference of 1945 dominion-provin- cial relations burst into full bloom. It was the twelfth in the series, the largest in attend- ance, the lengthiest and most impressive in subject matter. Sixty-eight persons of cabi- net rank were present, assisted by 140 advis- ers and officials. Their printed proceedings cover 624 pages. They sat here in the House of Commons part of the time and in the Senate chamber on other occasions. The general topic of that conference was reconstruction, and the dominion proposais were put forward under these headings: financial arrangements, public investment, health, old age pensions, unemployment assistance and tax rental agreements. Once again I point out that these are subjects frequently mentioned in debates in the House of Commons. The year 1955 has seen the commencement of another dominion-provincial conference which after a two-day session in April to draft and set the subjects for discussion in the fall, is due to reassemble in October. The subjects suggested by the various premiers as proper for the conference to consider cover almost the whole field of House of Commons activities. I have listed them all here, but I have not counted them, they are so numerous. However, there were notable exceptions; for example, external affairs, defence. The con- ference apparently decided to deal with un- employment, fiscal arrangements or taxation, resources development, health and welfare, and most likely will give consideration to holding more frequent conferences. Ever since 1887 the provincial premiers have been suggesting this, and a permanent secretariat. MAY 10, 1955 3645 3646 HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Mr. Churchill Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest this survey The problem is clear; the solution has raises this question. Why are these fot yet been found. For the last 70 years dominion-provincial conferences necessary? provincial premiers and prime ministers The answer briefly seems to be that there have been attempting to solve this problem is something wrong in the confederation that without success. It may yet be done through is Canada. These conferences seem very the medium of a dominion-provincial similar to international gatherings such as conference, but in the process we may the United Nations, NATO, or commonwealth witness, if these conferences are to con- conferences. Heads of governments or tinue at short intervals for another 70 years, cabinet ministers representing sovereign the decline of the prestige, influence and states meet together to solve pressing prob- power of the House of Commons. lems. Many of these international gatherings The reason I say this, Mr. Speaker, is that end in frustration. Some people have sug- the conferences, ever since 1927, are tending gested that a federal union would be better to range over the whole field of public for some of these purposes, for example, interest and endeavour. What purpose is among the nations comprising the Atlantic there in debating the subiect of unemploy- community or among the nations of Europe. ment in the House of Commons if the policy Here in Canada we are reversing the in that regard is to be announced first to a process. We already have a federal union dominion-provincial conference and the with elected representatives from all the decision thereon to be dependent, perhaps, provinces. Why then must the heads of on the deliberations of that body? What the 11 governments of Canada meet in con- purpose to debate the development of our ference to make plans for the country as a resources if that is a subject for the con- whole? Not content with 11 governments ference in October? Why bother in the for a population of 15 million, we are now House of Commons with the subject of engaged in an attempt to establish a twelfth health and welfare if the conference has government superior in functions and im- that on its agenda? portance to the other 11. 1 do not suggest that provincial comments The root of the problem seems to be in are not necessary and desirable on these and the field of taxation and administration. And, many other matters, but is a full-dress con- as I have noted, in all the conferences since ference the hest way to get provincial 1887 the problem of fiscal arrangements, approval or disapproval? I notice that in taxation or subsidies, has come to the fore. his introductory remarks at the conference In 1945 the present Leader of the Opposition, în Apre P e ner me tioned at (Mr. Drew) who was then premier of Ontario, page 3 of the proceedings as follows: summed it up as follows, and I quote from Taking place between these main conferences. page 11 of the report of that year: there have been manY meetings of provincial and There is one fundamental weakness in the federal representatives on other and more special- British North America Act which lies at the root ized subjects. I think we may say that there is of many of our difficulties. While the legislative now more continuing and frequent contact between powers of the dominion and provincial governments our government and their officers than ever took were defined with reasonable clarity, the division place before. of taxing powers was left in a much less satis- in my judgment there is ample opportunity factory position. The provinces were empowered to levy taxes in the field of direct taxation . . . whereas the dominion government was authorized information it desires. Consider our position to raise money by any form of taxation. We there- here under the federal union. The Canadian fore have the anomaly that, while the powers federal system is designed to give protection of the provincial governments have been extended by judicial interpretation of their statutory powers, to the provinces tbrough a fixed quota of the dominion government has found it necessary members in the Senate, and to provide over the years to occupy more and more the only membership in the House of Commons field of taxation which was made available to through representation by population. The the provincial governments. The recurring theme throughout al these cabinet by custom and tradition recognizesThe ecuringthem thoughut ll tesethe provinces in the distribution of portfolios. conferences from 1887 to the present day I doubt if the House of Commons bas at any has been that these provincial responsibilities time since confederation been without a have been increasing while the financial number of former premiers and former pro- resources have not been adequate, hence the vincial cabinet ministers in its membership. conferences, hence the suggestions for more In the two bouses of pariament, if ail vacan- frequent meetings and for a permanent secre- cies are filled, there are 367 persons, each of tariat, hence also the growing importance of wbom has some knowledge of tbe problems the conferences and their overshadowing of of the province from which he comes. In parliament. every area of Canada there are officiais of [Mr. Churchill.] the dominion government. Between the pro- vincial capitals and Ottawa passes an endless stream of correspondence. The telegraph, telephone and aeroplane have made com- munication reliable, speedy and convenient. It would be interesting to determine the results that have come from the twelve con- ferences which preceded the one called for this year. What new ideas, what new policies have been advanced following these confer- ences? Has anything happened at them that could not have been accomplished in the House of Commons? It would be interesting also to know the cost to the taxpayer of these conferences. I am not unaware of the fact that the desire for dominion-provincial conferences origi- nated with the provinces, nor that suggestions for such conferences have been put forward frequently in the House of Commons. Until April 26 I had not considered the implication of these conferences and their probable effect on parliament. I now entertain grave doubts as to their purpose and value if they follow the course of the conferences of 1927, 1935 and 1945, and if they become a permanent feature of our system of government; cer- tainly so if we are to become dependent on them for the forming of policies for this dominion. The purpose of these conferences, in so far as I can judge from reading the proceedings, particularly those since 1927, has been to set forth matters of policy, to prepare for legis- lative programs either dominion or provin- cial; and in this connection I referred to the remarks of Mr. Dunning at an earlier con- ference. I suggest that the proposals put forward at many of these conferences involved taxation, and taxation is a problem which concerns this House of Commons. Parliament should decide the amount of taxes to be levied on our people, not a dominion-provincial conference which has quite often indirectly set figures and quotas which resulted in taxation. I am suggesting that by dealing with dominion-provincial conferences the executive here, the cabinet, is not fulfilling its responsi- bilities to the House of Commons itself. This is a place where government programs should first be put forward, not at conferences. Mr. Philpoît: Would the hon. member per- mit a question? Mr. Churchill: I have just about completed my remarks. Mr. Philpoit: In view of the proposal made at the opening of the recent conference, which involved co-operation among the dominion and provincial governnents, would not the hon. member agree that it was a good thing The Budget-Mr. Churchill for the dominion to take over part of the responsibility for the unemployed employ- ables, and that this proposal had to be made at the particular kind of conference at which it was made? Mr. Lennard: That is almost a speech. Mr. Churchill: That is an easy question to answer, but with due respect to the hon. mem- ber I think it is hardly applicable to the suggestions I am putting forward. Certainly the problem of unemployment had to be dealt with, and dealt with quickly, but these suggestions could have been put forward here in the House of Commons. I am directing attention to the general problem of dominion- provincial conferences and their effect upon the House of Commons. An interruption with regard to a detail like that in my opinion is not in keeping with the thoughts which I am attempting to put forward. I am putting these matters forward seriously, and with the hope that people will examine these suggestions I am making and perhaps be able to destroy them by their arguments. On the other hand, historians may discover later that in 1927, 1935 or 1945 occurred the beginning of the decline of the influence of the House of Commons, which we have heard mentioned on many occasions in the last few years. However, I am coming rapidly to a conclu- sion. Throughout the course of these latest conferences mention was made that what was being held was just a conference, that there was nothing partisan about the discussion, that the parties were there to co-operate for the good of Canada as a whole. If they were just conferences, if there was nothing of a party nature about them, why have they been restricted just to government representatives? I think sometimes we forget that our parlia- mentary system is dependent upon two forces interacting on each other. There is the government side, and there is the official op- position. I would suggest that conferences of this nature should be attended not only by the heads of the 11 governments of Canada but by the leaders of the official oppositions in the legislative assemblies of this country, along with their advisers. If you carry this idea of dominion-pro- vincial conferences to a logical conclusion, what happens? You have a government set up over and above the ones we now have, and the result would be a sort of small united nations assembly of Canada. What disturbs me is the effect of all this on the House of Commons. I will conclude with this statement. Dominion-provincial conferences may con- tinue to be a necessity for Canada. If so, MAY 10, 1955 3647 HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Mr. Boucher they should be restricted to the core of the problem, the division of administrative re- sponsibility between the dominion and the provinces, and the division of fields of taxa- tion. Unless complete breakdown of the federal system is threatened, such conferences need not be held except at intervals of many years for any necessary review that may be required due to changing conditions. Dominion-provincial conferences established on a permanent basis holding more frequent meetings, conducted after the fashion of the conferences of 1927, 1935 and 1945, will de- velop into another parliament for Canada, and will result in the decline of the influence of the present House of Commons. Mr. Jean Boucher (Chaeauguay-Hunting- don-Laprairie): Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this budget debate I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance on the presentation of his first budget. This budget was proposed to give us income tax reductions ranging from 2-8 per cent to 13-3 per cent, and gives at least 80 per cent of Canadians reductions ranging from 12-6 to 13 per cent, effective July 1 of this year. I believe the Minister of Finance realized that business also needed a shot in the arm and consequently reduced corporation taxes, which will encourage manufacturers to expand plants and production, thus offering more jobs to Canadians. Corporations and businesses are like individuals in some respects. If the incentive is taken away because of exorbitant taxation and the share- holders are not getting a fair return on their investment, financial support is withdrawn, followed by loss of sales and loss of produc- tion which leads to lay-offs and unemploy- ment. This is a time to loosen up and encourage business to expand. The tax cuts are needed in Canada at the present time. We have a marvellous country, a marvellous future, and an almost incredible potential wealth. Our foundations are sound. But the government does not create one single item of tangible wealth. It does not grow any of our wheat, nor does it produce any of our steel, nor does it make any of the thousands of items that create what we now call our material stand- ard of living. The government redistributes the people's wealth. It chooses where the taxes will come from and where the proceeds will go. The hon. member for Eglinton said the other day, and I quote, "This is a budget without any pattern. This is a budget that is not founded upon any principle". Mr. Speaker, a shot of tonic was needed in our economy. We have had balanced budgets for 10 years or so, which is commendable. rMr. ChurchilL i But this does not necessarily mean that we always have to have a balanced budget. The hon. members of the opposition in past years have been asking repeatedly for a reduction in income tax. Now, when the time is ripe for such a reduction, they claim it is a rosy budget and that the government is putting too much faith in the ability of the Canadian nation to develop our immense resources. Mr. Fleming: Nonsense! Utter nonsense! Mr. Boucher: As far as I am concerned I am satisfied that the majority of the people living in the constituency I have the honour of representing in this bouse approve of this budget. Mr. Speaker, the constituency of Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie is a typi- cal Canadian constituency where English and French-speaking Canadians live together in peace and harmony. Even if industries are a big factor in the economy of our constitu- ency, agriculture remains its most important one, and the dairy industry its backbone. Forty per cent of the population of Chateau- guay and Huntingdon depend directly upon the dairy industry, and a much larger propor- tion of their population derive their income from it indirectly. Those farmers are industrious, diligent and are attached to their work. Whenever one travels through their well-kept farms one bas the impression that those farmers are prosperous. But we must not forget that last year's crop was very poor, almost to the point of failure. In many cases it will be necessary for my people to buy feed for their cattle and seed to sow this year's crop. For that very reason I wish to thank the Minister of Agriculture for taking positive action in the maintenance of the price of butter at 58 cents a pound. I know my constituents will appreciate this very much. (Translation): Because our farmers are progressive, because they are always anxious to add to their farm equipment as a means of increasing crop yields, they sometimes have to borrow. Our government, through the Canadian farm loan board, is trying to help farmers by making it easier for them to secure loans. Loans are granted up to a maximum of $10,000, which seems quite reasonable. The various systems of refund- ing those loans also seem quite favourable. Still, I wonder whether there is not room for improvement in certain particulars per- taining to the qualifications required for securing such loans. For example, the Canadian farm loan board will not lend to farmers who hold part- time jobs elsewhere. But, is it not a fact that most farmers who apply to the Canadian farm loan board are precisely those who wish to improve the yield of their lands, so as to make farming their full-time work. Is it not true too that those farmers who take part-time work in this way do so to earn extra cash because, as a result of inadequate equipment, they do not make enough out of farming to live on. Those farmers have no other purpose than to practise farming exclusively, but not unless and until their lands can support them and their family adequately. I am therefore of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that these loans should be placed at the dis- posal of the farmers, even if they have to do part-time work outside the farm. It seems ta me too that the farm loan board is far too strict on the score of mortgage guarantees required of applicants. As a notary practis- ing in an agricultural district where lands are highly productive, I have had several opportunities of noticing how stringent were the board's requirements in this connection. To my knowledge, a number of farmers have tried in vain to get loans from the Canadian farn loan board. After being turned down, they managed to borrow money from private sources, retired people with private means or from businessmen who would certainly have refused the loan if they had thought for a moment that the property to be mortgaged was of insufficient value to cover the amount of the loan. I hope those remarks will receive favour- able consideration so that in future our farmers will be able to obtain such loans without mortgage guarantees in excess of those asked for by private lenders. A moment ago I was saying that the Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie riding de- rives its prosperity from the excellence of the work done by our farmers and the diversity of the industries established within its limits. Therefore, I cannot defer to the arguments put forward by members of the various opposition groups who would have us believe that Canada is in the midst of a depression. At times we may be faced, as in a few parishes in my county, with seasonal and temporary unemployment. However, I have no doubt that its present policy will enable the government to solve this problem once and for all. Already, in our region, we see a strong economic upswing. The Budget-Mr. Boucher I had the opportunity just recently of visiting a large textile mill in the Huntingdon district. I was pleased indeed to note a feverish activity in that mill. I take this opportunity to ask the government to con- sider seriously the problems facing that industry. The leaders of the textile industry in my constituency are animated with the spirit of the pioneers of this country. They took chances with their money and placed at the disposal of their fellow citizens their great experience, so that today in Hunting- don we have mills providing employment to a great proportion of the population. The leaders of the textile industry were criticized for insufficiently modernizing their equip- ment. That criticism could not be levelled at the owners of the textile industries in my riding, because their equipment compares favourably with that of other manufacturers in this country and abroad. Labour is also excellent. Obviously, and it is all to the credit of the present government, our standard of living is equalled or surpassed only by the standard of living in the United States. It will be readily admitted that it is not up to the government to come to the rescue of the lords of the textile industry who have failed to run their business efficiently. The others should, however, not suffer from unfair competition by nations less privileged in their standard of living. I submit these few remarks on the textile industry, because I am certain that the government will give them serious consideration. The name of the other part of my riding, the Laprairie district, is now in everybody's mouth. This county, which, historically speaking, goes back to the seventeenth cen- tury, has always enjoyed great prosperity. The completion of the St. Lawrence seaway opens up the prospect of gigantic industrial development and, consequently, a much greater prosperity. Many industries are al- ready paying fabulous prices for property adjacent the St. Lawrence river. Home build- ing is growing apace and creating many jobs. Yet, these changes cannot but raise many problems, and I seize this opportunity to commend the government for having ap- pointed as chairman of the St. Lawrence sea- way project a man of such experience and such capacity for work as the Hon. Lionel Chevrier, who has proved his mettle for many years in and outside this house. The appointment of the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) should also be men- MAY 10, 1955 3649 The Budget-Mr. Boucher tioned. His vast knowledge and his long parliamentary experience in the Quebec legislature had marked him for such a post. No doubt that under their leadership all the problems relating to the St. Lawrence sea- way project will be solved. Among those problems there is the price that should be granted to the land owners to be expropriated. Located in one of the most enchanting districts, across from the Lachine rapids and near the metropolis of Canada, these properties have an exceptional market value. And here, Mr. Speaker, allow me to make a special reference to the farms which are being expropriated. Apart from having an excellent market value, due to their privileged location, for housing projects, these farms are also considered to be among the best for market-gardening. Deals con- cerning market-gardening farms located in the same area are abundant proof of my statement, since the average price arrived at in these deals was about $1,500 per acre, without any buildings. I have no doubt that the St. Lawrence seaway authority will take these facts into consideration and adequately compensate the people who are being ex- propriated. Before resuming my seat, I wish also to draw the attention of the seaway authorities to the fact that the very great majority of those expropriated will not yet have been paid when the time comes for them to leave their homes, about the first of June next, if my information is correct. I am told that in the past, in similar circumstances, the government has agreed to pay at once an amount representing 80 per cent of his offer when the parties had failed to come to an understanding. It would be unfair, I feel, to tell those people of whom a sacrifice is being asked in the general interest of the community, those people who did not wish to move elsewhere and change their way of living, who have worked on those farms for many generations since the time when our country was but a colony: "Go away, that is the law; whether you have money or not, you must move elsewhere; it is not our problem, it is up to you to agree to a settlement". Such a stand is not that of a Liberal government; I am convinced that the seaway authorities will understand their duty and thus maintain the confidence that the citizens of Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie have had for such a long time in the Liberal party. [Mr. Boucher.] (Text): Mr. C. E. Johnslon (Bow River): It was not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to take part in this debate. I sometimes wonder why some speakers when they are addressing this house, especially of late, go out of their way to make provocative statements, which some- times they know are not true. I often wondered if it were not the intention of the government purposely to create this impres- sion so the work of the house would drag on. This type of speech only causes members of the house-forces them, in fact-to get up and reply. As I said the other day, I was well aware of the fact that there was going to be a speech here against the Social Credit party. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite): Order. Mr. Studer: I rise on a question of privi- lege, Mr. Speaker. Did I hear the hon. mem- ber say that the statements I made in my speech were not true? Mr. Johns±on (Bow River): You certainly did, without any question. Mr. Studer: But I was reading from Hansard. Mr. Johnston (Bow River): Your hearing has improved. Mr. Studer: I ask that the hon. member withdraw those remarks. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite): I was listening to the hon. member for Bow River. I think he did make a remark about members of the house in general which I would have felt, had it been applied to a particular member, would have been the cause of that member rising on a question of privilege. However, I did not hear the hon. member for Bow River refer to any of his colleagues in this chamber by name or by constituency, so I did not interfere. The hon. member for Bow River knows, without me having to tell him, that stating that any member of the house made state- ments which he knew were not true is unparliamentary. I did not hear the hon. member for Bow River make that statement with reference to anyone in this chamber. If he is now making it with reference to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) I have no alternative but to insist that he withdraw that remark. I have said that I did not hear him make it, and I did not understand him as making definite accusations against any individual member. 3650 HOUSE OF COMMONS Mr. Johnston (Bow River): You are quite right, Mr. Speaker. I did not say the mem- ber made a statement that he knew to be wrong, because I will give him credit for not knowing just what he was saying. When I say, though, that a statement was made which was incorrect, I think that is quite within the rules of this house. Mr. Studer: I was reading from the Hansard record; that is all I was doing. Mr. Johnston (Bow River): I shall be read- ing the record to you in just a few minutes. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite): The hon. member for Bow River has made it quite clear that he did not accuse the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek of making a statement which he knew to be untrue. There- fore, the hon. member for Bow River should be allowed to continue uninterrupted. Mr. Johnston (Bow River): It is necessary at times for some of us in this house to get up and put the record straight. There are occasions, too, when elections seem to be in the offing, when some members get up-I would not say they do it intentionally-and make statements which when the record is read over are not just as true as they might be. It is my purpose this evening to make corrections in some of these statements. I hope when I have done the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek will be gracious enough to get up and acknowledge that the statement he made was made in utter ignor- ance of the true facts. I want to refer, Mr. Speaker, to some of the statements made by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek as reported on page 3511 of Hansard for May 5, 1955. He said: I have heard nothing from the Social Crediters who seem to be feeling more or less happy these days with regard to what their prospects may be in connection with future government here in Canada, the financial ability of the people and of the services that they may be in a position to offer to the people of Canada. Well now, Mr. Speaker, we are quite well aware of the progress Social Credit is mak- ing. We are not alarmed about it. The only ones who seem to be afraid are the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek and possibly some of his colleagues. In his des- peration he makes statements to this house which are contrary to the facts, and though he may have made them in ignorance, I think he should realize his inability to recognize the truth when he sees it. Then he goes on, Mr. Speaker: But before you can offer any social service to the people of Canada, there is one thing that you mnust do about it. You must vote for it. The Budget-Mr. C. E. Johnston Mr. Studer: Absolutely right. Mr. Johnston (Bow River): I continue: No one can obtain a social service in this country unless through this parliament we vote for that social service. If we vote against the social serv- ice, certainly none will be applicable. He has taken very great pains to say that we voted against a social service. In a few minutes I want to show the hon. member where he was so far wrong that he himself need not be ashamed of it. He went on to say this: I think theSocial Credit party is active through- out the whole country- He can be assured of that. -in connection with advocating family allowances, leaving people with the impression that Social Credit was possibly the originator of these family allowances and- He can again be assured of that; it is true. I do not know how he got the truth in there, but he did. -as they were possibly the originators they should be entrusted with the responsibility of increasing them. Of course, Mr. Speaker, we have always supported the principle of family allowances, and that is only too clearly shown in the record. Before I turn to the record, I want to quote just a little more from the hon. member's speech of the other day. I turn over the page to 3512, at the bottom, where he said: -in regard to the adoption of the family allowance measure- Now, notice that. -in regard to the adoption of the family allowance measure- Mr. Knowles: It was no such thing. Mr. Studer: -the following names are written, and they are written there in indelible ink. There is nothing that any Social Crediter can do that will erase it. They are written there at page 364. Mr. Studer: Could I ask the bon. member a question, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Johnsion (Bow River): No, you have said enough for a while. You can talk all you like afterward. Now, Mr. Speaker, I shall produce page 364 in a moment to show that there was no recorded vote on the adoption of the family allowance measure; that is very clear from the record. The hon. member continued: The nays are as follows: Blackmore, Bryce. Bur- ton, Castleden, Coldwell, Dorion, Douglas (Wey- burn), Fair, Gillis, Hansell, Hlynka- Mr. Johnston (Bow River): Ten o'clock. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Studer: -Johnston (Bow River). Knowles. Kuhl, MacInnis, Marshall, Nicholson, Noseworthy- Now, Mr. Speaker, we shall refer to the record. If the hon. member had taken the trouble- 3851MAY 10, 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Mr. C. E. Johnston Mr. Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. An hon. Member: Another country heard from. Mr. Pickersgill: Is there not a rule, sir, in the house against tedious repetition? The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite): The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) may continue. Mr. Patterson: You put your foot in it again. Mr. Johnston (Bow River): There is no one in this house who should be better ac- quainted with that practice than the hon. member who has just spoken. The reason I am taking the time of the house on this occasion is to ensure that these tedious misrepresentations of the facts will not be permitted to continue. Sometimes it is necessary to go to some length in regard to matters of this kind. Mr. Knowles: Ask the Minister of Citizen- ship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill). Mr. Johnston (Bow River): When the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne was taking place in 1944 the bon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) spoke. And may I say, when we are discussing the speech from the throne, that the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) is entirely wrong when he makes reference to items which he says are included in that speech; because when the address is given we find quite clearly, as is indicated in this year's speech from the throne, that the bon. member moving the address in reply said, as reported in the translation of his remarks at page 11 of Hansard: That the following address be presented ta His Excellency the Governor General of Canada. To His Excellency the Right Honourable Vincent Massey, C.H., Governor General and Commander in chief of Canada: May it please Your Excellency:- And this was what we were voting on. We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal sub- jects, the House of Commons of Canada, in parlia- ment assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks- And so on. We were not voting on any particular item in the speech from the throne. We were simply offering our thanks to the Governor General for having addressed us. It may be that the bon. member does not know this. However, we will come to that a little later on. Mr. Studer: When the hon. member voted to defeat the government, would there have been family allowances if his vote had de- feated the government? [Mr. Johnston (Bow RiverI.] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite): Order. The hon. member for Bow River may continue. Mr. Johnston (Bow River): When we did vote on that we were voting confidence or non-confidence in the government. I have never, in the 20 years I have been here, voted confidence in this government, and I do not intend to start now. Mr. Byrne: That is why you voted against family allowances. An hon. Member: He did not. Mr. Johnston (Bow River): The speech fron the throne in 1944 said this, in part: The family and the home are the foundation of national life. Ta aid in ensuring a minimum of well-being ta the children of the nation and ta help gain for them a closer approach ta eouality of opportunity in the battle of life, you will be asked ta approve a measure making provision for family allowances. Mr. Studer: And you voted against it. Mr. Johnsion (Bow River): The Governor General himself bas said there was no mea- sure in his speech dealing with family allow- ances, but that "you will be asked". The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek does not know his grammar sufficiently well to recognize the future tense. But this clearly says, "You will be asked to approve a mea- sure", and of course that statement was true. Again the hon. member for Swift Current- Maple Creek cannot understand English when he sees it. Now, when we come to speaking on the address in reply, if the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek had taken the trouble to read the record he would have got it straight. The hon. member for Acadia, speaking at that time, said this as reported at page 153 of Hansard for February 3, 1944: I very much welcome the government's proposal ta pay family allowances. This is a step in the direction we have been advocating for a number of years. We first began ta advocate something of this kind in this house in 1936; and I think most hon. members will recall how the suggestion that money should be paid directly ta individuals out- side the industrial system was scoffed at in this bouse. We were continually told that we were advocating something for nothing. However, ap- parently the government now see the light and are proposing ta issue money directly ta con- sumers nstead of having it paid out through industry. Mr. Byrne: And you voted against it. Mr. Johnston (Bow River): I did not vote against it at all. Apparently you did not know what you were voting for in the speech from the throne, and apparently you do not know even yet. For the edification of some of these individuals who do not understand what the speech from the throne is, I shal 3653 refer again to the debate in reply to the speech frorn the throne, and the reference at page 259 of Hansard for February 8, 1944, to the subject of f amily allowances. How people can be so stupid as to be able to read and not understand simple English is quite beyond rny cornprehiension. If the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek had turned to page 259 of Hansard of 1944 hie would have read this-and these are rny own words: That purchasing power can be made up in several ways. A large portion of it can be supplied through industry, which paya the wages and salaries, but there la neyer enough paid out by industry in wages and salaries to begin to buy back the products of industry. and so there is always a lag. We have advocated the issue of national dividends to make up that lag. Every other party in the house bas criticized and ridiculed this principle of national dividends. In view of that, it is amazing now to see in the speech from the throne mention made of f amily allowances. It will be noted that I used the proper expression when I said that mention was made of it, but no proposai was ever included. in that address; and that is where the hon. member's mind has been wandering. The Budget-Mr. C. E. Johnston Liberals supporting the Party whlch proposed these family allowances have to say about that. This is the part of rny speech to which 1 draw the attention of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek: The princile of the f amily allowance is sound. We have neyer taken any other stand. Then, Mr. Speaker, when we corne to page 362 of Hansard for February 10, 1944, we find the vote recorded and, of course, as this was a non-confidence motion we voted non- confidence in the governiment. An hion. Member: You voted against family allowances. An lion. Member: Shame. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite): Order. It being ten o'clock, perhaps this would be a convenient; place for the hon. member to move the adjournment of the debate. Mr. Johnsion (Bow River): Yes, because I arn now turning rny remarks fromn the address in 1944 to the problern to which it refers, namely the family allowances measure. An hon. Member: His beard got caught in On motion of Mr. Johnston (Bow River) the previous page. the debate was adjourned. Mr. Johnstan : I sbould like to ask the Minister of Justice if he can report ta the bouse that any progress has been made in instituting tbe 40-bour week for penitentiary employees? Hon. Stuart S. Garson was unexpectedly called away. On *that account I paired with him. Had I voted, Il would have voted for the amendment. Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the house, to adopt the main motion? Mr. Rowe: On division. Main motion (Mr. Harris) agreed to. WAYS AND MEANS The bouse in committee of ways and means, Mr. Robinson (Sîmcoe East) in the chair. Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, I muove that the committee rise and report progress, SO that we may go on with the resolution we mndi- cated the other evening. Progress reported. RAIL WAYS AGREEMENT RESPECTING TRACKS IN TORONTO 1HARSOUR AREA The bouse in committee on Bill No. 262, to approve an agreement between the Toronto harbour commissioners, the Toronto Terminais Railway Company, Canadian Na- tional Railway Company and Canadiaat Pacifie Railway Company-Mr. Marler-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair. Clause 1 agreed to. Schedule agreed to. Sehedule A agreed to. Bul reported, read the third time andi passed. VETERANS BENEFIT ACT CERTAIN BENEFITS CONTINUED TO PERSONS .TOINING REGULAR FORCES BEFORE JULY 1, 1955 Hon. Hugues Lapainte (Minister of Veterans Affair> moved that the bouse go into cor»- mittee to consider Bill No. 278, to amend the Veterans Benefit Aet, 1954. Mr. Pearkeu: Is the minister going to make. a statement on this bill? Mr. Lapointe: The statement bas been muade. This bill was referred to the veterans HOUSE OF COMMONS Veterans Beneft Act affairs committee and was approved without amendment, and reported to the house. Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair. On clause 1-Limitation. Mr. Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I have some comments to make on this bill. The minister is quite correct when he says it was before the veterans affairs committee and was approved without amendment. However, I would call to the minister's attention the fact that this bill provides that any person joining the regular services with the intention of making the army, the navy or the air force his vocation in the future will be denied any of the rights contained in the several bills that set out certain benefits for the special force. Anyone entering the regular forces after July 1955 will no longer be eligible for any of these benefits; and particular emphasis is placed on the question of unemployment insurance. All service personnel, up to July 1 of this year, are entitled to unemployment insurance if and when they leave the service. When this bill was before the veterans affairs com- mittee the secretary of the Canadian Legion proposed that the bill should be amended to provide that in future members of the ser- vices should be considered on the same basis as those employed in industry; and if because of any unforeseen circumstances they did not continue in the services the length of time they had intended, they should be brought under the Unemployment Insurance Act in the way members of the special force are at this time. The exception was made that they should be brought in on a contributory basis, exactly the same as other employees in industry who come under the Unemployment Insurance Act. At that time the committee did not wish to suggest any amendments for the simple reason that at least I felt that before bringing the regular forces under a contributory basis a study should be made to see whether the service personnel wanted to come in on that basis or not. However, there are arguments both ways. I merely wanted to say that our committee will recommend when the report is completed that the Department of National Defence and the Department of Labour, which have to do with the problem, should at least make an interdepartrnental study of the mat- ter to see first whether the service personnel want it on a contributory basis, and second whether it is feasible and practical to do the thing in the way suggested by the secretary of the Legion. [Mr. Lapointe.] I know that the parliamentary assistant to the minister has that in mind. I hope that both he and the minister will continue to carry out what we have in our minds and what the Legion recommended, and what our report will recommend when it is completed. I merely wanted to put that on the record so that we would not forget it. Mr. Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Cape Breton South bas very well expressed what the attitude of the commit- tee was with reference to this bill. The bill has to do with the special force that served in Korea. Since most of these men have been discharged frorn the force or are back home, it was thought by the committee that it was not necessary for the situation regarding them to be as it has been. As the hon. member for Cape Breton South said, we did hear representations from the Canadian Legion. I hold in my hand the recommendation of the Canadian Legion, and it might be well to place it on Hansard. The recommendation made by the Legion is as follows: That the Department of National Defence make provision for members of the armed forces to contribute to unenployment insurance so that they may benefit from the Unemployment Insurance Act in the same manner as do industrial employees. You will note, Mr. Chairman, that the recommendation was that the Department of National Defence make provision, not the Department of Veterans Affairs. The recom- mendation was considered by the committee and was unanimously agreed to in that regard, that the bill as presented by the Department of Veterans Affairs be passed and that, as has been stated, the recom- mendation be put in our report that the Legion's suggestion be carried out. I might say that I had already recom- mended that in the House of Commons when the bill was up for second reading. When we were in committee I was very pleased indeed to learn that the Legion thought along the same lines as I did. The situation has certainly changed, but as the Legion pointed out, many young men will be discharged from the army for various reasons before their time of service is up. Those who are taken on strength up to July 1 of this year will be in an entirely different position frorn those who are taken in after July 1. As I pointed out before, we shall have two types of men in the army, namely, those who, when they are discharged from the army, will have the benefit of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and those who will not have the benefit of the Unemployment Insurance Act. In addition to that, a great many young men are leaving insurable employment and are going into the army. When these young men leave the army they will not have the advantage of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Like the bon. member who has already spoken, I do hope that this matter will be given very serious consideration. Frankly, I think there is a great deal of merit in the recommendation of the Canadian Legion. When the hon. member for Hamilton West spoke on the unemployment bill the other day she also mentioned this matter of the soldier. Her suggestion was that the matter should be given careful consideration. As far as the bill itself is concerned, Mr. Chairman, we are in entire agreement with its contents. Clause agreed to. Clause 2 agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported, read the third time and passed. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT EXTENSION OF BENEFITS AND CHANGES IN ADMINISTRATION The house in committee on Bill No. 188, to amend the Government Employees Com- pensation Act-Mr. Gregg-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair. On clause 1-Compensation. Mrs. Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, the Minis- ter of Labour is not here this afternoon. Members of the committee were given a copy of one amendment which it was intended to put into effect and which, I might say, received the approval of the committee. How- ever, there was another amendment. One of the clauses was supposed to be rewritten, and we have not yet had any notification of that. We have no copy of it; we do not know what is now proposed. Although it is a minor matter, it is a matter of making the clause more intelligible. I do not believe we should be asked to approve this bill until we have seen just what amendments the government proposes to make to it. . Mr. Harris: I was under the impression that the amendment had been prepared and made available. If that is not so, I agree with the hon. member. The Chairman: Order. Apparently there is a substantial amendment to a later clause in the bill. Would it be agreeable to proceed until we reach that clause? 12, 1955 3703 Government Employees Compensation Act Mrs. Fairclough: Is that clause 2, Mr. Chairman? The Chairman: Order. I see a minor amend- ment to clause 2. It appears to be merely the insertion of a comma. Mrs. Fairclough: No. That was the first amendment that was proposed by the com- mittee. Subsequently, the minister agreed that the whole wording of the clause was most confusing, and agreed to send it back to the Department of Justice for rewording. In view of the confusion that exists, we should report progress until such time as we can find out just exactly what bas taken place. Mr. Harris: I do not think there is any confusion. Perhaps we can carry clause 1, to which I take it there is no objection, then we shall rise and ask leave to sit again. Mr. Churchill: It would appear to me that the bill would have to be reprinted in order to put before hon. members the amendments that were discussed during the course of the committee meeting. One amendment dealing particularly with clause 3 was rather involved. Until such time as we see it before us, I do not see much purpose in going ahead with this. Mr. Marris: Agreed. Mr. Churchill: Further than that, we were to have an explanation of one or two phrases contained in the bill which if not interpreted in the form in which we anticipated would affect other sections of the bill. I think it would be fair to let the bill stand until we have full information. Mr. Harris: Stand. Clause stands. Progress reported. PRECIOUS METALS MARKING ACT AMENDMENTS RESPECTING TRADE MARKS, QUALITY MARKS, ETC. The house resumed, from Monday, April 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Winters (for Mr. Howe, Port Arthur) for the second reading of Bill No. 306, to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act. Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Defence Production): Mr. Speaker, the Precious Metals Marking Act deals with articles of gold, silver, platinum and palladium, and in addition with articles plated with either gold or silver. Under the Precious Metals Marking Act It is not mandatory that articles of or plated with precious metals be marked as to their content of precious metal. However, the act does provide that, where reference is HOUSE OF COMMONS Precious Metals Marking Act made to the precious metal content, that content must be shown in a particular man- ner. For example, a gold ring or a ring con- taining gold may be sold as a plain ring, but if reference is made to its gold content that gold content must be indicated. If it is rep- resented as being of carat quality, say 10 carat, then it must be 10/24ths gold by weight. In addition, where such quality mark, that is the precious metal content, is placed on an article, the article must also carry a registered trade mark or a trade mark for which application for registration has been made. The present bill provides for two amend- ments to the act. The first deals with the method of applying quality marks to gold filled or rolled gold plate bracelets or, as they are sometimes called, wrist watches which have base metal parts. The difference between gold filled and rolled gold plate lies mainly in the thickness of the gold or the other precious metal covering it. In the former, that is in the gold filled, it is 3/1000ths of an inch, and in the latter, that is rolled gold plate, it is 1½/1000ths of an inch of gold which is of at least 10 carat quality. Under the act as it stands, when all parts of a bracelet watch case have a gold content the quality mark and the trade mark can be applied to any part of the watch, but it is usually applied in the most convenient loca- tion, which is the back. Where some parts of the case are plated or filled and others are of base metal the quality marking under the present act must be applied to those parts which are plated and the words "base metal" must be applied to those which are base metal. With the present size of the bracelet or wrist watches, particularly ladies' watches, it is difficult to place marks on the plated parts without damage, and in addition if they are put on they are often so small as to be unreadable. As a result, few wrist watches today carry any quality marks, and any quality declaration governing them is usually shown on a tag attached to the watch. To provide informative marking on a watch itself, it is proposed in this amendment that the manufacturer be permitted to indicate on the outer side of the base metal back the quality mark of the other parts of the watch with an indication of which parts are base metal. No change is necessary where all the parts are gold plated or gold filled. This is an additional method of marking and it has the approval of the Canadian Jewellers' Association. The second amendment is of a technical nature and results from the necessity under the existing act of applying to precious metal articles a registered trade mark or one for [Mr. Dickey.] which application has been made under the Unfair Competition Act. The Trade Marks Act proclaimed on July 1, 1954, repealed the Unfair Competition Act. The new Trade Marks Act provided that registrations under the Unfair Competition Act are retained as such and applications for registration still pending under the old act are to be dealt with under that act. However, apparently there is nothing in the new Trade Marks Act to provide that the trade mark or application made under the old act, that is the Unfair Competition Act, shall be deemed to have been made under the new act, which is the Trade Marks Act. It is the view of the law officers of the crown that the Precious Metals Marking Act should be amended to refer ta trade marks as having been registered and to applications for trade mark as having been made under either act. That is the sole purpose of the technical amendment. Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich): Mr. Speaker, while we approve of and appreciate the steps which are now being taken to have articles made from precious metals more clearly defined, and while we approve also of the second amendment which is of a technical nature, I feel that a great oppor- tunity has been missed by the government to introduce a Canadian hallmark. For cen- turies British and French gold and silver articles have had placed upon them a hall- mark, but Canada has never adopted this practice. A hallmark is really nothing more than a stamp placed on an article by some legally appointed officer after a test of that particular article has been made. It is usually re- ferred to as a hallmark. Centuries ago the manufacturers of articles made from gold and silver-gold and silversmiths-used to take these articles to the hall of the guild of the goldsmiths-Goldsmith Hall as it is called-in London. There the test was made and the "touch" was given-that is the term which was then applied-by the appointed officers, who were at first the guild of gold- smiths and afterwards the worshipful com- pany of goldsmiths. They placed their mark attesting to the quality of the metal in the particular article. The hallmark of Great Britain and the hallmark of France have been of un- questionable integrity for many centuries, guaranteeing the quality of the particular article. One can find, if one looks back into history-and there have been a number of excellent books written on this question- that the guild of goldsmiths was first recognized in Europe in the twelfth century, and that as far back as 1300, in the reign 3704 MAY 12, 1955 of Edward I, the question of the quantity and test of gold was laid down in accordance with an old statute which defines the "touch of Paris". The "touch of Paris" laid down that gold had to have 19* portions as applied to 4g of the alloy then used, which was an alloy of copper and silver, in order to make the gold firmer. Following that, in 1327, the charter was given to the worshipful company of gold- smiths in London and they were given the sole right of placing the mark or touch on British gold and silver. Hence comes the description, the "hallmark", as being, as I have already said, the mark or punch which was placed on these articles when they were literally carried to the hall of the goldsmiths. In 1363 in the reign of Edward III, in addition to the mark which was given by the goldsmiths company, a mark was placed on these articles showing the maker's name. All through those centuries, right from the twelfth century, there bas been this definite stamp or hallmark placed on articles made from these precious metals. The modern hallmark consists of four ciphers. Usually each cipher is enclosed in a small shield. The first is known as the maker's mark, which really is the mark of the maker. That mark is registered at the goldsmiths company or at the local assay office. It shows the maker of that particular article. The second is the hall or assay mark which shows the town or assay office which has tested the quality of the metal used in that article. It identifies the office at which the assaying was done and fixes the person responsible for the tests guaranteeing the quality of the metal used. The third imprint is the quality mark which shows in the case of gold whether it is 22, 18 or 14 carat, or whatever it may be. It shows the quantity of gold in relation to the alloys which may have been used. In the case of silver it shows perhaps that it is sterling silver, which in- dicates the amount of actual silver which is used in each troy pound. Sterling silver, I believe, is 11 ounces 10 pennyweight to each pound troy. Then there is the date mark. The date marks are of a complicated nature, working in cycles and in most cases using the letters of the alphabet. These date marks are of immense value to collectors of old silver and dealers in antiques. A dealer can tell at once whether a piece of old silver is Jacobean or Georgian silver, and he can tell by looking at the hallmark the date on which the article was manufactured, where it was manufactured, the actual quality which has been used, and the name of the maker of the article can be traced. Precious Metals Marking Act We have in Canada no legal hallmark. When the French goldsmiths and silver- smiths first came to Canada they brought with them the habit of stamping their silver. I quote from a work entitled "The Old Silver of Quebec" by Traquair: The French silversmiths who came to Canada brought with them the habit of stamping their work with their mark. This was a personal guarantee that the silver was of standard quality, but as there was no guild or assay office in Can- ada, they could not obtain the warden's mint or tax marks. They either used a personal mark, or left their work unmarked. The English silversmiths who came into the province also continued to use their personal marks, but to these they sometimes added pseudo English marks. During the French regime, the silversmiths of Quebec used marks of French provincial types- initials surrounded by a crown or a fleur-de-lis, and sometimes with a small badge. Any piece bearing a maker's mark of this kind, with no other marks, and which is of French character, is possibly the work of a French-Canad-ian silversmith. As regards the practice followed by the English silversmiths in the province of Nova Scotia, I should like to quote from the work by Harry Piers and Donald Mackay entitled "Master Goldsmiths and Silversmiths of Nova Scotia": We must remember that there have never been in Nova Scotia any legal "hallmarks", or doubtless in Canada generally. In the British Isles there have been strict laws regarding the marking of gold and silver, which had to be of a certain degree of purity, and which had to pay duty, before it could be sold. For this purpose assay offices were therefore established in various towns; each of these offices stamped with its neatly-cut dies, what were known as "hallmarks", or "plate marks" . . . In Nova Scotia, on the contrary, we have never had any such statutory regulations; and silver- smiths, when they began to operate here, assumed the practice, but without legal authority, of them- selves, stamping on their productions, certain pseudo hallmarks which intentionally (more or less), resembled those of the Old Country. If you examine the articles which are produced by certain Canadian manufacturers today, you will find that imitation hallmarks are placed on the article sold by such well known firms as Henry Birks where they are using a system similar to the recognized sys- tem in Great Britain and are stamping their articles so that the articles sold by Henry Birks can be identified, particularly as to the year in which those articles were manufac- tured. I feel that it would be a great help to the legitimate dealers in articles made from precious metals, and to the goldsmiths and the silversmiths of this country, if Canada adopted an official hallmark. To look far into the future, when undoubtedly there will be collectors of old silver, it would be a great help to the collectors of old Canadian silver if they could identify the year in which the particular articles were manufactured. HOUSE OF COMMONS Precious Metals Marking Act In my constituency there are quite a num- ber of dealers in antique silver and other articles of that nature. I have had repre- sentations made to me as recently as during the Easter recess-before I knew that this bill was coming before the bouse at all- asking that some steps be taken to get the government to give consideration to the establishment of a Canadian hallmark as it would give them or their successors in the future an opportunity of comparing the Cana- dian article, and of identifying the year in which it was made; that hallmark to be along the same lines as the established rules which are now recognized by every dealer and col- lector of old silver as far as the hallmarking of British articles and French articles is concerned. While I do not imagine it would be possible for the government to consider an amendment at this time, I repeat that I think the govern- ment has lost an opportunity by not bringing in an official Canadian hallmark. I suggest to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production that consideration be given thereto at some future time and that -preferably at the next session of parlia- ment-a bill be introduced to establish what may be described as a Canadian hallmark showing that every article has been tested at some assay office so that the real value of that article, plus the date and manufac- turer's name, can be easily established. Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair. On clause 1-Article with quality mark also to have trade mark. Mr. Pearkes: May I ask whether considera- tion has been given to the introduction of a Canadian hallmark-or what difficulties there may be in the way of so doing-so that we could get a clearer definition of these articles? Mr. Dickey: I am sure the committee appreciates the remarks made carlier by the hon. member in connection with the question of a Canadian hallmark. As he so properly pointed out, the established hallmarks of England and France are of ancient origin and have been extremely useful in the com- mercial world of precious metals and of ornamental and useful objects made of precious metals. Actually this particular amending bill deals with a type of article that would not really come within the pur- view of a hallmark. I am not able to indicate to the committee what if any consideration has been given to the question that has been raised. I know, on occasions in the past, there have been representations with respect to the [Mr. Pearkes.] advisability or not of trying to establish a Canadian hallmark. However, I will assure the hon. member that his remarks in the debate this afternoon will be brought to the attention of the minister and the officials and that the matter will receive consideration. Clause agreed to. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite): When shall the bill be read a third time? Mr. Harris: Now. Mr. Knowles: By leave. Hon. W. E. Harris (for the Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the third read- ing of the bill. Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed. MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT EXTENSION OF BENEFITS-CHANGES IN ADMINISTRATION Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 258, to amend the Municipal Grants Act. Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is proposed to have this bill go to a committee. In that event there will be no opportunity to make any comments on it except when the Speaker is in the chair. As I should like to make a few comments, I suppose I should make them now. The thing that strikes me about this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that it is really, as one might say, on the fringe of a substantial problem. It does not pretend to deal with the problem. Indeed, in a way this bill is a rather ridiculous affair, in my opinion, be- cause it is cheese-paring; its effect is trivial and yet it is in the right direction. I want to make one or two comments on the bill, on the way it has been dealt with and also on the rather broader municipal problem. As I say, it is small. The amounts in- volved, having regard to our total tax situation, are trivial. I think the expected addition this year is something less than $2 million, bringing up to approximately $6 million the benefits to accrue under the legislation whereas the total real estate taxes collected by our municipalities last year were some $614 million. As I say, it is trivial in the extreme. Actually one would feel that is the way it is regarded because it has 3706 MAY 12, 1955 been dealt with in a rather haphazard, helter- skelter manner by the government. In the speech from the throne we read: A joint committee of both houses will be pro- posed to examine, in the light of the Municipal Grants Act and possible amendments thereto, the financial and other relationships of the government and the federal district commission with the city of Ottawa and neighbouring municipalities. In answer to a question on that point from the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said on May 6 last, as found at page 3515 of Hansard: It is now the feeling of the government that there are so many committees in operation at this time considering matters of great importance that it would not be possible ai this stage of the session to have a committee on the scale originally con- templated- Perhaps partly because of the conference that is to take place in October this bill, in the contemplation of the government, seems to have shrunken greatly in importance. To continue with what the Prime Minister said: -that the municipal grants bill now before the house might therefore be referred to the banking and commerce comnittee as soon as second read- ing has been completed; and that there might be an opportunity before the close of the session to establish the joint committee with a view to lay- ing the foundation for a wider examination of the work of the federal district commission at the next session. The federal district commission will have to look after itself, but whether that is satisfactory to them they are best able to indicate. In any event, it seems to me to fall in with the impression I have received that the municipal grants bill is now regarded as mighty small potatoes, as indeed it is. Indeed, the actual amount involved is so small one might almost suggest having a tag day to get the money. It has become so trivial. The other thing I do object to is that it is a kind of hairsplitting. The government refuses to do what I think is its plain duty, namely, to pay its taxes, and relies on ancient privileges going back, I suppose, to the days of the kings and even disregards the admo- nition of the Winnipeg Free Press, which suggests they might abandon this privilege altogether. Having said that as to what I regard as the trivial and rather unworthy character of the bill, I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider for a moment what the dimensions of the municipal problem really are. I read now from the Globe and Mail of April 25 a report of a meeting of the Ontario muni- cipalities represented by the association of mayors and reeves, which report has this to say: The municipalities contend they are facing a financial crisis because they have been carrying the burden for matters they feel should be the Municipal Grants Act responsibility of other levels of government. The Ontario organization claims that approximately 10 per cent of expenditure by Ontario municipalities are for services that should not be their responsi- bility. If the municipal position were to be recognized it would relieve the communities of $33 million in costs for health and social welfare payments. I wish the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) were here to find out that there is actually somebody else who considers they have burdens to bear in this connection. Next I wish to read a report from the Globe and Mail of April 23 datelined Quebec and quoting a statement made by the premier of Quebec, Mr. Duplessis. It reads: For the agenda-fixing which Is expected to be the main work of next week's meeting, he indicated lie will urge inclusion of two main topics. First by far is the problem of fiscal relationships between the federal and provincial governments. Second is the general problem of municipal finances, and what the Quebec government regards as the necessity of providing municipal corporations with more sources of taxation revenue. I want to stress that. I might also refer in passing to an interesting remark made by the premier of Manitoba who suggested that the municipalities should actually be present at the October conference. I confess I see difficulties in that, but at any rate it is worth mentioning because it shows that in his mind the problem is a very important one and one in which the position of the municipalities should certainly not be disre- garded. I should like to quote very briefly from the submission to the government by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Mun- icipalities just because I think it would be worth having a short statement on the record. It reviews the principle that crown property should pay taxes and it has this to say: * . . rigid adherence to the principle that crown property cannot be taxed had a threefold implica- tion: 1. It meant that municipal governments had to provide services to properties from which no revenue could be extracted. 2. It meant that the extent to which such prop- erty did not contribute to the cost of municipal services resulted in a narrowing of the base for municipal property taxation. 3. It produced a situation wherein the municipal taxpayers in those municipalities where there was considerable concentration of crown property and not the citizens of Canada as a whole, were re- quired to pay the cost of municipal services rendered to such property. Then there is this further word at page 21a of the report: Consequently, the federation strongly recom- mends that the federal government consider, when the present qualifying formula is being revised, the provision of payment of grants in lieu of ful municipal taxation on al federal crown property located within the boundaries of an incorporated municipality. I do indeed urge the government to stop this hairsplitting and to deal with this matter HOUSE OF COMMONS Municipal Grants Act properly, although it will only be a com- paratively small contribution to the larger problem. But why, when these municipali- ties admittedly are already in difficulty, are they to be denied what I think any fair- minded man would say was a reasonable thing, namely, the payment of their taxes? To suggest that the federal government should not pay full taxes on their properties be- cause they confer benefits on the municipality is an argument that could be made with re- spect to any private enterprise in a munici- pality. It likes to be there, it is there for its own reasons, but nevertheless it pays its way. As I say, when you come down to the facts, we are now dealing with $2 million which is about one two-thousandth of our total expen- diture and the matter becomes very small indeed. So far as any argument about ex gratia is concerned, if the legalists want to cling to that position let them at least pay the amount they should pay in taxes if they want to go on saying that it is still ex gratia. I want to point out in passing the extraor- dinary relative lowering of the position of the municipalities in the last few years by reminding the house that in 1930 the dominion had 38 per cent of all taxes raised and the municipalities 39 per cent whereas in 1948 the dominion had 67 per cent and the munici- palities 12 per cent. We on this side of the bouse have been attempting to assist the situation. We have been saying for a long time that the conference which is now about to take place should take place, and I want to refer to one or two things in that connec- tion. In 1952 our amendment to the speech from the throne included the following: (d) To conduct inquiries in consultation with the provincial governments, so that necessary information may be available for the dominion and provincial governments to consider jointly a na- tional health insurance program; (e) To reach agreement with the provincial gov- ernments in regard to a clearly defined realloca- tion of taxing powers so that the provincial gov- ernments and municipal councils may have adequate financial resources to carry out their rapidly increasing responsibilities. Later, although I shall not set it out in detail, we moved several times with regard to the reduction of sales and excise taxes on the municipalities, and although something was done it was not nearly enough. As I have already indicated, the municipalities are keen that that should be carried further. I would like to say a word about the forth- coming dominion-provincial meeting. There is no question that the position of the muni- cipalities grows increasingly serious. They are called upon to assume burdens which previ- ously they had not assumed. As I pointed [Mr. Macdonnell.] out, their share of the taxes raised is merely a fraction of what it used to be. And so, as we approach the conference called for October, we have to hope and believe that a broad view will be taken so that the munici- palities may be given a liveable position, where they can discharge their duties prop- erly, and where they do not have to go back constantly to the higher levels of government for what are regarded by those levels of government as virtual handouts. The provinces have assisted generously in certain cases. The richer provinces have been able to do more along this line. We know that the province of Ontario has given a great deal to the municipalities. But on the other hand there are provinces which do not find that quite so easy; and it is going to call for a very statesmanlike view to deal with this matter in October. After all, these mayors of municipalities who meet together are responsible people. Perhaps they are much closer to government and its realities than some other people are. I do suggest they should be treated seriously, and their needs seriously dealt with. I do not think I shall take more of the time of the house. The bill will go to committee, and we shall there deal with the clauses which are amended, and do our best to make what we can of it. But, as I said at the outset, this is only tinkering with a situation which has got far beyond the tinkering stage; and we must all look with hope and expectation to a real grappling with the problem in October. Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker, I am sure no one will vote against this bill. It makes a slight im- provement in the formula under which grants are paid to municipalities in lieu of taxes. Even in this place we are grateful for small mercies. When we get into committee on the bill there are some details concerning which ques- tions will be asked. But even at this point I wish to state that we agree with the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) that this legislation is hardly a sufficient attack on the problems faced by the municipalities of this country. We all know of the excuses that are put forward as to why more consideration of the position of the municipalities cannot be given by the federal government. On some occasions it is pointed out that the municipali- ties are the creatures of the provinces and that, therefore, there cannot be direct dealings between the federal government and the municipalities. There is also the claim that the ancient right of the crown not to be taxed puts the federal government in a favoured position from which it can move only if it wishes to do so. 3708 But, Mr. Speaker, surely the time has come when we should recognize the financial problem of our Canadian municipalities, both urban and rural, as a Canadian problem. Anything that is of concern to the people of this country as Canadians should be the con- cern of the federal government and the federal parliament. This legislation was a long time in coming, and it has taken still longer to get it improved, but I hope this legislation is an admission that here is a field which should be the proper concern of the federal government. There are ways in which greater assistance could be rendered to the municipalities. This formula could be enlarged still further. There are other tax arrangements that could be made-for instance in the sales tax field- which could be of assistance to the municipalities. Then, as has been pointed out many times, there is also the possibility of real assistance to the municipalities being made available by the federal government through the build- ing of roads, highways and bridges. There is also the very important question, still unre- solved, of federal aid to education. There is the further fact that real aid could be given to our municipalities and provinces under the general heading of health and welfare services. Surely we all know-we have al said it in speeches throughout the country-that condi- tions in Canada have changed greatly since 1867. Our economy has changed. The whole base upon which our life is sustained today is totally different from what it was under the economic conditions of 1867; and it is no longer sensible or just to expect that the kind of services which, by the British North America Act of 1867, were made charges upon real estate taxation, can be carried by that same kind of taxation today. The problem of our municipalities is, I say, a Canadian problem that has to be faced; and I hope the government will give very serious consideration to it, and will realize that it has to go a great deal farther than is en- visaged in this legislation. It is significant that in the discussions which took place a couple of weeks ago in the railway committee room a number of those representing provincial governments dealt with this problem. In some instances municipal officials were in the delegations. I hope this means that at the federal- provincial conference this fall there will be a real examination of this important problem. After all, we should not get into the situation where the federal government, the provincial governments and the municipal governments are treating each other as though they were Municipal Grants Act foreign powers. Rather, these are various spheres, various media, through which we try to organize our economy and our society for the good and welfare, for the health and well- being, and for the best possible standard of living for all our people. I feel we should not allow these constitu- tional and procedural barriers to stand in the way of progress toward something better. Let us remember the important part of our Canadian life, the important part of our economy, which comes within the bounds of our various municipalities. We welcome this slight improvement; but it only scratches the surface of a very important problem to which we feel this federal government and the provincial governments in this country should address themselves more vigorously than has yet been the case. Mr. Roland Michener (Si. Paul's): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the proposed amendments commend themselves to the house as repre- senting an improvement. My suggestion is that they might go farther. This problem is one aspect of a federal system. We are all familiar with it. In Canada we have three ranges of government, in fact, although only two ranges are sovereign governments. The federal government and the provincial govern- ments are sovereign governments in their taxing powers under the British North America Act. As everyone knows, the munici- palities are creatures of the provincial governments; but nevertheless they are forms of government, and very important forms of governments on the local level where they can be and are most effective, as has been recognized in this bouse in many pieces of legislation. The larger problem of relationships of the federal government and the provinces is to be dealt with at a .conference and I do not propose to discuss those larger ýproblems, although they involve the municipalities very considerably because, as has been said, the municipalities now find themselves charged with greater responsibilities without corres- ponding means of providing the revenues with which to meet those responsibilities. It is to be hoped that this conference will take the position of the municipalities into account in whatever arrangements are made between the federal government and the provinces. What I suggest here today, Mr. Speaker, is that one specific relationship of the dominion and the municipalities can be improved by this legislation, and that is the relationship of the dominion as a property owner in the municipalities. Let the federal MAY 12, 1955 3709 HOUSE OF COMMONS Municipal Grants Act government accept the responsibility of prop- erty ownership as it accepts the benefits of property ownership in the municipalities of Canada. It seems to me that if it goes the full length in accepting its responsibilities, then it is meeting this problem as far as it can be dealt with as a tax problem of the municipalities. This bill does not go that far. It still gives the crown a preferred position as a property owner in the boundaries of every municipality. My suggestion is that in all fairness the crown, where it accepts the benefits of the municipal services which are made available to it, should assume the obligation of a property owner to the full extent. I am not quarrelling with a reservation that appears in a clause of the bill which says that in assessing the value of crown property the ornamental features are not to be taken into account. I am not sure just what those ornamental teatures are. Perhaps we shall deal with this more fully when we get into committee. At times, one would be tempted td suggest that the assessment ought to be very substantial on crown property by reason of those ornamental features, because those features sometimes are not ornamental in the view of the citizens of the munici- palities in which those properties have been built. However, that basically is I think a fair approach to this problem. The crown as a property owner should accept the full responsibility of a property owner when it in fact accepts the benefits and privileges of ownership of property. It is a real problem for the municipality to service land which is not taxed. The Canada Year Book gives some interesting figures on the amount of exempt land that exists in the municipalities in the different provinces. It is astonishing how much land is exempt from taxation and from contribution to the services which the occupants of the land enjoy. Most of it is exempt because the exemption serves the purpose of the municipalities. It meets some of the municipal obligations with respect to education and so on to exempt schools and churches and other property from taxation. But the amount of exempt property seems to be on the increase rather than the contrary. In the province of Ontario, which I take as an example, and I quote from a table in the Canada Year Book for 1954 at page 1153, I find that from 1947 to 1951 the total assess- able real property rose from $3 billion to $3,800 million, which is quite a substantial rise in four years. During the same period the assessed value of exempt property in Ontario rose from $639 million to $873 mil- lion. I cite these figures to indicate the extent of the effect on municipal finance of [Mr. Michener.] real property which does not have to pay real property taxes. In the case of Ontario, the house will see from the figures I have given that the assessed value of exempt property is 20 per cent of the assessed value of all taxable property in the province. When one recalls that the great bulk of municipal revenue comes from real property taxes, the significance of these exemptions becomes apparent. My point simply is that the crown in the right of the dominion should not claim the exemptions which have been claimed in the past and which will still be claimed to some extent if this bill is passed. If we take the year 1950, for which figures are available in the Canada Year Book, we shall find that the amount of taxes raised by municipalities in the whole of Canada was $574 million. That includes licences, con- tributions from public utilities, subsidies and other miscellaneous revenues of that kind. Of that amount the real estate tax was $400 million, which indicates the importance of real estate in municipal finance in meeting the problems of municipal government on its limited level. That $400 million on real estate may be compared with the total tax revenue of $478 million, if one excludes other revenues in the municipalities which are not properly called taxes. Taxes on real property amounted to $400 million out of $473 million in the year 1950. The figures that i have cited for Ontario would apply to most of the other provinces of the dominion. In fact, it is a fair general statement to say that in all of the provinces of Canada the municipalities rely basically on the right to tax real property, although five of the provinces do exercise the right to tax personal property as well. They are the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. But basically, real property bears the burden of municipal services. It is real property we are concerned with in this bill, and real property only. I take it that per- sonal property does not enter into it. If this measure is good in the direction in which it travels, it seems to me it would be good to go the whole way and have the crown assume the full responsibility on property with respect to municipal taxation. Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South): Mr. Speaker, as this bill is going to a con- mittee I shall make only a few remarks on something that is not in the bill but which I think should be included. This is an old grievance which in fact goes back over the last 55 years. In order that I may finish by six o'clock I intend to read from a letter addressed to me by the city solicitor of Syd- ney, Nova Scotia, under date of March 24. MAY 12, 1955 I am glad the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) is in his seat because this has to do. with the Canadian National Railways, a crown corporation. The city solicitor has this to say: It seems to me that there is one form of municipal taxation which should be given special attention over and above the grants in lieu of general rates and taxes, viz: frontage tax for local improve- ments. The city of Sydney has been trying with- out success to obtain payment of frontage tax for sewer, curb and gutter from the C.N.R. from 1901 to the present time. The answer has always been that this is crown property, exempt from taxa- tion in any form. The railway's position is probably sound from a legal point of view, but it does seem that an exception should be made in respect to municipal expenditures for local improvements which are of direct benefit to the railway and tends to enhance the use and enjoyment of its properties. For the benefit of the house and the Minis- ter of Transport I am going to put on the record details of expenditures that have been made: Sewer Frontage and Curb and Gutter C.N.R. Sewer frontage, Dodd st. Installed 1901 .... $868.00 York st. (Louisa Gardens) Frieght Shed (York st. Walker st.) Curb and Gutter, Prince St. Sewer frontage, Intercolonial street Curb and Gutter, King st. 1902 .... 422.00 1902 .... 38.95 1931 .... 106.56 1931 .... 119.42 1945 .... 90.00 1924 .... 204.00 1930 .... 217.27 $2,066.20 As the city solicitor points out in his letter, the answer received from the Canadian Na- tional Railways every time a tax bill is pre- sented is legally correct because the act previous to these amendments and even with these amendments does not require the Cana- dian National Railways as a crown corpora- tion to pay taxes of that kind. The act is being amended and expanded and a new formula arrived at with respect to the payment of grants. I suggest to the minister who is piloting the bill, to the Min- ister of Transport as representing the Cana- dian National in the house, and to those hon. members who may be on the committee that consideration be given to a further amend- ment of subsections 2 and 3 of section 1 of the bill which defines crown property which would be considered in making grants under the bill. I realize that the eligibility for grants runs over into section 5. If an ordinary citizen in a town or city decides to build a bouse he must automatic- ally pay for sewers and frontage, and I think this principle should apply also to the Canadian National Railways. This is all I have to say, but I again recommend to those Municipal Grants Act concerned with this bill that they give con- sideration to including in the bill an amend- ment which would eliminate this grievance in connection with the Canadian National Railways, and I suppose there are many other cities and towns that could bring forward the same type of grievance. I might add that the city is not asking for interest. Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I desire to associate my group with the remarks which have been made by those who have spoken for the other parties. I would be glad to make more extended re- marks but I realize the minister is anxious to get this bill to its next stage. I shall say no more than to point out, as has been pointed out already, that the costs which are being brought to bear today upon municipalities are increasingly burdensome whereas the means of raising revenue to defray those costs is not increasing. This means that the municipalities simply must have more assistance from the senior gov- ernments. The provincial governments have not the financial competence to give this assistance, and consequently it means that this assistance must come from the federal treasury. I know that the minister has so many demands being made upon him that he is at his wit's end to know what to do, but in all seriousness I suggest to him that if he can- not raise the money under the financial system under which he now operates he had better change that system. The ability of this nation to help cities and towns from New- foundland to British Columbia and away into the Arctic must depend upon the ability of this country to produce goods and services. The capacity of this country to produce goods and services is almost limitless. Con- sequently for us to be talking about our municipalities being restricted and burdened with costs in an endeavour to develop facili- ties like schools, sewers and that sort of thing is to be fantastic in unreality. Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Mr. Knowles: Is the minister not going to make a statement in closing the debate since he did not make one when it was opened? Mr. Harris: I did not have an opportunity to make one at the opening of the debate. I would be glad to close the debate but I see it is six o'clock and we had better get the bill through. I will make my remarks if any in the committee on banking and com- merce. Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce. 3712 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Northern Affairs BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE legisiation went through. As everyone in Mr. Knowles: Will the minister indicate the house knows, the committee on estimates what business we will go on with tonight? had a considerabie number of meetings deai- ing with the estimates of this departmnent. Mr. Harris: We shall take the estimates of There were in the neighbourhood of Il or the department of northern affairs followed 12 meetings of some two hours or more dura- by the estimates of the post office and justice. tion each. During that time those of us who Mr. Speaker: Since the house is to go into were on the committee had a fuil oppor- committee of supply at eight o'clock would tunity to ask any questions they wished. it be agreeable if I left the chair now and Officiais of the department were there in have the chairman of committees take over? large numbers, and perhaps larger numbers than wiii be the case with aimost any other Mr. Knowles: By leave. committee, owing to the tact that this depart- Mr. Speaker: It is by leave since it is after ment contains some six or more definite six o'clock. and distinct branches, each dealing with some- thing which realiy in most cases has very SUPPLY littie relationship to the other branches. As The ous incomitte ofsuplyMr.a resuit, the number of officiais required to The house in committeeo be present to answer questions was per- Appewhaite in the chair.woud be the case with DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND most departments. NATIONAL REsoURCES At this point I shouid like to pay a tribute 293. Departmental administration, $509,310. to the officiais of the department who appearedbefore the committee. I helieve that ail of At six o'clock the committee took recess. us who are on the committee were impressed _______with the abiiity of these officiais, with the knowledge they dispiayed of their subject AFTER RECESS and with the way in whîch they gave their answers to the questions that were asked. The committee resumed at eight o'clock. Our coming into contact with these officiais The Depu±y Chairman (Mr. Applewhaite): of this department did a good deai, as far as We are on item 293. Hon. members will find the members of the committee are concerned, this item and the following ones on page 50, to increase, shah I say, our confidence in the and the details will be found beginning on way in which the affairs of the departent page 397 of the blue book. are being carried on hy the civil servants Mr. arkess Mr Charma, prhas Iwhose duty it is to administer this department. Mr. Harkness: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should make a few very short general remarks As I indicated previousiy, those of us who at this point. First of all I should like to are on the committee had a full opportunity register a complaint as far as the Minister to ask ail the questions that they had in of Finance is concerned in his capacity as mmd and to which tbey wisbed to secure leader of the house, in that we had no notice answers. 0f course, the number of members yesterday of the fact that these estimates on the committee is himited, and that essen- were going to be brought on this afternoon. tiahiy is the reason why these estimates need As a matter of fact, I first heard of it at about to be brought back into the house, so that 20 or 25 minutes past six. I know that a other members who did not have that oppor- certain number of members of the house tunity can bring up the subjects which par- who were interested in bringing up certain t riy affe tbe a rn whc thare questions with respect to this department perhaps had no notice that the estimates were they bave not bad as much notice as they to be dealt with at the present time. I think shouid-in tact, they have had no notice-so this is unfair to them. As far as I am that they migbt be in a position to do that. concerned, I sat on the committee and had ms f th o m embers of th c ie an opportunity to ask any question I wished, I have tew quesof ahy itteto and so forth. But so far as the general mem- a Fr te pointo if t ho bership of the house is concerned, estimates m rs wh die on that omtee, of any department should not be brought on think th o ueon that sed without some prior notice. I understand that this situation arose because the legislation ing the estimates to the committee will bave with which we were dealing this afternoon served very greatiy both to facilitate their went through more rapidly than was expected, passage in the bouse and to shorten the but I would hope that this sort of situation iength of time it May take for discussion. would not arise again-not that I am com- Aiso, having deait vith these matters in the plaining about the rapiditv with which the committee, it means that in most cases they erg Harris.] MAY 12, 1955 have received more thorough answers than would perhaps have been the case if we had dealt with them only in the house. There is one other general matter about which I would like to say something. That is the general development of the north country. Perhaps all of us in Canada have been dis- appointed that our whole northern area- you might say, practically the northern half of this country-which comprises the North- west Territories and the Yukon Territory particularly coming within the purview of this department, but also, of course, the northern parts of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and Labrador, all that large area, has developed so slowly and has re- ceived so little attention. I do not place the responsibility for that on the present minister or on anyone in particular. It has unfor- tunately been the case right through our history, no matter what government was in power and no matter what minister was in charge of the northern affairs of this country, that very little attention really was paid to what went on in our north country, and very few real efforts were made to open up and develop that country. There is no question that we need to bestir ourselves to a much greater extent than has been the case in the past if we are to make any real use of the northern half of this continent for our own people and thus to provide even, shall I say, a reason- able excuse for us as Canadians to continue to hold and administer that area. With the very considerable amount of overcrowding of population which exists in so many parts of the world, it is, without any need of demonstration, an anachronism that approxi- mately one-quarter of this continent under our control and administration should con- tain at the present time something in the neighbourhood of 25,000 people. It is an area which could support quite a large population, as evidenced by similar sorts of areas in Europe and Asia, areas which lie in the same degree of latitude and in many cases have much the same type of climatic conditions and so forth. The minister may say that the eastern Arctic is an ex- tremely inhospitable area and is not capable of development in this way, that way or the other way/ I agree that that is probably the case as far as many parts of the eastern Arctic are concerned and that the best we can hope for is certain mineral develop- ments and its use as a reindeer pasture or something else of that sort for the providing of meat. But the western Arctic is a very different proposition. There are possibilities for forestry and mining and-I do not think that there is any doubt about it-for oil development, agricultural development and Supply-Northern Aifairs so on in the western Arctic. In order to make that development possible, the essential thing-and I found there was no disagree- ment on this in the committee-is the pro- vision of better methods of transportation. In other words, before the country can be opened up, or before it can develop in any way to any great extent, we must have roads up into that country. In the committee I was disappointed to find that the amount of road building which is projected this year is almost negligible. It seems to me that this department should be taking a much more imaginative view of the possibilities of this north country, without counting particularly the cost of putting in a certain number of miles of road-whether it is 5 miles, 10 miles, 20 miles or 100 miles-at the present time and saying, "That is not going to pay for itself in the next year or two", and so forth. I think we must take a much longer term view than that and must begin to provide transportation facilities on a much broader scale than that on which they have been provided so far. When the estimates of this department come down next year, instead of there being really nothing in the estimates to provide for road construction, except the provision for certain bridges to be built, I would hope that, con- sidering the total amount of the budget we would have a reasonable provision for the building of roads in that area. Mr. McLeod: Like the hon. member who has just spoken, Mr. Chairman, I also had the privilege of serving on the committee on estimates and I should like to make a few general remarks at this time. When the affairs of this department were before the committee on estimates, I believe the con- sensus was that the minister was tackling the many problems of the Canadian north with conviction and courage, and we look for better things in the years to come. In the committee there was an expressed feeling that sufficient emphasis was not being placed on northern development. We are all aware of the great potential wealth that is dormant in this part of our great country. There are huge resources in minerals, petroleum products and forest products. It has been shown quite conclusively to this committee that heavy expenditures will be necessary to develop access roads to the centres of raw materials and to provide railroads to solve the very acute problem of transportation. It is an economic question on which there is argument on both sides. There are those who say that it would be unwise to make the necessary heavy expenditures while more settled parts of Canada are crying for these same services. On the other hand, 3714 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Northern Affairs there are those who say that if we do not will be discussed at greater length in a con- develop our great north, there are others who ference that is b be held later on this year. may take a more active role and beat us to I hope this problem will be openly and care- it. As I say, this is just a matter of opinion fully canvassed so that a program in the and there is great argument on both sides. best interests of the provinces and of the It is gratifying to know, however, that the people of Canada will be laid down for minister is paying more attention to the north, future guidance. that heavy outlays for survey and study are I could say something about the engineering being made and that definite action will and water resources branch of this depart- follow this planning. ment. However, in view of the problem that The department, in co-operation with the is being studied in another committee in Department of National Health and Welfare, this bouse at the present time, I think we is doing a vastly improved job in looking shah leave until a later occasion any re- after the Indian and the Eskimo population. marks on this subject. This is a great humane problem, and the In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would make sensible program to adopt, it seems to me, the same plea that I have made on many would be one that would provide facilities occasions in this chamber, namely that tbe to make these people self-supporting. This Department of Northern Affairs and National seems to be the general plan that is being Resources and the provinces work together followed. harmoniously for the good of ail. Efforts are also being made to improve the Mr. Tha±cher: I have only one or two living conditions of all our people who, by comments to make on these particular esti- necessity or by choice, live beyond our pro- mates. I contend tonight, as I contended in vincial territories. As proof of this statement, the etimates committee, that Canada's may I say that the federal government makes northern development 15 lagging far behind an annual average expenditure of approxi- that of other Arctic countries including mately $1,500 per head of population for our Russia, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. northern Canadians whereas the over-all According to the evidence which we were average expenditure in Canada is about $300. given in the estimates committee, and as em- I should like to say a few words about phasized by the hon. member for Calgary national parks. We have the Revelstoke and North tonight, the whole population of the Glacier parks in the part of British Columbia Northwest Territories today is between 25,000 that I represent and I am glad to see that and 26,000 people. I bhink that number a small expenditure-and it is a very small includes 7,000 Eskimos and about 4,000 one-is being made this year. In compari- Indians. In other words, since 1945 our son with the amount provided for other parks population bas increased very little, despite across Canada, we are certainly not being the expenditures of fairly substantial sums treated overgenerously. A larger program of money. should be inaugurated to make these parks I think this parliament should realize that of more use to the citizens of the interior today in the north Canada bas a real popula- of British Columbia and to Canada generally. tion vacuum. I am told that in Russia there I should like to suggest to the minister are 50 cities each with a population of 50,000 that the possibility of providing a road-even or more. Whether the minister wants to if it is open only in the summer months-into admit it or not, I think it is fair to say that Glacier park might be studied more care- Russia and the Scandinavian countries are fully. I would also suggest that the two doing a mort hetter job of opening up their parks could be united into one larger national north thon we are doing. What is the reason park. Failing this, a road connecting the for this lack of progress? As I see it the Revelstoke and Glacier parks and going on reason is fairly apparent. Both the Scan- to Golden should be carefully studied. I dinavian countries and Russia are consciously am sure the government of British Columbia and deliberately opening up their north on a would be interested in this matter. Such planned basis. In Canada we are remaining a road I believe would be one of the most virtually indifferent to our Arctic areas. This scenic in Canada, would prove to be a tourist government's policy towards the Northwest attraction of great interest, and would be Territories and the Yukon 15 a kind of of great value to the Revelstoke and Okanagan "laissez-faire" policy, a "leave alone" policy. areas. I think it lacks aggressiveness and imagina- I am glad to note that the question of tion. federal-provincial co-operation in conserva- Let us look for a moment at the money tion and development of natural resources is we are proposing to spend on tbe north, as being carefully studied and that this matter indicated by these estimates. According to [Mr. McLeod.] the estimates we are proposing to spend $7 million on northern development. That amount is about -16 per cent of our total budget. I contend that such a small amount is completely inadequate. I say it compares most unfavourably with what is being spent by other Arctic countries. I have a clipping in my hand from a recent issue of Time maga- zine which I quoted in the committee on estimates. I should like to read it to the house. It has to do with what Norway spent on her northern areas in the last year, and reads: Norway, with less than a quarter of Canada's population, is now spending $40 million on the economic development of the Norwegian Arctic. In other words, Canada, a far richer country than Norway and with an Arctic of far richer possibilities, is today spending on northern development less than one-fifth of the amount Norway is spending. In my opinion one of the major weak- nesses of the department is that it bas no colonization policy. It has no particular plan to get settlers to move into northern Canada. Whether or not we want to admit it, social conditions on our frontiers are still very primitive. In most cases it is a case of the lone settler struggling against raw nature. I say these conditions are not good enough. The hon. member for Calgary North men- tioned a highway program. I think it is shocking that in the whole Northwest Terri- tories, Canada has only 130 miles of highway. Moreover I am told that many of these miles of highway are in poor shape. Apart from the Alaska highway, we only have 400 miles of highway in the Yukon. Surely it is time we started to open up that country. As I said a moment ago, the Scandinavian countries and Russia have an over-all plan. They are opening up the northern parts of their countries on a planned basis. When they proceed to open up new areas they send in bulldozers first to clear the land. Then they send in carpenters to build houses, schools, theatres, stores and the like. Finally they move in the people. The minister said in the estimates committee that much of the Russian development is done by forced labour. I am quite prepared to admit that to a degree his statement may be true, but it is obviously not entirely correct. I do not think parliament should allow the Rus- sian bogey to affect us to such an extent that we are not willing to learn from the -progress they have made. I think Dr. Stefansson is one of the best known explorers of the world's Arctic areas Supply-Northern Affairs today. Not long ago he addressed the Cana- dian Club in Toronto and, as reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail, he had this to say: . . . there is no real reason why large communities cannot be developed in Canada's north which are either fully self-sufficient or better integrated into the national economy. Dr. Stefansson, who has spent more than ten years of his life within the Polar circle, said it was a fallacy to suppose that agriculture, cattle and manufacture, could not be undertaken in the far north, though these activi- ties might vary from the accustomed practices. Just this very sort of colonization has been success- fully accomplished in the Soviet union . . . I suggest that we are living in dangerous times. If we do not do something to colonize our north then, as bas already been sug- gested, someone else may come along and do it for us. For purely defensive reasons we should be doing more to get people to go north. Because if Russia or any other coun- try should suddenly decide to attack us from the north, they would go through those territories like a hot knife through butter. I say the time has come for the government to decide to spend more money on northern development, and to adopt a plan for coloniz- ing the north. The time is rapidly approaching when some action must be taken. Mr. Dinsdale: I want to say a few words on the first item because in considering the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources I believe we are dealing with one of the most important departments in the whole gamut of govern- ment operations. It was my privilege to be a member of the estimates committee, and for the first time I had the opportunity of really becoming familiar with the possibilities of Canada's north that have been referred to by the bon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. But in addition to northern affairs the other items we have before us tonight are, in my opinion, of equal importance because under this department we consider lands, water resources and forests. That just about covers everything of significance so far as our natural resources are concerned. Then we also have to consider the national parks branch, under which come tourist activities which, as most hon. members know, are one of the largest sources of United States dollars. From that standpoint alone it is of tremendous commercial importance. As I said in the committee, I was inclined to agree with the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre that Canada has been somewhat de- ficient up to the present moment in develop- ing its remote northern regions, particularly in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. I was astounded to discover, for example, that actually there bas been an over-all population decline since 1901. In MAY 12, 1955 3715 3716 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Northern Affairs 1901 the total population of the districts of are certain climatie differences in that to Mackenzie, Keewatin and Franklin, including some extent they are subjeet te the influence Eskimo, Indian and white, was 20,129 whereas of the guif stream and are able to approach in 1951 the number had been reduced to the develepment of that area from the ocean 16,004. rather than from the land area. On the other The same pattern is evident in the Yukon hand, in our northern region we are pretty Territory where in 1901 the population was well faced with a solid, frozen mass, se far 27,219 and in 1951 9,096. I was glad to learn as the ocean area is cencerned. I suppose that from the discussions in the committee that is what acceunts for the comparative cold- since 1951 there has been an upward trend. ness of climate in the city of Winnipeg, That is a hopeful and encouraging sign for largely as a result of the indentation of the future. Like the hon. member for Cal- Hudson bay deep into the interior of the gary North, I was also impressed by the Canadian section of the North American enthusiasm and grasp of affairs displayed by continent. the officials of the department who appeared Returning to this preblem of the develop- before the committee. I say this particularly ment of the prairie region, in terms of land, with reference to the deputy minister, who is forest and water resources, I sheuld like to a comparatively young man. He particularly deal briefly with the continuing necessity for seems to have an eye to the future so far as conservation and a co-ordinated and organ- the potentials of the north are concerned. ized prcgram in respect of the conservation Recently he has been making statements in of these basic resources te which I have optimistic terms with reference to northern referred. We had a discussion on this sub- development. One occasion was on March 15, ject on February 16, I believe it was. Unfor- 1955, when he addressed the forest products tunately that discussion teck place on a Wed- research society. He foresaw a development nesday, which is a half-day in the buse of of the north not unlike the development of Commons, and we were not able to carry it western Canada and said that climate was very far. I believe it is fundamentally ir- not likely to be any obstacle. The deputy portant thet we take immediate action to minister went on to point out that the five- have a co-ordineted and organized conserva- month average temperature from November tion program that would embrace these three to March was more than two degrees warmer important resources whîch core under the in Whitehorse, Yukon, than it was in Departrent of Northern Affairs and National Winnipeg. Those are encouraging words. I Resources. had my first opportunity last fall to have a We are forcibly rcmindad of the need for brief glimpse at the community of White- hendling the weter resources problem by tho horse in the Yukon Territory. I am sorry periodic floods that take place each year on the hon. member for that district was not te prairies. During recent deys we have in the vicinity at the time because I had been hearing again of flood conditions in looked forward to seeing the area more ex- Saskatchewan and Menitobe. The \vter con- tensively. However, I can say from firsthand trol problem bas two sides to it. At certain experience on the occasion of my visit that stages in tho water cycle we bave drought. certainly there should be tremendous develop- while et othor periods in the cycle we are ment in the immediate future. With reference feced with surplus supplies cf water. Thc to the deputy minister's statement concerning tvo measures thet have emerged in selving development of the western prairies the this preblem have cere as a result cf one northern territories are not the only regions crisis or enother, either a drcught crisis or a in Canada that have been very slow in de- flood criais. veloping. I would suggest that before we can The Prairie Ferr Rehabilitatien Act, which see the resuits suggested by the hon. member dees net core under the supervision cf the for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre we will first have Departrent cf Nerthern Affairs and National to fill up the wide open spaces in the mid- Reseurces-end I must sey there seems te continental region of the prairies. I feel be seme confusion as te the respective re- certain that before we can leapfrog into the spensibilities cf that department and the Arctic regions we first have to meet the needs Depertment cf Agriculture in this cennection for industrial development and population -was organized te deal with a condition growth in our three prairie provinces. cf dreught. On the other hand, during pericds It is true that Russia and other European cf flooding we have certain dam developments countries have moved ahead very quickly in te meet critical erergency situations. exploiting the possibilities of their northern I suggest that if we are gcing te deal regions; but we must remember that, in the with the prebler cf the contrel of cur water first instance, their population resources are resources we will have te do se, net on an much greater than ours and that, too, there emcrgency basis, but under a long-term plan, [Mr. Dinsdale.) with some over-ali national co-ordination. Durlng the discussion last February the usual difficulties connected with jurisdictional re- sponsibility were raised. I arn referring ta the respective responsibilities o! provincial and federal authorities. Tis seems ta sug- gest that a topic of tis kind might well be included in any dominion-provincial con- ference, such as is contemplated ln the im- mediate future. Moving to another aspect of tis over-al conservation prograin, we are faced with the necessity of doing something about our forests. The preservation of our forests is basic in any over-ail programn of conservation. Ac- tually, the history of Canada has been staged against a forest background. Certain pro- gress has been made in connection with prograins of reforestation; but, again, these have been on an unco-ordinated and in- dividualistic basis. I was interested lI listening to a radio discussion the other night ta note the empha- sis placed in certain European countries upon the importance o! wood stands in agricul- tural areas. In fact there are some farms, in countries like Sweden, wich are actually forest farins; and in considering the sale value o! such farms the wood stands hold a dominant position. Here in Canada, particu- larly in the western section, we place very little value on aur wood stands. Ia fact the f ew wood stands we have in the prairie region ta a great extent have been the result of man's activity, as he has attemipted ta deal with the problems of soul erosion and soil blowing that have occurred during the periodic water cycles of drought and fiooding conditions. I suggest the departinent might well pro- vide leadership by means of educational pro- grams and thraugh the use of the variaus facilities in the departinent to encourage an individual approach ta the problem o! main- taining and preserving aur forest reserves. Unless we do maintain a proper balance there can be no hope that we can meet successfully the continuing problern of soil erasion and the bass o! aur valuable land resources. I should lîke ta place one or two statistics on record in connection with this problein o! the preservation of land resources. Up ta the year 1941 western Canada had aban- doned 4 million of its arable f arm acres as a resuit o! recurring drought. Then, be- tween 1921 and 1940, 267,938 acres o! land in Manitoba alon-e went out of cultivation, largely as a result o! sofi erosion. This came about as a rèsult of drought, as I have indi- cated, and it also came about as a resuit o! periodic flooding, because with the periodlc recurrence o! flooding there is a tendency Supply-Northern Affaira to destroy the f ertility of the soul; a reduction in the organic matter of the soul occurs and when the organic matter in the soil is re- duced, then the workshop for the billions of bacteria, which in turn manufacture the ele- ments essential to, plant life, disappear. In other older parts of the world we are made vividly aware of this problem, because of the desiccation of those lands. In some areas the desiccation has advanced to the extent of producing man-made deserts. We, even though we are blessed with limitless natural resources, cannot guarantee that that happy state of affairs will continue unless we take immediate action to have some national planning in regard to tis problem. To wind up this brie! discussion, I should like to emphasize that in regard to northern affairs and national resources we must take a long-term view. We cannot overcome the deficiencies of the past in the north li the matter of a brief decade or even two decades. I was impressed with the attitude of the minister and his departmental officiais as we considered those probleins ini committee, but these attitudes must now be carried into action. I should like to suggest once again that the land resources, the forest resources, the water resources, belong to the past; they belong to, the present; they belong ta future generations yet unborn, and we today have a responsibiity as custodians of these God- given opportunities. Mr. McIvor: Mr. Chairman, I was very happy to hear hon. members of the opposition speak as they did. They are stili true to form, especially the hon. member for Calgary North. They ail commended the young minister and his officiais on the splendid job they are doing. It is music to hear the minister coin- mended. It is not music when they are asking something else from the minister. I said they were true to form. The department was doing a good job but was not spending enough money in opening up roads, in increasing transportation, in making it possible for the natural resources of the whole north country to be developed. Mr. Macdonnell: Leaving too many unem- ployed. Mr. McIvor: Then I thought of the thou- sands of acres in Ontario where the cimate is fine and the soul is productive, and yet we have not a large enough population to develap it. I have a good reason to be interested li the cold north country for xny boy was up there for about four months flying. Was he not glad ta get back to civilization and to, a place where he could freeze without seeing his breath ail the time? MAY 12. 1955 3717 3718 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Northern Affairs I could go on along this line for some situated in the middle of lake Erie and time. It just shows how big Canada is from stretches out from the Canadian shore. the Atlantic to the Pacifie and from the north At present, this island is owned by a cor- to the south. In the next 20 years, if you and poration which is composed mostly of stock- I look that far ahead, we shall see great boîders in the United States of America. The developments, and if the opposition con- corporation operates a clubbouse on the island tinues to advise the young minister and his whicb the members visit very occasionally, department in the way that they have tonight usuaîîy in the duck-sbooting season of the I am sure it will be a splendid stimulant. It fal, and tbey employ a force of gamekeepers will be something like what was said of the to act as a sort of private policeto keep people Minister of Finance. It will be a shot in the off the island. arm. Wben the island was purcbased around theWhat I rose to say, Mr. Chairman, was that year 1866, there was very little population we want the minister or some of his officials, in the soutbern part of Ontario, and it did when they are passing through Fort William not make mucb difference at that time. There next summer, to visit mount McKay. We has been a great increase in population in think it should be a national park. I have southern Ontario, and it is increasing at such tried to get it as a national park but I have a rate at the present time that summer resort just been beating the wind. spots are at a premium. Peophe have to Mr. Rowe: That is what you have been travel many miles over the week ends and doing most of your life. this causes traffic deatbs and traffic iams to Mr. McIvor: The dominion tells me that get some place where they can enjoy thebeauty and other advantages of our Canadianthe province must purchase mount McKay climate in the summertime. This island is and then hand it over to the dominion gov- readiîy accessible to the main centres of ernment if they want it as a national park. population in southwestern Ontario, such as So, between the two, I just fall to the ground. Hamilton, London, Brantford, Gaît, Kitchener, Mount McKay is one of the finest sights in Woodstock, Tillsonburg, Stratford, and many Canada. I have travelled all across the coun- other places. It is not more than an bour try and I have seen some great scenery, but and a hahf's drive from any one of tbem. I have never seen men and women so awe- struck as when they drive up to the top of If this ishand were to be made into a mount McKay, pass a little bluff and then national park I am sure the summer resort see that great panorama, that beautiful scen- problen would be overcome if that area. ery. It just holds them spell-bound and they Wildhife, which bas remained on the islaM cannot get their breath for a minute. It is the in a virgin state, would be protected. There greatest scenery in the world. are trees and sbrubs of varlous kinds and As I have said before, we have our waternot system away up there. You common people nativ at e. The are sthe ind. get your water from down below; we get ntie p arhy tha t e more our water from up above, 800 feet above the level of the city. We have the finest ski jump snakes there than are found any place elsei Canada, the finest runs for slalom. Weas well somein Cnad, te fnes run fo sllom Weof the best bass fishing and duck shooting toput on skiing championships that are second be found anywbere in North America. The to none in Canada. bass are being greatly depleted every year. I tell the minister that it would bring In fact, the catch is getting less and the money to Canada if we developed that area size is getting smalher. If this island were as a national park. Thank you for listening taken over as a national park it would giveto me. to me.an opportunity to the people of the countryMr. Nesbiti: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to enjoy these tbings in the future. Control to take up much of the time of the committee could be exercised over the take of fish and on this matter, but I should like to bring to the number of birds taken every fail. the attention of the minister an island in the I mentioned before, but perhaps it is not middle of lake Erie. I did this last year. clear enough, that if this island is taken over This island bas a lot of snakes and a lot of as a national park the rigbts of the Long pine trees on it. I gave a long history of Point Company need not be completely taken this island last year and I do not intend to away. Tbey have looked after this valuable repeat it tonight. We are always accused of piece of property for nearly 100 years and if being repetitious in the house and I shall many ways have done quite wel, but I try to avoid that. However, as I said before, suggest that a handful of people do fot need this island is called Long Point island. It 19,000 acres of land sucb as this right if the consists of approximately 19,000 acres and is heart of tbe most tbickly populated part of [Mr. Melvor.] Canada in order to go duck shooting. They could do very well with 1,000 or even 2,000 acres; they certainly do not need 19,000 acres. There are one or two other clubs which have been there for many years and I think they might well be left alone also. The government should consider the acqui- sition of this land as a national park. I know the minister is going to ask "Why the federal government?" He is going to ask why the department of northern affairs should be concerned in this matter. There are other parks operated by the federal government on lake Erie and on some of the other great lakes. As I have mentioned before, this island is about 20 miles long by about a mile or 2 miles wide and it stretches out toward the international boundary from the Canadian shore. The Department of Transport operates a lighthouse and lifesaving station at the end of the island, and I rather hope that in the not too distant future we will have a coast- guard station there. Nothing of that nature exists at the moment but we can always hope. I know perfectly well that the province of Ontario would have to acquire the land in the first place and then turn it over to the federal government, but there is no reason why the minister should not enter into negotiations with the provincial government with a view to making an agreement to acquire this land. There is one thing that has come up which I think is worthy of note since I made my remarks in the house last year on this subject. I have mentioned that there are a great many resources on the island. There is a fine stand of timber and there are many native plants. It is true that the proprietors of this island employ private gamekeepers, but they are not able to look after fire protection. Last summer part of the island was swept by fire which apparently had been set by some people who had landed by boat. The gamekeepers were unable to control the fire and a large part of the end of the island was burned over. Native stands of timber and other material were destroyed. As the population increases in this part of the country more and more people will find their way to this island. If there is no fire protection what happened this summer may happen again and before we know it these valuable resources will be destroyed. We should take action before it is too late. I do not think there is anything else I want to say at this time. I wanted to bring this to the attention of the minister in the hope that he will give the matter favourable consideration. Supply-Northern Afairs Mr. Michener: Mr. Chairman, in the interests of economy I am not going to invite the minister to create a national park in any part of the riding which I represent. We have one or two prospective apartment house sites and if the minister could see his way clear to take them over it would probably settle a problem which is bothering the city council. There are so many beautiful places outside of Toronto that if the minister were to be given a free rein as he travels about the country there would be so much of it nationalized that there would be little left for the rest of us. We do appreciate that this department deals with some very beautiful resources in the form of scenery, some most interesting resources in the form of historic monuments and sites, and it also has the tourist bureau which helps to bring people to enjoy all these resources. I have two or three brief com- ments to make and I do not think I will have much to say on these specific items. As was pointed out in the committee, the tourist balance sheet is rather unfavourable. I am not saying that that is due to any lack of effort on the part of the tourist bureau, because I feel that Mr. Dolan and his staff are doing a good job; but the fact is that Canadians spent $380 million last year in the United States while Americans spent only $300 million in Canada, which leaves us with a debit balance of $80 million, a not inconsiderable item in a balance sheet. There is a lot of work to occupy the depart- ment in extending tourist activities and encouraging travel throughout our national parks and perhaps into our northland. It strikes me that there are many people in this crowded world who would enjoy the northland as a vacation ground in the future and perhaps they have not been invited to do that in the past. A word as to highways. On a visit which I made to Yellowknife I found that they have only 18 miles of highway, but I was astonished to find that with their small population of some 3,000-I am not sure of the exact number-they have 38 taxicabs. There is no point in having any more high- ways because there is no place to go, but the 18 miles do serve that community well. It gives an opportunity to travel by taxi throughout the length and breadth of that famous gold mining camp. I should like to say a word about the hydrometric services and flood warning activities of the department. It seems to me that there is much to be done in co-ordinat- ing these activities with the meteorological services in order to give proper warning against such flood conditions as can be fore- told. If the amount of rainfall were measured MAY 12, 1955 3719 3720 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Northern Aifairs accurately I am sure that much loss of life the minister to get in touch witb the Minister could be prevented, and in this connection I of National Defence to see wbat could be would refer particularly to the flood which done to salvage a most valuable piece of occurred in the Humber river valley. iand and turn it inta a park wbicb wouid be Mr. Lesage: Could I ask the co-operation appreciated by the thousands and thousands of the hon. member to discuss this matter of peopie who live in bath Toronto and when the officers of the water resources Hamilton. branch are here. As long as Canada is a country, if this Mr. Michener: I shall be glad to do that. is done, this project wili be appreciated more I concur in what the hon. member for Cal- than almost anything we could do and cer- gary North bas said. In the committee we tainly by more people. I would eau that to were given an opportunity to find out about the attention of the minister and ask hlm the work of this department and we received ta use bis usual forcefulness ta see that this the greatest co-operation from the officials piece af ground is saved before it is built who were called there to give an account over and lost ta the people for ail time. of their administration. I think the hon. Tbere is anather matter which I shouid member for Fort William went a littie like ta ea ta the minister's attention. I beyond what was implied in the remarks of suggest that he find aut whether something the hon. member for Calgary North. I am cannot be done ta speed Up some of the pro- sure that the minister does not expect loud jects that we carry out in conjunction with praises from this side of the bouse, and I am the province. I shouid like ta speak for a confining my remarks to the officials of the moment on the subject of the Conestogo dam. department. deparment.Mr. Lesage: Could I ask the co-operationIn the committee we were able to review of the hon. member? Wouid be defer bis thoroughly the work of this department and remarks on this subiect until tbe officiais therefore it should be possible to approve the estimates in a very short time. We were not m ho meer re aiz at th satisfied on every point. For example, some ofare so many details in the department that superintendent should cost $32,000 when itI rahed osuch and sh a w unie did not seem to be any more substantial than I avhe oper ais o the b n ee a house costing $18,000 here, but by and large we did get our information and that Mr. Hosking: I shah be deiigbted ta is what the committee was for. acquiesce in the minister's request, and I Mr. Hosking: Mr. Chairman, I should like certainiy hope that he wiil acquiesce in my to call the attention of the minister to the previaus request as wiiiingly. necessity of a park near the largest city in Mr. Lesage: I shah look mb il very care- Ontario, possibly the most important city f uliy. in Canada. No doubt when the St. Lawrence seaway is completed the city of Toronto will Mr. Hamilton (York West): Mr. Chairman, be one of the major cities on the great lakes. I was delighted ta hear an bon. member from We have at the present time the best oppor- autside the metropolitan Toronto area express tunity for placing one of the best parks close such interest in aur weifare. to one of the large metropolitan centres that we will ever have. I would ask the minister to see the Minister of National Defence and Mr. Hamilton (York West): I am nat sure arrange in some manner or other that the whether it cames from the heart or wbetber rifle ranges which are situated on the lake it might bave some connection with an shore road running from Hamilton to Toronto election that is in the offing. be converted into a park. If that vast expanse Mr. Hosking: We are not ail pohitical. of unbuilt-up land ever becomes industrial- Mr. Hamilton : The principle -of this bil is set out very clearly in the explanatory notes. I think it would be well to have it on the record again because of some of the things that have been said this afternoon and on the last occasion it was before the house. In the explanatory notes the principle Is set out in these words: The purpose of this act is to remove discrimina- tion In the allocation of box cars by providing in a new section of the car order book a rule for the f air allocation of box cars among elevator com- panies at a marketing point where the car order boo0k, as presently constituted. is flot; in effect. By allocating their seeded acreage among the elevator companies at a marketing point, producers themselves will determine the distribution of box cars at that point. .CanadZa Grain Act I f ail to see how anyone representing agri- culture in this house could deny the value of that principie. Certainly, if the producers themselves wish to express a preference as to the elevator company with whom they want to do business, then they should be aliowed to do so. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has opposed the bill, and strangeiy enough the basis of his opposition to the bill seemed to be that the philosophy behind it and behind the arguments used by members of this group has run counter to the philosophy of the Liberal party, which he states is competition. I am sure that statement wull be examined with great in- terest by co-operators right across Canada, because now the minister has placed the Liberal party squarely on the side of com- petition and of course, by doing so, squarely against co-operation. An hon. Member: That is nonsense. Mr. Zaplilny: You cannot have it both ways, my friend. Mr. Speaker, I say that is a strange basis on which to oppose this legis- lation, because I have so often heard mem- bers of the Liberal party, from the prairies at least, attempt to take a great deal of credit for the setting up of the Canadian wheat board. What was the reason for the setting up of the Canadian wheat board in the first instance? It was exactly the same reasoning as was behind the setting up of the wheat pools and the co-operative hand- ling of grain. It was a method of doing the marketing for the f armer in a co-operative manner rather than in a competitive manner. Certainly if this philosophy expressed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce today on behalf o! the Liberal party were followed to its logical conclusion it would mean the end of the wheat board entirely and a return to the old competitive system. of the Winnipeg grain exchange. There is no other conclusion to which one may come. I would be very much surprised if the minister could per- suade the grain producers of western Canada that it is a good thing for them to go back to a competitive position in the marketing of their grain. Let us take, for example, a thousand farmers i a community. I arn sure if the minister told themn the best way they could market their grain was for each farmer to be always in competition with the 999 other farniers, we would hear some very intereat- ing comments from the grain producers. We cannot get away froni it. The uine is very clearly drawn now. This group is trying to bring justice to the grain producers. We are squarely behind the co-operative prin- ciple, and we have no hesitation in saying MAY 13. 1955 3759 Supply-Northern Agfairs so. I support the co-operative philosophy right down the line. The minister takes his party down the line of competition. Of course it will be up to the people to choose. Mr. Speaker, I see it is six o'clock. May I move the adjournment of the debate? On motion of Mr. Zaplitny the debate was adjourned. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite): At eight o'clock the house will resume con- sideration of the business which was inter- rupted at five o'clock. At six o'clock the house took recess. AFTER RECESS The house resumed at eight o'clock. SUPPLY The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair. DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES National parks branch- 295. Branch administration, $86,425. Mr. Quelch: Mr. Chairman, just before five o'clock I had been quoting from an article by Mr. Turnbull, president of the Edmonton trout fishing club, and printed in "The Voice of Motordom", regarding what he considered the poor fishing facilities in the national parks of Banff and Jasper. I have heard many reasons advanced why the fishing in those parks is of a somewhat poor character. I have been told by officials in the parks that it is largely owing to the fact that the water is too cold and greatly retards the growth of the fish. I have also been told that there is too much silt and that the silt affects the spawning. I have also been told that there is a lack of feed in many of the lakes. On the other hand many men who have had a great deal of experience in this matter in other national parks in other parts of the country feel that with a good program, with sufficient backing, it would be possible to greatly improve the situation. In that same article Mr. Turnbull makes this comment: If your provincial government can do this wonderful work of restocking with such success, others can do the same. General conditions are the same, invested facilities in the park such as hatcheries, etc., are possibly better; the only thing that seems to be wrong is lack of management and experience. Then he goes on to give the names of a number of men living in Jasper who he feels could give the government valuable assistance in helping to improve the situation. But personally I do not doubt for one minute that [Mr. Zaplitny.] the department has men who are just as good and who know just as much about the question of improving fishing conditions as anyone else. Provided they were given suffi- cient backing, they could no doubt take care of the situation. It is interesting to note the program that has been carried on of recent years in Alberta. There was a time when it was practically impossible to get trout fishing on the prairies, but today we find that there is great trout fishing in many parts of Alberta as a result of the new program, and that is so in spots similar in character to the park because they are in the mountains alongside the park. I just want to read one or two quotations from "Within Our Borders" dealing with this question. The heading is "Large Trout Await Anglers in Small Alberta Lakes" and the arti- cle goes on to say: Small lakes in Alberta are providing an over- abundance of trout fishing to such a point that the fisheries branch of the lands and forests depart- ment has had to appeal to anglers to fish the small lakes heavily. I hope the day will come when the Minister of Northern Aff airs and National Resources will also have to give that advice to people in the national parks. The article continues: Alberta fishery officers, looking for new places to plant trout where they would provide more and better fishing for the average fisherman, tried stocking prairie potholes which had no fish at ail. I would suggest to the minister that he might suggest to the provincial government of Alberta that if they have any surplus fish they might put them in some of the lakes in the national parks. The article continues: Because the lakes offer no facilities for spawn- ing, regular restocking is necessary but before new fish can be planted, they must be fished out. The reason for this is that after the third summer the original fish stocked have grown so large that they dominate the lakes and their food supply, leaving no room for young fish. Alberta fishery officials have found that lakes with surface areas of between 80 and 200 acres are ideal for rainbow stocking. They can be stocked economically and are small enough to be fished out in time to allow a second planting of trout. If subsequent fish planted in the lakes are to survive, the previous fish must be all caught by the fourth summer from the time of stocking. If some of the originals remain, they have to be removed before new stock can be introduced to the lakes. It is extremely interesting to note what has been done in that regard, and as a result we have this peculiar situation. We find that a number of the people living in Banff, which is looked upon by many people as a fisher- man's paradise, when they want to go fishing go outside the park, either into Alberta or HOUSE OF COMMONS3760 British Columbia, in order to get fishing. I think it shouid be possible to improve the fishing in a number of the lakes by a greaýter program of restocking. It is interesting to note that a few years ago certain parties in Banff asked permission to start a trout farm ti the park. The former minister was greatiy intereste.d in that offer and he said he knew of a similar program in Nova Scotia which had been quite a success. At that time he seemed quite keen on the idea of allowing a trout farm to be insti- tu-ted in Banff. But unfortunateiy his officiais apparentiy had an entireiy different view. They frowned upon the suggestion and drew up a number of requirements that had to be met before permission would be granted. Al those requirements were fuifilied, yet in spite of that fact the plan was stalied and I suppose today the whoie thing bas been given up. I have not heard any more about it iateiy. I quite agree that the type of fishing that would be provided by a trout farma would not be in the same class as that provided in the naturai form. I think we would ail much prefer to do our fishing in a naturai stream or a naturai lake rallier than go to a trout farm for our fishing. On the other hand many familles who go into Banff park are flot in a position to wander up the streams for many miles. They have their children with them. To them it would be a great thing if they couid go to a trout farm, fi and catch a few trout. As I say, I do not think anything can compare with the joy of going up into the mountains, amongst the fine scenery, in the fine mountain air, to do some fishing. There is oniy one thing iacking in so f ar as Banff la concerned, namely f sh. And after ail, if you are going f shing you need some flsh. I am n ot suggesting there are no fish in Banff. We ail know there are many places ini Banff where there la very good flshing; but those points are a number of miles from the highway and, as 1 say, it is not possible for many people to enjoy that type of fishing. 1-t generaily requires equipment which is beyond the means of certain people, or maybe they have not the time to wander 15 miles or so off the beaten track. I therefore hope the minister wiil give careful considera- tion to a program of improvlng the flshing in the natural lakes. I have met a nuxnber of Americans li Banff! who have just been boiling mad. They received certain circulars about our wonderful fishing, and how our streams are teeming with fish. I met an American ini the store one day. I was ti there buying black griats. 50433-238 Supply-Northern Affairs He said, "There is no use buying those. I have over $1,000 worth of fishing gear, and I have flot caught a fish yet." Mr. Martin: You do flot think he is alone, do you? Mr. Quelch: No, he is flot alone by any means. There are many of them. Again I wil frankly admit that there are spots in Banff where there is good fishing, provided you have the time and the inclination to waik far en'ough to reach them. But in the lakes that are easily accessible the fishing, generaily speaking, is very poor. Mr. Knowles: Probabiy you would do better with a bent pin on the end of a string. Mr. Quelch: That is true in a way. I have seen littie boys, fishing ini the Bow river with a worm and smail hook, pull out fish; but they are generaiiy smail fish. A grown-up would probably throw the fish back because it wouid be beiow legal size. But being littie boys they pop them, in their pockets and go off home with them. I have fished with practically everything you can think of, including dry ffies, wet fies, nymphs, spinners, genties, and anything else you like. 1 have even resorted to worms when I have been desperate; but even so, I found it rather hard to catch fish. I think I arn what you might cail an average fisher- man. I do flot claim to be a good one. I have caught pienty of trout in Banff, but the hours 1 spent in doing s0 were quite numer- ous. I have averaged about three hours for every fish I caught. I kept track of them, because in Banff they are very keen about having you fill in creel carda. When you go fishing they teil you to fil li a creel card. First of ail, I found that if I went to the repository for a creel card, as a rule there wouid be no carda there. Then by the time I got home I would forget to note down ail the information. I notice in the creel card reports the time spent catching fIsh la tabulated, and the average would appear to be three-quarters of an hour or one hour per fIsh depending on the location. That information is flot very accurate because people who go there and fish for hours and do flot catch any fish do not bother as a rule to fill out a card. Consequently the reports do flot; give a very accurate picture of the situation. There is one other suggestion I should like to make to the minister. The department should bring the "Anglers' Guide" up to date. I notice in that guide there is quite a bit of information that is very much out of date. For instance, they taik about crossing Massive bridge. Massive bridge went out several MAY 13, 1935 3761 Supply-Northern Aifairs years ago. There is no bridge there; yet the most recent issue still tells you to cross Mas- sive bridge. There is no bridge to cross unless you can jump across a space of about 30 feet where two spans are missing. That is all I have to say. I hope the min- ister will give the matter careful considera- tion. I know it is not the first time he has been approached about it. Mr. Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the hon. member for Acadia, and all I can say is that the people in his part of the country had better come to New Brunswick national park, where they will really get some fishing. They will not have to fish for a week without any success, because we have some very good trout in our national park, both in the lake and in the different streams. I do not intend to discuss that phase of our national park tonight. Ours is one of the newest national parks in Canada, if not the newest, and we are very proud of it. It was a very large undertaking and has been most successful. There were many roads and camps to be built. So far as recreation is con- cerned, there is a fine golf course and there are large picnic grounds. Every year the number of people visiting Fundy national park in New Brunswick is increasing. We in New Brunswick feel that the man who was largely responsible for the excellent job that has been done there was the superin- tendent, Mr. Saunders, who was appointed a few years ago on the recommendation of Mr. McNair, I believe, who was then premier of New Brunswick. At the present time the people of New Brunswick, particularly those who are interested in the national park-and we all are-are quite concerned because they understand the superintendent is either to be retired or transferred to some other national park. I should like to ask the minister to- night what is the policy of the department with reference to the transferring of superin- tendents from one national park to another, why they feel it is necessary to make these transfers, and also what the policy is with reference to the retirement of superintendents of national parks. I understand our superintendent was ad- vised nearly a year ago that he was going to be transferred to a national park in Mani- toba. He is a man about 59 years of age, and has given splendid service in the province of New Brunswick. He understands our situa- tion there as no other man does, and there must be enormous expense involved in trans- ferring a man with all his household effects from New Brunswick to Manitoba and trans- ferring the Manitoba superintendent to the national park in New Brunswick. It seems to [Mr. Quelch.] me a poor policy, and one which does not mean any betterment as far as the superin- tendents are concerried. I hope the minister will be able to explain this matter satisfactorily because, as I say, the people of New Brunswick are quite concerned. Up until a little over a year ago there was no suggestion whatever of transferring the super- intendent of the national park in New Bruns- wick to any other place, nor any suggestion of his retirement. Mr. Saunders has taken a very active part in the public life of his community. He has been active on practi- cally all committees having anything to do with the betterment of the community, and a little over a year ago he was asked if he would run for the position of councillor in the parish of Alma in the county of Albert, where the park is located. It may have been and probably was in- discreet on the part of the superintendent to take part in any kind of election, even a council election which is not supposed to be political in any sense of the word. Mr. Saunders allowed himself to be persuaded to run for councillor. He ran against a man who had been in office for a number of years and gave him a trimming. Shortly after Mr. Saunders was notified that he would be transferred to another park. The man he defeated in the election was chair- man of the goverriment organization in that particular part of Albert county, and is also a great friend of the former member for Saint John-Albert. The minister shakes his head. I am simply stating what the people in that section of the county and in New Brunswick generally feel. It is their opinion that this man was told he would be trans- ferred to another national park simply be- cause he ran for a council seat in this particular parish. I hope the minister has a satisfactory explanation tonight, because we are con- cerned. Here we have had an excellent superintendent for our national park, a man who has given us one of the finest national parks in Canada, and at the age of 59 he is notified that he is to be transferred to Mani- toba, that he and his family must take up their roots and go to another part of Canada. He has refused to be transferred to Manitoba, and now he is being retired at the age of 59. I understand his pension is going to be much less than it would be if he had been able to serve his full time. I have met Mr. Saunders once, but he has never communicated with me in any way. I am simply giving expression tonight to the opinion of many people in my own town of Sussex, which is near the national park, people in the county of Albert and through- out New Brunswick who feel that a great HOUSE OF COMMONS3762 injustice bas been done ta a very fine public servant, a man who bas given ta tbis national park tbe very best be bad ta give. I hope the minister will be able ta give a satis- factory explanation and will be able ta say ta me tanigbt that fia injustice will be done ta this man who, I believe, is being asked ta retire bei are be bas earned and can be paid the f ull amaunt ai bis retirement allawance. Mr. Lesage: I have neyer asked Mr. Saunders ta retire and I amn sure nobody in my department bas ever done so., He is retiring by bis own chaice, ai bis own will. Mr. Brooks: Is it flot because ha does flot wish ta be transferred? Mr. Losage: Oh, yes; but it is the policy oi the department ta maya superintendents around in Canada. Mr. Brooks: At the age of 59? Mr. Losage: It is the policy at any age. I will read what I said in the committee wîth respect ta the maving around ai depart- mental personnel, in answer ta a question by the bon. member for Calgary North; and may I point out that at the time Mr. Saunders was flot being considered. First ai ail we were discussing wardens, then the hon. member for Calgary North asked me about park superintendents. Here is my answer. Mr. Brook.: Just a minute. Is it flot a iact be bas anly about six manths ta serve bei are be will receive the full arnount ai bis pension? Mr. Losage: He is flot retiring before 60. He is ratiring at 60, but be takas bis six mantbs' leava before ha reaches the age ai 60. He will have bis pension. Mr. Brook.: Wbat is the normal age ai retirement? Mr. Lesage: At the age ai 60 a civil servant migbt wish, ai bis awn volition, ta retire. That is what ha bas done. Mr. Brooks: I want ta state tbis, Mr. Chair- man. He was asked ta mave ta Manitaba, and I think the minister wlll agree witb that. Mr. Louage: Yes, he was asked ta move. Mr. Brooks: Bacause be did not wish ta do so--and I do not think it was fair ta ask a man ai that age ta do so-now he bas ta retire irom the national park I New Brunswick. He did nat wish ta meva bis family ta Manitoba. Mr. Louage: May I give my explanation, Mr. Chairman? I belleve I have let the ban. member for Rayai make bis statement witb- out interruption. May I say again that tbis 50433--238J Supply-N art hem Affairs department is flot retiring Mr. Saunders. Mr. Saunders chose to offer bis resignation when he was told that he would be transferred. Rather than be transferred he answered that he wished ta retire at the age of 60, and bis resignation was accepted. He will get bis civil service pension. May I quote the policy of the department as set out in the committee proceedings, and as I explained it when there was no ques- tion about Mr. Saunders. I arn reading from page 638 of the estîmates committee report: I belleve it is a good thlng to move superin- tendents around every five years or so for the following reasons: First, the superintendents will have gathered experience and they will go to a park with new Ideas for that park. Secondly, psychologicaily when a man cornes into a new post lie will be wantmng to make a good job of it. But after five, six, seven or etght years he miglit settie down and we are af raid lie wiUl Iack imagination... Mr. Harkness: When you stay five years-- Hon. Mr. Lesage: Five years or more. Mr. Harkness: I would be indlined to agree because I would flot look oni flve years as being a frequent move. When Mr. Saunders was told that be would be transierred in accordance with the palicy af the department-it had been the policy bei are I became minister-he decided ta re- tire. My predecessar in office, who is bebind me now, is telllng me that was bis palicy. Mr. Brooks: How many have been trans- ferred, may I ask? Mr. Lesage: Since 1953 there have been five transferred, out of a total of 16 park superintendents. Mr. Brooks: What were their ages? Mr. Lesage: Age bas nothing ta do with it. We transfer tbem every five or six years. A mnan af 59 stili bas six years left, and the intention was ta mave superintendent Bryant fram Kaatenay park ta Fundy and ta move superintendent Saunders ta Kaotenay park. Mr. Brooks: What was the date of that? Mr. Lesage: The decision was i Marcb, 1954. My predecessor just tells me-I came ita the department in the fil af 1953- that there had been a question about moving Mr. Saunders before I came ita the depart- ment, so it was not new. That was in ac- cordance with departmental policy. Na wrang bas been dane ta Mr. Saunders. On the contrary, rather than be transferred he decided on bis own ta offer bis resignatian and take bis pension. Tbere is na injustice ta Mr. Saunders. Mr. Blackmore: I bave no desire ta detain the cammittee for very long. I wish ta tell the minister that the Letbbridge federal riding tbinks be is daing an exceedingly good MAY 13, 1935 3763 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Northern Aifairs job. They greatly appreciated having him come out and visit them last year. They were delighted with the impression he made, and with the fact that he seemed to have learned everything there was to be known about Waterton Lakes park in the short time he was there. He seemed to fit right into the scheme of things. We bid him welcome any time he chooses to visit us. We believe also that the progress that has been made during the last two or three years in connection with the park is satisfactory. I should like to take this opportunity of thank- ing the present Minister of Public Works, who was the predecessor of the present min- ister of northern affairs, for appointing to Waterton Lakes park as superintendent Mr. J. H. Atkinson. I think Mr. Atkinson's com- ing was the greatest blessing that ever hap- pened to the park. I would be pleased to have the present minister forget to transfer Mr. Atkinson when his five or so years are up. Just let him stay on there, because he seems to fit into that park almost as well as the Waterton lakes do. We feel that the amount of money that has been expended on the park this year is quite satisfactory. Indeed, we can understand that in a year in which the government has felt it necessary to save a little bit more money than they have in times past, they appropri- ated as much as seemed fitting under the circumstances. We would like, however, to have more money next year, and for this reason. We feel that one of the essentials in making Waterton Lakes park the dream park which we all, including the minister, wish it to be, would be a fine swimming pool in the park. This should not be a swimming pool alone, but a building in which people could take refuge in case of stormy, windy, cold or wet weather which sometimes comes to that part for two or three days. We believe that a fine building, erected as an attraction both winter and summer to house a swimming pool, would be so great an asset to that park that the necessary money, probably $300,000 or $400,000, would be money exceedingly well spent. We would ask the minister to do all he possibly can to impress the treasury board with the idea that they should extend them- selves a little for a year or two while they build that swimming pool. I think nothing more needs to be said, except to report to the minister that, so far as I know, everything in Waterton Lakes park is going along as well as could be ex- pected. We are just waiting for the days to come and go while we grow in Waterton Lakes park. While I do not propose to contest [Mr. Blackmore.] what the hon. member for Bow River and several others have said about their respec- tive parks being the very best, I would prob- ably question the standard by which they judge parks. In closing I would point out that Waterton Lakes park is of exceptional importance be- cause it is the front window of Canada in that particular area. It is right down against Glacier national park, being located at the extreme southwest corner of Alberta. It is the park to which United States tourists come to get an impression of Canada, which im- pression will cause them either to go far into the interior, away into the northland, or turn around and go back. We all want them to go far into the interior, away into the north- land. We say, therefore, let us pay particular attention to making Waterton Lakes the very finest park in Canada, whether or not it is so now. Mr. Regier: I should like to once again raise a matter I mentioned in this house a year ago. I noticed that after the last session the minister spent some time in making a number of visits to some of our national parks. I should like to recommend that the next time he comes to British Columbia he pay a call on the minister of fisheries there and ask that minister to take him on a tour of a provincial park. He will probably have to go by saddle horse. I am referring, of course, to Garibaldi provincial park, which I feel is a park that, once developed, would be Canada's leading national park. Last year I asked the minister about this, and he expressed the interest of his department in taking over from the provin- cial government the responsibility for the development of Garibaldi park. The minister stated some conditions that would have to be met before his department could consider taking it over. One condition was that a first-class highway be constructed to the entrance of the park. We have a first-class highway, the Lougheed highway, that runs to within two or three miles of the southern entrance to Garibaldi. I think the minister had in mind at that time a first-class highway that would give access to the northern entrance. I understand that the government of British Columbia is now proceeding with the Howe Sound highway, and this highway, when completed, will give access to the northern entrance of the park. Therefore that condition is being met. The other condition mentioned was that the provincial government be prepared to hand over all interest in the park, and this would include all interest in the mineral 3764 resources. 1 understand that former govern- ments of British Columbia-not the present government-when considering this matter always hesitated f0 hand over the minerai rights to the federal government. There was the feeling that possibly they were handing over to a higher level of government untold millions of dollars by way of future minerai royalties. As one of the daily newspapers point ed out only some six months ago, this would be a very shortsighted policy for the government of British Columbia to adopf. While 50 years from now they might obtain $10 million, $15 million, or even $20 million in royalties from mineraIs that might be !ound at that time, in *the meantime the provincial coffers were, annually losing untold millions of dollars from tourisf s who would visit this park if the development were begun now. I hope thaf attitude o! former governments of British Columbia is not being adopfed by the government we now have in British Columbia. I hope the minister will be able f0 report some progress in the negotiations, or at leasf be able to report thaf over the past year he has commenced negofiafions. I would not like him to think he has fo leave the initiation of such negotiaf ions f0 the provincial government. The development of Garibaldi park is beyond the resources of the governmenf of British Columbia. We cannot begin fo develop Garibaldi park for less than $30 million, and the government o! British Columbia simply is not in a position f0 begin spending that kind of money on one' item. If would be in the national interest to develop this park. I say this, and I have endorsation o! if in stafements made on other occasions in other places by the Minister of Fisheries. Garibaldi park lias the potential to become one of the most famous parks not only o! Canada but of the whole world. I believie the Minîster of Fisheries is respon- sible for saying that whule lie liad looked at practically ail of the world's famous ski resorf s, flot one o! tliem, even those in the Alps mountains, would be able to hold up against this park in Britisli Columbia if if were developed. One o! the first fhings necessary for that development, of course, would be a highway fromn the southern end right tlirough the park fo the norfliern end, and that is where many millions of dollars enter tlie picture. If is possible that a bridge would also have f0 be consfructed across thle Fraser river at Haney to handle the tourist fraffic we would be sure to have fromn the soufli. I would also very much like to see Gari.- baldi park developed as a national park soon. Supply-Northern Affairs I arn not opposed to, and I endorse, the development of the national parks we now have in Canada, and I would like to see even more developed, but in the lower main- land most of our people live within a hundred miles of the city of Vancouver. Out of a population of 1,250,000 people in the prov- ince, some 750,000 live within a hundred miles of Vancouver. These people have only limited park facilities available to them. On Sunday about the only place they can go is to Stanley park; and if you visit Stanley park on a Sunday afternoon you find the place is literally crowded with people. It has reached the stage that if you want to relax in Stanley park you have to go there on a Monday or a Tuesday, when most people are at work. It is urgent that we have park facilities avail- able offering fairly easy access to the 750,OOQ people. It is ahl very well to say that British Columbia has national parks. The national parks in British Columbia are hundreds of miles removed fromn where most of the people live. In our lower mainland area we have tens of thousands of people who have no means of transportation available. These people receive absolutely no advantage fromn the development of our national parks that are away off in the Rocky mountains. It is on behaîf of those people in the lower main- land who need the park, who have not the wherewithal to spend several weeks hundreds o! miles away fromn home, who would be glad to make use o! public transportation fadilities at a cost of 75 cents or a dollar, that I speak. It could become one of the mnost wonderfuî playgrounds of the Dominion of Canada. On behaif of these three-quarters of à million taxpayers o! Canada, I urge that fur- ther negotiations should take place. If the negotiations have not yet begun I hope they definitely will begin, and that this governi. ment will not wait for the government of British Columbia to take the initiative in this matter. Item agreed to. 300. Grant in aid of the development of the international peace garden in Manitoba, $10,000. Mr. Diasdale: I hear groans coming from the backbenchers, but I assure the groaners that I shail not carry on at any great length with this subject. I mentioned this topic during the discussion in the committee on estimates. The only reason I raise it now is that I know the minister would be dis- appointed if I did not make some reference to it, and I know that at least the chairman also would be disappointed, because he is oue o! those fortunate men who had the opportunity during the past summer to visit MAT 13. 1955 3765 3766 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Northern Affairs the international peace garden on the state of North Dakota is adding te is automo- Manitoba-North Dakota boundary. bile licence plates the phrase "the peace I want to express appreciation to the garden state". That form of publieity will Department of Northern Affairs and National go a long way in popularizing the develop- Resources for continuing this $10,000 grant ment among the peoples of North Dakota and in aid of the development of the international the United States as a whole. peace garden, which began as a voluntary One further comment on this item. I notice effort on the part of the peoples of Canada that the grant for the national battlefields and the United States to symbolize the uni- commission is being increased from $100,000 versal desire for peace. The cairn marking to $125,000 and also that the grant to pro- the spot, which was dedicated in 1932, i vide for special work a national battlefields inscribed as follows: park, Quebec, is being increased from $6,000 To God in His Glory to $8,000. Just in case they have forgotten, We two nations dedicate this garden and pledge I should like to remind hon. members of the ourselves that as long as men shall live, we wil committee that up until three years ago the not take up arms against one another. annual grant to the international peace gar- I should point out that the garden which den was $15,00. Then it disappeared for began as a symbol of the universal desire for a year and was restored at the reduced rate peace has now developed into one of the of $10,000 per annum. As an investment in outstanding tourist attractions in the mid- the cause of peace I believe this development continental area of North America. I have i unparalleled. Moreover, I should like to often heard travellers in Canada say they emphasize that every dollar expended in the like to visit the scenic spots in the Rocky development of the garden wiU be returned mountain district or that they enjoy travel- in manifold ways because of its powerful ling in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes, attraction as a tourist centre. but they indicate they are not too inspired It is my belief that in the not too far with our flat, level prairies in the centre part distant future we shaîl see the United States of the country. establishing a suitable building as a museum Here is a development which has offset that on their side of the garden area. The ques- vacuum in tourist attractions which has tion of making the international peace garden existed in the centre of our country. Not a national arboretum is under consideration, only from the standpoint of its own scenic and inevitably Canada will be forced to beauty but also from the standpoint of is think along the same nes if this development symbolic appeal is it drawing increasingly continues to capture the imagination of large numbers of tourists. Although this is peeple on both sides of the border as well not a part of our system of national parks it as people throughout the world. certainly can be regarded as an extension. Mr. Mclvar: Mr. Chairman, I want to back I would venture to say that the fact Riding up what the hon. member for Brandon-Souris Mountain national park attracted 500,000 has said. I lived in Souris for six years, and visitors last year was due in large part to the those with whom I was associated were in- visitors who were interested in the inter- tenseîy interested in this park. The latest national peace garden and then continued report I have had is that the superintendent on some hundred miles further north to the of the park treats the tourists se well that Riding Mountain national park. they want te come back again. In reality the international peace garden is an international park and today it is creat- Mr. Pommer: Mr. Chairman, I should like ing world-wide interest. It is because of to say a few words in support of what the this growing interest that I venture to say a hon. member for Brandon-Souris bas said. few words tonight so the matter may be kept This is one time when I can support a propo- before hon. members of this house and the sal of my hon. friend, and I do it with a people of Canada as a whole. great deal of pleasure. The bon. member As I have indicated, this is a co-operative has covered the history and background of effort by the peoples of Canada and the this worthy preject, and I would lîke to United States. I should like to compare the ask the minister to consider increasing the support we are giving this garden to that grant. As has been pointed out, the United given by the United States. Their grant States grant is $100,000 for three years, .amounts to $100,000 for a period of three whereas ours is $10,000 a year. 1 believe the years, which means that they are providing grant should be doubled, not enly from the $33,000 per annum as against our $10,000. As tourist attraction standpoint but because ef indicative of the significance of this inter- te great work that has been dene in this national peace garden I might say that the international peace garden. t Uir. Dnsdale.] I arn not going to repeat what the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has said, but I should like to quote the last paragraph of this pamphlet giving the history and progress o! the international peace garden, this being the revised edition for 1953. It reads: Perhaps the most encouragimg aspect of the year has been the reahization of imtemnationalism in the garden. Not only has there been over three Urnes the number of visitors of the previous year. but they have corne fromn 48 states and 10 provinces on this continent, and mine countries of the world beyond. In June, there was a pUlgrimage of the National Council of Women of Canada, during their convention. to the garden; and in the fali. the Associated Countrywomen of the World sent delegates from many countries to the garden. An International relations conference of students from, the Minot state coflege of North Dakota and the students of Brandon college, Brandon, Manitoba, added further significance to the garden; while the annuaI meeting of the garden itself In early September forms the focal point of the year's work. Through the international adciresses of prominent people of both countries at this tixne the citizens get the "*timeless vision that peace is something to cherlsh, that it is something one has to work for, and that here people are working to erect not statues and mnorials to commemorate victory in war or valor in combat, but instead a lovely garden to honor and laud peace itself.' For that reason alome, if for no other, we should make a little greater contribution than in the past. Mr. Knowles: Mr. Chairman, just to make if unanimous may I join with my friends from, the province of Manitoba in supportimg the expressions of appreciation and the ap- peals they have made. I arn very glad this grant was restored a year or two ago. In my view those who preceded me are perfectly right in their suggestion that we might well increase the amount of the grant to the international peace garden. Item agreed f0. 303. Canadian wlldllfe servlce-widlife resources conservation and development, Including admin- istration of the Mlgratory Birds Convention Act, $455,703. Mr. Herridge: I should like to make a few observations on this item. Before going on to, the particular matter which I rose to men- tion, I wish f0 say that I iistened with great interest to the hon. member for Acadia, and after listening to hUm I can fully appreciate now why he is called the Izaak Waiton of the Social Credit party. I suggest to the member that it would be much less expensive to visit Kootenay West if he wants to, catch some fish, rather than to spend ail that money in the area the hon. member mentioned. However, the hon. member for The Battle- fords was called away unexpectedly this afternoon and he asked me to, bring f0 the minister's attention something of part icular interest to some o! his constituents as well Supply-Northern AffaiTa as persons in other parts of Canada. He has received representations from various people protesting the use of steel traps in the North- west Territories. The argument in favour of these representations by these people is that, while we live ini a Christian civilization, we stili promote primitive and cruel methods of trapping, particularly the use of steel traps in the Northwest Territories. I arn jnformed that, owing to the length of the trap limes, the traps are frequently flot; emptied for a month at a time. Naturally this causes days of suffering and a great deal of misery to the fur-bearing animais. They slowly die from their injuries or from starva- tion in the cold. The hon. member has asked me to, bring to, the minister's attention the fact that the law in the United States at the present time requires that every trap in a registered trap Uine must be visited at least once every 24 hours. Anyone who understands anything about traýpping-and I had a 15-mile trap lime my- self at one time-will realize that that is impossible. I arn informed that in Norway, Swedem, Denmark and Germnamy steel traps for the trappimg of fur-bearing animais are completely prohibîted by law. They have replaced the system of steel traps. A more humane form of trap has been found quite satisfactory by the trappers in those countries. The hon. member for The Battiefords brought to my attention, before he left this aftermoon, that last year the Prime Minister of Canada sent a special message of best wishes to, the Ottawa organization of the "Be Kimd to Animais" week, and expressed his interest in the efforts of the organization to promote the humame treatmemt of ani- mais. That is a clear indication that the Prime Mimister of this country is very much interested in that question. I think you can relate the catching of fur-bearing animais with steel traps f0 that sort of approach to the question of the humane treatment of animais. 1 realize ail the difficulties connected wlth this problem. As I said before, I have done some trapping myseif, and it is mot so easy to find a replacement as one might imagine if one has had no experience in that line. But those making representations to the hon. member for The Battiefords suggest that the departmnent would be well advlsed to investi- gate the methods used in other countries, particuiarly the countries I have mentioned, where they have completely abolished the use of steel traps for the catching of fur-bearing animals and now have a humane form of trap. The department could investigate the possibilities of replacing steel traps in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon and. as MAY 13. 1933 3767 3768 HOUSE 0F COMMONS Supply-Northern Aiffairs they were gradualiy replaced, assisting the Mr. Lesa trappers to purchase the new form of humane committee trap by means of a subsidy after the fashion its water r~ of the subsidy given to Qýuebec farmers to with the pi purchase aluminum pails for the gathering and gaugin of sap. year round I bring these matters to the attention of the cial author minister at the request of the hon. member for the rivers The Battiefords. I suggest that the minister water rises go into the whole question and have it in quent. As vestigated, and possibly set a target date for lariy for th the elimination of the use of steel traps for the Fraser the catching of fur-bearing animais, because the Red riý of the crueity involved therein. of the Hur Item gree to.into it to as Item gree to.on that rive Engineering and water resources branch- onl the Huî 305. Branch administration, $54,283. any flood v Mr. Harkness: I believe this is the point at Mr. Hark which the hon. member for St. Paul's was question. I told previousiy by the minister that he should these gaugi bring up the matter about which he bad iow-iying r begun to speak in connection with flood warn- ous damagE ings. As he was unabie to be here tonight he couid take asked me to raise this matter. not a warn The hon. member for St. Paul's is of the to prevent opinion that the great loss of life which I refer not occurred owing to "Hurricane Hazel" in and in the cour around the vicinity of Toronto couid very M.Ls well have been prevented if the people in Mtr Lets those low-lying vaileys had had a few hours' the matter warning of what the height of water was province likely to be as a resuit of the very heavy rains prfvtnes wa which had occurred. He was also of the o.ftew opinion that this rainfali was known to the rise sudden meteorologicai officers, and that warning Mr. Trair couid have been given. He asked me to take tion of the up the question with the minister as to that exists whether any arrangements exist or have been a resuit of put into effect since that time to give people river. Th warning of what height of flood water may covers a 1 be expected foiiowing a heavy storm. square mil We ail know, of course, that once the water river runs bas falien it takes a considerable length of soul, it is su Urne for the run-of! to go down and reach an the river bc area such as that around Toronto xvhere ail has been st this flooding took place. That provides suffi- of late year cient time, as long as warning is given, for the farm lands- people to evacuate any iow-iying areas; or, Mr. Lesaç if they are not wiiling to evacuate them, it man, may gives sufficient time for the police to forcibiy Northern A take them out of those areas, thus avoiding no responsi tragedies sucb as those which took place in I expîaîned the Toronto area. sibilities of Mr. Lesage: Mr. Chairman, the responsi.. far as river bilities and duties of the water resources divi- and the le sion were expiained at length in the com- those leve mittee, but I do not recali that that question deveiopnîen of flood warning was raised there. operatioîi Mr. Harkness: No. [Mr. Herridge.] some gaugi The respon ige: What was mentioned in the was that this department, through ýsources division, was co-operating rovinces in coilecting the readings g the leveis of the streams ail the .We communicate to the provin- ities the readings of the leveis of it regular intervals and, when the ,, communications are more fre- a matter of fact this is done regu- oe Columbia river, the Bow river, river, the Assiniboine river and Ter, among others, but in the case nber river I would have to look certain if we have gauging stations ~r. We have some gauging stations nber, but there bave neyer been larning arrangements there. ness: Might I ask the minister this n ail those areas wbere they have .ng stations and where there are iver bottoms where possibiy seri- -, serious ioss of life and so forth place in the event of a flood, can- .îng system be instituted in order this sort of thing in the future? just to Toronto but any place else îtry. age: I was just discussing that i my officiais. We wiii look into and will co-operate fuiiy with the o tbey may be advised constantiy ter leveis, especiaily when tbey iy. ior: I shouid like to cali the atten- minister to the serf ous condition in Saskatchewan and Manitoba as *the flooding of the Assiniboine edrainage basin of that river arge area, nameiy some 60,000 es. Owing to the fact that the through a country with alluvial bject to silting. As a consequence ttom has been rising and the river abjected to flooding aimost yeariy, s, with a great deai of damage to ;e: On a point of order, Mr. Chair- I say that the Department of ifairs and National Resources has biiity at all for flood damage. As in the committee, the only respon- the water resources branch, as s across the country are concerned veis of the rivers, are to study is by engineering surveys for .t of the rivers and aiso, in co- Nith the provinces, to establish ng stations and to read the levels. .sibility for flood prevention and flood damage does not; come under this depart- ment at all. There is no item which covers that matter. Mr. Trainor: Mr. Chairman, I am not; sug- gesting that the department assume any responsibility for flood damage. However, I amn assuming that the departmient have a certain responsibility for flood control. The minister himseIf has indicated that they have somne responsibility for surveys in co-opera- tion with the provinces. I suggest that in these estimates there is an item indicating an expenditure for damage on the Conestogo river. How would the minister classify that expenditure? Mr. Lesage: This was for water conserva- tion, under a special agreement that was made with the government o! Ontario under which we provided 37J per cent of the cost. There is a special item for that expenditure in the estimates. This was not especially for flood control but for water conservation. .Mr. Trainor: The item referred to by the minister is item 310. 1 shail read it for his benefit: To provide for a contribution to the cost of con- structlng a dam on the Conestogo river near Glen Allan, Ontario, for the purposes of flood control and water conservation, In accordance wlth the terms of an agreement entered into between Can- ada and the province of Ontario. Mr. Lesage: Yes, but flood control is stili a provincial responsibility. Unless we have a request from a provincial government for participation under the Canada Water Con- servation Assistance Act there is no responsi- bility on the part of this department for flood control. The present situation on the Assini- boine river has nothing to do with this de- partment, or I should say this department has nothing to do with the present situation on the Assiniboine river. That is better. Mr. Trainor: I would suggest, Mr. Chair- man, there is a possibility that the provincial government might seek the assistance of the rninister's department in the samne way the government o! Ontario sought it in connection with the Conestogo river. Mr. Lesage: Ail right. When we have it we will consider it. Mr. Trainor: Perhaps it would not be amiss if one might briefly state what P.F.R.A. have recommended. Mr. Losage: That is the Department o! Agriculture, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Trainor: One does flot; know whether the Department of Agriculture will do any- thing. They have made engineering surveys and a recommendation. But the Department Supply-Northern Aiffairs of Agriculture are flot; doing anything. As a consequence, year by year the farmers in the Assiniboine river area are obliged te, suifer this flood damage. This is costing them millions of dollars year by year. I could, of course, take this matter Up under the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, but 1 suggest that possibly the minister's department might collaborate with the Department of Agriculture or with the provincial government in some way, as was done in Ontario, so this condition could be ameliorated. However, if the minister does flot want to hear such a recommendation I do flot suppose I have any alternative but to desist. Mr. Patierson: Mr. Chairman, there is one matter I should like to bring to the attention of the government at this time. I have reason to assume that it fits into this particular part of the debate. However, if I am out of order I am sure I shaîl soon be reminded about it. The matter has to do with a situation existing on the Vedder river in British Columbia. In this connection I had submitted to me a brief containing letters starting at May 15, 1952 and bringing the matter right Up to a very recent date. These communica- tions are between Mr. Mulford, the clerk of the corporation of the township of Chilli- wack and Mr. Cruickshank, a former member of parliament, and also between other officials of different departments. Just to bring the matter to the attention of the committee I should like to read a brie! section from a letter written by Mr. Mulford, the clerk o! the corporation of the township of Chilliwack, to Mr. Cruickshank, dated May 15, 1952. It is as follows: I understand you are aware of the proposed scheme to define and construct a permanent channel for the Vedder river, between the Vedder canal and the Vedder crossing bridge. The interested parties to this seheme at the present time are the provincial government, district of Sumas and the township of Chilliwack. In the past. the river between these points bas been allowed to wander, eating away at the banks and causing periodic flooding. Also there is always the danger of the river jumping its banks and flooding that area between Sardis and the canal in the township, thereby severing the trans-Canada highway, or moving through Yarrow and thereby fiooding Sumas municipality. That is just part of that letter. As I have intimated, I have other communications under various dates with reference to this matter. On August 2 there is a letter signed by Mr. Cruickshank and directed to Mr. Mul- ford. It reads as follows: Re: Vedder river project. The latest that 1 have from the Minister of Public Works re the above la as follows- MAY 13,1955 3769 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Northern A»gairs This correspondence has been carried on with various departments. -"In view of the interest as represented by other dominion government departments, I am not in a position to make any statement at present but am referring this matter to the other departments concerned to learn if they have any responsibility in contributing to the cost of the project if the latter can be shown to be the responsibility of this federal government." On October 29, 1952, there was a letter from K. W. Morton, district engineer of the Department of Public Works, to Mr. E. S. Jones, deputy minister of the department of public works of the province of British Columbia. This letter sets out the attitude of the various departments of the govern- ment of Canada with respect to this project. I am not going to take time to read it all, but with respect to the military establishment, the Royal Canadian School of Military En- gineering at Chilliwack, it states: This area also was not affected by the 1948 flood. Indeed during the period of this flood the Vedder river did not rise beyond the existing dike at this spot and the camp was at no time threatened. It also refers to a letter from the Minister of National Health and Welfare in which it was stated that without having information from officers on the spot it was difficult to make a comment, but if his memory served him well the hospital-referring to the Coqualeetza Indian hospital-was not involved in the severe flood of recent years. The Deputy Chairman: Order. I am going to ask the hon. member's co-operation. The Chair in these cases finds itself in a rather difficult position, because sometimes we do not have detailed knowledge of what are the duties and responsibilities of the depart- ments. I would draw to the attention of the hon. member for Fraser Valley that it is the estimates of the engineering and water resources branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources that we are considering at the moment, and that the responsibility, if any, of the federal government for river bank protection and flood control as such does not, I believe, come under this department. Engineering studies for the purpose of making provision against such calamities do. Not more than a few moments ago the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre agreed with the minister that the matter of flood control on certain Manitoba rivers and the liability, if any, of the federal govern- ment in connection with floods should not be discussed under this department. I re- alize the hon. member for Fraser Valley will most likely point out to me that three or four items further on there is a specifie item dealing with surveys and investigations in [Mr. Patterson.] the Fraser river basin, and I think the river he is now discussing comes within the Fraser river basin. However, I take it the committee will not mind if I put the matter this way. There are a great many rivers in Canada which may flood, and I do not believe it is within the duties of the committee to discuss flood damage, and certainly not flood consequences, on these items. I am not ruling the hon. member out of order. I am asking him to bear in mind the remarks I have made, and I would ask that if he and other members who have rivers within their jurisdictions consider it necessary to bring to the attention of the minister of the department the neces- sity for surveys or investigations in connec- tion with possible flood control, they do so as briefly as possible. The consequent results to the trans-Canada highway or any other installation do not, I think, come within the ambit of the De- partment of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The Department of Public Works might be given the duty of building protec- tive works, but certainly it is not the De- partment of Northern Affairs and National Resources which can accept liability for the federal authority, as has been done in previous cases in the Fraser valley and other places, as the result of calamity. I think hon. members will realize the diffi- culty in which both the minister and myself find ourselves, and will co-operate. An hon. Member: He will be as brief as possible. Mr. Patterson: The reason I raise this matter under these estimates is that there has been correspondence with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in this connection, and personal representa- tions have also been made to him. However, if that is the ruling of the Chair I shall abide by it. Perhaps I might conclude the matter very briefly. As I have intimated, I have had these different communications with refer- ence to the various installations in that area. The matter has been brought to the atten- tion of the department on a number of occa- sions, but apparently up to the present time the minister has not seen his way clear to accept any responsibility in connection with the situation on the Vedder river. We have presented different plans, and I am going to request the minister to reconsider the sub- missions that have been made asking for assistance with respect to this project. It is of considerable magnitude, and certainly the municipalities are not able to handle it. A great deal of inconvenience and damage can 3770 MAY 13, 1955 result to the surrounding areas, and on be- half of the people there I ask the minister to consider the whole situation again. Mr. Lesage: I shall with pleasure, and I will certainly write the hon. member to let him know of my decision after recon- sideration. Mr. Monteiih: Could the minister tell me what stage has been reached in the con- sideration of the brief presented by the upper Thames valley conservation authority? Mr. Lesage: The government is consider- ing the matter. Mr. Monteith: That was the reply the minister gave me in the committee. I pre- sume some further consideration has been given since that time, has it? Mr. Lesage: Further consideration has been given in the department. I just said that the government was considering the matter. Item agreed to. 308. To provide for studies and surveys of the Columbia river watershed in Canada, $641,360. Mr. Hahn: I do not think this expenditure is completely justifiable. My reason for say- ing so is the evidence that was submitted to the estimates committee on March 24. I should like to read certain extracts from that evidence to substantiate my statement, and also a newspaper report of a statement attributed to a member of the international joint commission on fisheries. At page 493 there is the following: Mr. Thatcher: I see, and the item above- topographical services-shows a substantial increase. Would that be for the same reason? Hon. Mr. Lesage: I mentioned that there was an increase of $250,000 in respect of the study of the feasibility of the diversion-$100,000 for topo- graphical services, $50,000 in drilling investigation, and $100.000 for other professional and special services. We are pretty sure we shall have to go outside our department to have a good part of this work done under contract, for the reason which I have explained, namely, the lack of technical staff. Mr. Thatcher: Will this increase be likely to do this work? Hon. Mr. Lesage: We believe it is a beginning. We do not know exactly when it wifl be possible to give the answer. Mr. Harkness: It la likely to continue for more than one year? Mr. Patterson: I think with regard to the diver- sion study, this year's investigation could show that it was not feasible. In other words we could get information in the first year, in a negative way, to see that there would be no point in going any further. I am not going to misconstrue that into saying the department thinks at the outset that the project is not feasible. But If the information which we obtained this year were promising, and particularly if it were a border-Une case, we would have to conduct further Supply-Northern Affairs studies before we could actually determine whether this project was feasible or not, and then It would be quite likely we should need to continue for another yp ar, or maybe for two years. Mr. Thatcher: Is the reason you wish to divert this river-L Hon. Mr. Lesage: We do not at this time "want" to divert this river. It is not our responsibility for the present to do more than find out whether it would be economically feasible. Mr. Thatcher: Do you want to divert it so you can use water which the Americans would other- wise use? Hon. Mr. Lesage: In order to regulate the flow of the Fraser river and have some power sites on the Fraser river which are impossible now. That is the important part of the question so far as I am concerned. The suggestion is that we might have power sites on the Fraser river. Lest there be any mistake as to inter- pretation, later the hon. member for Calgary North asked this question: Mr. Harkness: And your dam sites would be on the Fraser? Hon. Mr. Lesage: The possibility would be that there would be a series of sites on the river. On Saturday, April 23, the Vancouver Herald had this to say about power sites, and I quote the heading, "Reid Warns Dams Will Kill Salmon Industry; Fish Must Be Protected Against Obstacle Course." The article reads: Individual dams or serles of dams in the Fraser river would kill the multi-million-dollar sockeye salmon fishery, as long as no method of protecting the fish is found, Senator Tom Reid told the Herald Friday. Mr. Lesage: Could I ask the hon. member to say who signed this article, and to describe what his knowledge is as to the effect of possible dams on the Fraser river on the salmon fisheries? I should like to know what importance we have to attach to the article from which the hon. member is reading. Mr. Hahn: If you will just let me continue to read it, you will discover. Mr. Lesage: I have a right to know who signed that article- Mr. Hahn: Senator Reid. Mr. Lesage: -and what his qualifications are. Mr. Hahn: Senator Tom Reid. The senator was commenting on a recent pro- posal of General A. G. L. McNaughton, that water be carried from Columbia river to the Fraser by means of a series of dams, for hydroelectric power purposes. Home hon. Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Hahn: I see the minister is highly amused at the statement that it could be Senator Reid. Senator Reid is chairman of the international Pacific sockeye commission. I think possibly it might be highly amusing to the minister to discover that the chairman HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Northern Aifairs of an international commission for the pro- tection of sockeye salmon is somewhat dis- turbed about the possibility that there might be a series of dams on the Fraser river. I feel that the senator has had considerably more to do with the fishing industry than any other member in this house. He had a con- siderable amount to do with the installation of the method of getting these fish up the Fraser river past Hell's Gate at an earlier time when there was considerable difficulty in protecting the salmon. I wonder just exactly what investigation has been made at this time to ensure that there will be protection for the fishery on the Fraser river. Mr. Lesage: That is what the whole study is for, and that is why I was asking who the expert was who could say in advance what the result of the surveys will be. The sur- veys are for the purpose of indicating, among other things, if it is possible to divert the waters of the Columbia river into the Fraser river without endangering the fisheries of the Fraser river. They will indicate also if it is economically feasible and advantageous, but the first condition is that it does not harm the fisheries. That is exactly why these studies are going to be made, and that is why I was surprised to hear that somebody already had the answer before the surveys were made. Mr. Hahn: Are you planning to discover whether you can divert the river before you discover whether or not the fish can make the grade up half a dozen dams on the Fraser river? Mr. Lesage: It is all part of the study, because the effect on the fish depends on the height and character of the dams and on the volume of water that might be diverted. The whole study is integrated. You cannot give an answer to one part of the question without giving an answer to the whole question. Mr. Hahn: That is why I am objecting to this particular expenditure, because you are now proposing to take water from the Colum- bia river to a particular spot up on the mountainside, and then divert it down into the Fraser, without knowing first whether or not the fish will live. Mr. Lesage: I have to interrupt the hon. member because I did not say we were pro- posing to divert the waters of the Columbia to the Fraser. I said we would ask parliament to provide the money to study the possibility of that diversion, to see if it would be pos- sible to divert these waters to the economic advantage of Canada without endangering the salmon fishery of the Fraser. It seems to me that is pretty clear. [Mr. Hahn.] Mr. Hahn: It is quite clear that you do not want to divert the river at this time, you just want to spend money to find out if it is feasible. Mr. Lesage: Without endangering the fish- eries. Mr. Hahn: Before wondering if the diver- sion is feasible, why not find out if the salmon will make it? Mr. Lesage: We know the diversion is physically possible, but what we are looking for is the answer- Mr. Harkness: What is physically possible is financially possible. Mr. Lesage: I do not want to get into an argument about economic theories tonight. We want to know if it is economically feasible, without endangering the fishery; we know it is physically possible. Mr. Hahn: You know it is physically pos- sible, then why have you put in here that you want to discover if it is feasible? Mr. Lesage: Economically feasible. Mr. Hahn: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that before looking into the economies of it we should discover whether or not- apparently the minister meant economically possible, though he did not say so in his answer-the salmon industry is going to be destroyed. This fact could be discovered through the international commission with- out spending this sum of $641,360. If the fish cannot make the grade, as I said earlier, we are just throwing this $641,360 down the drain. Mr. Green: My question concerning this item, Mr. Chairman, is a little different from that of the hon. member for New West- minster. As the minister knows, a lot of impatience has been developing with regard to this Columbia river basin. The provincial government is in a great hurry to get projects moving in that area, and the United States interests seem to be in a great hurry as well. I am wondering whether the amount of this vote is such that there can be some speeding up of the investigations into the Columbia river basin in Canada. We have understood from General McNaughton that it will be some years before this survey is completed. I do notice that the vote this year is con- siderably higher than the vote last year. Is there any way in which the investigations can be brought to a conclusion at an earlier date than had been expected? Mr. Lesage: Mr. Chairman, may I say we hope that by next year we shall know defi- nitely whether a diversion is economically feasible under the conditions I just mentioned. Suppose that diversion is not feasible. Then we shahl know right there that, whatever the total plans for the Columbia are, a dam at Mica creek coul-d be bult. That is what I arn informed by General McNaughton. Mr. Green: You know that now, do you not? Mr. Lesage: Yes, we know that niow; but of course it would make a.difference at Mica if there is to be a diversion. By next year we shall know deflnitely about the kind of dam that can be built at Mica. I do not want ta enter inta the work of another committee, Mr. Chairman, but this is linked up with what is going an in that committee. It is a sure tbing that it will take some time before we can hope ta have an understanding with the United States authorities on downstream. benefits, and I believe that is the first thing we should do. We should ask the international joint com- mission, which is the body best prepared for that, ta try ta work out a formula of same kind for downstream benefits adaptable ta all cases; or if such formula cannot be found the international joint commission cauld agree on a list of principles in order of priority from which a formula could be warked out in each case for downstream benefits. But again, Mr. Chairman, I am myself out of order, and I shall ask the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra ta allow me next Wednesday, when I came before the commit- tee as a witness, ta explain the whole ques- tion as regards the Implications o! downstreamn benefits, and the full studies on the Columbia and the possibility of a diversion. Mr. Green: Does this vote provide also for a study of the possibility of divertlng the upper waters of the Kootenay river into the headquarters o! the Columbia river? Mr. Losage: Yes, it deals with the Columbia reference as a whole, I arn informed. Mr. Green: Is that survey ta be concluded during the present fiscal year? Mr. Lesage: Yes. Mr. Herridg.: I listened ta the hon. mem- ber for New Westminster who quoted Sena- tor Reid. In the other place, and in other places, he has expressed the opinion that this proposed investigation of the Columbia is a moat feasible and reasonable project. He is fuily ini favour of the Investigation, and bas expressed every confidence in General McNaughton as one who will consider al aspects of the situation. Mr. Hahn: I arn very pleased ta get that information fram the hon. member who, has Slipply-Northern Affairs just taken bis seat. But I wish ta say this. As I said before, I do not think this expen- diture is fufly justified in view of what the senator had ta say later. I quote from, the same article, and these remarks are ini quo- tation marks: "After 20 years of study, no one yet has found a way of getting the Uittie fingerling salmon safeiy over a dam or through a turbine," Senator Reid said. The fingerling is the year to, year and a hait old salmon on its way f rom the spawning ground out to sea. The last statement is flot ini quotation marks. I think we might save the expense of this examination. The senator seems ta speak with autbority. He says: "In three yeara of reaearch, our commission has found that at a 250-foot dam, the mortality rate for fingerlings is 65 per cent," the senator said. Thtere have been three years of research already. I continue with the quotation: -Everyone has been taiking about tiiis mortality rate, but we were the first body i North America to find out the exact f acta about it." This gentleman has a very responsible position, and he certainly seems ta be speak- ing with autharity. I do not see the need for an expenditure of $641,360 if we already have the facts of the matter. If he is incap- able of acting on the commission, I suggest he be asked ta reslgn. Mr. Barneti: Since this matter has came up, I should like ta make one or two remarks. I should like ta make it clear that I certainly do not agree with the hon. member for New Westminster in regard ta the inadvisability of the amount included in this vote. I am much more inclined ta agree with the point of vlew expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver- Quadra, that if by virtue of an increase in this grant the progress o! this survey can be speeded up, I would be quite wiiling ta support it. Since the relationsbip between the possible development of the Fraser river systemn for power purposes and the sockeye salmon fishery has been mentioned, it would be useful to this committee and ta thase wbo are particularly concerned with the problem, if the minister could give us some indication of the foami of liaison that bas been set up or is contemplated between the work belng done by the international joint commission, Canadian section, and the afficers and person- nel of bis department who wifl be under their direction, and the Paciflc salmon fisherles commission, the fisheries research board and the federal Department of Fisheries. There ig no question but that this matter is vital ta the people af British Columbia, and they wrnl want ta be satisfled about any developments that take place on the Fraser. MAY 13, 1955 3773 Supply-Northern Affairs Mr. Lesage: There is the Fraser river board. A member of the Fraser river board is the chief officer of the federal Department of Fisheries in Vancouver. The Fraser river board is being reconstituted. I am not at liberty at this time to divulge the new terms of reference, nor the number or the identity of the members of the new board, because I have just reached an agreement with the government of British Columbia. It is a joint board. When I was in Victoria on Tuesday I talked to Mr. Sommers, and he asked me to wait until he wired me before making a press release about the new terms of reference and the names of the members of the board. But I can assure hon. members that the fisheries interests will be fully and entirely protected. Mr. Hahn: In view of what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni said, I think I should let it be known now that last year I spoke on the need for adequate research in every industry. I am satisfled that there is need for research if-and I put a condition into this-the work has not been done before. I shall just refer to what I quoted a short time ago. My understanding was that the senator was speaking with absolute authority; that they had carried on work for three years and were convinced in their own minds that salmon could not swim over these dams. For that reason I suggest we should be careful to get the facts with respect to this before we go ahead and discuss the economic feasibility of spending several million dollars on a project that possibly will never be built because we were told beforehand by someone in authority that we would be destroying another industry by doing just that thing. Item agreed to. 309. Fraser river-federal expenditures In con- nection with investigations to be carried out by "dominion-provincial board Fraser river basin", $127,750. Mr. Leboe: Is some of this money going to be spent on the north fork of the Fraser or the McGregor river? Mr. Lesage: I am informed that this covers that part of the Fraser river basin. Mr. Leboe: Is there a possibility of co- operative action between the provincial gov- ernment, through the board which has been set up, and the federal government to have on-site power and flood control at the same point on the McGregor river? Mr. Lesage: The Fraser river board is charged with the responsibility of making engineering studies and surveys; it is not [Mr. Barnett.] charged with the responsibility of building dams or installing on-site power. I cannot say anything more about the new terms of refer- ence because I have an undertaking with Mr. Sommers, the minister of lands and forests, not to make them public before he does the same in Victoria. I have not received, since I talked to him the other day, the telegram which I have been expecting and which would fix the date. Mr. Leboe: I was not thinking about the actual construction; I was thinking about the engineering possibilities and investigations to determine whether or not a dam built at that particular place could be used for both flood control and on-site power. Mr. Lesage: That is correct. Mr. Leboe: I notice there is a decrease of $37,250 in this item. Because of the urgency in respect to flood control I would have thought that this item would be larger. Mr. Lesage: This is a matching contribution on the part of the federal government. The British Columbia government really sets the level of expenditure. Item agreed to. Northern administration division- 314. Administration, $306,037. Mr. Harkness: Is this the point where the minister was going to give me information as to the reduction in freight rates to certain points in the north? Mr. Lesage: Is the hon. member interested in water transportation rates, and to what point? Mr. Harkness: I was interested in water and air rates to the points I mentioned, which were Fort Norman, Norman Wells, Yellow- knife, Hay River and Fort Smith. Mr. Lesage: There has been no reduction in freight rates by air from Edmonton; the reductions have been in passenger rates. Mr. Harkness: None at all? Mr. Lesage: Not to my knowledge. The reduction in passenger fares has been quite substantial, ranging from 17 per cent to as high as 60 per cent in the fare from Edmon- ton to Aklavik. I have here a table which gives a comparison of air rates, rail rates, water rates and rail plus water rates from Edmonton to different points in the north. With the consent of the committee I would place this table on Hansard. Some hon. Members: Agreed. 3774 HOUSE OF COMMONS Mr. Lesage: The table is as follows: Rates from Edmonton Cents per pound Air Rail to Rail plus Freight Waterways Water Water Fort Smith..11.00 .88 1.15 2.03 Hay River..14.97 .88 2.40 3.28 Yellowknife . ... 14.97 .88 1.90 2.78 Fort Norman .. 39.86 .88 2.84 3.72 Aklavik .......... 60.00 .88 3.84 4.72 Mr. Harknems: I Must say I am disappointed to, learn that there have been no reductions in freiglit rates, because I understood the minister to say there had. Mr. Lesage: I arn sorry; the hon. member must have misunderstood me. Mr. Harkness: I understood the minister to say there had been a 20 per cent reduction in these rates to the north. I arn sorry to learn there lias been no reduction in air freight rates. I would express a personal opinion that the reason there lias been no reduction is the difficujty of providing effective com- petition in the carrying of air freight into that country. In the interests of opening up this north country and enabling freiglit to get there more readily than at present, the minister should exert some influence on the Minister of Transport and the governiment generally ini an effort to rernove some of the blocks which exist at the present time against the movement o! freight. This may not be the place to discuss this, as it lias more concern with the Departrnent of Transport, but I think the minister miglit profltably exert influence ini order to remove sorne of the blocks which prevent effective competition in the move- ment of freight by air into the north. This is most necessary if the extrernely high rates which now prevail are to be brouglit down. In the case of air freiglit frorn Edmonton to Fort Smith, which is approximately 400 miles, the rate is $11 per hundredweight, which is very higli. I am glad to hear of the reductions that have taken place in the water rates. The whole system lias now been modernized, the old wooden barges have been replaced with modern steel barges, and the old tugboats have also, I think, been replaced with new diesel-powered equipment. I should think it would be possible to reduce these rates !urther. If as a resuit of that reduction there were an increase In the amnount of trafflc-which would no doubt be the case- then once again the rates could be reduced. In other words this is the sort of thing that snowballs and mounts up. I would hope that when we discuss these estimates next Supply-Northern AMaiTs year there will have been a reduction in air rates and a further reduction in these water rates. Mr. Churchill: With regard to item 314, dealing with the Northwest Territories and Eskimo problems, I should like to say this. I do flot; want to go into the whole matter of the Eskimo population. We had a good discussion of that in the estimates committee. In the information that was brought out, which is scattered over about 30 pages of the reports of that committee, we discovered the total number of Eskimos in the country. Seven thousand are in the Northwest Terri- tories, and 2,000 are under the administration of this department in northern Quebec. They are dependent for subsistence very largely on caribou. One of the things that was left incomplete in the committee was this. I was asking questions concerning the 2,000 Eskimos in the northern part of Quebec who at one time, according to, Mr. Cunningham, who gave us most of the information on this problem, were in a relatively happy state as a huntlng population because caribou were extensive. In recent years, however, the caribou have entirely disappeared, and further evidence brought out the fact that these particular Eskimos are being tralned to become water hunters, which, they were flot before, and to hunt the seal and walrus. It was mentioned that they do flot have immediate adaptability and it is not easy to retrain them. I asked if that area o! northern Quebec could be restocked with caribou. It was polnted out that this had been consldered, but it was thought an extraordinarily slow process and that therefore other methods of providing for the livelihood o! these people were being considered. That is the point which I think was left incomplete. I wonder if the minister would take into consideration again the restocking of that area with caribou, even if it does take a long time. There has been considerable experience in Canada in, for example, the preservation of buffalo and elk. They are living in restricted areas, and as they multiply they keep up their numbers. There lias also been considerable experience In developlng reindeer herds. We were in!ormed that the 800,000-odd caribou to the west of Hudson bay are sufficient to support the Eskimo population In that area who are dependent as hunters on caribou. For the northern Quebec area, using the estimate we have been given, it would take perhaps 200,000 caribou to support the Eskimo families there, who require, we are told, MAY 13, 1955 3775 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Northern Aifairs between 70 and 100 caribou a year to give them sustenance. As I say, we have had experience in saving other types of wildlife, and in restocking. I read an article in a newspaper the other day, which may or may not be accurate, stating that moose had been non-existent in Newfoundland until they were taken there 55 years ago, but now, even with the hunting, the moose population has increased to 50,000. Would it not be wise to reconsider intro- ducing caribou into that particular area? The seal and walrus might fail; then we are left with the problem of simply providing subsist- ence for the native population. The reason the native population has been placed in these dire circumstances was brought out in the committee and I shall not go into it again now, but I simply ask the minister to reconsi- der this matter. Next year we shall put two or three questions to him and see what the answers are. Mr. Lesage: I shall, with pleasure. Item agreed to. Forest conservation and wildlife management in- cluding Wood Buffalo park- 318. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works. land and new equipment, $134,639. Mr. Herridge: I am acting as a sort of chore boy tonight. I have been asked to bring up a matter concerning the Yukon. I do not know whether this is the right item, but this concerns the Yukon so I suppose I can fire in all directions. I have been asked to bring to the minister's attention certain motor vehicle regulations- The Deputy Chairman: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would permit us to pass item 318, which deals with wildlife, and go on to item 319. Mr. Harkness: There is nothing wilder than a motorcycle. Item agreed to. Yukon Territory, including forest conservation- 319. Operation and maintenance, $624,629. Mr. Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that you put me in order. I have been asked to bring to the minister's atten- tion certain motor vehicle ordinances that have been given effect in the Yukon. Mr. Lesage: On a point of order; I am sorry, but this involves a territorial ordinance and I have nothing to say about it. There is autonomy in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. There are local councils, and the motor vehicle ordinances come under the jurisdiction of the elected members of the Yukon council. Mr. Green: But you always follow their recommendations. Mr. Herridge: The point is that there are residents of northern British Columbia who think the tariffs for trucks entering the Yukon are excessive. Mr. Lesage: I shall bring to the attention of the commissioner and through him the elected representatives of the Yukon council the representations of the hon. member, but I cannot force them to do anything. This is really a provincial matter. An hon. Member: Carried. Mr. Herridge: Mr. Chairman, someone over there is calling "carried". I have listened to him long enough- Mr. Knowles: It is the specialist on inane remarks on the other side who is calling "carried". Mr. Herridge: This concerns certain truck- ers in northern British Columbia. I am glad the minister explained that this matter comes under the jurisdiction of the territorial coun- cil, and I am glad he has said he will bring these complaints to its notice. I thank him for that. Item agreed to. Forestry branch- Forest research division- 322. Operation and maintenance, $1,030,604. Mr. Knowles: May I ask the minister whe- ther the forest research division of his department has made any further headway in the matter of research into the extent of fire damage caused in this country by tailor- made cigarettes, and whether or not any- thing is going to be done about it? Mr. Lesage: Mr. Chairman, the last news I had was that it had not been possible to find a kind of cigarette that would not light fires in forests if thrown around while still lighted. Mr. Knowles: Mr. Chairman, quite ser- iously there are a number of people and organizations that are concerned about this matter. Mr. Lesage: I know. Mr. Knowles: Some of those most directly concerned with forestry operations have regulations prohibiting the use of tailor-made cigarettes in those areas. As a matter of fact, while it was not exactly in the minister's department, I was reading an item in the newspaper again this evening about a fire not very far from here believed to be caused by a cigarette. This is a matter that deserves intense research, in the hope that something [Mr. Churchill.] 3776 mlght be done to minimize the fires that take place and the loss o! life whlch is the resuit of many of these fires. Item agreed to. Mr. Brooks: Mr. Chairman, you went over item 327 so fast that I did not notice it. I wonder whether the minister would tell me why the contribution to New Brunswick in connection with combating the budworm is being reduced. Mr. Lousage: As the hon. member for Royal is aware, this is a contribution to a three- way operation. The amounts we vote each year are determined by the program, which is the responsibility of Forest Protection Limited, which is one o! the three parties to the agreement. Mr. Brooks: Is that an indication that the situation is !airly well under control? Mr. Lesage: I might tell the hon. member that the governiment agreed this week to extend the program for a further three years, to continue on the same basis, because oniy $1,585,000 will have been spent on March 31, 1956. The program will therefore be ex- tended to March 31, 1959, the ceiling re- maining at the original $3 million as far as we are concerned. 331. Grant to puip and paver reaearch Institute of Canada. $130.000. Mr. Losage: The increase i this vote was occasioned by a preliminary arrangement with the institute to provide additional assistance in order to permit that organiza- tion to build a new laboratory to take care o! increased research accommodation. Sinoe the printing of the estimates an alternative to this preliminary arrangement has been tentatively agreed on, through whieh the laboratory wrnl be built by the government and made available to the institute on the condition that the present annual grant of $100,000 will cease at the end o! the present fiscal-year, and that no !urther government financial assistance will be forthcoming. Under those circumnstances the amount of $130,000 shouid be reduced to the original grant o! $100,000 as provided under the existing agreement. 1 shall ask my colleague the Minister of Finance-because I want to please him-if 'he will move that the item be reduced !rom $130,000 to $100,000. Mr. Harris: With pleasure. The Deputy Chairman: On Item 331, it is moved by the Minister o! Finance that the item o! $130,000 be reduced to $100,000. Shall the amendment carry? Amendment agreed to. Supply-Northern Affafs Mr. Camneron (Nanaimno): I may still dis- cuss item 331, may I not? The Depu±y Chairman: Yes. Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo>: I was wondering what is the amount of the investment we are gomng to make in this laboratory. Mr. Lesage: I cannot hear the hon. member. Mr. Cameron : How much are we going to spend on this new laboratory that we are building? Have you any figure on that? Mr. Lesage: It is not certain yet, but I belheve it is about $2 million. The annual contribution of $100,000 in these last years amounted to about one-tenth or a littie less of the total expenditure. The research insti- tute is spending about $1 million. This expenditure wrnl increase with the increased facilities which will be provided by this new laboratory to be built with money provided in the estimates of the Department of Publie Works. Mr. Barnei: There is one point I shouid like to raise on this matter. Apparently we are spending public moneys in connection with research. I wonder whether the minister could give us a word or two as to the nature of the research work which is being conducted by this institute? Mr. Lesage: It is research in the processing and manufacture of pulp and paper. As members of the committee are aware, this pulp and paper accounts for the highest figure of our exports. We are ail the Urne try- ing to improve the processing and manufac- ture o! this commodity which is vital to the economy of Canada. Mr. Barnei: I have just one further ques- tion. The particular point o! my question was this. 1 am giad to see that the Minister of Justice is sitting behind the Minister o! Northern Aiffairs and National Resources. One of the problems which concern many people who have some close association with the pulp and paper industry--I refer to those who reside in ameas near at hand-is the rather unpleasant odour that is produced. My particular point in ra.ising this question is whether any portion of these funds which are being provided in this estimate are to be devoted to research looking to the elimina- tion o! what some o! us consider to be quite a serious public nuisance; and whether or not, because o! the fact that parliament is being asked to provide this vote, the gov- ernment and the minister might have any authority to direct the investigations i that particular direction. 3777MAT 13, 1955 3778 HOUSE 0F COMMONS Supply-Northern Aiffairs I might say that I know some research bas been done into such matters, but there are many people in Canada-and some of them live in my own constituency-who would be quite interested in seeing an accelerated pro- gram of research into that particular aspect of the pulp and paper industry. Can the min- ister give us any indication as to how the situation stands in that connection? Mr. Lesage: Oh, yes. I will certainly direct the attention of the pulp and paper research institute o! Canada to the representations made by my hon. friend. The Depuly Chairman: Shall the item as amended carry? Item as amended agreed to. Canadian government travel bureau- 333. To assist In promotmng the tourist business in Canada, $1.561.367. Mr. Herridge: Strangely enough, Mr. Chair- man, this evening I was talking to an old- time resident of Kootenay West who was actually born in the district. We were dis- cussing the function and purpose of the Canadian travel bureau. He thought it would be a good idea for me to bring to the attention of the committee the summer bonspiel that is conducted annually at Nel- son. It is a most unusual event, which at- tracts people from ail parts of Canada. In discussîng this matter, this gentleman said he thought in the past the Canadian travel bureau, in its publications, had flot given sufficient notice to this event. He suggested that I should suggest to the minister that, in view of the almost nationally-known nature of this event and its importance to the Kootenays, he should bring to the atten- tion of the Canadian travel bureau the advan- tage it would be to Canadians generally to advertise it in their publications. Item agreed to. The Depu±y Chairman: Shaîl I report the resolutions and ask leave to sit again? Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported, read the second time and concurred in. BUSINESS 0F THE HOUSE Mr. Harris: On Monday we shall move to go into supply and when the motion is carried will cali four departments and have them stand. We shahl then take Bill No. 259, to amend the Railway Act, the resolution with respect to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, the resolution with respect to the Canada Elec- tions Act, second reading o! Bill No. 351, respecting Canadian National Railways, second reading o! Bihl No. 350, to amend the [Mr. Barnett.] Blind Persons Act, second reading of Bill No. 352, respecting meat and meat products. The above will be the order of business for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Should the debate on the supply motion carry over into these days and these items be completed before Wednesday adi ournment, we shal move to go into supply again on the under- standing that if there is no debate we shall not cali any additional departments but will proceed with the estimates of post office, labour, veterans affairs and agriculture, and continue throughout Thursday and Frîday. It being fourteen minutes after ten o'clock the bouse adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order. [The following Items were passed in cornunittee of supply]: DEPARTLIENT 0F NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL SESOURCES 293. Departmental administration, $509.310. 294. Northern research co-ordination centre. in- cluding a grant of $5.000 to the Arctic Institute of North America; and an amount of $10.000 for grants in aid of northern research subject to allocation by the treasury board, $60.595. National parks branch- 295. nranch administration, $86.425. National parks and historic sites services- 296. Administration, operation and maintenance, $4,560,496. 297. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $4.609.032. 298. Grant to Jack Miner migratory bird founda- tion, $5.000. 299. Speclal grant to the antiquarian and nurnis- matic society to help defray costs of urgent worc for the restoration and preservation of the Chateau de Ramezay, Montreal. $15.000. 300. Grant in aid of the development of the international peace garden in Manitoba, $10.000. 301. Contribution to the women's Wentworth historical society of Hamiton, Ontario, towards the costs of urgent work to combat erosion and flooding on the approach road to the battie of Stoney Creek national historlc site, $1.000. 302. National battlefields commission-to provide for special works at national battlefields park, Quebec, $8.000. 303. Canadian wildlif e service-wildlife resources conservation and deveIopment, lncluding admin- istration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, $455,703. 304. National muaeum of Canada, $330.840. Engineering and water resources branch- 305. Branch administration, $54.283. Water resourcea division- Water resources division. including federal share of expenses of the Lake of the Woods control board- 306. Administration, operation and maintenance. including grant of $350 to the international council, world power conference, $725,819. '3778 307. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works. land and new equipment, $91,500. 308. To provide for studies and surveys of the Columbia river watershed in Canada, $641.360. 309. Fraser river-federal. expenditures in con- nection with Investigations to be carried out by "'domninion-provincial board Fraser river basin", $127,750. 310. To provide for a contribution to thc cost of constructing a dam on the Conestogo river near Glen Allan, Ontario, for thc purposes of flood con- trol and water conservation, in accordance with thc terans of an agreement cntercd. into between Canada and the province of Ontario, $1,000,000. 311. Engineering and architectural division-ad- minl.stration, operation and maintenance, $336,487. Northern administration and lands branch- 312. Branch administration. 3157,214. 313. Lands division-administration of territorial and public lands; seed grain collections, $405.837. Northern administration division- 314. Administration. 3306,037. Northwest Ternîtorles, mncluding Wood Buffalo park and Eskimo af airs- 315. Operation and maintenance, $1.717,263. 316. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land snd new equipment, $1,567,131. Forest conservation and wildlfe mianagement i- cluding Wood Buffalo park- 317. Operation and maintenance, $433,970. 318. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, 3134,639. Yukon Territory, including foreat conservation- 319. Operation and maintenance, 3624,629. 320. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works. land and new equipment. 31,101,930. Forestry branch- 321. Branch administration, 3114,636. Forest research division- 322. Operation and maintenance, $1,030.604. 323. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipmaent. $78,743. Forestry operations division- 324. Administration, operation and maintenance, $184,760. 325. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $154.265. 326. To provide for contributions to the provinces for assistance In forest inventory and reforestation Supply-Northern Affairs in accordance with agreements that have been or may be entered into by Canada and the provinces, $1,225,000. 327. To provide for a contribution to the prov- Ince of New Brunswick for assistance in a program designed to combat the apruce budworm infesta- tion, in accordance with an agreement entered into by Canada and the province. $30,000. Forest products laboratories division- 328. Operation and maintenance, $581,030. 329. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipmnent. $21.770. 330. Grant to Canadian Foreetry Association. $10,000. 331. Grant to pulp and paper research institute of Canada, $130,000. lteduced by $30.000 to $100.000. Eastern Rockies forest conservation board- 332. Remuneration and expenses of the federal member of the board, $5.575. Canadian government travel bureau- 333. To assist in promnoting the tourist business I Canada, $1,561,367. Loans, invesiments and advances- 541. To authorize the makingc of loans ini the present and ensuing fiscal years in accordance with such terms and conditions as the governor I council prescribes not exceeding in the aggregate $1.150.000 to the govermnent of thc Yukon Terri- tory- : I wonder if 1 might ask a question of the minister. Is the government of Canada considering adopting any policy in order to increase our share of the world wheat market or to recover aur share of the world wheat market, such as accepting local currencies or following a policy of making wheat avaflable whenever there is a famine? There is another question I should like ta ask arising out of the statement the rninister has made. It concerns the very low and disappointing final payrnent. I arn wondering if the governent and the minister would consider making available immediately an interim payrnent an the 1954 crop in order to at least alleviate the very serious financial catastrophe in western Canada? Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): The government is always considering every means of increasing Canada's share of the world markets. If we decide on any different procedure than that being followed at the moment, I shal announce it immediately in the house. Sa far as the second question is concerned, I think the producers in western Canada believe that, in a periad af congestion, the present price of wheat has been holding up very well. 1 might say that Canada is largely responsible for the fact that the price of wheat has not collapsed. We have refused ta be panicked. I believe that, considering the situation of world supplies which are drap- ping, it wauld be very unwise for Canada ta enter into a give-away program simply for the purpose of reducing aur wheat surplus. Mr. Argue: Would the minister say whether an interim payment is being considered, because the payment he has announced today amounts ta only about $150 per western farmer, and that will not go very far. Mr. Howe e clear. The bill is being supported by the farmer-owned eleva- tors which understand the trade and have a duty toward the producers, who are the actual owners of the handling facilities. If the members who support the government feel the farmers should not receive this con- sideration, then they will oppose the bill; but of course they will have to answer for their actions when they are asked by the farmers why they felt the bill should not be passed and why they opposed the fair distri- bution of box cars in order to give the farmer- owned elevator companies an opportunity to provide facilities for their customers. Mr. Studer: May I ask the hon. member a question? Mr. Zaplitny: Yes. Mr. Studer: Which farm organization asked the hon. member for Assiniboia to present this bill on behalf of the farmers of western Canada? I should like to add the statement that of the 25,000 voters in my constituency, not one has ever asked me at any time to vote for a socialist bill. Mr. Zapliiny: In reply to the bon. member may I say the hon. member for Assiniboia is perfectly within his rights and responsi- bilities as a member of parliament- Mr. Studer: Name the farm organization. Mr. Zaplitny: -in introducing a bill which is in the public interest. With respect to the hon. member not being asked to vote for what he calls a socialist bill, I imagine his constituents know by now that there is no use asking him because he would not do it. Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk): My job has been made quite easy, Mr. Speaker, because my colleagues have pretty well expressed my sentiments. However, if I do not get up and say something somebody might say I was not in favour of this bill. I am in favour of this bill and I think some hon. members will recall that a number of years ago I took up this same subject with Mr. McIvor when he attended the agriculture committee. I feel that 1, as a co-operator, should not be compelled to sell my grain to another eleva- tor. I should be able to go to the elevator of my choice, just as the man who is against the Canada G?àin Act co-operative movement and wants to sell to a private elevator should have that right. Mr. Studer: How many bushels did you sell last year? Mr. Bryce: I cannot answer the hon, gentle- man just now because I have reached the stage where I can hear only on one side. I do not want to take up much more time. Everything has been said that can be said. I have had letters from people who expressed views in favour of this bill. There may be little drawbacks to it, but the main thing is that where there are five or six elevators at one point the local train might leave a box car at each elevator. We might have a situa- tion where one of the elevators would be doing 50 per cent of the business. I think it is reasonable to expect that that elevator should get 50 per cent of the box cars, irrespective of what type of elevator it is. Being a Scotsman it goes against the grain for me to sell wheat to a private elevator, because I receive no dividend. I want to sell my grain to an elevator from which I receive dividends. Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Batilefords): There are a few figures I want to put on the record. First I want to say that the farmers have built up their own elevator system over the years, and they have put a lot of money and a lot of effort into it. They are seeing the results of those efforts being gradually whittled away. In order to give the house an idea of the value of this elevator system owned by the farmers I want to put a few figures on the record. These figures relate to the distribu- tion of earnings by the wheat pool in Sas- katchewan during the years 1924 to 1954. A total of $61,888,280 in net earnings has been distributed since the organization was formed. Of this, $36,216,719 has been paid out in cash and $6,026,983 has been retained as a loan and credited to members. Then $19,644,578 was used to pay off the 1929-30 pool over- payment liability. In short, in the past 30 years wheat pool members have invested a total of $24,924,010 in their organization, but during the same period they have received back from earnings $36,216,719 in cash. They own assets which have been purchased by the pool at a cost of $51,042,712. Now, to give the house a little idea of what has been taking place during recent years because pool elevators were not able to get enough box cars, I want to give a few more figures. Before doing so, I want to say that this bill will not harm the line elevator agent who has built up a business over the years, partly because of his popularity and partly MAY 17, 1955 3853 Canada Grain Act because of the different methods he has used to get a share of the business. Here is an illustration of what has hap- pened to deliveries to pool elevators. I am going to take a few points in Saskatchewan. Over the five-year period from 1945 to 1950 the pool elevator at Sedley received 39 per cent of the grain. In 1953-54 it only received 19 per cent. At Hardy, Saskatchewan, in the same period, 1945-50, the pool elevator re- ceived 85 per cent of the deliveries. Last year it only received 35 per cent. I could go on and on giving more illustra- tions all over our province. I believe the same thing is happening in Manitoba and Alberta. I am supporting this bill because I have received probably hundreds of letters from farmers in my constituency who have asked me to raise this question on the floor of the house. Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie): No sub- ject has brought as many letters to my office, Mr. Speaker, as the question of the alloca- tion of box cars. I understand that the min- ister has been obliged to take on additional stenographic help to handle the very large volume of mail he has received on this sub- ject. I shall be very brief. One letter ex- presses the problem. This letter is from Fred Lowndes, of Kelvington, Saskatchewan. It is dated March 29, and reads as follows: I wish most vigorously to protest against the present method of car allocation. As a member of the Saskatchewan wheat pool I feel that at present we are definitely being discriminated against. In early fall our elevator fills up within a few days while the line elevators still have lots of room. When they also become full it is back to the one car one elevator system. Economic pressure then forces loyal pool members to deliver to une elevators. If the line elevators cannot stand on their own feet, they should be honest enough to ask for a federal subsidy, and not be spoon fed under our so-called car distribution system. I feel that the members of the wheat pool are being quite reasonable when they ask that box cars be allocated in such a manner as to enable producers to deliver grain to the elevator of their choice. As my colleague the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell) pointed out, if over the years a line elevator agent has built up support in a community to the point where he is handling 50 per cent of the grain in that community, then he should have 50 per cent of the box cars. If, however, he has been able to get only 25 per cent of the grain that normally cornes into the community, he is not in any position to ask for 50 per cent of the box cars. The members of the wheat pool are quite reasonable in asking that they should have [Mr. Campbell.] the privilege of delivering their own grain to their own elevator so they can receive the dividends which will come to them as a result of that volume of business. I hope the major- ity of members in all sections of the house will support this motion. Mr. Argue: Mr. Speaker- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite): If the hon. member speaks now, he will close the debate. Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern): I have been very surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Assiniboia, who introduced this bill, bas not seen fit to answer the question directed to him by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. Mr. Argue: Would the hon. member like me to answer that question now? Mr. Tucker: You can answer when I get through. You had many opportunities to answer it. The hon. member gave you three or four opportunities to answer it. Mr. Argue: I will answer it now if you wish me to do so. Mr. Tucker: You will have a chance to answer when I get through. If the bon. mem- ber had the support of any farm organization which asked him to introduce the measure, he should have so stated when he spoke. It is a most astonishing thing, when farm organizations have indicated they are making submissions in this matter, when they have indicated that they intend to make submis- sions before the committee on agriculture, and when we are expecting to hear those representations, to have the hon. member for Assiniboia rush in with a bill which he admits, in at least one substantial particular, is quite different from what the wheat pools would like to have. He wants the house to vote on the matter before we have a chance to hear from the wheat pools and the other farm organizations. Well, that may be the way members of the C.C.F. party think business should be done, but it seems to me the proper attitude would be that members should not be expected to vote on this matter until they have had a chance to hear what the various farm or- ganizations think about this bill. The hon. member knows very well that the wheat pools intend to make representations on this matter before the committee on agriculture. Knowing that, why is he so anxious to have a vote on this bill before representatives of the wheat pools have had a chance to make their representations? Why is he so anxious to HOUSE OF COMMONS3854 have the principle of the bill decided by the house before the farmi organizations can be heard? It seems to me the hon. member is taking a most surprising attitude toward those f arm, organizations. He admits that bis bill differs from what the wheat pools would like to have, but he brushes that aside as a matter of fia consequence. Let me read ta the house what the hion. member for Assiniboia had ta say about the difference between bis bill and what the wheat pools would like ta have. As reported at page 3410 of Hansard he said: The only real difference I can see between the bill that is now before the bause and the proposi- tion advanced by the western wheat pools is that by my bill the farmers would vote by open ballot. whereas the wheat pools are suggesting that the choice be made by secret ballot. Here is the hion. member for Assiniboja getting up in the House of Commons and admitting that the wheat pools want ta have something different from what is contained in the bull he is offering. Mr. Argue: Read the next sentence. Mr. Tucker: I have read what you said. Mr. Argue: Read the next sentence. Mr. Tucker: If the government la prepared ta adoptI the sug- gestion of the wheat pool arganization, I for ane shaIl be pleased to support It. What the hon. member is asldng the house ta do is endorse the principle of bis bill, knawing that once the principle had been decided the matter could not be reconsidered at this session. Canada Grain Act anyway; because if later on the government wants something different, then I would be willing to, accept that, too." What sort of way is that to approach parliament? He suggests that hon. members should vote for something the pools do flot favour, and adds that later on they may take a different position. Surely that is flot the way we in this parliament should be asked to transact our business. Surely the right way to do business is to hear first from the wheat pools, as to whether they think the hion. member's bill offers the proper way to proceed, and whether it is workable. Then it will be time enough to say whether the bill merits support, or whether a measure such as is indicated by the wheat pools and other farm organizat ions should be intro- duced. Personally I would feel much saler sup- porting a bill brought in by the farm organizations than I would in supporting one brought in by a C.C.F. member, who is con- tent to, rush in with a bill sa he will be ahead of the pool organizations, who will be appearing before the committee on agricul- ture. The hon. member rushes in and tries to get his bill before the House of Comnions before those representatives have had a chanoe to be heard by the committee. Mr. Stewart (Wininipeg North): You know what the farmers did ta you out in Saskat- chewan. Mr. Tucker: I know this, that I have been elected a greater number of times, by far, than the hon. member who has just spoken. Mr. rgue Ma I ak th ho. meber Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North): Possibly; a r questionak heho. eme but you were also thrown out of the leader- a quetionship in Saskatchewan. Mr. Tucker: I did not interrupt the hon. member wben he was speaking. However, I can understand that he would be very uneasy when it is being made very clear that he is bringing in a bill that is substantially dif- f erent from wbat the great pool organizations in western Canada would like ta have. Mr. Argue: The principle is identical. Mr. Tucker: Had he not been s0 anxious ta, rush into this matter and pose as the great defender of the farmers in western Canada; had he been content ta wait until the farm. organizations appeared before the comn- mittee on agriculture and indicated the kind of bill they would like ta have, it would have been different. But hie bas the temerity ta came into this House of Commons with a bil of Mis own, which bie admits is different from what the wbeat pools want. He admits that; but then he says, "Vote for my bil Mr. Tucker: I had no difficulty i being elected ta either the federal bouse or the provincial legisiature, in spite of ail the misrepresentations bandied around the prov- ince of Saskatchewan by members o! the C.C.F. party. And let me tell the hon. mem- ber that they came so close ta being beaten in 1948 that tbey have been nervous ever sinoe. Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North): Is that why you left? Mr. Tucker: And I can well appreciate what was said this afternoon by the leader of the Social Credit party, when hie referred ta members of the C.C.F. posing as the great defenders of the farmers' and the great defenders o! labour, as indicating that they are uneasy and f eel that they are slippîng, that they are on their way out as a major political factor in this country. MAY 17. 1953 3835 Canada Grain Act Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North): Go back to Saskatchewan and tell them that. Mr. Tucker: I was going to deal with this question, which the hon. member for Assini- boia brushes off as having no importance, when he said: The only real difference I can see between the bill that is now before the house and the proposi- tion advanced by the western wheat pools is that by my bill the farmers would vote by open ballot, whereas the wheat pools are suggesting that the choice be made by secret ballot. In other words the hon. member is saying, in effect, "Here is my bill; this is the one I want to have adopted". And he says we should vote for it although the wheat pools say they would like to have this matter decided by secret ballot. Under the hon. member's bill they would not have that right of secret ballot at all. I am not surprised when I see the great leaders of the wheat pools in western Canada taking a democratic attitude, and pointing out that in a question of this kind decisions shovld be made by secret ballot. Neither am I surprised to see the hon. member for Assiniboia, speaking for the C.C.F. party, brush that suggestion aside as one of no importance whatever. By saying, "By my bill they are not permitted to decide by secret ballot," he asks the House of Commons to endorse the view that the secret ballot should not be used. So far as I am concerned I would rather stand with the wheat pools, when they say the decision should be made by secret ballot, than with the hon. member for Assiniboia and his C.C.F. colleagues who say the right of secret ballot should not be allowed. Mr. Campbell: How could you vote secretly? Mr. Tucker: The wheat pools have asked for that, and the hon. member for The Battle- fords now asks how it could be done. I presume when the wheat pools made this request they must have had some idea how it could be done. They are not the kind of people who make suggestions that are not feasible, or that would be considered foolish. I have no doubt in the world that it can be done by secret ballot, perhaps by the farmers sending in their ballots by mail, if necessary, indicating where they want to deliver their grain. That ballot could be secret, just as the votes for delegates to the wheat pools are secret and by mail. Mr. Campbell: They could not be secret if they went through the mail. Mr. Pickersgill: I am wondering whether I should not rise on a question of privilege. [Mr. Tucker.] Mr. Tucker: I do not know why it could not be secret if it went through the mails. We have what is supposed to be a secret ballot in Saskatchewan, where people vote in provincial elections by sending their ballots through the mails. They insist that it is a secret ballot. I am very interested in the hon. member's suggestion that after all it is not a secret ballot in the province of Saskatchewan because these ballots must go through the mail. If it is all right to conduct voting for members of the legislature by mail ballot, surely it is all right to do as the pool suggests in this matter. Mr. Campbell: This ballot would have to have a signature on it. It would not be secret. Mr. Tucker: I will explain to the hon. member just how it could be a secret ballot. The ballot could be put in an envelope without any identifying marks on it at all, and that envelope could be placed within another envelope which could be absolutely identified as having been cast by a person entitled to vote. When the outer envelope was opened, it could be checked to see that the person who sent in the vote had a right to vote, and then they could take the inner envelope and without opening it put it in a ballot box. If it were done in that way it would be entirely secret. In balloting for members of the legislature in Saskatchewan they do not even have that. Still I think it is pretty well a secret ballot. The ballot is contained in an envelope, and scrutineers are there when the envelope is opened. The ballot is then taken out without being looked at and put in the ballot box and counted afterward. In that way it is a secret ballot. When the pools ask for something along that line I presume they think it is the sort of thing that is workable. Mr. Ellis: Why does the government not bring in a bill along the lines of the recom- mendation of the wheat pool? Mr. Tucker: On that question my attitude is this, Mr. Speaker. After the matter has been thoroughly threshed out before the agriculture committee the government, the committee and all concerned will have had a chance to thoroughly discuss the matter and decide on any scheme that seems to be satisfactory to everybody and workable. After all, the government is the author of the Canada Grain Act, which is regarded by the farmers of western Canada as a real charter of their liberties in grain marketing matters. At the last agriculture committee meeting representatives of farm organiza- tions said the Canada Grain Act is so satis- factory they did not wish to suggest any 3856 HOUSE OF COMMONS major amendments to it. The government can be relied upon, if some good program that meets the situation can be brought for- ward, with the assistance of the farm organ- izations to bring in a better bill than this one, which seeks to rush in ahead of the representatives of the farm organizations. Mr. Campbell: We shall hold you to that. An hon. Member: Just excuses. Mr. Tucker: I am used to the attitude of the C.C.F. party. If I had not been fairly well able to put up with a great deal of misrepresentation and unfair abuse I would not be here today. Mr. Ellis: Cry-baby tactics. Mr. Tucker: I tell my hon. friends opposite that what they can do here with a little group in this house is nothing compared to what they can do in the legislature with a large majority behind them. I had no difli- culty in saying what I thought was right, and upholding what I thought was right, in the legislature, and I think I can do it in this house where they have not a majority and they cannot adopt the attitude that was adopted in that legislature. The members of the C.C.F. party do not need to think they are bothering me in any way, and they are not going to prevent me from saying what I think is right. I tell them that. I am enjoying the interruptions. I hope they keep it up. If there are any other ques- tions to be asked, let them ask them. Mr. Campbell: Why did you not stay in Saskatchewan? Mr. Argue: May I ask my question now? Mr. Tucker: Yes. Mr. Argue: Is the hon. member for Rosthern prepared to support a bill if it should be suggested by the wheat pool organization? Mr. Tucker: I have already stated my posi- tion in that regard. I do not wish to take time to go over it again. Mr. Argue: No commitment. Mr. Tucker: Let the hon. member read Hansard tomorrow if he did not hear what I said. Mr. Argue: You did not answer the question. Mr. Tucker: I certainly stated my position. Mr. Ellis: Face the facts. Mr. Tucker: I am tempted to state it again, but there are certain other points I want to deal with. Mr. Argue: You are not supporting anybody. 50433-244 Canada Grain Act Mr. Tucker: I wonder whether the C.C.F. actually would ask hon. members to go against the representations of the pool, which asked for a secret ballot, and vote for a bill that does not provide one. I wonder whether they are really serious in that attitude. Mr. Ellis: Stick to the main issue. Mr. Tucker: That is the main issue; it is one of the important parts of the bill. Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North): Did the pool ask you to oppose this? Mr. Tucker: So far as I am concerned the pool took the attitude that they intend to make representations before the agriculture committee. My answer was that I would do all I could to see to it that the agriculture committee heard their representations, and that is my position. I should like to see the situation kept in such a position that when they come before the agriculture committee it will still be open to them to make repre- sentations and the matter will not already have been decided by a vote in this house. There is another matter which may be affected by this bill, and on which I should like to have the opinion and advice of the farn organizations before I undertake to vote on it. Mr. Knowles: Six o'clock. Mr. Tucker: I refer to the car order book system. We all know it is something that was fought for by our great pioneers, who farmed in western Canada over the years, to break the control of the elevator companies over the farmers so they could have the right to order cars and ship either through the elevator of their choice or over the platform, if they so wished. Mr. Knowles: Six o'clock. Mr. Tucker: This particular bill may very well infringe that basic right laid down in the grain act in respect of the car order book, because if you provide that cars must be allotted according to the system laid down in this bill, how then can you obey the act which lays down obligations in regard to the car order book? Mr. Knowles: Six o'clock. Mr. Mclvor: On a point of order, six o'clock. On motion of Mr. Tucker the debate was adjourned. Mr. Speaker: At eight o'clock the house will revert to consideration of the business which was interrupted at five o'clock. At six o'clock the house took recess. MAY 17,13955 3857 Decision of Mr. Speaker AFTER RECESS The house resumed at eight o'clock. Mr. Speaker: If the hon. member for Leth- bridge will be kind enough to allow me, I should like to make some observations with respect to a point which was raised last night in the course of this debate when the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) raised as a grievance the subject matter of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in the case of Robert Alexander Hoodley. I indicated at that time that I was not too sure the hon. member could intervene in the debate in this manner, and promised hon. members that I would look into the question further. I left the chair shortly thereafter, and in the few minutes at my disposal before ten o'clock looked up some authorities, which I have indicated at the end of my remarks and which appear in Hansard at page 3825. These authorities do indicate that the re- sponsibility for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy is that which belongs to the execu- tive when it tenders advice to the representa- tive of the sovereign, but that the sovereign does take part in the deliberations pertain- ing to such exercise, and indicate also what care one must exercise when it comes to approaching such delicate matters. This morning I read in Hansard the re- marks of the right hon. Prime Minister, who followed the hon. member for Vancouver East. As reported on page 3826 of Hansard the Prime Minister said in his opening remarks: Mr. Speaker, a discussion of this kind is quite Irregular, and has been refused by Mr. Speaker at Westminster on more than one occasion. The Prime Minister concluded his remarks by saying: There has never been any occasion when there was an attempt by any house of commons, either here or in the United Kingdom, to go behind the exercise of that terrible responsibility we have to discharge. That suggested to me that I should travel overseas in order to find out what decisions had been made on this very point by Speakers in the United Kingdom House of Commons. I find a decision of recent date by Mr. Speaker Morrison, which appears in volume 510 -of parliamentary debates, fifth series, at column 845. The point is debated at great length and Mr. Speaker gives his ruling, and the dis- cussion on that point of the exercise of the royal prerogative is included in columns 845 to 864. Mr. Silverman, a member of the United Kingdom house, had given notice of a motion to go on the order paper which read as follows: [Mr. Speaker.] "That this house respectfully dissents from the opinion of the Home Secretary that there were no sufficient reasons for advising the exercise of the royal clemency in the case of Derek Bentley; and urges him to reconsider the matter so as to give effect to the recommendation of the jury and to the expressed view of the lord chief justice"- who was the trial judge-"that Bentley's guilt was less than that of his co-defendant, Christopher Craig." Mr. Speaker Morrison did not allow this notice of motion to go on the order paper. Therefore the next day Mr. Silverman raised the matter and questioned the authority of the Speaker in having done so. This matter was fully dealt with by Mr. Speaker Mor- rison and his action was found to be fully justified, but we will leave aside that particu- lar point. In explaining why he had done that, Mr. Speaker Morrison gave his reason as follows. After having listened to the re- marks of Mr. Silverman, who had questioned the authority of the Speaker to have removed his notice of motion bearing on the exercise of the royal prerogative, as I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, as reported in column 849 of the same volume, said: I have listened to what the hon. member said, and I fully appreciate the deep feeling that exists in many parts of the country on this matter. I should like to state what my conception of my authority was for taking the action I took. The order paper is a document published by the authority of the house. and the Speaker is charged, among other duties, with doing his best to see that nothing out of order or irregular appears upon it. Frequently the Speaker has had to intervene- I have myself-when motions are offered. I have convinced an hon. member that a motion was out of order or taken some action myself. In this case, the motion of the hon. member, which I saw late last night, dealt with the case of a capital sentence which is still pending, and there is a long line of authorities of all my predecessors saying that, while a capital sentence is pending, the matter should not be discussed in the house. The hon. member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) did refer to the general doctrine that any action of a minister, and any responsibility which he exercises departmentally, is one for which he is answerable to the house, but in this particular case of a sentence of a capital character which has not been executed, there is the strongest possible precedent for saying that the house should not discuss it, either by questions, on the motion for the adjournment of the bouse- Which here is not debatable; therefore no debate could take place on such a motion here. -or by any other means whatsoever. On that there is no doubt at all in my mind; it has been upheld by successive Speakers for a great number of years and I have the precedents here, if the house would like me to refer to them. The most recent one is that of Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown. Many hon. members will remember the case of the executions taking place in the Gold Coast, which was not so very long ago-in 1947-and on which Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown then ruled. He was asked for a definite ruling, and he used these words: 3858 HOUSE OF COMMONS "I would point out that, in my ruling of 10th March, I was dealing with the particular case of persons under sentence of death on the Gold Coast. My remarks were, therefore, directed to the question of the prerogative of mercy in the case of persons under sentence of death. It was the sentence of death that I had In mind when I said, by way of supplement to my ruling, that the Home Secretary could not be challenged on the advice he had given to His Majesty until after the sentence had been executed. This rule is, of course, not applicable to sentences of Imprison- ment. The practice of the bouse makes a com- plete distinction between capital sentences and other forms of punishment, so far as the pre- rogative of mercy is concerned. Whereas the remission of a sentence of imprisonment, for ex- ample, can be urged upon a minister at any time after ils imposition, a capital sentence cannot be raised in question or debate while the sentence is pending. After it has been executed the minister responsible may be criticized on a relevant vote in supply or on the adjournment. I have stated that that is the practice of the house, and I can- not alter the practice of the bouse . . ." Mr. Speaker Morrison was quoting from the official report of lst May, 1947, volume 436, columns 2180 and 2181. He concludes his ruling as follows: Neither can I. He means "alter the practice of the house". The notice of motion, as it was submitted to me last night, was notice of a debate which would be wholly out of order and a debate which could not take place. It was therefore my view, in the circumstances, and acting under my duty, that this notice should not appear on the order paper because it was one which could not be debated in the House of Commons. Now I come back to a part of this ruling which I think is very important to bear in mind. It was when Mr. Speaker Morrison said: . . . but in this particular case of a sentence of a capital character which has not been executed, there is the strongest possible precedent for saying that the bouse should not discuss it, either by questions on the motion for the adjournment of the house or by any other means whatsoever. I urge hon. members to read the whole debate which took place on that occasion in the House of Commons in the United King- dom and which, as I said, appears in this volume 510 of debates on January 27, 1953, at columns 845 to 864. The case involved in this ruling is similar to that which was raised last night by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). Considering that we do not have any precise rules on the point by our bouse, by virtue of our standing order 1 we can always refer to rulings which are tendered in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. I am placing this on the record for future guidance in these cases. Mr. Knowles: I wonder whether Your Honour would permit just one question. It is one that you could perhaps answer outside the house rather than tonight. Has Your 50433-2441 Wheat Honour found any Canadian decision com- parable to the one you have given us from the British house? Mr. Speaker: I have found no cases where the matter of the exercise of the royal prero- gative was criticized or debated in the house in the manner in which that was done last night by the hon. member for Vancouver East. There were questions addressed to the ministry, and perhaps in certain cases notices of motions for the production of papers, which have always been refused because all correspondence pertaining to these matters are of a privileged and confidential character. There was a notice of motion, including such a case, proposed in 1917 and which is to be found at page 1018, May 2, 1917, debates volume I. Mr. Speaker Rhodes ruled it out of order on the ground suggested by the then minister of justice and also on the ground of anticipation. The debate appears at pages 1018 to 1023 of volume I, debates 1917. See also May's fifteenth edition, page 437. WHEAT-FINAL PAYMENT, 1953-54 Mr. Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was dealing briefly with certain matters which had been mentioned in the debate on wheat this afternoon. I had referred to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver South, and had indicated that I proposed to deal with what he had said. May I now keep that promise for a few minutes. The hon. member for Vancouver South had done me the honour of noticing that in previ- ous years I had said that it would be feasible and sound, in certain circumstances, for the Dominion of Canada to advance money to Britain, or to other countries, with which Britain or those other countries might buy Canadian wheat. This appeared to the hon. member for Vancouver South rather extreme use of the credit of Canada. I will not enter into the matter to any great extent at the present time. I merely choose to refer to the report of the royal commission on banking and currency in Can- ada, published in 1933, dealing with the work done under the Finance Act of 1914 by Sir Thomas White. I think the bon. member for Vancouver South will find there all the evi- dence he needs upon which to exercise his mind. From page 22 of that report, para- graph 47, I read as follows: In the war session of August, 1914, parliament raised the partially covered issue to $50 million. Now note these words particularly. Subsequently an issue of $16 million was made against a deposit of railway securities guaranteed by the dominion government, as well as an un- covered issue of $10 million for governmental purposes. 3859MAY 17, 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Wheat And then note these words: In 1917 an emergency issue of $50 million of dominion notes was made to finance war purchases in Canada, by the British government. The notes were secured by imperial treasury bins. If I may, I should like to stop and discuss that matter for a moment. It is quite obvious that, in effect, the treasury of the Dominion of Canada created $50 million of bills and just as good as sent them to Great Britain, with which Great Britain could buy agricul- tural products in Canada. It was done. I would now say this. If the Bank of Canada today cannot be used just as effec- tively, in such a situation, as was the Finance Act of 1914, it is time we re-enacted the Finance Act of 1914. For anyone to tell us that this financial transaction was in any way unsound would be for him to indicate a great deal less understanding of finance than a member of this house ought to have. When we remember that in those days the over-all production of Canada would not be any more than perhaps $4 billion a year, and that the gross national production of Canada this year is expected to be $26 billion -when we bear those facts in mind we shall readily realize that a great amount of money could now be created by Canada and advanced to any country to which she chose to advance it, to be used in purchasing Cana- dian goods. People may say that is just the same as though we issued money in Canada and bought the goods ourselves. I will grant that. Why not? If the goods and services in the market in Canada are adequate and would absorb this money, the money can do no possible harm whatsoever. Let me draw attention to one more aspect of this question. Suppose we were selling $100 million worth of wheat to France and were taking in exchange $100 million worth of French wine, silks and other products of France. Suppose France was not going to be able to deliver those goods to us for, let us say, some two months or three months. Would our people in Canada be obliged to wait those two or three months until the French goods reached Canada before they could receive payment for their wheat or other goods? Obviously not. What would be the technical financial operation under the circumstances? In effect, some financial agency representing the Dominion of Canada or some organization empowered by that body would create the money, buy the wheat or the other goods, and send it over to France. Then when the French goods got to Canada the money would be cancelled and the whole transaction would be completed. This may sound a little strange, but in these dangerous [Mr. Blackmore.] years I think it is time we recalled this kind of transaction and reflected upon the advis- ability of using it. May I now turn to page 85 of the report of the royal commission on banking and currency in Canada, published in 1933, and read a passage from the memorandum of dissent by Sir Thomas White, who was the finance minister of Canada all during world war I and who consequently knew as much about Canadian finance as probably any man who was ever in Canadian public life. I am going to read just a sentence or two. He says: In respect of these advances to the British government- He is there referring to advances other than that $50 million advance to which I referred. -aggregating more than twelve hundred million dollars it is to be observed that conversely that government made advances in sterling in London to the Canadian government to meet the expendi- tures of the latter in maintaining the Canadian forces abroad. I think no comment is necessary with respect to that statement. It indicates that, during world war I, over $1,200 million was issued by the Canadian government and advanced to Great Britain so that Britain might buy Canadian goods. I see no reason why this kind of procedure cannot now be followed in connection with marketing our wheat where we need to market it, in Britain or in any one of several other nations. I am sorry the hon. member for Vancouver South is not in his seat. I trust that at some future time he will raise this matter again if it is not clear in his mind. Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak on a dif- ferent matter from that which has been the topic of discussion so far today. I wish it were within my parliamentary right to answer some of the things the hon. member for Vancouver South said this afternoon. We have been discussing the wheat situation, and I want to refer to another matter of serious concern to the people of western Canada, the flood conditions in that area and particularly in the province of Saskat- chewan. Mr. Speaker: May I interrupt the hon. member to ask him if he has not already spoken on this question during the budget debate? If not, I apologize for interrupting him, but I know several speeches were made on the flood situation in Saskatchewan dur- ing the budget debate. My recollection is that the hon. member took part in that debate and touched upon this subject matter. If that is not so, I apologize for interrupting him. 3860 MAY 17, 1955 Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the flood situation in Saskatchewan during the budget debate, but I take it I now have the right to bring up as a grievance the condition now existing in Saskatchewan. On that basis I want to say that Saskatchewan has had a double- barrelled disaster. First we are faced- Mr. Byrne: The first was electing the C.C.F. Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain): -with falling farm prices. In addition, we have been hit by an unprecedented storm which has resulted in widespread chaos in the province of Saskatchewan. Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have looked at the remarks of the hon. member which are to be found at page 3699 of Hansard of May 12. He spoke at some length on flood conditions in Sas- katchewan, the same subject on which he has now indicated it is his intention to speak. Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain): Mr. Speaker, unless you are going to rule me out of order I intend to put certain facts on record regarding this most serious situation. In 1953 and 1954 Saskatchewan was faced with precipitation in the form of snow and rain 150 per cent above normal. I have here a graph indicating the seriousness of the condition. It shows the normal median stream flow in one of the important Sas- katchewan rivers, the Assiniboine, and indi- cates that the river has had a flow 900 per cent above normal. In addition the natural drainage basins in Saskatchewan are full, and the present situation is not normal. The Saskatchewan government is prepared to take care of normal drainage in the prov- ince. In 1949 an act was passed in the province known as the conservation and development act, under which a conserva- tion and development board was established. To date the province has expended through the board $2,424,000. As I stated at the be- ginning, the situation resulting from the recent storm is one which is unprecedented in any part of Canada. Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again, but I have looked at his remarks which appear at pages 3699 and 3700 of Hansard, and I find that at that time he did explain to the house how in his view the situation now obtaining in Saskatchewan was unprecedented and discussed very fully the condition in Saskatchewan that had re- sulted from the flood. I do not know how the hon. member can now touch on the question of the floods in Saskatchewan and avoid violating standing order 40, paragraph 2, which says that a member must not repeat himself. I must point out to him that means Wheat repeating not only his own arguments but arguments used by others. Several hon. members spoke on the flood situation in the budget debate. I think the hon. member for Kootenay West was one, though I may be wrong. Mr. Herridge: I do not think so. Mr. Speaker: If I am, I withdraw. It was the hon. member for Saskatoon I had in mind, and there were also other members from the province of Saskatchewan who spoke on the flood situation. How can the bon. member for Moose Mountain now initiate a debate on the flood situation on the motion to go into supply without repeating himself, and even the arguments used by others with respect to the same situation? I do not want to enter into a long debate or interfere with the right of the hon. member for Moose Mountain to express himself on a subject to which he has a right to allude at this time, but I ask hon. members if it is not reasonable on the part of the Chair to warn members that they should not do that which the rules prohibit. The bon. member knows what he was about to do with respect to this subject matter, and I am quite confi- dent that if he was about to violate the rule he will not continue his remarks but will remain in his seat. I am confronted with this problem. While we were discussing the budget, on the motion to go into ways and means, at which time great latitude is allowed, certain specific speeches were made on the flood situation in Saskatchewan. Now the hon. member has raised the subject again as a grievance on the motion to go into supply. If I allow the hon. member to do so when he has already spoken on this matter, how can I restrict other mem- bers who have already spoken in the budget debate on the same question, and prevent them from repeating their speeches? Hon. members know it is very difficult for the Chair to administer standing order 40, paragraph 2, which has to do with repetition. It is so difficult that perhaps too much repe- tition is taking place in our debates on many subjects. Therefore I insist upon strict adher- ence to the rule. I invite the bon. member to deal with another subject if he so desires, but if he wishes to deal with this one his remarks will have to be very limited in scope. Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I intend to change my subject com- pletely and, if I am permitted, will speak on the announcement which was made yester- day by the Minister of Trade and Commerce with respect to the final payment on wheat. Saskatchewan farmers, as I say, are faced with a double-barrelled disaster. Mr. Byrne: The first was electing the C.C.F. Wheat Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain): The first one facing us this year is the fact that tens of thousands of acres in the province will not be seeded as a result of the flood con- ditions. The second is the fall in farm in- come in the province. I have here, Mr. Speaker, a report on net farm income for 1954, which indicates the latest figures avail- able. Farm income dropped from a high of $565-5 million in 1952 to $126.5 million in 1953, or a drop of 73 per cent. When we in the C.C.F. party talk about parity prices for farmers, equity for farmers, we mean that the farmers should get a fair share of the national income. I was amazed this afternoon when the hon. member for Vancouver South got up to be- labour the point that the C.C.F. were asking for a program that was not possible, and then went on to say that he believed the farmers were entitled to a fair share of the national income. I want to ask any member in this house how you can have any sector of our Canadian economy receiving either equity or justice and still not obtaining a fair share of the national income. When we in the C.C.F. ask for parity prices for our farmers we do so because we believe it is in the interests of the whole economy. Unless farm people are going to have a fair share of the national income and be guaranteed parity prices, then of course we are going to have other segments of our economy going on the rocks. As the hon. member for Assiniboia and the bon. member for Mackenzie stated, unless this government is prepared to give our farm people guaranteed prices, then farmers are going to suffer first and other segments of our economy are going to suffer later. It is not long since we were debating the unem- ployment situation in this house, but to date the government has not done a single thing to put our people to work. They have not even suggested a program. If the government insists upon doing nothing about finding mar- kets for our wheat or guaranteeing parity prices to our farmers, then of course the government will never find work for our unemployed. In this connection I might say that not only has the drop in farm income been severe, but farm production has fallen in Canada. While total farm production of Canada dropped 41.9 points in 1954, the fall in the province of Saskatchewan has been from 230-2 down to 94-7. In the face of those figures I do not feel it is wrong for members from Saskatche- wan to get up in this house and ask that justice be done to our farm people. We are not acting in a partisan manner. We are not asking for something we do not want for all [Mr. Byrne.] the people in Canada. The same is true in regard to the flood conditions. When we demand that it be called a national emer- gency we are asking for the same treatment accorded other places in Canada under simi- lar circumstances. There are no people in Canada who res- ponded in a more generous manner than the people of Saskatchewan when the Manitoba flood occurred. There are no people in Canada who were more generous or more willing that the Rimouski and Cabano fires be de- clared national emergencies, so the federal government could step into the picture, than the people of Saskatchewan. We feel the time has come when this whole situation should be appraised. The first thing that should be done is to restore that 73 per cent fall in farrn production. This government should have a plan to not only guarantee parity to farmers but to guarantee the full utilization of the land in order to get produc- tion. It may well be that this country will be scraping its bins again in order to meet possible wheat sales abroad. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, according to his statement, has been well pleased with the amount of wheat Canada has been able to ship in the past few years. But be knows, the farmers know, and this house knows that had we had another large crop in western Canada this government would have had no program to cope with it. In other words, this government has left the farmer to bear the brunt of the responsibility. Now we are getting an interim payment and the farmer is bearing all the carrying charges. In addition to that, the price of wheat is lower. Then, too, the government has failed to make the necessary agreements that would enable us to get rid of our wheat, as we in this group have insisted we should. There has been no progran that would enable a farmer to know what be was going to get. We are facing the future with no decision as to what we are going to get for wheat next year. There is no guaranteed parity price for livestock, and so the future of the farmer is left up in the air. I believe that is the crux of the situation, Mr. Speaker. Al we in this group are asking is that this government get busy and develop a prograrn for Canada, institute a storage progran under the ever-normal granary pol- icy. Then the farmer would not be carrying the storage costs of the unsold grain, and when we made our commitments this gov- ernment would be assured of having grain to ship to our potential customers. That is the situation facing us today. I am sorry I have not an opportunity of enlarging upon the critical situation facing 3882 HOUSE OF COMMONS our municipalities. This drastic fall in farm, prices has put our municipalities i a position where they are not going to be able to finance the cost of maintaining municipal services. As a resuit of the policies of titis government since 1945 there has been an increase i the cost of maintaining municipal services. The iowering of f arrn prices, coupled with the flood conditions, have put our western municipali- ties i a position they have not experienced since the thfrtles. I quite realize that Saskatchewan officiais have corne down here and piaced their brief before titis government, outiining the condi- tions facing Saskatchewan titis year as a result of the storms we have had out there. It is my hope that this governrnent wiIl view this matter in the same responsible way it viewed some of the other situations i other parts of Canada. I arn sure every member in this house, and ideed taxpayers ail across titis country, wouid support titis governxnent if the Prime Minister were convinced that this disaster facing Saskatchewan were such that it should be cailed a national emergency and re- ceive federal assistance. One of the tltings which I feel sure wiil build national unity ls for titis government to realize that the 10 provinces are a famiiy within a nation, and wherever tragedy strikes this government should be prepared to corne in and play is part. I could reiterate somne of the things we i the west have done to, heip people i other parts of titis dominion. I arn reaily asharned that some hon. members across the floor of titis house should try to intimidate any mem- ber when he attempts to put before titis house a situation existing in his province, and isiuate that he is beig provincial or partisan. What we are trying to do is build this nation from coast to coast so we shail have the kind of Canada of which we can all be proud. We have the best country in the world; we have the resources; we have the people. Ail we need is a government policy under which we can have unity fromn coast to coast. We do not; want any of these partisan policies. As I said before, it is our view that when tragedy strikes the government should be prepared to use the taxpayers' money to step in and help our people. What did the pro- ducers in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta do during the war? We were quite wiiling to heip subsidize every single tax- payer in Canada to the extent of 78 cents on every bushei. of wheat that went into the manufacture of flour in Canada. Every bread Floods i Western Canada eater in this country was subsidized by the farmers of western Canada during the war years. We got $1.55 for our wheat under the contract known as the British wheat agree- ment. The western farmers did flot kick about that. I spoke to Sir John Strachey, who was minister of food in Great Britain, and questioned him as to what the British peopie were prepared to pay for Canadian wheat during the war years. His answer was, "We would pay $15 per bushel or any price, because we have to have wheat." Weil, the farmers of western Canada did flot hesitate to help the British people during the war. Strachey said this, however: "If we paid that, Canadian wheat wouid be coming into Great Britain at the price of sawdust after the war." The western farmers have neyer asked for anything uinf air. We are only asking for justice. When our people are going to the Wall, when we cannot pay our taxes, when we cannot keep our schoois open, we are asking this government to be generous enough and sympathetic enough to corne into the picture and do something about it. FLOODS--SITUATION IN WESTERN PROVINCES Mr. G. H. Casileden (Yorkton>: Mr. Speaker, the disaster which struck the province of Saskatchewan and western Manitoba earller this month-perhaps the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek wiii aliow me to say a few words; he may speak afterwards if hie wishes-was reported as being of major proportions, so far as its eifect on the farmers of that area is concerned. It has required about a week and a haif or two weeks to make a survey of the situation. The recent survey shows that al- though the western part of the province is not badiy hit, the eastern part is suifering seriously, so seriousiy in fact that the farmers' union in that area wired most members of the House of Commons as foiiows: Many thousands Saskatchewan farmners unabie to seed crop this spring. conditions desperate in widespread areas due ta adverse weather and flooding. Saskatchewan farmners union stresses urgent need for programn to alleviate distress. Situation demnands inmediate action. Union piedges full co-operation to impiernent adequate assistance prograxn. The constituency I represent in the eastern part of the province is traversed by the Assiniboine river. The farmers, particfflarly those in the vailey of the Assintiboine, and with special reference to the area of Kami- sack, for the last three years have suif ered from fiooding. The resuit is that about 10,000 acres in that area will produce MAY 17. 1955 3863 HOUSE OF COMMONS Floods in Western Canada absolutely nothing. But their disaster is small when compared with what is happen- ing in the rest of the province. I have before me the official report made by government officials, in which they say, in part: That a most serious situation exists was con- firmed by supplementary reports from agricultural representatives, received on Thursday and Friday of last week. Their preliminary reports estimated a total of 4,760,000 acres of cultivated land flooded, and 14,810 farmers seriously affected by flooding. Mr. Gardiner: I rise on a point of order, to point out that the hon. member is proceed- ing to discuss just what Your Honour has said is out of order. You so indicated when the hon. member for Moose Mountain was speak- ing. I suggest the hon. member for Yorkton is also out of order to discuss the same matter. Mr. Castleden: I do not believe I have spoken on this subject. Mr. Speaker: When I interrupted the lion. member for Moose Mountain my remarks were based on the provisions of standing order 40 (2), which deals with the subject of repetition either of one's own arguments or of the arguments used by others in a debate. While at the moment the hon. member for Yorkton may be using some arguments used during the budget debate by other lion. members, at least lie has not spoken on the matter of the flood. I have been looking at his remarks in Hansard for May 5 and, on glancing through thiem quickly, I can find no place where lie discussed the flood. As a matter of fact I do not think it had taken place at that time. On the other hand the lion. member for Moose Mountain had spoken on the subject of the flood, and when he intimated that he was about to do so again I referred to standing order 40 (2), as a result of which lie was good enough not to further pursue his observations on this subject matter. I shall listen very carefully to the hon. mem- ber for Yorkton, and if lie does cover ground which has already been covered by his col- leagues from the same province I shall have to remind him of the same rule. Mr. Castleden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I was speaking on May 5 I was refer- ring to the fact that the explosion of atomic bombs in a desert region in the country to the south of us might have had some effect on the weather. I might add that since the last explosion of bombs in the Nevada desert we have had another three days of rain in eastern Saskatchewan, and some may think there is weight in my contention of that time. [Mr. Castleden.] I assure the house the figures I arn now going to place on Hansard have not been given before. These are some of the facts and figures required by the government before it can assess properly whether or not it has the right to declare the flooding in western Canada a national disaster. Mr. Gardiner: The government has them already. The government has read that state- ment you are now going to read. Mr. Castleden: And thus far it has not made any declaration as to whether it con- siders the flooding a matter of sufficient importance to declare the area affected a disaster area. However, the government did ask for figures, and for an opportunity to assess the damage. We are here tonight to present the case before the House of Commons in the hope that it might influence the government to make some decision as to whether the area affected can be declared a disaster area. The type of disaster involved in this instance perhaps is not as spectacular as was the case at Rimouski or the Fraser valley, where smaller areas were affected. This affects a sector as widespread as has ever been affected by disaster in Canada, and I believe it affects as many as if not more than were affected by the Winnipeg flood or the flood in the Fraser valley. I suggest that in making its decision as to whether or not a disaster area shall be declared, the government should use these facts and figures, and that such figures should be available to members of the House of Commons when they are asked to make up their minds whether they should support the government in the request for assistance that has been made. The eastern portion of the province is settled to a great extent by farmers who operate on a small scale, in most cases involving half or quarter sections of land. The largest proportion of the thickly settled part of Saskatchewan is in the eastern area. There are over 50,000 farmers in that province whose farmlands consist of one or two quarters. The census returns show that in those areas their net income was less than $2,500 a year per family. This area produced a badly frozen crop in 1952, a good average crop in 1953 with the exception of some parts which experienced flooding, and in 1954 rust and frost and floods and wet weather were involved. In their efforts to relieve the situation the provincial govern- ment has spent over $3,225,000. The provincial department of highways has estimated that $1,208,000 worth of damage 3864 has been done to the provincial highway sys- tem alone. The damage done in municipal areas. has not yet been properly estimated. It will take some time to get complete figures from the municipalities. The difficulties of communication have added to the difficulty of getting the estimate together. The main point is that the disaster is of such an unusual character that it is beyond the financial ability of either the province or the municipalities to bear, and they are making their plea for spe- cial consideration in the circumstances on the ground that it is an abnormal situation. For instance, when the municipalities and the government make their surveys of the water flow through valleys and coulees, they construct their bridges on the basis of the engineering figures which show the average flow. They build their bridges a little above the average flow. When a disaster such as this occurs many millions of dollars worth of valuable and expensive construction is wiped out. Under these conditions we sug- gest that it is at least equal to the disasters which occurred in British Columbia and in Manitoba, and therefore we request that this be declared a disaster area. The first essential is that some assistance be given toward flood control and the manage- ment of the areas where the flooding exists. The importance of the situation can be under- stood when it is appreciated that unless the flood waters now covering millions of acres of land are removed this year, it will be impossible for those farmers to sow any crop next year. The situation is not only impor- tant this year; it is a matter of concern to them even next year. It is on that basis that we think assistance should be given. Surely the federal government can see that it is in the national interest that those areas should be allowed to produce. The people of the west are celebrating their golden jubilee tris year. The people who inha- bit the western provinces of Manitoba, Sas- katchewan and Alberta overcame tremendous difficulties. They went in there 50 years ago as pioneers, not knowing the difficulties and the problems they were to face in break- ing new land. They knew nothing of the hard winters and the blizzards they were going to face, and the difficulties of establishing themselves. There were no records of what the country would produce. Any records there were indicated that no one would ever produce wheat in that area, anyway. However, they went there and they pion- eered. They faced difficulties. They are the kind of people who can face difficulties. In fact, I think one of the things that bas estab- lished the fine character of the people out there is that they learned to work together, Floods in Western Canada they learned to help one another in adversity. By helping one another they have overcome their difficulties, and they have built the country that is there. It will take more than a flood to defeat those people. They merely ask that, in co-operation with their fellow Canadians, some assistance be given. They believe assistance should be made available to take care of unusual and abnormal expendi- tures that will be required as a result of this flood. Reports coming to my desk already indicate that many farmers have been unable to go to town, to the shopping centres. Hundreds of bridges have been wiped out. Many of these people are going to be isolated on their farms unless they can get to town on horseback, or by some other means of transportation. With such a situation existing, Mr. Speaker, I sug- gest that it is Canada's responsibility to recog- nize its seriousness not only immediately but also with respect to the crop for next year. They will find the government of that province willing to co-operate in every way to assist them in assessing the situation. The provincial government has undertaken sur- veys which will cover most of the areas affected, but it is utterly impossible for the provincial government or the municipal gov- ernment to stand the costs of flood control and the drainage problems that face them at this time. I think it is only fair and just that assistance should be given. I feel sure the Canadian people would give their support to assistance to their fellow Canadians in a situation such as this. Reports that have come to me in the last three days indicate that the situation started to ease somewhat in that area, but rains have begun to fall and the situation at this time is particularly grim. I point out to hon. members who are not familiar with the situation that the seeding of the wheat crop in that country in the good years usually starts around April and is completed around the middle of May. In the average seeding area of the province they like to have their crop in around May 15. Good crops have been put in as late as the beginning of June. These are usually coarse grain crops. Some parts of the western provinces have already seeded, but for about 40 per cent of the wheat farmers of that province there will be no wheat crop this year. They will be very fortunate if they are able to seed a coarse grain crop after the first week in June and harvest it this year; but for many thousands- Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): May I ask a question? Did I understànd the hon. member to say that only 60 per cent of the wheat MAY 17, 1955 3865 HOUSE OF COMMONS Floods in Western Canada crop will be seeded this year? I believe he said 40 per cent of the crop will not be seeded. Mr. Castileden: It is estimated that 40 per cent of the wheat acreage in the eastern part of Saskatchewan will not be seeded this year. Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): What does the hon. member consider to be the eastern part? Mr. Castleden: The eastern half of the province. Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): That means 20 per cent of the acreage will not be seeded? Mr. Castleden: I said that 40 per cent would not be sown to wheat. Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): Twenty per cent of the whole province? Mr. Castleden: Well, that would be approxi- mately it, but there are larger areas in the west. Mr. Gardiner: The hon. member is really speaking only of the area north of Moose Mountain. Mr. Castleden: If the minister looks at the map which he says he has be will see that the area south of the main line of the C.P.R., even down in the Moose Mountain area, clean through to the Tisdale area and the Hudson Bay area in the north, is affected. Mr. Gardiner: The map presented to the government yesterday showed the area as north of Moose Mountain. Mr. Castleden: I shall be glad to have the minister's remarks on it, because I think the hon. member for Qu'Appelle will inform him that those large areas south of the Qu'Appelle river are very seriously affected, and certainly the Moose Mountain area as well. I cannot hear what the minister is saying. I shall be pleased to hear more from him on the matter. I point out to the house that the next two weeks will be the critical period for the people in that area. The problem that exists, and the matter with which they are par- ticularly concerned at the moment, is that of draining the excessive moisture off the land so that with the weather's co-operation next year they will be able to put in a crop. I am pleading with the government at this time to look at the situation in a sympathetic way. I presume they have already had their representatives out to assist the provincial government in a proper assessment of the situation, and that action will be taken equivalent to the needs of the people of that province. Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Comox- Alberni. [Mr. Howe (Port Arthur).] Mr. Barnet: Mr. Speaker, I have another subject which I wish to raise. If the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) is con- tinuing with the same subject matter, I have no objection to his proceeding. Mr. Speaker: Is the bon. member for Dauphin going to speak about the flood? Mr. Zaplitny: Yes, sir. Mr. Speaker: I shal make the same plea to the hon. member, because as I was listen- ing to the hon. member for Yorkton I noticed that, although he did not speak on the Saskatchewan flood at the page I indicated earlier, on other pages, 3504 and 3505, he had spoken about the flood. I realize that his remarks on that occasion were brief, and that today he was enlarging upon them. Now I hope the hon. member for Dauphin will limit himself to the bare necessities in introducing new matters with respect to the conditions existing in Saskatchewan, because we have already had several speeches concerning the disaster which occurred there. An hon. Member: The flood of words bas been worse than the flood itself. Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin): I wish to take only a brief time, and the matter I wish to raise is a definite grievance so far as the province of Manitoba is concerned. Whilst the situation in Manitoba is not nearly as serious as that in Saskatchewan, nevertheless there are large areas in the northwestern part of the province which have now been subject to flood waters for the third year running. The reason I wish to raise this matter now is that I should like to hear from the Minister of Agriculture as to his plans with regard to extension of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. Mr. Gardiner: Let me get along to my estimates and I shall tell you all about it. Mr. Zaplitny: I should be very glad to wait until then if the minister would indicate at this time that it is his intention to bring in legislation, if necessary, or to extend the regulations so as to make the act applicable to all parts of Manitoba. We have had a very serious flooding condition in our part of the province, as I have said, for three years now. A number of representations have been made, not only by the municipalities, by individuals and organizations in that area but, as a matter of fact, by the provincial government of Manitoba through its minister of agriculture, who bas joined forces with the three other ministers of agriculture in recommending to the federal government that the act be extended so as to include all 3866 agricultural areas in the four prairie prov- inces. Until this time we have had no indica- tion whatever as to the opinion of the government in that respect, and I think a statement at this time- Mr. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to answer my hon. friend at once, I may say that I have just answered a letter today from the minister of agriculture of Manitoba on that point, a letter in which he tells me that the question has been referred to the dominion-provincial conference. Mr. Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, I do not know just what the matter was that was referred to the dominion-provincial conference. Mr. Gardiner: The very question you have just recited to the house; the question as to whether or not P.F.R.A. should be extended to all parts of the three prairie provinces. An hon. Member: And British Columbia. Mr. Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear at this time that the question was dis- cussed between the province and the federal government. May I point out that the reason we consider this matter a grievance in Mani- toba is that over the period of time the act has been in effect, since 1935 up to 1954, while the total expenditures under the act came to some $89 million, in round figures, only $5,860,000 was spent in the province of Manitoba, which represents a little less than 7 per cent of the total. With respect to Saskatchewan about $40 million was spent, which represents about 47 per cent; in Alberta a little over 46 per cent, for a total of $39 million, and a little over 3 per cent in British Columbia. At various times when the provincial gov- ernment of Manitoba has been approached for assistance for these areas that are subject to flooding, such as the constituency which I represent, parts of the constituency of Chur- chill and parts of Portage-Neepawa, the reply has been that as soon as the federal govern- ment makes up its mind whether it is going to extend the provisions of the act in order to include all parts of Manitoba, the province would be in a position to say what they are going to do. There are several large projects which I have no doubt are beyond the capacity of the province, and which are very necessary. There is the recommendation that a dam or a reser- voir be built on the Assiniboine river. There is the question of lowering the levels of lakes such as lake Manitoba, lake Winnipegosis and probably even lake Winnipeg. Projects of that nature are beyond the capacity of the province, quite obviously. Members of the Floods in Western Canada provincial legislature-and I refer to mem- bers who support the government there-have stated in the provincial house that the federal government is discriminating against Mani- toba. I am not going to say I agree with them, but that is their opinion. If the minister would recommend to this government that the operations of that act be made equally applicable in Manitoba along with the other two prairie provinces, a great deal of that dissatisfaction and discontent might disappear. But on the face of it, from the figures I have just quoted, it certainly appears that in Manitoba we are not getting our fair share of the flood control work and other types of work that can be done under the act in order to prevent soil erosion and to hold back flood waters in the areas that have suffered. I am going to leave it at that, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister has stated that the matter is to be discussed at the dominion-provincial conference, I hope that as soon as that con- ference is over the minister will come to this house with some legislation, if necessary, or will announce a change in the regulations to extend the act to cover all parts of Manitoba. Mr. Gardiner: To get this correctly on the record, what I have said is that I answered a letter today from the minister of agriculture in Manitoba in which he states that the Mani- toba government have submitted the question to the dominion-provincial conference. Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I have had a good deal of correspondence in connection with the problem on which the hon. member for Dauphin rose to speak. Before I begin, I wish to assure you that I have not spoken previously on the Saskatchewan flood. I wish to talk about my own constituency and the interlake country. I am the only member from there, so nobody else has talked about it. I was hoping that if I had the opportunity to speak on the motion to go into supply the minister would be able to answer my ques- tions when the estimates come up. I still hope he will. He has now stated that he has had correspondence with the provincial gov- ernment, and that they are going to bring up the matter and discuss it at the dominion- provincial conference. I have a resolution frorn Gypsumville, which I am going to read into the record. There are people there who cannot get on their land to sow their crops or anything now. Some had practically no crops in 1954, and they have nothing in 1955. Those who had a little crop last year were brought under the P.F.A.A., but the man who never sowed a crop received nothing, and we do not have MAY 17, 1955 3887 HOUSE OF COMMONS Floods in Western Canada P.F.R.A. in the interlake country yet. I am hoping we will get it. Some of these farms have been cultivated for 40 or 50 years. Yet today people are going across them in motor- boats. There is no hope whatever that these fellows will be able to put in any crop. It is not as though it was new land that had just been broken, or anything like that. This land has been in cultivation for a long time. Mr. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that your ruling a while ago rules out me and everybody else. I therefore want to get this matter straight. The hon. member who is speaking and I had a heated discussion over this matter dur- ing the debate on the address in this house. The whole matter was up for discussion at that time. As a matter of fact I went over to the hon. member's seat and discussed the matter with him afterward. Mr. Speaker: I recall that the hon. member has asked several questions on the orders of the day relating to the problem with re- gard to which the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) has entertained us, and the discussion of which is now being continued by the hon. member for Selkirk. As the minis- ter recalls, the matter was 'debated on the address. There is no purpose in having repetition. The hon. member must keep in mind the fact that when the estimates of the Depart- ment of Agriculture are before the committee he can speak as often as he wishes, and he can pursue the matter at that time. I would urge hon. members to realize that at this moment we are debating a motion to go into supply with the Speaker in the chair, and we are supposed to raise genuine grievances, not to repeat points which have been raised time and again since the begin- ning of the session. Mr. Bryce: I am going to try to obey your ruling, Mr. Speaker; but believe me, if ever any man had a grievance, I have one speaking in behalf of these poor people in the interlake country who are being flooded out. As far as the minister is concerned, I may say that he came over and spoke to me. I appreciated him doing so. But if he thought he was talking about my problem may I say that I do not think so. We were talking about P.F.A.A. down in the lower part of the interlake country. Mr. Gardiner: My hon. friend was talking about P.F.A.A. being paid because the lands were flooded. Mr. Bryce: Yes, but we were not flooded in the way we are now. I hope you are [Mr. Bryce.] going to let me continue, Mr. Speaker, be- cause I have waited for this opportunity. I have nursed this grievance until I could get this opportunity on the motion to go into supply. The situation on the east side of lake Mani- toba, where we do not have much arable land and not much cultivation goes on, is this. We have there the ranches and the people who raise cattle for a living. What is hap- pening there is that these people have no place to graze their cattle. Some of them have already left. Some of them have sold their chattels and moved to town, thus helping to augment the 600,000 people who are un- employed. That is a bad situation. We want to keep as many people on the farms as we can. Then let us look at the situation on the west side of lake Winnipeg. I have here letters I could read-but I shall not do so, Mr. Speaker-indicating that the water is taking away some of the land every day. The situation is worse this year than it has ever been. One fellow says that the water is high but the taxes are still higher, and we are paying the same taxes for less land every year. The problem there is this. When these fel- lows go to the federal government they are told that they had better see the provincial fellows. Then when they go to the provincial fellows they are told that this is a navigable lake and they must see the federal govern- ment. It is a matter of passing the buck. It just keeps people running around trying to get something done. Now we are told that it is going to be taken up at the dominion- provincial conference. Mr. Gardiner: No, I did not tell you that. Mr. Bryce: You said the minister of agri- culture, I think, in the provincial govern- ment has it on the agenda. How long are these people going to suffer in that way? I want to cut short these remarks. However, I want to read this resolution. It was passed at a meeting at Gypsumville at which there were 75 people in attendance, 22 of whom were directly or seriously affected: Whereas many of us have been totally deprived of the means of making a living at farming and ranching, while others have been very seriously affected by the lake waters flooding our lands-a condition that was prevalent in 1954 and is even more disastrous at the present time-and, Whereas under the best of circumstances it will be two more years before the waters can recede enough to allow us to use our land again, and Whereas those of us who have been growing grain on the flooded land have been left with no means to even grow feed for our livestock, Therefore be it resolved that we urge most strongly on the government responsible that measures be taken to allay the possibility of total 3868 bankruptcy for some of us and grievous hardship for others-these measures to consist of compensa- tion for the loss of use of the land in the form of cash payments to tide us over the critical period. I have many more letters I could read, but I know that people are going to be angry with me if I take too long. I think it was the Minister of Agriculture who told me that between the dominion government and pro- vincial governments they are spending $300,- 000 a year in order to alleviate the condi- tions brought about by this catastrophe. But it is a matter of "Live, old horse, and you will get corn". Something must be done now. Don't wait until the people are ail dead and another generation comes along. I have brought this matter to the attention of the minister previously. I know he has replied that it was receiving attention. Mr. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker will not allow me to do so, or I would answer the hon. member now. Mr. Bryce: Yes, but your answers are so vague that I no longer have any faith in them. I am sorry to say that. I think the minister should take this matter seriously. It is no laughing matter. There are hundreds of farm- ers out there. I do not know whether or not they will ever recover from this catastrophe. I hope the federal and provincial govern- ments will get together at the earliest pos- sible opportunity in order to ascertain how the people in these distressed communities can be helped. I want to appeal to the Prime Minister and to the members of the cabinet for immediate action to help these people in their terrible plight at this time. Mr. T. S. Barneti (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of pursuing the matter of flooding which has been raised by some of the hon. members who have spoken previously, even though I recognize that it is a most serious topic. The matter I wish to raise is one which quite conceivably could either augment or completely eliminate the flooding problem to which recent reference bas been made. The matter I wish to raise, Mr. Speaker, is that of rain-makers. I think this is a new topic as far as the current session of parlia- ment is concerned. In raising it at this time I feel that I shall not be guilty of any undue repetition. Spotted at various points on Van- couver island are a number of rain-making machines. Some hon. members who know something of Vancouver island may wonder what we are doing with rain-making machines there. I know, for example, that one com- munity in my constituency was recently described in a newspaper headline as having Floods in Western Canada had 12 feet of rain in 12 months, and that was a fairly accurate statement. Mr. Speaker: May I ask the hon. member if he will be kind enough to tell the house how he relates the matter of rain-making machines to the jurisdiction of the federal parliament? The bon. member must speak about matters which relate to our jurisdiction. It must be a matter concerning which we may be able to do something. If we cannot do anything about rain-making machines, the hon. member may not speak about them now. We have already had a speech on the weather this session, and perhaps we could be relieved now. An hon. Member: Change the subject. Mr. Barneti: In all seriousness I am raising this question, in part at least, because I believe it is one with respect to which the question of jurisdiction, constitutionally or otherwise, may well have to be dealt with. In view of the recent discussion I realize that my remarks may appear to Your Honour to be related to a certain flood situation, but I can assure you that at the time I decided in my own mind I would raise this subject as a grievance I was completely unaware that the other matter which has been discussed was going to be raised. In ail seriousness, the situation is that on Vancouver island a num- ber of rain-making machines have been set up. I took the trouble to go and view one of these installations which, if I understand correctly, operates on the principle of having silver iodide crystals released into a mechan- ism in which they are ignited. Mr. Speaker: I must ask the bon. member to tell the bouse immediately how he relates the jurisdiction of this parliament to the conditions he is about to describe to us. Mr. Barneti: Mr. Speaker, I assume this matter would come within the jurisdiction of the federal department, having to do with meteorological services; or would come within the purview of the activities of the national research council, and it is also a matter which could very well involve interprovincial rela- tions. As I stated somewhat facetiously, I admit, in conversation with some of my col- leagues, if this situation were permitted to develop it is conceivable that we in British Columbia would have the power to turn the entire prairie provinces into a desert by taking all the water out of the clouds coming in from the Pacific. Inasmuch as there does not seem to be any governmental jurisdiction at the present time, a serious question arises as to the right of certain private concerns to establish these installations. MAY 17, 1955 3869 HOUSE OF COMMONS Floods in Western Canada Mr. Speaker: I want to be very generous toward the hon. member. I know what the situation is. Members have the right to raise grievances on the motion to go into supply, but I think the hon. member is finding it too difficult to relate his rain-making machines to the jurisdiction of this parliament. He has not said very much to establish that point; in reply to the question I felt it was my duty to ask him, he has not been very specific. If the matter the hon. member wishes to raise now is linked at some point or other with one of our federal depart- ments, could the hon. member not wait and raise the matter when the estimates of the proper department are before the house? If he thinks it relates to agriculture he may deal with it on the estimates of that depart- ment. If he thinks it concerns the national research council he may discuss it on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the minister of that department being responsible for national research coun- cil activities. But not being quite sure at this time how or in what way it is related to the jurisdic- tion that we have here as the House of Commons, I think he should delay his re- marks until he is more positive, and then use the machinery provided for him to raise these points as often as he wishes when the estimates of the respective departments con- cerned are before the committee of supply. If the hon. member does not feel he is being unfairly treated at this point I would urge him to consider very seriously leaving this matter in abeyance until a further opportun- ity is afforded to him. Mr. Barneti: Mr. Speaker, it was precisely because of the fact that as far as I am concerned I did not know under which departmental estirnates I might raise the matter that I felt this would be the ap- propriate occasion to raise it as a grievance. Mr. Speaker: If the hon. member, in trying to find out to what department the matter belongs, makes a 40 minute speech and then finds out when the estimates are up that he should not have raised it at all because it does not come within the ambit of any de- partment, he will have caused the House of Commons to lose 40 minutes of its time. This is a very serious matter. I think the hon. member should make sure that it lies within the jurisdiction of this parliament to do something about the matter before he proceeds to bring it up. In Beauchesne's third edition, pages 699 to 702, he will find a ruling which might give him comfort, but, with great respect, I am not in agreement with Mr. Speaker Sevigny's ruling on that occasion. [Mr. Barnett.] Mr. Barneit: Would I be in order to say that in the first place I had no intention of making a 40 minute speech? My purpose in rising was to put forward a grievance on behalf of some of the people in my dis- trict, and request that the government take under consideration the advisability of in- troducing some form of legislation to cover the situation. As far as I am aware no legis- lation exists at the present time, and it is on that point I wish to raise my grievance, the necessity for the consideration of the establishment of legislation to cover a sit- uation which I feel to be a matter of general responsibility that can only be looked after properly by the government. Mr. Fulton: Put it on the agenda for the dominion-provincial conference. Mr. Barnet: Dr. Gordon Shrum of the University of British Columbia expressed the opinion some little time ago that the question of whether or not legislation should be in- troduced to control the installation of such machines could very well be taken under advisement. I assume it would come within the jurisdiction of the federal government under the Department of Transport or- An hon. Member: External affairs. Mr. Barnett: -some other department. As it is a matter of growing concern to the residents of my area I wished to raise it as a grievance on this occasion. Mr. Speaker: The point the hon. member has in mind is so hypothetical that before he raises it as a grievance now I believe he should ascertain whether or not it is within the jurisdiction of this parliament to deal with the matter he has in mind. If we were to take his line of argument as being sound there are many things we would be trying to bring up in debate here, asking ourselves whether or not some day they would not fall within the jurisdiction of this parliament. The hon. member is reasonable and I do not think he will be prejudicing himself or the people he represents if this matter is delayed until the estimates of the proper department are before the committee of supply. In the meantime I feel it would be wise on his part not to press the point, and I am asking his co-operation at this time. Mr. Barneit: I am quite agreeable to co- operate in the matter, Mr. Speaker. I be- lieve perhaps the purpose I had in drawing the attention of the government and the house to the matter has been served well enough for the moment. Mr. W. G. Weir (Portage-Neepawa): I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether or not you will consider the rernarks I am about to make 3870 MAY 17. 1955 strictly in order. It is true that they could properly be made during the consideration of the estimates of some department, prob- ably the Department of Agriculture, but my good friend the hon. member for Selkirk has prompted me to say a word or two with respect to the flood condition in Saskatche- wan and Manitoba at the present time. If I should not continue with these remarks I shall abide by your ruling. However, I would say this at the outset. While hon. members from Saskatchewan are complaining bitterly, and properly so, about the catastrophe that has occurred in their province as the result of abnormal rainfall and flooding, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this house, that much of that same water is finding its way down through the province of Manitoba and caus- ing us some very serious problems there. I can imagine that right tonight on the Assini- boine river there are dozens and dozens of men out manning the dikes in an attempt to prevent that river from overflowing its banks. This river is taking much of the overflow that is coming from the province of Saskatchewan. We cannot do anything about keeping that water out. It is an abnormal flow, it is true, but I assure you that the hon. member for Selkirk did not exaggerate the condition in Manitoba at the present time. I think he will agree with me that if any attack of a fundamental and practical character upon the situation were to be undertaken the cost would shock this house. I may say that lake Mani- toba is over three and a half feet above nor- mal, and this is causing considerable damage to the adjacent farmlands and to a very fashionable summer resort on that lake. This lake flows into a lake in my hon. friend's constituency. The people on my side of the lake would like to open a channel and pour more water into, lake Winnipeg, but we are faced with very violent protests at such a plan. I would suggest to this house that any plan of effective control would have to be carried right through to the Nelson river flowing into Hudson bay. I am only making this statement to give you some idea of the magnitude of the problem that is facing Manitoba. At this time the Assiniboine river is carry- ing the bulk of this run-off water. It is threatening not only the low lands in the city of Brandon but many farm areas along the way. There has been a recommendation that the Assiniboine river might be dammed in the neighbourhood of Russell, a proposi- tion which the engineers have estimated would cost in the neighbourhood of $6 to $10 million. There has been another sugges- tion that the Assiniboine river might be diverted into lake Manitoba, the lake which Floods in Western Canada I have stated is already about three and a half feet above normal. This is another proposition that would cost from $6 to $10 million, to say nothing of the cost of a diversion to run the water from lake Mani- toba into lake Winnipeg and then carry the whole thing out to the Nelson river. W

HOC Debates Vol 4, May 5 to June 9, 1955

Object/Artifact

AVRO Museum

Name/Title

Entry/Object ID

Description

Category

Web Links and URLs

General Notes

Note