1939-03-20

[Stage Direction]
Report of civil service commission, in respect to the organization and reclassification of the permanent staff of the House of Commons, together with resolution of commissioners of internal economy concurring in the same and recommending it for the approval of the house.-Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Will a number of new cars be purchased this year for use of employees under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act?
2. If so, how many, and will tenders be called?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Number of cars required under consideration. Quotations will be secured from dealers.


Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Will a number of tractors be purchased during the coming spring for use under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act?
2. If so, will tenders be called for bulk purchase or will they be bought from individual dealers?
3.	Where will such tractors be used?

Questions


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	One.
2.	Quotations will be secured from individual dealers.
3.	Melita, Manitoba.


BUTTER IN STORAGE
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What quantity of butter was put into cold storage in Montreal during the month of February, 1939?
2.	What quantity of butter was put into cold storage in Montreal during the first two weeks of March, 1939?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	The quantity put into cold storage is unknown, but on February 1 and March 1 the stocks on hand in Montreal were as follows:
Creamery Dairy butter	butter	Totallb.	lb.	lb.February	1,	1939	9,354,444	17,515	9,371,959March	1,	1939	..	7,243,298	12,000	7,255,298Deducting March 1 figures from those of February 1 there was a net "out-of-storage" movement during the month of February of: Creamery Dairy butter	butter	Totallb.	lb.	lb.2,111,146	5,515	2,116,6612.	The quantity put into cold storage is unknown, and as stocks are only reported as at the opening of business on the first day of each month, the storage movement for the month of March will not be known until April.


BUTTER PRICES
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What was the wholesale price of dairy butter in warehouse in Montreal during the years from 1926 to 1938, inclusive?
2.	What were the exports of butter during
the calendar years 1936, 1937 and 1938, and January and February of 1939:	(a) to the
United States; (b) to the United Kingdom; (c) to all other countries?


Mr. EULER:: 1. The estimated price of dairy butter sold in the province of Quebec in the years 1926 to 1938 is shown below:
	Price		Price
Year	c per lb	Year	c per lb1926.. ..	.. 290	1933.. ..	.. 17-51927.. ..	.. 320	1934.. ..	.. 18-0192S.. ..	.. 35-0	1935.. ..	.. 19-31929..	.. 35-0	1936.. ..	.. 21-01930.. ..	.. 31-0	1937.. ..	.. 2201931.. ..	.. 24-0	1938.. ..	.. 21-01932.. ..	, .. 14-5	
The wholesale prices of dairy butter in warehouses in Montreal for the above years are not available.
2.	Exports to
United	United	OtherCalendar	Kingdom	States	countriesyears	cwt.	cwt.	cwt.1936 .. ..	44.330	184	6,7741937 ....	35,679	147	5,1401938 .. ..	33,688	38	5,208Months	Jan., 1939	13,112	51	459Feb., 1939	23,584	36	580


PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF PROSPECTIVE SUDETEN IMMIGRANTS
Mr. LECLERC:: What physicians of the Canadian government, in Europe, will examine the German Sudetens who intend immigrating to Canada?


Mr. CRERAR:: Prospective Sudeten German immigrants to Canada will be medically examined by the Immigration Medical Officers of the Department of Pensions and National Health who are stationed on the Continent. These are:
Dr. A. M. Savoie, Hamburg; Dr. G. Audet, Antwerp; Dr. F. X. Duplessis, Paris.
If additional medical officers are required, the services of Dr. H. B. Jeffs and Dr. W. Egan, Medical Officers of the Department of Pensions and National Health stationed at London, may be utilized.


DOMINION REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE 1928-1938
Mr. HYNDMAN:: 1.	What was the total revenue of the dominion each year from 1928 to 1938, inclusive?
2.	What was the total expenditure of the dominion for each of the same years?


Mr. DUNNING:: See return to an order of the house of February 15th, 1939, tabled in the House of Commons on March 2nd, 1939, (sessional paper 153A).


CONTRACT FOR POSTAL BLOUSES
Mr. LIOMUTH:: 1.	Was there a contract for postal blouses called for this year?
2.	If so, how many manufacturers tendered?
3.	What was the amount of each tender?
4.	Who was the successful tenderer?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	10.
European Situation

3.	Tax extra: $1.48i, 81.49, 81.52, 81.54, $1.55, 81.62, SI.63, $1.70, 81.75, 81.81.
4.	Woods Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Hull, P.Q., who were the lowest tenderers.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. MacINNIS:: For a copy of all correspondence, papers, letters, telegrams and other documents dated from August 1, 1938, to date, passing between the national harbours board, the Department of Labour and the Secretary of local union 2404, pile drivers, bridge, dock and wharf builders, Vancouver, British Columbia, in connection with repairs to No. 1 jetty and Japan dock at Vancouver.


EUROPEAN SITUATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the developments of the past week render it desirable that I should make a brief statement on the international situation. Many of the factors are not yet clear. When I come to take up the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, I shall seek to go fully into many questions which the happenings of last year and in particular, of the past few months, have created for Canada as for other countries.
I have been taken to task for some guarded references I made at the beginning of the month to the European situation. I pointed out on the first instant that a critical situation was still existing in the world, and that at some moment we might be called upon to consider questions larger than any we had thus far discussed. It will be realized now that these apprehensions had some foundation; so, I believe, had the feeling that the outlook was improving, to which I referred a week later. It will be observed that in stating on March 7th that I believed relief had been experienced in the foreign offices of Europe, that the situation had somewhat cleared in the few previous days, I was careful to add that I still adhered to what I had said on the previous occasion as something which, all the circumstances considered, it was proper I should have given to hon. members.
I made no claim to any exclusive sources of information, or to any ability to forecast the future. The form and place of the latest disturbance was a surprise to me, and a surprise to many governments more nearly concerned, and more minutely informed. I am

sure this house will always be desirous alike of facing unwelcome realities and of avoiding giving way to panic or propaganda. I have myself no desire either to ignore the serious shock the events of the past week have given to the world's hope of peace, or to exaggerate the imminence or extent of danger, as if the world were heading for Armageddon.
We have witnessed this past week the wanton and forcible occupation by Germany of the greater part of what remained of the Czecho-Slovak republic. Following this example, whether or not with Germany's approval, Hungary has occupied the remaining fragment, small, but racially and strategically important. After Munich, it was hoped that what remained of the Czecho-Slovak republic would be immune from aggression. That hope has not been realized. There are few countries which do not regret the fate which has now overtaken that gallant and vigorous small nation. They regret still more the evidence a great country has given that it does not consider itself bound by pledges freely exchanged a few short months before, and that it looks to force as the sole basis of relations with its neighbours, and apparently with the world. The occurrences of the week cannot find any defence, as may have appeared to be the case with some of the earlier manoeuvres, as reactions against excessive terms of the treaty of Versailles, or in the principles of self-determination and racial unity.
For the present at least, so far as we know, no country in all Europe is planning by counter force to reverse the result of force in Czechoslovakia. It is rather a question of weighing the results and considering what further moves may lie in the future. What is now needed is to take stock, as fully as may be possible, and to be ready for developments as they take actual shape out of the fog of conjectures; to prepare for all possible contingencies.
Mr. Chamberlain, in his frank and moving speech at Birmingham, asked, Was this the end of an old adventure, or the beginning of a new, the last attack on a small state, or the beginning of an attempt to dominate the world by force? He did not attempt to answer those questions, but declared they would require consideration not only by Germany's neighbours but by others even outside of Europe, and that the government of the United Kingdom would consider them in consultation with the members of the British commonwealth, France and various other powers.
So far as Canada is concerned, the government is ready at any time to take part in such consideration, to join in consultation

European Situation
with the United Kingdom and with such other countries as would be appropriate. I note that in speaking at Westminster to-day, Mr. Chamberlain told the House of Commons that Great Britain "requires to give full consideration" to the tense European situation in conjunction with other powers, "before any statement can be made." This wholly conforms with the statement made by Mr. Chamberlain at Birmingham on Friday last when he said:
I am not prepared to commit this country by new and unspecified commitments operating under conditions which cannot now be foreseen.
The first necessity for Canada, as well as for Great Britain, is to rsift rumour from fact, to examine whether the re is a probability of further drives, and if so in what direction, and in what form.
It is essential to clarify the actual issue that may arise. It is important to know what country or countries may be concerned, and whether it is a case of agitation and propaganda, or of economic pressure, or of military force. It is equally important to know exactly what policies are being suggested to meet the situation, and what measure of support and feasibility those policies are likely to receive. With this knowledge the Canadian government will have little difficulty in proposing to this parliament any action which it believes should be taken in the contingency anticipated.
If there were a prospect of an aggressor launching an attack on Britain, with bombers raining death on London, I have no doubt what the decision of the Canadian people and parliament would be. We would regard it as an act of aggression, menacing freedom in all parts of the British commonwealth. If it were a case, on the other hand, of a dispute over trade or prestige in some far corner of the world, that would raise quite different considerations.
Canada at all times has been prepared to consult, as occasion might arise, with other freedom loving countries as to the most effective means of cooperation against aggression. The form of such cooperation and the contingency in which it may arise, are questions which this government will examine, in consultation with other governments. It will report its findings and any proposals that may result to this parliament, which has the sole and responsible authority to speak for Canada in such grave issues. I still believe in parliament as the most important of our national institutions; and in the supremacy of parliament, especially where the issue is one of peace or war. I may add that, as would be expected in the circumstances, no statement of the policy the United Kingdom government has in mind has yet been received, from London.
In spite of the shock to the world's confidence, there is no reason to despair of peace, or to cease working for peace. The world has come to be able to stand shocks, to make readjustments which a few years ago would have made open conflict inevitable.
The peoples of the different countries of the world do not want war. No government of any democratic country has any thought or intent of making war. No government of any totalitarian country can hope for passive acquiescence in acts of international lawlessness, as they come to effect a wider range of powers, nor can they anticipate victory over the limitless moral and material resources that would be arrayed against them. It is a time for preparedness, but equally for furthering to the utmost, conciliation and cooperative effort among all peoples.
I think I may say with no less sincerity than Mr. Chamberlain that there is scarcely anything I would not sacrifice for peace, but, like Mr. Chamberlain, there is one thing I must except, and that is the liberty which we enjoy and which we will never surrender. I believe this is the feeling of every Canadian who loves his country and cherishes its liberties. Acts of aggression and attempts at world domination by force are just as hateful to the people of Canada as they are to the peoples of the United Kingdom, the United States, France and all other peace loving and freedom loving democracies.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister one or two questions. May I add that I have no wish to embarrass him or the government in any way. However there was a statement in the Toronto Star which has been brought to my attention. This statement appeared on the front page of Saturday's edition:
Shortly after the instructions were sent to Sir Nevile-
I presume it refers to the British Ambassador in Germany.
-all the high commissioners of the British dominions in London were requested to call at 10 Downing street, following an extraordinary cabinet meeting, called for to-night.
This is the sentence which I would direct to the attention of the Prime Minister:
The commissioners for South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Eire visited the dominions office.
Canada is not mentioned. I presume it is a misprint, but I should like to have the right hon. gentleman straighten it out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I saw the same news item, but I have not
European Situation

had any communication from the high commissioner intimating that he had been asked to attend any meeting, nor have I had any communication from him as to his having been [DOT] personally at any meeting.


Robert James Manion: The Prime Minister cannot answer that, then. The other question is this-and may I say in passing that the Prime Minister made reference to what I have in mind. The following words appear in the press of Saturday, March 18, and are attributed to Mr. Chamberlain at Birmingham:
We ourselves will naturally turn first to our partners in the British commonwealth of nations and to France to whom we are so closely bound, and I have no doubt that others, too, knowing that we are not disinterested in what goes on. in southeastern Europe will wish to have our counsel and advice.
The Prime Minister did mention that statement, in a general way, but he did not attempt to quote it exactly. Have there been consultations such as are referred to in that statement?	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There have been thus far no consultations such as are referred to in the statement which my hon. friend has read.


Robert James Manion: I do not know whether or not on the orders of the day I am permitted to say anything or to make anything in the way of a statement. I have no desire to do anything but help-and I say that as sincerely as I have said anything in my life. I shall, however, attempt to say a few words-


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: On a point of order, if I may call it such: I have no desire to prevent the leader of the opposition from speaking, but I think I must insist that in this regard he cannot speak for all opposition groups in the house.


Mr. STEWART:: He did not say so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, nobody says so.
I have no desire personally or on behalf of my group to embarrass the members of the government, but I do not think it is proper at this time for us to enter into a discussion of the European situation. However, I would urge that the Prime Minister should provide an early opportunity for the house to express itself with regard to the position of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say that I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken when he says that this should not be made the occasion for a general discussion or debate on this question. If the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) feels that he 
would like to make a statement to the house, not for the purpose of beginning a debate but simply to place himself on record in regard to an all important matter, may I say I think the custom has been to allow latitude of that kind to a leader of the opposition. I am sure the house would wish to allow it to him at this time. I would go a step further and say that if my hon. friend who is leading a group, or any other leader of a group, would like to make a statement at this moment, he should feel perfectly at liberty to do so. But I think it ought to be understood in each case that it is simply a statement which is being placed before the house and not something intended to provoke discussion.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, may I make it very clear to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that I have never yet attempted to speak for his party, and I do not expect I ever shall do so. I know he is quite capable of speaking for them himself. I was not intending to speak for anyone but the National Conservative party, of which I have the honour to be the head.
I listened with very great interest to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I do not intend to discuss it in any way. I know the great difficulties of government in times like these, and it is certainly far from any thought in my mind to add in any way to those difficulties. Therefore, I shall offer no criticism and no jarring note of any kind. If there is anything that I think those in all sections of the house and in all sections of this country should remember, it is that in a time like this we should be a united people, that we should do everything we can to hold this nation together. I have never been able to see what good would be done to the empire if this country were split down the middle and divided again into the various parts that existed before confederation. I certainly believe in being tolerant of everyone's opinion, whether or not it agrees with my own.
I consider this whole question as being too serious for political manoeuvring of any kind. It should be above and beyond anything in the way of playing politics, anything in the way of attempting to gain some petty political advantage or anything of that sort. In every statement I have made I have endeavoured to show that I want to be as helpful as I can.
It seems to me that even more is at stake to-day than was at stake in September last. At that time only a fringe of Czecho-Slovakia, the Sudetenland, was at stake. To-day it strikes me that all the personal liberties and

European Situation
parliamentary institutions of democracy are at stake. In a sense, it is democracy and Christianity against Hitler's totalitarianism. That is the way it strikes me, at any rate. On numerous occasions Hitler has shown his antagonism to Christianity. I was startled to read yesterday that the Protestant leader Niemoller was still in a concentration camp. I thought he had been let out some time ago. He has been in that camp for nearly two years. Both Catholics and Protestants have been attacked by Hitler. Therefore, I look upon this whole question as being something very much above ordinary affairs. All our liberties are at stake, and I repeat that so far as I am concerned I am ready to help in every possible way. I will do nothing to muddy the waters and confuse the issues, or to hinder the actions of the government.
I agree with the Prime Minister that the whole world has been shocked at what has taken place. I would use much stronger language than he. Perhaps I am prone to use much stronger language than the Prime Minister. I say that this attack of Hitler's on Czecho-Slovakia, this taking over of Czechoslovakia, was unprovoked, unlawful and brutal. As Mr. Chamberlain pointed out, it was a violation of Hitler's word and agreement. No doubt all hon. members have read of how the secret police have taken over in this little freedom-loving country. Until recently Czecho-Slovakia had as its head one of the most outstanding statesmen of Europe, Doctor Bernes. I had the honour of meeting him and knowing him fairly well at the meetings of the League of Nations, where the representatives of Great Britain, France and many other prominent countries used to consult with him on vital questions. This country, which had been governed by one of the most broadminded, statesmanlike gentlemen, has been overrun with secret police. The people are being told they must not stay out after nine o'clock at night and that they must have nothing in the way of assembly. I was shocked, and the peoples of all freedom-loving countries of the world must have been shocked at such news as that.
I turn now to Mr. Chamberlain's language. I should like to refer briefly to what he said at Birmingham. It must be remembered that when Mr. Chamberlain uses strong language it is really much stronger than when the same language is used by the ordinary citizen. Mr. Chamberlain has always been known for his moderation, his toleration and his gentle humility. The Prime Minister probably knows him very well, and some of us on this side came to know him intimately when he was over here at the empire conference of 1932.
I have put it on record publicly that I consider him the outstanding British representative at the conference, and the most gentle and considerate of men. The fact that he used the language he did at Birmingham shows how he was shocked at this brutal and barbarous attack of Hitler upon Czechoslovakia.	Mr. Chamberlain asked what
reliance could be put upon the word of Hitler. I am putting this in my own language. He said that Czecho-Slovakia had been wantonly attacked. That word " wanton " is very strong language. He said that Germany would bitterly regret the attitude which her leader had taken. This is the language of a man who, with the possible exception of the former Pope, has been the greatest peacemaker in the world. Pope Pius XI was noted as one of the greatest peacemakers the world has ever had. Mr. Chamberlain is a man who hates war from the bottom of his soul, as he has publicly stated over and over again. He is a man who believes above all in the council table in preference to the battlefield. He believes in the Kellogg-Briand pact; in the settling of international disputes by conciliation rather than by war. This is the man who humbled himself by going to Berchtesgaden, to Godesberg and to Munich, and when he used such strong language he must have been outraged to a terrific extent. I did not hear him over the radio, but I am told by those who did that his language was more severe than would appear from the press reports.
These conquerors moved into Czechoslovakia, a freedom-loving country in the truest sense of the word. We see the Jews who have been living peacefully in that country immediately persecuted. Such action is shocking to all of us. It is shocking to the whole world to see Jews or any other people maltreated in this way.
Mr. Sumner Welles, with the approval of President Roosevelt, has referred to this display of wanton force. His language is even stronger than that used by Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Welles referred to "acts of wanton lawlessness and arbitrary force." He also used the language "threatening world peace and the very structure of modem civilization." We ask ourselves, in view of that strong language, what must we expect next from this madman? To my mind this man is very close to a madman. He is at least acting like one, and no one knows what we may expect next, least of all Hitler himself. He has a passion for world domination. He is mad with the lust for conquest, and he is aiming at absolute world domination.
European Situation

Now, sir, this is what I am going to suggest without taking up much more of the time of the house: I think that this above all times is the time when all Canadians should stand unitedly together and should make -it clear that all democratic countries stand in a solid front against the international criminality-because that is what it is-that Hitler is attempting to impose upon the world. He broke the terms of the treaty of Versailles. He fortified the Rhineland. He marched into Austria and took possession of it. He took over the Sudeten territory of Czecho-Slovakia practically by force, and now without any justification he takes over the whole of Czechoslovakia. I say it is time for the democracies of the world, for the United Kingdom and the dominions, France, the United States, the smaller free nations, and all others throughout the world who want to stop this mad ambition of Hitler's, to stand together and make it clear that they are standing together, morally at any rate.
I am not talking war, but it seems to me that the only way we can stop war is to show that there is a solid front amongst all the democratic, civilized, Christian peoples of the world against the attempts of this man to dominate the whole world.
There are people who say that war is inevitable, and I have had that said to me by outstanding people, but I do not believe that war is ever inevitable. As Earl Baldwin said at the time of the September crisis, if there is only a five per cent chance in favour of peace, I am in favour of peace. I believe in the democratic peoples of the world presenting a united front, not only the ones I have named but others who wish to join to bring this man Hitler to his senses. Such a solid front might possibly halt his mad career- might act as a "Stop; look, and listen" sign to him.
May I make it clear to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house and country that I am a strong peace lover. I am just as much in favour of peace as Mr. Chamberlain, or the Prime Minister or any other member of this house could possibly be. I am a peace lover from the bottom of my soul. I did have the opportunity to see, if I may be forgiven for mentioning it, the cruelties and horrors of war at first hand. I saw strong, young, healthy men turned through shell shock into nervous wrecks, crying for help; I saw mutilations and blindness; and we all know that sixty thousand of our best young Canadians lie in Europe. We all know the failure of the great war into which the world was plunged by the man who preceded Hitler
IMr. Mackenzie King.]
in Germany, the kaiser, who was not as dangerous a man as Hitler. And yet to-day because of dictatorships, particularly the German dictatorship, armaments are greater than ever before. We know what war involves, and those of us who happen to have served are the most antagonistic to war. I think there is no body of people in all Canada so antagonistic to war as the four or five hundred thousand returned men in this country. They are the strongest of all for peace. We saw that the last war, which was to make the world safe for democracy, did not do so. Democracy is in a more precarious position to-day than it has ever been. The war to end war, as it was supposed to have been, failed to end war. Our ideals have been shattered.
On top of all that knowledge, I have three boys of my own. I am a father who loves his children and does not want to see them used for cannon fodder. I sympathize with all fathers and mothers, and so I say that I have every reason in the world to hate war from the bottom of my soul. But we must remember the self-preservation, not only of our own country, but of all democratic nations. The whole aim of my remarks to-day is not to say what we must do in war; my aim is to prevent war if at all possible, and I say that all the democracies of the world, all the peace loving nations, should stand together at this time in a stern moral protest against this man Hitler and his attempt to dominate the world. We must show a united front, and show it frankly and courageously, and if we all do that there will probably be no war. That, sir, is the prayer of us all.
As leader of the National Conservative party I offer now to join loyally and wholeheartedly with the government in making it clear to all the world that a united Canadian people-with one mind and one heart-is determined, come what may, to preserve its liberties and its nationhood. And may God assist us in our efforts!


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I 'have no prepared statement. As I said a few moments ago, it does not seem to me perhaps quite proper that we should delay at any length now to deal with the entire European situation.
I would say, however, dealing with what was said by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), that if we had been morally united the world would not have been in the fix in which it finds itself to-day. We can-

European Situation
not, look back to the treaty of Versailles, -the treaty of the victors-and to the history of the past fifteen years without realizing that there has been a series of blunders. We did not take seriously the principles underlying the League of Nations.
I would say that at this critical time we should utilize as far as may be the existing machinery of collective peace action. There is an enormous power in the united peace action of the leading nations of the world. Although we have heard it said that the league is practically defunct, there is yet sufficient vitality in the league, if we rally around it, to do something before it is too late. Also, although the United States is outside the league, their people are very much the same as ours in sentiment, and every effort should be made to establish the very closest cooperation with the United States.
At this time I would offer three simple practical suggestions as to what we in Canada might do. First of all, it is high time that there should be an immediate prohibition of the export of war materials to Germany. That is something practical. It is something that might interfere with the profits of some of our Canadians; in my judgment we should have done it long ago, but. I urge upon the government, since it has not been done in the past, that we at once prohibit the export of war materials to Germany and to any other aggressor nation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Japan.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, I include
Japan. Again it seems to me that we might well consider following the action of the United States and impose a super-tax on goods from Germany or any other aggressor nation. I shall not discuss these suggestions to-day, but I pass them on to the government for consideration. We cannot hope to escape trouble in this country simply because we are far removed from the scene of action. We cannot allow profiteering or profit-making in this country while others are suffering. We must assume our share of the burden, and we can do it on those lines.
There is one other suggestion. Since I came into the house there has been handed to me-in fact only five minutes ago-a copy of the telegram which Senator Cairine R. Wilson sent from Toronto to the Prime Minister, urging that we should take a certain share of responsibility for the refugees from 7H92-129
some of these distressed countries. This is not a matter of immigration; I might be inclined to oppose additional immigrants coming to this country at this time. But I think we have not been willing as a nation to assume sufficient responsibility for the disasters that have come upon other parts of the world. We are still in a happy position here in Canada, notwithstanding all our difficulties; the least Canadians can do is to share some of the burdens that are being borne by other nations in the care of refugees. I hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) may find it possible in the very near future to make a statement of the decision of the government on this matter.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I have no prepared speech at all, but perhaps a few words are in order. Certain it is that this is the time for unity; for unity politically, racially and socially. This ought to be a time not only for talking about unity but for seeking out and adopting and applying such policies as will remove the causes of disunity. I long for peace; I believe that war results from ignorance and the application of mistaken policies. Both ignorance and false policies can be removed. It is our solemn duty at this hour of great peril, first, to stand together within our own country; second, to take counsel earnestly with our neighbours; finally to seek out, discover and remove the mistaken policies and the ignorance which are driving us blindly towards war.


SUGGESTED MEETING OF LEAGUE OF NATIONS ASSEMBLY TO FORMULATE GENERAL POLICY FOR PEACE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question bearing to some extent on the statement which has just been made. I shall put it now, and perhaps it can be answered later. In view of the international situation and reported suggestion for a conference of certain democratic powers, will the government consider the advisability of proposing a meeting of the League of Nations assembly with a view to formulating a joint policy for peace and with a view to seeking cooperation with the United States for such a policy?


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I shall .convey the question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and he will deal with it.
sevised EDITION
2048	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On schedule 1:
Customs tariff-101. Oranges, n.o.p.:
January to July, inclusive, free.
August to December, inclusive, 35 cents per cubic foot.
Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Chairman, I heard with great interest the remarks made the other night by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross). While I cannot go all the way with him in his pronounced views with regard to free trade, I appreciated greatly the case he outlined. While I do not believe in high tariff, I have had occasion too often to advocate in this house protection for some industry or interest in my district to take an attitude entirely against it. I prefer to deal with each case as it arises.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw was able to make out a strong case for free trade as against protection owing to the surrounding circumstances in connection with the matter to which he was alluding. In one respect the case is even. worse than he represented it to be. On page 2015 of Hansard he said, speaking of the repeal of the duty on Japanese oranges:
Although the dictionary said that a Japanese orange was an orange, although the trade always called the Japanese orange an orange, an order in council was passed at that time, saying that a loose-skinned mandarin or tangerine was not an orange and therefore could enter Canada free. But other oranges, the same tangerines and mandarins from the United States, were still subject to the same duty of 35 cents per cubic foot.
The hon. member has fallen into the same error that I did. I fully thought that those were the circumstances, that the duty was put on against oranges. Then it was discovered by a strained construction of the meaning of the word "oranges" that a tangerine was, botanically speaking, not an orange, and therefore was not liable to the duty. If that had been the case the matter would have been adjusted by a mere ruling of the Minister of National Revenue. But it was not done in that way. It was done by order in council, P.C. 2980, which I shall read, as it is only a few lines:
At the Government House at Ottawa Monday, the 30th day of November, 1931.
Present:
His Excellency the Governor General in Council:
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister

of National Revenue and under the powers granted by section 11 of the customs tariff to make such reductions of duties on goods imported into Canada from any other country or countries as may be deemed reasonable by way of compensation for reductions on Canadian products granted by any such country or countries, and under any other power thereunto enabling, is pleased to order and it is hereby ordered that mandarins and tangerines, when grown in Japan and imported into Canada direct from that country, be admitted free of customs duty.
sgd. "E. J. Lemaire,"
Clerk of the Privy Council.
So the house will see that they were allowed to come in not because it was held that they were not oranges, in which case the exemption would have applied also to tangerines and mandarins of all countries; but it was confined entirely to tangerines and mandarins when grown in Japan. The order in council says that it was done under a section of the Customs Act which allows a reduction of duty when a similar reduction is made by another country. There was no similar reduction made in this instance, and therefore it was done under the words cited, "and under any other power thereunto enabling;" for it is on record that there was no reduction made by Japan in that regard or in any other regard calling for compensating action on our part. Therefore we were put in the unique position that we had pledged ourselves to give free entry and preference to oranges from the British empire, particularly Africa and Australia, and for that reason we put a duty against all foreign oranges, of which we imported large numbers. That was in May, 1931, and in November of the same year, before the duty had any effect on importations from Japan, the government of that day passed an order in council providing that if the tangerines were grown in Japan, and in Japan only, they would come in free of duty. I think the circumstances call for an explanation from somebody as to why that took place. The result was that we continued to buy our oranges from California and Japan principally, and we either paid a higher price or got an inferior orange. People who could not afford to buy oranges above a certain grade took an inferior grade.
I had some communication with an official recently about the matter. I shall not give his name because it might be supposed that I am criticising him, and I am not. He is a man of great ability, of the greatest courtesy, and went to no end of trouble to give me the information I wanted. Here is a phrase he used in connection with this matter which struck me, to use the vernacular, right in

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
the eye. Speaking of putting Japan and Australia on the same basis in this matter, he writes:
Undoubtedly cancellation of the order in council would be resented by the Japanese government, a fact which would have to be given consideration by the government of Canada.
Surely we have not come to the situation in this day and generation that we cannot put on a small duty or a large one against the products of another country without its being resented by that country. But if that is so, it is time we knew where we are heading for.
When the Minister of Finance presents his budget, so to speak, the Canadian tariff, and is making adjustments, as I suppose he will, I hope that he will take occasion to adjust the matter I have referred to which was dealt with by order in council and impose a duty on mandarins and tangerines of Japanese origin as is done on mandarins and tangerines from any other country in the world.


Mr. RICKARD:: Under the new agreement the date of application of the duty on oranges has been changed to the first of December, as compared with the first of January under the old agreement. If any change is to be made it should be the other way. The duty on oranges should extend over a longer period than it does at the present time. As an apple grower I feel that taking the duty off oranges would be detrimental to the apple growers and apple shippers of this country. We heard a good deal on Friday from the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) about the advantage of having cheap oranges in this country, but I have a letter here from an apple shipper and an apple grower in which he says:
You are quite moderate in your remarks about the competition of oranges. Your own Spy apples will give you an example. Mine is worse. In December I sent a car of choice Baldwins to the terminal market in Montreal and it arrived the week before Christmas, when forty-one carloads of oranges came in from the United States. Apples at once took a giant tumble and I lost over $1.50 a barrel over preceding prices. You will agree that that is a big tax to pay against my production. While I was there, a New York firm telegraphed the agents offering to send in other carloads of oranges at $1.88 a box f.o.b. Montreal.
I took the trouble to call up a fruit distributing house in Ottawa before I came down to the house and he tells me that 288 oranges to a case is the popular-sized orange. That costs the wholesaler S2.50 a case, which is less than one cent apiece. I contend that no apple grower in Ontario or British Columbia or anywhere else in this country 71492-1291
can grow apples and compete with oranges sold at less than one cent apiece. I also contend that as far as the consumer is concerned, that is not a reasonable price. Even if the consumer were paying two cents apiece it would still be a cheap article of food. There is really no comparison at all between an orange and an apple. While some say there are more vitamins in an orange, some say there are more salts. I should like to see the time extended to January 1 instead of December 1. If you turn the page you will see that this is permissible. It would not at all satisfy me-for as an apple grower I contend it should be March 1 before oranges come into this country free,-but if nothing can be done about that we have to accept the agreements as they are. I believe I voice the sentiments of the apple growers of Ontario when I say they are certainly not satisfied with this. I hope the government will try to do something which will give the apple growers of Canada a fair deal.


Mr. CLEAVER:: The right has been
reserved on behalf of Canada to change the date under this item, and to substitute the following: "oranges, n.o.p., January to July inclusive, free." On behalf of the apple growers of my constituency I ask that pursuant to that reservation the date be changed as soon as possible.
Then there is another matter which I have been requested to bring to the attention of the committee. Oranges of inferior quality are now being brought into Canada, not in packages but simply in bulk, and offered for sale as loss leaders by chain stores at prices as low as eleven cents a dozen. This is unfair competition with our own apples, and should be regulated. All our fruits and vegetables must be properly graded and must carry an inspector's certificate before we are permitted to export them; I suggest that the same practice be required in regard to the importation of United States fruits and vegetables into Canada.
Another practice which is very detrimental to our trade is, as I am reliably informed, that truckers make a practice of purchasing left-over and surplus fruits and vegetables in New York, Buffalo, Detroit and Seattle markets at ridiculously low prices and dumping them on our market, often in such a wilted and stale condition as to render them practically unfit for consumption.
I should like to refer also to the question of processed fruit and vegetables receiving empire preference. I urge that this matter be cleaned up immediately. When we received this preference from the motherland it
2050	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
was never the intention that it should be used by our processors to permit them to place United States fruit and vegetables on the British market as empire products.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but as far as I can gather, the remarks he is now making have no bearing on oranges, the item under discussion. If we start a general discussion we shall never get on with the business.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: The point raised by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) is in my opinion well taken. I would ask the hon. member to confine himself to the item now before the committee.


Hughes Cleaver: I quite agree, and I shall observe your ruling, but I thought it would save time if while I was speaking I covered that little point as well, which I have done.
Figures have been put on record as to the amount of imports into Canada of the different items discussed. I think it would be useful to hon. members if these figures could be gathered together in one summary and placed on the record in that form. I have in my hand a summary prepared by the bureau of statistics of all fruit and vegetable imports into Canada for the year 1932 to 1938. It will take some time to read it-


Mr. MacNICOL:: Then the hon. member had better read it.


Hughes Cleaver: I should like to have permission of the committee to put it on the record without reading it.


The CHAIRMAN:: Only with the unanimous consent of the committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: Do I understand it deals with all imports, or oranges only? I have the information with respect to oranges, and I have endeavoured to answer with respect to each item, as hon. members requested, in order to facilitate their understanding of the items. But personally I have no objection to the hon. member placing anything on Hansard.


Hughes Cleaver: I thank the minister for his explanation; I have followed what took place in the committee on Friday, although unfortunately I had to be absent. The statement to which I refer is a summary of all the figures in concise form, prepared by the bureau of statistics. I ask leave of the committee to put it on the record without reading it.


Angus MacInnis: If a summary of this kind is to be put on the record I think it should be put on by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) so that we may know that it is in

accord with the agreement. I have no objection to the summary; I think it would be useful, but it should be put on by the person best qualified to do so.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is only a question of what best meets the convenience of the committee. Obviously if a summary !be put on the record to-day and the discussion on some of these items goes on to another, day, hon. members who desire information statistical in relation to an article under discussion towards the end of the week will be asking me where to find it in Hansard. That is why I have given the specific information with respect to each item as it was discussed.


Hughes Cleaver: Do I understand I have permission?


Frederick George Sanderson: Only with the unanimous consent of the committee. Has the hon. member unanimous consent?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hughes Cleaver: Then I understand I can read it?


Frederick George Sanderson: Certainly.


Hughes Cleaver: Dominion Bureau of Statistics. External trade branch. Canada's imports and exports of fruit and vegetables. Calendar years 1932 to 1938:
Fresh fruit imports
1932	$12,145,722
1933	 10,379,892


Frederick George Sanderson: I am of the opinion that the figures that the hon. member is reading have nothing to do with the item under discussion, which is item No. 101, oranges.


Hughes Cleaver: May I make a submission in regard to your ruling, Mr. Chairman? It is this: that any one item may have a direct bearing on the industry, and with deference I submit that when discussing oranges I have the right to discuss apples, because apples are competitive-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I have given my ruling and I would ask the hon. member to abide by it.


Hughes Cleaver: I ask a moment to explain. I do not want to have to appeal from your ruling, but I submit I am entitled to put this on the record. You listened to the hon. member who preceded me discuss apples and why this practice in regard to oranges is detrimental to the apple growers. It has a direct bearing. If there is any general item called to my attention under which I can more correctly discuss this general aspect, I shall be pleased to do it then.

Canada-United. States Trade Agreement


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps I may suggest a means by which the hon. member may make his statement and still be in order. In committee of the whole house on the bill, or at any time when the schedule itself as a whole is being submitted to the house, general statements will be in order. Personally I think the chairman's ruling is correct; when we are talking about oranges, it is oranges. We dealt with apples the other day. If we were to mix the whole matter up again the discussion would be endless. There is an opportunity for statements of the kind which the hon. member wishes to make.


Hughes Cleaver: I thank the minister for the suggestion. I will seek an opportunity at the right time.


Major James William Coldwell: I come from a part of the country in which we grow neither apples nor oranges. I wish to support the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) in the analysis of this item which he made the other evening. I can see no justification for taxing a fruit which some people say is in competition with certain other fruits grown in this country, but which competition I find it difficult to understand, inasmuch as the two kinds of fruit serve entirely different purposes. For numerous children it is difficult to-dajr to get fresh fruit, particularly oranges, and it is altogether improper that we should place a barrier against a fruit which we cannot under any circumstances grow in Canada. I have always been under the impression that a tariff is for one of two purposes, either for revenue or for protection. If this tariff were for revenue purposes, it would be in effect all the year round. I can only conclude that since it is imposed for part of the year only, it is a sort of protective tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: Entirely wrong.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister says I am entirely wrong. Well, he will have an opportunity to correct me. At any rate I submit that oranges constitute a valuable part of the daily diet, particularly for very young people. In our part of the country our children find it exceedingly difficult to get oranges at any time, and the figures produced the other evening by the hon. member for Moose Jaw did, in my opinion, prove conclusively that there is a relation between the duty and the higher price during the season when the duty is charged. I should like to see the length of time during which the duty is imposed reduced to the minimum, even down to a single day. I support the argument of the hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Mr. MAYBANK:: I support the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold well) and similar statements made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross). Ir. my opinion, the sooner we take the tariff completely off commodities such as oranges the better, and for the very good reason that, according to practically all health authorities now, oranges are virtually a necessity. The consumption of oranges and orange juice appears to be a necessity in the raising of children. The hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rickard) has remarked that oranges are no better than apples. That may be so. I have noticed that most of the medical men seem to favour this reduction of duty. Perhaps they bear in mind the apple a day that keeps the doctor away, and that is why they are anxious to support the item as it stands. The hon. member for Durham has that much support. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that when he is bringing down his budget he go a step further and wipe out entirely the duty on oranges. A counter-suggestion is made by someone in this corner. It might appeal to the hon. member for Durham. That suggestion is that the duty on oranges be raised very high, making them practically prohibitive. Then the supply of apples will not be sufficient for the needs of people and we can force them to use turnips and thereafter put a tariff on turnips.


Mr. SLAGHT:: I wish to support the
position taken by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and the hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Maybank). In the district of Parry Sound, which I represent, we have in relation to the adult population, as our school statistics show, 'perhaps the greatest population of children of any district in Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: Five at a time.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I am reminded that we
have five of the most important children of Canada in Callander, and in our district, without any intention of treating the matter lightly, oranges throughout the summer season, when we entertain so many tourists from all parts of the world, are a staple product on the table. Although we have full sympathy with the apple growers, any measures which tend to increase the price of oranges, and prevent people from securing them at as low as eleven cents a dozen, if that be possible, I desire to oppose on behalf of my district.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: I intend to stay with the item on oranges. The hon. member for Durham suggested that I might be an
2052	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
orange grower because I made the remarks I did the other night. Sometimes it falls to the younger members of a family to look after the interests of some of the older ones, and that is my case. Since 1932, subsequent to my father's death, it has fallen to my lot to look after the interests of some of the older members of his family, and therefore I have had to superintend the handling of some citrus groves in California. I am not getting any interest from it, myself, but I do not think it is a bad thing to have someone in this house who has a little practical [DOT] knowledge when an item of this kind comes up.
On Friday evening I was contradicted by several members on the opposite side. The first contradiction was from the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), who declared that I was wrong when I said that the protection on empire oranges meant at least an added cost of $12 a box to the Canadian consumer of British empire oranges that came into Canada. When this item was put in the British empire agreement it was not put there for the purpose of revenue. Had it been put there for that purpose it would have been imposed on all oranges from empire as well as non-empire countries; and the excise tax of three per cent, the so-called import tax, which was an additional tariff of three per cent, was charged against non-empire countries but not against empire countries. I want to point out how it comes about that the added cost was at least $12 on every box coming from the British empire. In the United States I said, oranges were sold to Canadians and Americans in the same way, with the tariff added when the oranges were sold in Canada. In that country oranges are sold at auction to the highest bidder; therefore when a Canadian goes to buy oranges, he buys a carload at the auction and must then pay the tariff in order to bring them into Canada. That is the regular procedure; there is no other way of buying them. Therefore the additional amount of money collected through the tariff on oranges coming from non-empire sources can be rightly charged as a protection to British empire orange growers.
The other evening some people may have thought I was exaggerating when I gave the figure of S12 per box, in regard to 1935. Now I want to give the figures for 1938 on the same basis. On March 6 a return was brought down in this house to a question asked by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young), concerning the number of boxes of oranges imported into Canada each month during the

calendar year 1938 from United States and from British empire countries, specifying the country of origin. I have gone carefully through that return. The duty is applied during the months of June, July, August, September, October, November and December, and if my memory serves me aright in 1938, due to a short orange crop in the United States, the non-duty period was extended for a short time, taking in part of May.
The figures are as follows:	During the
month of May; 1938, there were 907 boxes of oranges imported into Canada from the British empire, duty free. There were 269,375 boxes imported from non-empire countries, on which the duty and excise amounted to $56,506, or an average of $62 per case in additional price on the oranges coming from the British empire to the Canadian consumer.


An hon. MEMBER:: How much?


John Gordon Ross: It amounts to
S62 per case. In June of 1938 there were 22 cases of oranges brought into Canada from the British empire. In the same month 270.398 cases were imported from the United States and other non-empire countries.


Mr. THOMPSON:: Did the hon. member
say $62 on a case of oranges?


John Gordon Ross: Yes.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: These oranges that
come in here are bought for three or four dollars a case.


John Gordon Ross: Of course; and
then we paid $62 in addition in order to get them here.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: That is S62 for an
article that sells for S3 or $4?


John Gordon Ross: Yes, and that
comes about in this way: If there is a duty of 35 cents per cubic foot on all oranges from non-empire countries, in order to protect empire oranges, then surely that added cost to the Canadian people is the cost of bringing in the number of oranges imported from the British empire.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nonsense.


John Gordon Ross: My figures are
correct; you cannot say anything else. In May the additional cost was $56,506, with 907 cases coming from the British empire. Figure it out for yourself; the additional cost for every case of oranges coming from the British empire was $62. In June of the same year 22 cases of oranges were brought in from the British empire and 270,398 cases from the

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
United States. The total tariff and excise. charged the Canadian people in that month was 8208,227, or an average of 89,465 per case.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Gordon Ross: My hon. friends
do not like this. In July of last year 220 boxes came from the British empire and 225,061 boxes from other countries, with 8174,315 paid in tariff and excise, or 8792 per"box of fruit coming from the British empire.


Mr. HEAPS:: How much does an orange
cost?


Mr. HOMUTH:: Would the hon. member
also work that out in regard to wheat?


John Gordon Ross: In August, 1938, there were 305 cases of British empire oranges and 204,474 cases of non-empire oranges imported into Canada. Tariff and excise taxes amounted to 8159,487, or an average protection of 8522 a case.
In September, empire oranges imported amounted to 105 cases and non-empire imported numbered 150,420 cases. Total tariff and excise amounted to 8118,354, or an average protection of 81,127 a case.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Who paid that?


John Gordon Ross: The consumer. In October, empire oranges imported amounted to 454 cases, and non-empire imported numbered 169,342 cases. The total tariff and excise amounted to $131,521, or an average protection of $289 a case.
In November, we imported 8,511 cases of empire oranges, these coming mainly from Trinidad and Jamaica, and 190,074 cases of non-empire oranges. Total tariff and excise amounted to 8131,286, or an average of 815.50 a case.
In December, we imported 14,435 cases of empire oranges and 309,732 cases of nonempire oranges. Total tariff and excise amounted to $210,926, or an average of $14.75 a case.
For the eight months in 1938 in which tariff was applied on oranges the total quantity brought in from the British empire was 24,959 cases and from non-empire sources, 1,788,858 cases. Total tariff and excise amounted to $1,190,622 to protect the 25,000 cases, or an average throughout those eight months of $47.75 a case.
The other evening the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) questioned some statements I made. I believe he was Minister of Trade and Commerce at the time the 1932 trade agreement came into effect. As such he should have known the situation in
regard to oranges, one of the items dealt with in that trade agreement. He should have known that whether there is a tariff on oranges or not, from 85 to 90 per cent of the oranges imported into Canada will come from the United States of America. He should have known that it was utterly impossible to supply the needs of Canadian consumers of oranges from British empire sources. The two main countries that were to be protected were Australia and South Africa. Australia grows only 2,500,000 cases of oranges all told, and Canada eats that much in an ordinary year. South Africa grows only 3,000,000 cases a year, and during this last year, 1938, according to the returns as brought down for the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) not one case of oranges came from Australia and only 130 cases came from South Africa.
The other evening I made the statement that the oranges which were allowed in free during January, February, March and April did not necessarily come from California. The hon. member for Kootenay East said the flush production of oranges in California was from December to April. I disagreed with my hon. friend; I said he was entirely wrong, and he maintained he was not. I stated that in California navel oranges are ripened, picked and shipped during November, December and January, and Valencia oranges during April, May, June and July. The hon. member for Kootenay East questioned my statement and said that there was a much smaller quantity of Valencias than of navels; according to him the quantity of Valencias was of small importance. As Minister of Trade and Commerce at the time the treaty was made he exhibited about the same amount of knowledge concerning this business as he did the other evening in the house. As a matter of fact in the part of California, of which he was speaking, there are some 94,000 acres all told producing navel oranges, which are packed during the months I stated^ and 145,000 acres producing Valencia oranges, which the hon. member said were the smaller amount. It would be well for anyone when speaking in this house to try to have the facts and to give only the facts.
In connection with this item, according to the trade treaty, there is a different period which might be used. I would say that Australia is not affected by importations of oranges in December, but might be affected by oranges imported in July, provided they shipped oranges to Canada, which they have not done for the last year. But Canada is a large country. Oranges that enter at the
2054	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
west coast are seldom shipped east of Winnipeg, and oranges that enter at the east coast seldom go farther west than Winnipeg. Therefore, a treaty that takes in these months may make a difference to the eastern shippers, that is the British West Indies, or South Africa, and no difference to the western shippers. In other words, it does not matter whether you have the month of July free in the east to the British West Indies r South Africa, nor does it matter whether mu have the month of December free in the *rest so far as Australia is concerned; but the tremendous cost to the consumers of Canada should be taken into account.
But something else should also be noted. As I said the other night, this is just an instance of what was done to the people of Canada by the British empire agreements. We therein bound duties against decrease, and when you bind a duty against decrease you give to someone else the right to use the bargaining power of your tariff. This has been done in this and many other instances under the British empire agreements. In other words, we have placed our tariff where we cannot lower it in order to get concessions from another country when making a irade agreement with them. But it is quite conceivable that other countries within the British empire can use the right they have to allow us to lower that tariff in order to get concessions for themselves in trade treaties with other countries of the world. That is the worst feature that has ever been put in any trade agreement in Canada.
The trade treaty of 1932 was full of such items. There were 200 of these items, though there are now less than ninety. But when they were put there due consideration was not given to the cost, because in many instances, just as in connection with oranges, the British empire could not possibly supply from within the empire those commodities which we needed, and the net result was that there was a great rise in cost to the people of Canada for all the goods they had to buy under that treaty.
I know the Minister of Finance has endeavoured to get this period lengthened.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is lengthened one month under this agreement.


John Gordon Ross: And it may be further lengthened. I hope the minister will use his good offices and those of the men associated with him in the making of trade treaties to approach once more those countries that have the right to say whether we can lower our tariff on oranges. They are hardly shipping anything into this country,

so that the provision can be of little use to them, and we might see whether they would not agree to allow Canada under this treaty, or under the budget, to lengthen the period of free entries or to make oranges entirely free.


Mr. STEVENS:: The hon. member for Moose Jaw has read me a lecture upon my ignorance of. this subject, and he has also advised the committee that he himself is interested in the orange-producing business in California-a delectable occupation which many persons in this rather cold climate frequently look upon as a sort of haven of refuge for their old age. The hon. member, before being so caustic in his observations regarding myself, might have taken the trouble to look up the reasons that were advanced at the time this duty was imposed in 1932. Had he done so he would have found a few facts such as those that I shall mention in the course of a brief statement.
There was no suggestion that we should . impose this duty on oranges merely for the protection of oranges coming from Australia and South Africa. The point in the whole business was this. Some fifteen or twenty years ago Canada used to bring in oranges from the West Indies and from central American points as well as from other countries in competition with oranges from Florida, California and other parts of the United States. The competition at that time was exceedingly keen and the Canadian purchaser of oranges got all the advantages of a competitive market. During that period, twenty or twenty-five years prior to the imposition of the tariff in 1932, the citrus fruit growers of California attained such a high degree of exclusiveness of organization that they drove the West Indian orange growers out of this market, which was their best. Indeed, the West Indian growers were affected to such an extent that they uprooted their orchards as a complete loss in consequence of their having been denied the Canadian market.
Figures were given demonstrating this. The result was that oranges ceased to come in from the West Indies in competition with oranges from California, with the highly organized method of production there, and in consequence prices of oranges were higher during all subsequent years than they had been before. There was no competition; there was no competitive buying; the price was fixed by the citrus growers of California, who are recognized as the most highly organized and the most closely controlled industry in the United States. They seriously affected

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
the production of oranges in Florida, which had also been a source of supply for the United States and Canada.
Having that situation in mind, recognizing that Canada has an excellent market in the West Indies for some of our products, and that there were few products that the West Indies could ship to Canada, we decided to impose this duty, which was really tantamount to a duty against California, upon the importation of oranges from the United States, in the hope and expectation that the West Indies would thereby be encouraged to replant their orange groves and restore the balance of competitive trade with the highly organized industry of California. Briefly, that is the story.
It is true that at the same time we hoped that we might develop some importations from Australia and South Africa, and we did. We brought in quite a number of shipments. The hon. member has quoted certain figures, but they relate to a condition which is subsequent to the change made in the tariff in the 1935-36 agreement. I say 1935-36, because the agreement came into effect on January 1, 1936. Prior to that time the rate was thirty-five cents a cubic foot the year round, and it was then amended, being free, for the months of January to April, but otherwise thirty-five cents a cubic foot. I have not the statistics before me, but I venture to say they will show there was considerable importation of oranges during those years prior to 1936; and had we maintained a tariff at that standard to give time for the development of the trade, we should undoubtedly have restored that very happy condition of external competition which we had aimed at in the imposition of this duty.
The hon. member takes an extravagant method of showing the effect of protection. He takes the total revenue collected on the importation of oranges from the United States and divides it by the importations from empire countries since the trade agreement of 1935. Then, by this method of arithmetical calculation, he says we are giving a protection of $40, $50, $60, $70, and I think it went up to $700 in one instance, per case to empire growers. Of course the argument is ludicrous and absurd in the extreme. It is an old trick in oratory and rhetoric to carry a thing to an absurd point in order to invite attention to the argument being presented.


John Gordon Ross: I know my hon. friend does not want to misinterpret what I said. I did not say it was giving that protection to fruit of British empire origin; I said it was costing the consumers of Canada that much to protect British empire growers.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Unfortunately the hon. gentleman did not confine himself to that statement. He repeatedly said, " This is what you are paying for protection to the empire grower," quoting the figure per case. Of course that is absurd. He himself recognizes that fact now, and it would be abhorrent to him if such a statement were allowed to pass unchallenged; so, with that exceptional degree of intelligence which he possesses, he very properly hastens to correct any such impression.


John Gordon Ross: Oh, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The suggestion he has advanced is not the case at all, of course; it was not with that idea in view that this duty was imposed.


Mr. YOUNG:: But that is the result.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No; it was for the purpose of increasing external competition.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. gentleman does not mean that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to add
another word. The argument has been most dogmatically advanced that the consumer has been called upon to pay the entire difference between the price without duty and the price after the collection of duty. I have not had time to make a study of the matter, but I am not as ignorant in these matters as my hon. friend represents me to be, in spite of the fact that at the time I was Minister of Trade and Commerce, which in some way or another seemed in his opinion to be a warrant that I was completely ignorant. My hon. friend the present minister is not in his seat, but he will have to settle that question himself with the hon. member. I have studied this question with great care, and for some years after this duty was imposed I watched the situation with interest in order to guard against the very thing set forth by my hon. friend. Speaking now from memory, after having checked prices in retail stores, for several of those years I know the price of oranges was lower than it had been previously.
Again I am subject to correction, because I am speaking wholly from memory, but if I am not mistaken there was an exceedingly bad winter in California not so very long ago, during which period a substantial portion of the orange crop was destroyed, and I believe my hon. friend was focusing his attention mainly on the year or season following that destruction, Of course no one can guard against such occurrences. There will be seasons when the ravages of nature will cause advances in prices; but if we take them year by year I think it can be shown that prices of oranges

2056	COMMONS
Canada-United. States Trade Agreement
in Canada did not increase to any great extent as a result of this treaty. Furthermore, I think it Will be shown that there was a substantial importation of oranges from empire countries.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, if I had been minister I would have been watching the situation with very great care particularly during the last year or two. If as a result of our imposition of this tariff the West Indies have made no reasonable effort to restore the production of oranges-which takes a number of jrnars, as my hon. friend, who is a grower of oranges in California, will know better than I do-if they have not taken steps to replace the orchards that were destroyed by the citrus fruit union of California a few years previously, then I think the time would come to review whether or not we should abandon this duty, which was imposed for the very purpose of restoring that production. I am not in a position to say what the present situation is; perhaps the minister has the information. I will say this, however. We are warranted in maintaining this duty until we are satisfied that such a condition obtains. After all, in these matters we are justified in taking a fairly long view. In fact this idea of determining a fiscal policy on what may happen to-day or yesterday or during any season wh^n serious damage is done by nature is an exceedingly unwise course. I suggest that the proper course to pursue is to mark out one's objective and adhere to it until there are valid reasons for changing one's course.
I had no notion of speaking on this item, and would not have done so except for the fact that statements were made which I thought were not strictly relevant to the argument but which rather led the minds of hon. members away from the real facts. There was also, of course, the suggestion that I was so densely ignorant that I did not know my business, so I thought it might be proper to make at least a feeble attempt to justify some modicum of intelligence and a little knowledge of the matter, although not, of course, the knowledge my hon. friend has. I want to pay him this tribute; as a grower in California he certainly is entitled to instruct this house in all that pertains to the interests of the California growers.


John Gordon Ross: My hon. friend says I am a grower of oranges in California.
I am a grower of wheat in Saskatchewan. I said that it fell to my lot to have to look after some interests of some of the older members of my family in California.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a pretty happy lot, too.


John Gordon Ross: I do not say it is not. In any event, I have to visit California once in a while. I was glad to hear my hon. friend was trying to build up this industry in the West Indies. As he says, it takes about fifteen years to bring these trees into full bearing. The hon. gentleman said the trees were uprooted because of competition in Canada, but I understood there was an open market at that time. Surely, however, we do not have to wait for fifteen years in order to get rid of the load that was placed on the people of Canada by my hon. friend's party.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps I might be
allowed to say one word in regard to oranges, purely with the idea of expediting the passage of this item. It is often said, and indeed I have said it myself, that no subject can be raised in the House of Commons without finding somewhere among its 245 members expert knowledge of that particular subject; but frankly, I did not expect to find quite the wide range of expert knowledge which has been demonstrated from all quarters of the house with respect to a commodity which is not produced in Canada at all. But I simply desire to say this, with respect to. the item now before us: It results in a month longer period of free importation.


Mr. SPENCE:: The free period is now seven months, is it not?


Charles Avery Dunning: No. It is four months now,, and under the new agreement it will be five. It is one month longer than was in existence prior to January 1 last. In addition the treaty contemplates giving us the option to adopt two months more.


Mr. SENN:: Three months more than now?


Charles Avery Dunning: Three months more than prior to January 1. The new period under the treaty is now in effect. The reason why the period exists is no doubt well known to hon. members. It exists by virtue of certain other treaties with other members of the British commonwealth of nations to which this country is a party. Therefore any change in what is contemplated directly in this treaty must be the result of consultation between those countries which are parties to other treaties with Canada, affecting the item. As to whether or not we shall adopt the alternative for which the treaty provides, depends upon developments in that connection. I think I should say to all hon. members that the points of view expressed from different parts of Canada will be in my mind when the matter of changing the period is up for

Canada-TJnited States Trade Agreement
consideration, or for consultation as the case may be, with other members of the British commonwealth of nations.
I have only one observation to make of a kind which may be regarded as somewhat controversial. If I could make a guess at one of the major motives of the government which preceded this one in putting a duty on oranges, I think it would be fair to say that one of those major motives was to get revenue. I doubt if the hon. member for Kootenay East, the former Minister of Trade and Commerce, will deny that statement, because it is quite obvious that considerable revenue does come from this tax.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Leave off the word
"major" and I shall agree with my hon. friend.


Charles Avery Dunning: "One" of the major?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Mr. STIRLING:: Could the minister indicate when that decision will be arrived at?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I cannot do that.
Some other countries of the empire which are concerned have indicated their unwillingness to consider any concession. Again I should like to impress upon the committee a fact which is frequently forgotten, namely, that there is not a treaty in existence between Canada and any other country which does not have within it features distinctly helpful to Canada. One could not say with respect to any particular item, and to any country, "Well, we are going arbitrarily to alter that item," without expecting that other country to take the same attiude with respect to an item it regards as being of advantage to itself. Indeed, at times we may have to face the question as to whether or not a treaty shall continue in operation, if it is too strongly insisted that something be done which would be of interest to a particular class of Canadian people.
I am not intimating that we have reached any decision with respect to oranges. I see the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) casting a cold and fishlike eye in my direction-all of which means, I know, that I have not said a word yet about mandarins and tangerines. May I assure him I have taken careful note of and shall give full consideration to the point he made in that regard. In the meantime he might have a little conversation with his neighbour about the matter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have already had
one.


Wilbert Franklin (Frank) Rickard: I am not opposed to
the people of Canada getting cheap oranges,
but I am opposed to their coming in here at about a cent each. There is no comparison between oranges at a cent each and cheap oranges. I contend that if they were two cents each the people of Canada would still be getting cheap oranges.


David Spence: They are very small at
a cent each.


Mr. ILSLEY:: The hon. member for
Comox-Albemi is, I am sure, under a misapprehension about one point. He seems to feel that mandarins and tangerines are free from Japan and dutiable from other countries. I thought that was his argument. The fact is that is not so; they are free from all countries which enjoy the most favoured nation treatment, and they have been since January 1, 1936.


Alan Webster Neill: But since the order in council was passed in November, 1931, until the other day, it was not so. The order in council uses the expression "it is hereby ordered that mandarins and tangerines when grown in Japan," and so on. It confined the privilege to Japan, only, and it remained that way from 1931 until 1935.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not until the other day.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That order in council
was passed before the duty was placed on oranges in 1931.


Alan Webster Neill: No, the duty was placed on
oranges in June, 1931.


Charles Avery Dunning: The United States became a most favoured nation by virtue of the 1935 agreement. And because of that this order in council applied thereafter to them.


Mr. BLACK MO  RE@: 
Mr. PERLEY:: For fear I may not have many opportunities later on to associate myself with the hon. member for Moose Jaw-


Charles Avery Dunning: One of you must be
Wrong.


George Halsey Perley: I cannot do it often; in fact, he almost made it impossible on this occasion, because of some of the absurd arguments he urged. On this occasion, however, I join with him and other hon. members, notably the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), in expressing the belief that the cheaper oranges are made, the better. Especially is that so when we realize that oranges are an important food commodity not only for children but for adults. I am glad the minister has expressed the opinion that there may be a possibility of even extending the time for free entry. Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-101a. Lemons, free.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 105b, ex 105c. Olives, ripe, in brine: 10 per cent.
Item agreed to.
_ Customs tariff-106. Fruits, prepared, in airtight cans or other airtight containers, the weight of the containers to be included in the weight for duty:
(a)	peaches, 31 cents per pound; apricots and pears, three cents per pound.
Mr. LOCKHART:: The minister was, I believe, going to place some figures on record.


Charles Avery Dunning: In the year 1938 total importations of peaches and apricots from the United States were valued at $15,900, and importations of pears at $2,500.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff

106. Fruits, prepared, in airtight cans or other airtight containers, the weight of the containers to be included in' the weight for duty:
(b)	pineapples, 3 cents per pound.
Charles Avery Dunning: Imports from the United States in 1938 were $24,900.


Mr. MARSHALL:: I notice the British
preferential tariff on peaches, apricots and pears is two cents per pound. Does that rate extend to New Zealand and Australia?


Charles Avery Dunning: By agreement the Australian rate is lower than the British preferential, it being one-half cent per pound on peaches and free on the other fruits. The New Zealand duty is the straight British preferential rate.


Mr. COLDW ELL:: I suppose this is a
straight revenue item because we raise no pineapples in Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: The British preferential
is involved in the difference between the British preferential rate and the Unite'd States treaty rate. The British preferential rate is one cent.


Major James William Coldwell: Why not make the
British empire product free? Why not start from nothing instead of one cent?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are free from Australia, so we do start from nothing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-106. Fruits, prepared, in airtight cans or other airtight containers, the weight of the containers to be included in the weight for duty:
(c)	n.o.p., 3 cents per pound.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-108. Honey, in the comb or otherwise, and imitations thereof: 1J cents per pound.
George Halsey Perley: 
Charles Avery Dunning: With respect to the first point raised by my hon. friend, I may say that the full extent of the president's power was exercised, as between two treaties, one with Guatemala and the United States, and the other between Canada and the United States. As the hon. member will have noted, the rates now agree. Our total exports for 1936 amounted to $151,000; for 1937, $225,000, and for 1938, $246,000. Last year we exported to Great Britain a total of $205,300 worth.


George Halsey Perley: The production of honey has become a main industry in western Canada. I believe last year a large shipment of western honey went to Great Britain via Churchill. Perhaps it would be a little too much to ask the minister to give us any details with respect to that particular shipment?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot, I am sorry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
Customs tariff-ex 109. Nuts of all kin'ds, n.o.p., but not including shelled peanuts, n.o.p.: one cent per pound.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 114. Nuts, shelled, n.o.p., but not including shelled almonds, peanuts or *walnuts: two cents per pound.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-115. Mackerel, herring, salmon and all other fish, n.o.p., fresh, salted, pickled, smoked, dried or boneless:	i cent
per pound.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-116. Halibut, fresh, pickled or salted: one cent per pound.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-117, ex. 133. Fish livers, fresh, salted or in preservative medium: free.
Alan Webster Neill: What is the duty on fish livers entering the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 123a. Shrimps in sealed containers: 15 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-124. Oysters, shelled, in bulk: 5 cents per gallon.
Mr. MASSEY:: Has the minister any idea of the domestic consumption of Canadian oysters compared with exports out of Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: Canadian production in 1937 was valued at $174,000.


Denton Massey: I believe my question should have been asked on the next item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-128. Oysters in the shell: 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: I gave my hon. friend the production in Canada in 1937. In the same year we imported to the value of $8,300. Our exports are not separately reported. Apparently exports are reported under the total shellfish item, so that I cannot give my hon. friend the information for which he asked. I had hoped to be able to deduct the exports from the production and arrive at the consumption in that way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-141. Sugar candy and confectionery, n.o.p., including sweetened gums, candied pop corn, candied nuts, flavouring powders, custard powders, jelly powders, sweetmeats, sweetened breads, cakes, pies, puddings and all other confections containing sugar, the weight of the wrappings and cartons to be included in the weight for duty: £ cent per pound and 30 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-143a. Cigarettes, the weight of the paper covering to be included in the weight for duty: $3 per pound and 15 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 152. Fruit juices, n.o.p,, not including lime, orange, lemon or passion fruit juices: 15 per cent.
Mr. LENNARD:: What is passion fruit?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not acquainted with it. We had plenty of experts on oranges, and perhaps we have one on the passion fruit.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: It is grown in all tropical and sub-tropical countries. The granadilla has a flower which is peculiarly formed with certain related figures such as three, five and twelve. Because of its shape it has been called the passion flower.


Charles Avery Dunning: I knew we could find experts in the house on anything, including passion fruit.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 152. Fruit syrups, n.o.p.: 20 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 156. Whiskey (subject to the provisos attached to tariff items 156 and 156a): $6 per gallon of the strength of proof.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 167. Barley malt, whole, crushed or ground, upon entry for warehouse subjects to excise regulations: § cent per pound.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-169. Books, viz.: Novels or works of fiction, or literature of a similar character, unbound or paper bound or in sheets, but not to include Christmas annuals, or publications commonly known as juvenile and toy books: 10 per cent.	J
Mr. HAYHURST:: There are a number of items here which are more or less related. There is a tax upon certain bindings coming into Canada. My remarks apply perhaps more to item 605a, which deals with morocco leathers. The duty on the raw materials used for binding is such that libraries find it cheaper to ship the books out of Canada unbound, to the United States, we will say,
2060	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
and the libraries would like the duties upon morocco leathers, cloths and other substances which go into the binding of books, reduced or remitted in some way so that these books could be bound in Canada. That would help create work in Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not sure I quite understood my hon. friend. He has spoken of shipping unbound books out of Canada, and then of binding books in Canada.


William Hayhurst: Yes. I understand that the materials for these bindings are manufactured outside Canada, and there is a tax on those materials. The libraries would like to have the tax remitted, so that the books could be bound in Canada, thus aiding Canadian industry. Perhaps this refers more directly to item 605a, but the item before the committee is more or less bound up with the binding of books.


Charles Avery Dunning: So far as my hon.
friend's remarks relate to item 605a, I can give him the information now. Item 605a, covering morocco leathers, is a bound item; that is to say, under the British empire agreements we cannot reduce the intermediate tariff on morocco leathers.
With respect to the general question of drawbacks, if there is one thing which plagues tariff administration in any country it is applications by particular trades or industries to be allowed drawbacks on particular importations used for particular purposes. It is very difficult in administrative practice for my colleague the Minister of National Revenue; in consequence of the difficulties which have arisen in the administration of drawbacks generally I referred to the tariff board just a few weeks ago the whole question of studying the effect and incidence of all the existing drawbacks, and I have no doubt at all that those interested in the item to which my hon. friend refers will be active with respect to their view of that question during its hearing before the tariff board.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff- ex 169, ex 171, ex 184. Books, periodicals and pamphlets, or parts thereof, printed, bound, unbound, or in sheets (not to include blank account books, copy books, or books to be written or drawn upon), in any other than the English language: free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 169, 184a, 184b, 184c, 184d. Periodical publications, unbound or paper bound, printed and issued at regular intervals, not less frequently than four times a year, and bearing dates of issue: free.
John Ritchie MacNicol: This is one of ten items in the whole treaty to which I wish to refer,
[Mr. Hayhurst.l
and I shall do so briefly. The reason why I say that is that I know it is hopeless for us to say anything because, in any event, anything we may say cannot change anything.
A week ago Saturday when I was home in Toronto I had occasion to call on one of the large printing houses which does a big business, and I found that it was very much concerned over this item and others associated with it, pertaining to books, printing and so forth. This printer told me that prior to 1935 he had purchased from the United States six large machines costing him a very great deal of money, and that prior to 1935 all these machines were busy. At that time he was printing a large number of periodicals. But since the change in the tariff in 1935 two of these large machines are idle, and two others are for sale, and he anticipates increased difficulty as a result of the items in this treaty. One of these machines is operating only halftime, and the other only one third of the time. The printer told me that the cut in the tariff in 1935 reduced the number of his operators by fifty, men and women, youths and girls; it meant a loss to his business of $400,000 a year, and as far as he knew it meant a reduction of 200 in employees in the whole trade in Toronto.
What strikes me as peculiar is this: While our whole foreign trade imports dropped last year $131,000,000, our importations under item ex 169 increased by $908,000. That just means, of course, that much less printing for Canadian printers. While we can do nothing about this item by discussing it in this chamber, I did feel that I had to say a word on behalf of our printers and their employees who have been thrown out of work.


Denton Massey: While I heartily endorse what the hon. member for Davenport has said, there is another element in connection with this item which should not pass without something being said about it. I am quite sure that the minister realizes, as does his colleague the Minister of National Revenue, that since the change in this item in 1935 this country has been virtually flooded with a type of periodical which cannot be called elevating, to phrase it mildly.


Charles Avery Dunning: Prior to that they were printed in Canada.


Denton Massey: Some of them; but there are now, I understand, some one thousand titles listed by many of those who deal in periodicals. I do not pose as an authority on this type of periodical, but I should like to ask one or two questions of the minister.

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
First, how are these magazines censored? Perhaps "censored" is an ugly word. On what basis are they admitted into Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: From a censorship point of view?


Denton Massey: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will ask my colleague to answer that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We have discussed this matter pretty often in the house and outside. There is a branch of the Department of National Revenue, customs division, which is charged with the duty of examining periodicals with a view to determining whether they are treasonable, seditious, indecent or immoral. If the officials decide that they are, then they are prohibited from entering Canada, and collectors are notified accordingly.


Denton Massey: I think the Minister of
National Revenue (Mr. Usley) as well as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) will realize that the menace of certain types of publications is far greater perhaps than we have yet shown in our recognition of the existence of those magazines. It seems to me that not only is the question raised by the hon. member for Davenport an important one under this item, but the matter of salacious publications is most important, and obviously a most efficient way of dealing -with it is by the imposition of a duty against these magazines which would put them out of the reach of those who now wish to purchase them. Accordingly I wondered whether the Minister of Finance had given any consideration to what it might be possible to do in this connection, or is the item so completely bound that it cannot possibly be changed?


Charles Avery Dunning: I remember well the
discussions in this house years ago on the same question. I took the ground then, and I take it still, that no tariff can be a protector of the morals of people in connection with literature. I think the result when a tariff was put on fully bore out my contention in that respect, because the offending magazines were simply printed in Canada; and I believe I am right in saying that it was more difficult to control from the point of view of decency what shall be printed when the printing takes place within Canada than it is to control the entry of such literature into the country. As a matter of fact, only the Minister of National Revenue has control over importations.
I do not know any branch of the Canadian government service which has censorship
privileges with respect to indecent publications within Canada except that I believe there is some measure of control under the postal regulations. But I think the Postmaster General (Mr. McLarty) will also say that it is a very difficult matter, as many of these publications do not go by post. The Postmaster General says that only a very small fraction do. The Minister of National Revenue tells me that over 20,000 imported magazines were seized last year by the branch of his department concerned; and I believe we can say that the branch of government concerned is dealing with that very difficult task in a way which would commend itself to those interested, although there are constant protests against the severity of its rulings. That has always been so under all governments; it has been a difficult, thorny question. It was hoped by many in this house that the imposition of a tariff would have the effect of exercising control; in fact, it was one of the arguments used in my early years in the house. But I never believed it would have that effect, and I am quite sure that the event proved that there could be no effective control in that manner.
_ Mr- MASSEY:	Is it not true that possibly some seventy-dive per cent of the importations of such periodicals come in under about twenty-five titles? A small number of magazines enter Canada in large quantities?


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no.


John Ritchie MacNicol: About seventy-five. I
think. Some seventy-eight were printed in Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sure twenty-five is too small a number.


Denton Massey: I was not able to get the
detailed figures.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: What would be
the United States tariff on our goods similar *to this item going in there?


Charles Avery Dunning: Goods corresponding to this item are free.


Frank Exton Lennard: In support of what was said by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), I might draw to the minister's attention the fact that some of these magazines and periodicals which come into Canada have been banned in certain states of the United States. Strange as it may seem, I understand that certain magazines which are being shipped into Canada are not allowed to circulate in Chicago and several other western cities. I do not know the names of the periodicals, but I was given that information
2062	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
on fairly good authority. It might be well to have the matter investigated. I think that rule has been put into force only during recent months.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think the proper place
for the discussion of this question of prohibition of periodicals is under the estimates of the Department of National Revenue. That is where this discussion takes place every year. I shall be glad to answer questions then.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 174. Tourist literature issued by national or state governments or departments thereof, boards of trade, chambers of commerce, municipal and automobile associations, and similar organizations: free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 178, ex 178a. Advertising and printed matter, whether imported by mail or otherwise, when in individual packages valued at not more than $1 each and when not imported for sale or in a manner designed to evade payment of customs duties: free.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: Would it not be possible for a firm here to send to the United States a mailing list and have these articles come in free and be distributed in that way?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is possible unless it is an evasion. The hon. member will note that the concluding words of the item are . . . when not imported for sale or in a manner designed to evade payment of customs duties.
The question of when the supplying of a mailing list is an evasion and when it is not is difficult to determine. It is covered by recent rulings and regulations of the department. I have	not them here,	but	I cansupply them	to	the hon. member	if he	would
like to have them.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Take, for instance, the distribution of calendars, some worth twenty-five	or	thirty or forty	cents	each;would that	be	an evasion? A	mailing list
could be sent to the other side and the stuff come in for advertising purposes. That would be no evasion that I could see.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not want to go into that question without having the rulings and regulations before me, because the question is exceedingly difficult. But there comes a time when we say it is an evasion of this item. The item was not intended for the purpose suggested at all; it was intended to let United States organizations like hotels and railway companies send their literature into Canada without its being dutiable. They permit a great deal of our literature of that kind to enter the United States free.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is all free.


James Lorimer Ilsley: And this was designed to
give them the same privilege in this country. When a Canadian firm asked if they could do what the hon. member suggests, the question was whether they were not changing the whole intention of the item and making it apply to a different purpose altogether, and we made a ruling on it which I had better supply to my hon. friend instead of trying to state it to him from memory.


Grote Stirling: If evasion is proved, what duty will be paid?


Charles Avery Dunning: Twelve and a half cents.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Under the item as it stands it would not be an evasion if a firm sent a mailing list to the United States and had a calendar made, to be sent to each individual on the list. It would be perfectly open and above board.


Charles Avery Dunning: I suggest that if a person publishing a calendar intended to advertise a Canadian concern, having that concern's name on it, and sent the mailing list to the United States, having the calendar mailed from there, it would be obviously an evasion. It is a calendar advertising a Canadian concern, and an effort is made to ship it in from the United States under this item instead of under the item that is properly applicable.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-179. Labels for cigar boxes, fruits, vegetables, meats, fish, confectionery or other'goods or wares; shipping, price or other tags, tickets or labels, and railroad or other tickets, whether lithographed or printed, or partly printed, n.o.p.: 27J per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-180.	Photographs, ehromos,
chromotypes, artotypes, oleographs, paintings, drawings, pictures, deealcomania transfers of all kinds, n.o.p., engravings or prints or proofs therefrom, and similar works of art, n.o.p.; blueprints, building plans, maps, and charts, n.o.p.: 20 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-181. Bank notes, bonds, bills of exchange, cheques, promissory notes, drafts and all similar work, unsigned, and cards or other commercial blank forms printed or lithographed, or printed from steel or copper or other plates, and other printed matter, n.o.p.: 27i per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-181a.	Pictorial post-cards,
greeting cards and similar artistic cards or folders: 30 per cent. '
Douglas Gooderham Ross: No doubt the minister has had several letters with regard to this industry in Toronto. It is a new industry that has gradually grown. There-are two firms

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
there engaged in the production of post-cards. The industry was started in 1931, but the competition is becoming serious. With the removal of the excise tax and the lowering of the tariff, it has now reached the point where a great many of these cards can come in and be sold over the counter for five cents, whereas before they sold at from six cents to ten cents. There is also a considerable number of overruns and discards which can be brought in cheaply. The industry is worthwhile, and there will be no extra cost to the consumer so far as the tariff is concerned, but the tariff does protect Canadian producers. There are a great many classes employed in this production-the artists, the engravers and the general workmen. I simply wanted to bring these facts to the attention of the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 184. Newspapers, unbound, n.o.p.; tailors, milliners' and mantle-makers' fashion plates, when imported in single copies in sheet form with periodical trade journals: free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-187. Albumenized and other papers and films chemically prepared for photographers' use, n.o.p.: 20 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-192. Tarred paper and prepared roofings (including shingles), fibreboard, strawboard, sheathing and insulation, manufactured wholly or in part of vegetable fibres, n.o.p.; blotting paper, not printed nor illustrated: 224 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-l'92b. Sandpaper, glass or flint paper, and emery paper or emery cloth: 20 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-192d. Electrical insulating pressboard, not less than *040 inch in thickness. 12£ per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-195. Paper hanging or wall papers, including borders or bordering: 30 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-197. Paper of all kinds, n.o.p.: 22£ per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex. 197. Electric cable insulating paper, *0045 inch or less in thickness, and condenser tissue paper: 10 per cent.
Item agreed to.
[Mr. Douglas G. Ross.l
Customs tariff-197b. Wrapping paper of all kinds, not pasted, coated or embossed: 25 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-198. Ruled and border and coated papers, boxed papers, pads not printed, papier-mache ware, n.o.p.: 274 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-199.	Papeteries, envelopes,
and all manufactures of paper, n.o.p.: 274 Per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-199b. Containers wholly or partially manufactured from fibreboard or paperboard: one cent per pound.
Provided, that in no case shall the rate of duty be less than 25 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-199c. Waxed stencil paper for use on duplicating machines: 274 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-200. Pulp of wood, of straw or of any other vegetable fibre: free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-206a. Biological products, animal or vegetable, n.o.p., for parenteral administration in the diagnosis or treatment of diseases of man, when manufactured under licence of the Department of Pensions and National Health under regulations prescribed by the Food and Drugs Act; and biological products, animal or vegetable, n.o.p., for parenteral administration in the diagnosis or treatment of diseases of animals or poultry, when imported under permit of the veterinary director general: free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 208. Sulphur and brimstone, crude or in roll or flour: free.
John Ritchie MacNicol: What is this item for? Heretofore it has been free all along the line.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is to bind a free entry. We agreed not to put a duty on during the currency of the treaty.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 208j. Nitrate of ammonia, when imported for use in the manufacture of nitrous oxide: 10 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208t. All chemicals and drugs, when of a kind not produced in Canada, which were on August 20, 1932, dutiable at rates of 15, 25 and 25 per cent, under tariff item 711: 174 per cent.
Item agreed to. '
2064	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
Customs tariff-ex 208t. Bicarbonate of soda, 12J per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariffs-ex 208t. Methyl ethyl ketone; isopropyl acetate; butyl alcohol: 25 per cent.
Major James William Coldwell: What is this substance used for?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is used in the manufacture of anti-freeze.


Major James William Coldwell: Is there any considerable production in Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: We have no recorded production in Canada of this group of high-sounding names.


Major James William Coldwell: If they are not produced in any quantity in Canada, because we use so much anti-freeze, I can see no justification for the duty except for revenue purposes.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is bound against
increase. It must be remembered that this is only one of many commodities which alternatively can be used for the manufacture of anti-freeze. There are new commodities coming into that field every year, and as a motorist who drives in the winter I am glad to see it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208u. Xanthates and sulpho-thio-phosphoric (dithio-phosphoric) compounds, for use in the process of concentrating ores, metals or minerals: free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-210.
(i)	Peroxide of _ soda; silicate of soda in crystals or in solution; nitrate of soda or cubic nitre, n.o.p.: sulphide of sodium; nitrite of soda; arseniate, binarseniate, bisulphite and stannate of soda; prussiate of soda: 15 per cent.
(ii)	Bichromate, sulphite and chlorate of soda: 12i per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff^-210e. Nitrate of soda or cubic nitre when imported for use as a fertilizer or as a flux in the reduction of electrolytic copper slimes, or for use in the curing and pickling of meats or in the manufacture of vitreous glazes and enamel frits, or when imported by manufacturers of explosives for use exclusively in the manufacture of explosives, m their own factories: free.
Item , agreed to.
Customs tariff-212. Sulphate of alumina or alum cake; and alum in bulk, ground or unground, but not calcined: 15 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-21C. Acids, n.o.p., of a kind not produced in Canada: 20 per cent.
Item agreed to.

Customs tariff-216d. Phtnalic anhydride, adipic, abietic, maleic and succinic acids and" ethylene glycol, when imported by manufacturers of synthetic resins, for use exclusively in the manufacture of synthetic resins, in their own factories: free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-219a. Non-alcoholic preparations or chemicals, for disinfecting, dipping, spraying or fumigating, n.o.p.:
(i)	when in packages not exceeding three pounds each, gross weight: 22J per cent.
(ii)	otherwise: 7J per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-219d. Sulphuric ether; chloroform, n.o.p.; preparations of vinyl ether for anaesthetic purposes: 20 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-220. All medicinal, chemical and pharmaceutical preparations, compounded ol more than one substance, including patent and proprietary preparations, tinctures, pills, powders, troches, lozenges, filled gelatine capsules, tablets, syrups, cordials, bitters, anodynes, tonics, plasters, liniments, salves, ointments, pastes, drops, waters, essences and oils, n,o.p.:
(a)	when dry: 20 per cent.
(b)	liquid, when containing not more than two and one-half per centum of proof spirit: 27J per cent.
Provided that drugs, pill-mass and preparations, not including pills or medicinal plasters, recognized by the British or United States pharmacopoeia, the Canadian formulary or the French codex as official, shall not be held to be covered by this item.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-220. Ex (b) Dextrose (glucose) solutions, prepared, for parenteral administration in therapeutic treatments: free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 228. Soap powders, powdered soap, mineral soap, and soap, n.o.p., not including toilet soap: 25 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-234. Perfumery, including toilet preparations, non-alcoholic, viz., hair oils, tooth and other powders and washes, pomatums, pastes, and all other perfumed preparations, n.o.p., used for the hair, mouth or skin:
30 per cent.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I wish to say a few
words in connection with this item.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is a fitting place to stop.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION


AMENDMENT TO EXTEND PERIOD OP OPERATION OF ACT, ETC.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 36, to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Appropriations.
Mr. QUELCH:: I should like to make a few observations on this bill. I realize that a great deal of valuable work has been done under this act; nevertheless because of its limitations I think it is unable to deal adequately with the problems of the permanent drought area, and in referring to that area I have in mind that part of Alberta east of a line drawn north and south of the town of Hanna. In that area, in order to deal with the problem in such a way that a farmer might be able to enjoy a reasonable standard of living, I believe we are still faced with one of two alternatives, either to .make a greatly increased acreage of land available to the farmer in order that he may go into ranching, or to develop irrigation projects.
The first of these alternatives has been undertaken to a certain extent already by the special areas board of Alberta. For instance, in the Berry Creek area the aim has been to allow three thousand acres per family, with a definite limitation upon the amount of stock that can be carried per quarter section. I believe the limit is three head per quarter section or one head per fifty acres, because it is realized that in that area it takes about fifty acres of land to maintain one head of stock. Under this act a great deal of crested wheat grass seed has been distributed, and once that is established no doubt the number of head of stock per quarter section may be increased. Farmers, however, have been greatly handicapped by lack of finances with which to buy stock to build up their herds. This is especially so, following the unfortunate occurrence of a year ago when, owing to lack of feed, the federal government in conjunction with the provinces framed certain regulations under which the farmers were forced to reduce their stock in order to obtain relief feed. Now they find themselves in the unfortunate position of not having the money with which to 'buy stock to build up their
herds. So, as I have already stated, I believe a great deal of the drought area in Alberta- and possibly this applies to Saskatchewan as well-eventually will have to be turned back to grazing unless large irrigation projects are instituted.
A certain amount of the land in the drought area of Alberta is especially suitable for irrigation purposes. Many schemes have been surveyed and endorsed by engineers. Perhaps the best known scheme is the North Saskatchewan project, generally referred to as the William Pearce project. Under that scheme a million and a half acres would be irrigated, one million in Saskatchewan and half a million in Alberta. When the estimates were first prepared I think the cost was figured to be approximately S70 an acre to irrigate land in Saskatchewan; but according to certain well known engineers that figure can be considerably reduced to-day. I think it is estimated that it can be cut approximately in half. While the major project may be considered too expensive or not feasible, there are a number of modified schemes based upon the William Pearce project, such as, for instance, the Sullivan Lake project. Under that scheme half a million acres in Alberta would be irrigated, at a cost of approximately S23,000,000. In this instance also this figure probably could be cut considerably, on account of the fact that dirt can be moved very much more cheaply to-day than was the case when the original survey was made, and the further fact that at the present time this land is largely owned by the government, so there would be no necessity for buying very much land. These projects, however, are entirely beyond the financial resources of the province, and if they are to be put into operation they will have to be financed by the federal government. At the present time, as I understand it, this act is not so constituted that large irrigation projects can be financed, but I am hoping that, as time goes on, a change may be made which would allow these larger projects to be carried on.
If these schemes are put into operation without building up excessive charges against the land, I think they may become highly satisfactory, judging from past history. In Alberta to-day many of the larger irrigation projects are operating successfully; the farm-era are making a fairly decent living and are able to pay the maintenance costs. It is useless, however, to expect a project of this kind to be able to repay the capital charges, and if irrigation projects are to be put into operation in the future with any hope of success, we shall have to construct them without placing a charge against the land.
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation

I should now like to say just a few words with regard to the methods of administration adopted under this act, because I do feel that in some ways the administration of this act in Alberta has been somewhat unfortunate. In my province there is a definite feeling that in the matter of expenditures there has been a great deal of discrimination against Alberta compared with Saskatchewan. Of course I realize that the area in Saskatchewan is very much larger than the area in Alberta, and this may partly account for this feeling. Apart from that, however, there are other reasons why people feel that Alberta has been discriminated against. I might mention one instance, the Bartman dam which was built in my constituency. The contract for this dam was awarded the Poole Construction Company, with headquarters in Regina, which put in a tender amounting to something like $19,332. The special areas board of Alberta put in a tender totalling about $150 less.


Mr. GARDINER:: Mr. Poole's home is
in Edmonton.


Victor Quelch: Yes; the firm have offices in Edmonton, but their headquarters are in Regina.


James Garfield Gardiner: And Mr. Poole lives
in Edmonton.


Victor Quelch: Nevertheless the headquarters of the company are still registered as being in Regina. In any event the contract was let to the Poole Construction Company. If it had been awarded to the special areas board, the work would have started far earlier than it did. The Poole Construction Company had to bring in their material and their outfit; a great deal of time was wasted, with the result that the spillway of the dam was not completed in time. When spring came, the water, instead of running down the spillway, ran over the top, and the dam was washed out. If that dam had been constructed ,by the special areas board, I believe this would not have happened, because only six miles below the Bartman dam the special areas board built what is known as the Helmer dam. Not only did that dam withstand the natural flow of water, it also withstood the force of the water which broke down the Bartman dam. Of course the Helmer dam is a smaller dam; nevertheless it was saved. Moreover, if that contract had been awarded to the special areas board, far more of the money would have been spent locally instead of going out of the district, as it did when it was paid to the Poole Construction Company. That, I think, was unnecessary. I suppose there was some reason for awarding that contract to this company, 
but their tender was higher than that of the special areas board, which was on the spot and which possessed a great deal of experience in building dams of this kind. So I think it was strange that the special areas -board did not obtain the contract.
Now that we are in committee I should like to ask the minister if he could give us any information as to whether or not any action is being taken along the line of investigating the Sullivan Lake project, and also whether any action is being contemplated or taken regarding the extension of the Medicine Hat irrigation -project. The minister knows the project to which I am referring; it is the one concerning which he was interviewed by a committee last month.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know whether it is possible for me to cover all the matters referred to by the hon. member, but perhaps I can recall most of his references and can deal with them pretty much in the order in which they were mentioned.
In the first place I quite agree it has been found necessary bo change the situation which had existed prior to 1932 in that section of the country lying east of Hanna in Alberta. At that time most of that territory was occupied by homesteaders, or persons who had homesteaded land and purchased preemptions. Since that time much of the area has been evacuated by those who originally settled it. Much of the land is light. It is not very well suited to grain growing of any kind, and is probably best suited to the production of live stock. However, the reference which was made a few minutes ago to the effect that it requires fifty acres of land to maintain one head of live stock indicates that it is not really very good live stock land. When an eastern farmer hears one referring to the fact that fifty acres of land are required to pasture one head of live stock, I am sure he wonders just what kind of country it is. That in itself indicates that it is not very productive, even of grass.
Therefore there were problems there when practically the whole of that country was settled by homesteaders. That was one of the mistakes which was made in settling the area in the first place. The Pearce scheme, which has been spoken of as a means of taking care of some of the difficulties which exist in the area from Hanna eastward to Saskatoon, is a scheme which has been discussed widely in both eastern and western Canada. I recall having seen about two years ago in some of the eastern papers strongly written editorials and news items to the effect that this was one more instance where the government was not taking the action it should take because this

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation
scheme was not being put under way. I may add that some of the same papers to-day are accusing the government of spending too great sums of money in trying to deal with some of the problems we are attempting to deal with in connection with that area.
The Pearce scheme is one which was outlined many years ago by a gentleman named Pearce who had made explorations across that country. It necessitated first the filling of a storage known as Sullivan lake just to the north and a little to the west of Hanna, Alberta, and making use of that for the irrigation of about 425,000 acres of land in the immediate vicinity of Sullivan Lake. The idea was then to carry the waters farther down into Saskatchewan, using the storages at Tramping lake, and elsewhere between there and Saskatoon, to irrigate certain areas of land. I might point out that if the scheme had been undertaken and completed, there could have been irrigated in the whole section of the country only about a million and a half acres, as indicated by the hon. member a moment ago, whereas in that section of the country we are talking about there are probably 30,000,000 acres of land occupied by settlers. So that one can see that if one were going to irrigate only about a million and a half acres in an area where probably 30,000,000 acres are occupied by farmers, even the considerable expenditure of money that is talked about is not going to help many of them.
I believe much of the land which would have been brought under irrigation by the original scheme has since been found not to be very well suited to irrigation. Some of it is too light, and therefore permits the water to get away before it is of much use. Then, some of it is more or less affected by alkali which makes it difficult to irrigate to advantage. But a considerable part of the land could be irrigated, and about 425,000 acres of it is in the vicinity of Hanna and Sullivan Lake.
I have been asked whether anything is being done to explore the possibilities of the scheme, and I can say only that we have engineers on the job making investigations with regard to costs and possibilities in connection with the development of a storage in Sullivan lake. I understand it would be necessary first to build a dam in the river near Red Deer; after the dam was built, it would be necessary to pump the water up to the prairie level, which is an extremely expensive undertaking; then run it in ditches from that point until it reaches the river at another point; then syphon it under the river, bring
it up to the river again on the other side, take it down to Sullivan lake and fill that lake, making it a storage which can be used for irrigation purposes round Sullivan lake.


Victor Quelch: I understand, if a dam
were built just below the mouth of the Raven river, on the Red Deer river, it would need to be only fifty feet high, and then the water would come down by gravity, without any pumping.


James Garfield Gardiner: If you build a dam
fifty feet high, take the water out of the river and run it down by gravity, it takes the water down along the river banks. I understand the nature of the soil is such that it will not hold water running in ditches along the level. In all probability you would find most of the water running back into the river before you got down to Sullivan lake.
The only practical scheme is one of pumping the water up to the level, taking it in ditches and then taking it back into Sullivan lake. That is an expensive undertaking and one which at the moment the department would not feel like recommending to the government. It is not an undertaking the department would recommend at the present time to the consideration of the house, as one which, with the amount of money available and the amount the house is prepared to vote for that kind of undertaking, we might want to undertake.
There are many other undertakings of a similar nature which, taken together, will, I believe, take care of more people with the expenditure of the same amount of money. But the investigations are not yet completed. The final report is not yet in, and I am only giving to the committee the benefit of the information which at present is before the department in relation to that particular project. I might say that one can quite understand what the expenditure would be in order to irrigate about a million acres in addition to this half million, when water has to be moved hundreds of miles from that location in order to have it where the additional land is to be irrigated.
Something has been said about its costing just about half as much to move earth now as it did some years ago. Well, I have had something to do with moving earth in Saskatchewan since about 1922, when I was minister of highways in that province. I find it costs just about as much to move earth today, even with more efficient machinery, as it did back in 1922 or at an even earlier date. I believe hon. members will agree with me when I say that more efficient machinery either for the movement of dirt or for the
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation

making of farm implements or machinery of war has not resulted in lesser costs for the completed process or articles. I believe if we check back over the whole list of articles being produced to-day we shall find that the theory that present-day equipment reduces costs has not worked out in actual practice. If we consider the cost of replacing machinery from time to time, it is costing just about as much to move earth to-day as it did back in the days when they were building the railways across western Canada in the first instance. I am not at all carried away with the idea that we can move this dirt to-day at half what it cost a few years go. It still costs a great deal of money to move earth to carry out projects of the type mentioned.
The estimate with regard to the Pearce scheme, made I think in 1922 by the then Department of the Interior, was that it would cost about S54 an acre to irrigate lands in the vicinity of Sullivan Lake. That is the 425,000 acres of which we were speaking a moment ago. It was also estimated that it would cost $78 an acre to irrigate those lands which were located in Saskatchewan. The question which arises in my mind, and in the minds of many others, is whether it is advisable for this government to start to spend sums of that kind in order to develop irrigation projects at this particular time. There may come a time when it will be advisable to do that, but I do not think that time has arrived as yet.
With regard to the suggestion that there may have been discrimination as between Alberta and other provinces in the expenditure of money, I can only say that as far as expenditures upon water conservation are concerned the amount spent in Alberta compares favourably with what was spent in Saskatchewan or Manitoba, that is in proportion to the areas. In connection with regrassing and reseeding lands, and work of that type, the same thing is true. Alberta has had a fair share of the money which has been expended for these different purposes. In 1937 we undertook to enlarge the activities carried on under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and endeavoured to establish community pastures here and there throughout the drought areas or the open prairie country. The advisory committee met on two or three occasions, and finally a resolution was adopted setting out a certain policy for the development of the land reclamation activities to be carried on under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. In line with those activities we have been attempting to take certain lands east of Hanna, somewhat similar to those described a few moments ago by the hon. member, out 
of cultivation and put them back into grass which could be used by farmers who are on better land roundabout.
We were able to enter into negotiations with the government of Saskatchewan by which they agreed to the policies which were then laid down and adopted by the federal Department of Agriculture. We carried on negotiations with the government of Alberta, but they were not prepared to turn over lands in what were known as the special areas in the province and which had been administered by the special areas board since I think about 1922. They were not prepared to turn over those lands to the government on the same terms as lands were being turned over in Saskatchewan. As they desired to carry on activities within those areas themselves, we suggested that we were prepared to enter into agreements under which lands outside that area would be leased to us for twenty-one years. Under these leases we would be prepared to go on and do the same sort of work we were doing in Saskatchewan.
Mr. Tanner, a member of the government of Alberta, came to Ottawa, and a mutual agreement was drawn up which we felt stated the understanding as to what might be done in the areas outside the special areas. Since then, however, we have had no communication from the government of Alberta stating that they were prepared to proceed with the plan. As we were not able to arrive at definite conclusions during the summer of 1937, about $250,000 which had been voted to be expended under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was never taken out of the treasury. In other words, we held the money throughout a whole year while endeavouring to enter into some arrangements with the government of Alberta which would make possible the expenditure of that money. I think any money which was not expended would have to be charged up to Alberta when making a calculation as to what money was available to Alberta in that particular year.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: What part of the agreement was not satisfactory to Alberta?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know. They have not told me. Since the agreement which was drawn up while Mr. Tanner was in Ottawa, was sent to the Alberta government, I have had no further communication from them.


Victor Quelch: Is it not true that the advisory committee met in June when it was understood that the administration of these areas would be left in the hands of the provincial government? Then, later on in the year the Saskatchewan government submitted

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation
a different kind of plan which the federal government adopted. Alberta was never allowed to submit its plan. Saskatchewan submitted a plan which the federal government adopted, but the federal government did not permit Alberta to submit a similar plan.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member is speaking of 1936?


Victor Quelch: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: In 1936, to go back of 1937, negotiations were started early in the spring. The committee was called together and our plans for the work were discussed. Later on the advisory committee met in Regina and discussed a possible program. None of the provinces, however, was prepared to go on with that particular plan. We worked along until about August, but at that time there were no works of the type of which I have been speaking which were ready to be proceeded with. In August the committee was again called together in order to arrive at a working plan, which was laid down, I think on August 2. From there on we proceeded to organize this pasture scheme in Saskatchewan and attempted to organize it in Alberta and Manitoba. We did organize one large pasture in Manitoba to take care of shipments of live stock from the drought areas in the other provinces to the market in Winnipeg and elsewhere late in the season. The other matters of which I have spoken were dealt with partly in 1936 and continued in 1937.


John Charles Landeryou: Was not one of the objections that of turning lands over to the federal government?


James Garfield Gardiner: That was in [DOT]connection with the special areas of which I spoke a moment ago. They objected to turning lands in the special areas over to the federal government because they had an organization set up to administer them. We said that we were prepared to go on with the water conservation work, with the building of dams, dug-outs and so on, that we were ready to assist in regrassing lands and helping in every way possible with their own activities. But where lands were turned over to us we would not undertake the moving of settlers or the placing of settlers upon other land. We took the position that if they desired to hold the lands in that province under their own control, then they could see to it that persons were moved from one section of the province to the other on to lands controlled by the province. There had
not been any understanding reached up to that time with regard to the pasture areas either inside the special areas or outside.
There was one special case, in connection with the Bartman dam, where tenders were called for a year ago, and as was stated, the lowest bidder was the special areas board of the provincial government. The second lowest bidder was the Poole Construction Company, with offices at Edmonton and Regina. The position taken by the department at that time was that it was not fair to call for tenders and allow governments to tender against private individuals in connection with any undertaking of the federal government. We had, of course, entered into scores of contracts with the provincial government, but we had not called for tenders. We had passed many projects for dams, community dug-outs and community water conservation projects of different kinds, which were carried through by the special areas board of Alberta, but in those instances we did not call for tenders. We simply give them the work, and they see that it is carried out on a day labour basis by persons living within the community. When we have called for tenders we have not permitted the provincial government to tender. In the particular instance mentioned, that of the Bartman dam, they did tender, but we gave the work to the lowest private bidder, the Poole Construction Company.


John Charles Landeryou: Why was it thought advisable to have this work done by tender?


James Garfield Gardiner: Dams of a certain size, costing 810,000 or $15,000, are usually done by tender. We do not like to have it done by day labour, so we let it go to contract.


Mark Cecil Senn: Would the minister state why it was thought unwise to allow the government to tender, or why it was thought unwise to award them the contract when they were the lowest bidder?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are giving a considerable amount of cash money to the province for projects of this kind, and we did not think it was fair in asking for tenders to allow the government to tender against private concerns. It was a case either of not calling for tenders and giving the work to the provincial government or of eliminating governments from making tenders, and that policy has been carried out both in Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Mr.'SENN:	Did I understand the minister to say that under this act the federal department pay all the expenditures on these dams?
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation


James Garfield Gardiner: We pay the cost of
dams of this particular type, but with dams of a smaller size for individuals or for a few individuals we pay two-thirds of the cost and the other one-third is paid by the individual, the municipality or someone else.


George Halsey Perley: Is there anything paid
to the individual for the work he does on his own dam?


James Garfield Gardiner: It depends on how the work is done. The amount paid by the federal government is supposed to cover the individual farmer for the work he does in connection with the dam that is built, but in many instances the individual farmer makes other arrangements and probably hires someone else to do that work.


John Charles Landeryou: Is there any provision in these private contracts that those employed must be residents of Alberta, or is any preference given to those living in the area?


James Garfield Gardiner: In instances where the
work is carried on by the special areas board, the board uses its own judgment. My information is that most of those who work on these jobs are obtained in the community. That is true also of contractors who go in to do certain works. We put in a special clause providing that they shall take their employees so far as possible from the district immediately surrounding.


Mark Cecil Senn: In a great many government
contracts with private firms there is a fair wage clause inserted. Would the minister state just what is the determining factor in respect of the rate of wages for men, teams, tractors, and so forth?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is covered by the agreement. They set up a condition similar to that set up in all government contracts, and where there is union labour available, where the term "labouring man" can be applied, the wages are such as are determined by the Department of Labour here for labour; but in a farming community the wage that is set is the prevailing wage in that community, usually the wage paid by municipal bodies in getting similar work done. We do not attempt to set a scale of wages that outbids the municipality or provincial government in getting similar work done in that community.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is there any supervision over
the wages paid by a private contractor?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, there is a definite clause in all the contracts, just as in other government contracts, and there is supervision over the employment of labour.


George Halsey Perley: The minister's statement
this evening has concerned Alberta more particularly. Perhaps it would not be out of order for the minister to make a statement with respect to the agreements made in Saskatchewan, and to state what projects are under way at the present time and not completed. The minister might give us the number of contracts that have been let in Saskatchewan during the last year. I should like that information apart from such projects as the Moose Jaw water supply project. Would the minister also state how far the government is assisting in the Moose Jaw water supply contract? [DOT]


James Garfield Gardiner: Before leaving the
questions asked by the hon. member for Acadia, there was one other matter, the Medicine Hat irrigation proposal. There is west of Medicine Hat the Canada Land and Irrigation Company's land, where an irrigation project was undertaken many years ago while the lands were still owned, controlled and operated from Ottawa. An agreement was entered into at that time under which a British company was going to settle a considerable area, after having placed water upon the land. Financial difficulties arose, and after the company had spent something in the neighbourhood of $13,000,000 in developing an irrigation project in that area, the company found itself unable to extend its operations. If my memory serves me correctly, the amount of land in that district which was irrigated is in the neighbourhood of 45,000 acres. There are people living on those 45,000 acres, and two or three years ago we spent about $80,000, in assisting these people in obtaining water from the Bow river, some one hundred miles distant. We assisted them by taking care of some of the works which were installed in the earlier years, and which were in a deteriorated condition and would have become useless in a very short time. We had a little difficulty later because a certain community in Alberta desired water from these same ditches and we were not able to make arrangements under which that water could be supplied. We took the position at the time that if we ever again had to deal with the Canadian Land and Irrigation Company we would want an undertaking from them, in connection with the supply of water to others outside the community that they had organized, which would be satisfactory to the government.
A short time ago a delegation from Alberta suggested that we enter into an arrangement which would require an agreement of some kind with this company. The

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation
first proposal was that we spend $3,500,000 to assist in widening the ditches that supplied that area, the province of Alberta, this company and ourselves thus making it possible to irrigate other areas of land that would be available for re-settlement. I stated at that time that it was impossible for the government to consider spending $3,500,000, which Was the total vote for this purpose, on this area of 60,000,000 acres of land, in orijer to take care of, at the outside, 2,000 families in the neighbourhood of Medicine Hat; that if that project were ever to be considered it would have to be at some time when many of our other activities had been completed. As a resut of that decision a smaller project was proposed which would involve the turning over of part of the lands of the Canada Land and Irrigation Company to the dominion government for the settlement of persons who were being taken off some of these submarginal lands. That is the proposal which at the moment has not been given final consideration, and I can give no further information concerning it now.


John Horne Blackmore: To what extent has any other province gone in the development of anything corresponding to the special areas board which Alberta has developed? My reason for asking this question is that we feel that as a province we have gone a long way in dealing with a problem which was "wished" upon us; it was not our making, as the minister recognized the other night. The settlement of those areas was carried out by the dominion government without our control. We have spent a great deal of money and gone to a great deal of trouble to develop a special areas board and deal with the problem. If the minister can show us that any other province has gone as far as Alberta has in that matter, it would make us feel a little better.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not gone over the record, so I have not the information before me concerning the special areas board in Alberta. They have done good work in persuading people to move from these areas, but I do not think they have spent any considerable amount of money in doing so. It is now some sixteen years since the activities were started, and the only year I can recall is the last year before we began to assist them. I think the total expenditure that year was about $16,000. What it was in preceding years I am not prepared to say, but they were not spending any considerable amount of money in the last year or two before we joined in the activities, I suppose largely on account of the
difficult conditions existing under which they could not obtain money. I do not suppose the federal government would ever have come into the picture in any of the western provinces had it not been for the great difficulty of the years following 1931 and 1932. It was those difficulties that caused the federal government to undertake some activities in that area.
I may say in direct answer to the question oi the hon. member I do not know that any other province spent any considerable sums in doing the same thing. The province of Saskatchewan spent considerable sums in 1920, 1921, and 1922, the year that Alberta began to encourage people to move away from that area, in moving people out of the section immediately north of Maple Creek, which is just across the boundary line from these special areas, and also moving people from farther north into far north country; but after a few years, when moisture was again falling on those lands, they found that many of those people came back and re-settled on the land they had left. That is, from 1922 on people returned, and my memory is that a very' large percentage, I think well over half, of the people, some of whom were assisted, and some of whom went of their own free will from that area, came back and re-settled there. With that experience in mind it has been the desire of the department and the government to take on this occasion action which will make it unlikely that people will come back and re-settle on these lands, because we know that if they do so it will result in greater and greater expenditures of money over the years in providing relief and that kind of thing which we have had to do in the last few years.
So, while I do not know that any other government has taken the same course as Alberta, and I do not think any other government did set up a board and attempt to operate in that way, the government of Saskatchewan passed legislation, which I think they term the Reclamation Act, and they have a special arrangement with the municipal bodies in that province under which the municipal bodies take over land by tax sale and otherwise to be kept out of cultivation. Those lands are turned over to us free of charges, and our reason for asking that the provincial government turn these lands over to us is in order that they may be kept out of cultivation when we have once spent money in order to get them out of cultivation. We think those lands should then be placed under the control of the body that spent the money, and put in a position where it is not likely that they will come back into cultivation.
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation

It is for that reason that we are rather anxious to have the other provinces enter into some agreement.


Victor Quelch: In June, 1936, an agreement was arrived at whereby these community pastures would be fenced by the federal government and left under the administration of the provincial government. Then, apparently in September the Saskatchewan government found that they were not agreeable to go ahead with that proposal and submitted another one to the federal government. But the Alberta government had agreed to abide by the original arrangement and were willing to go ahead with it. Then the federal government turned round and told Alberta it would have to acpept the same agreement as Saskatchewan. I do not think that was fair; the Alberta government were quite prepared to go ahead under the original agreement reached in June, 1936; but just because Saskatchewan submitted another agreement which was more acceptable to the federal government, the latter turned round and presented an ultimatum to Alberta requiring them to accept a new agreement.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am just looking up
my record to see if I am right in saying that that agreement was entered into in 1936.


Victor Quelch: It was in June, 1936.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was in June, but I
cannot recall at the moment whether it was in 1936 or 1937. In any event an agreement 'was not required at that time. A meeting of the advisory committee was held; the whole matter was discussed, and we decided then that we might be able to proceed in a certain way. We tried to carry on in that way from June until August and found it impossible to get anywhere.


Victor Quelch: Why did the government
find it impossible to get anywhere? Alberta was all prepared; they had the land all ready and had started to move the settlers.


James Garfield Gardiner: The main reason it
was impossible to get anywhere was that the arrangement made at that time was to the effect that the mortgage companies, the railway companies, the Hudson's Bay Company and the land companies generally represented on that committee were quite willing to turn over lands on certain conditions to be put into pastures which were to be fenced by the federal government, but we found that there was great difficulty in the provinces dealing with the persons who owned

the land when they did not have the money to deal with them, and get the lands evacuated to be put into pasture.


Victor Quelch: Is it not a fact that
Alberta had already acquired the lands by tax sale?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; there is one area
that Alberta wants to deal with on which there are two or three hundred families. But there are many areas that have not been cleared at all. Some of those that have been cleared by tax sale, to the extent that the individual has gone, have not yet been placed in a position where any one else can claim title to them, and immediately the government comes along with a sum of money, the hon. member for Acadia will agree that there are always individuals who come back into the picture with some idea that they can collect. Our difficulty was this-and it did not make any difference what province we were in-that sometimes a dozen or more individuals would not enter into the agreement until they actually saw the money. The province would get options from them, discuss the matter with them and would then come back to the federal government and declare that they were ready to deal with these people if the federal government could supply them with the money; but by the time we got into a position to supply the money the individual had raised the' price or had taken some other attitude which we were not prepared to meet, with the result that \ve were not getting anywhere with the activities of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in relation to these projects.


John Charles Landeryou: There are some large areas that have been completely taken over for taxes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but some of these are not of that nature where you would want to have a . community pasture, and the Alberta government are not desirous of having a community pasture in such places. The plan followed is to allow certain 'families to use the surrounding lands for live stock purposes. Y ith that condition prevailing, by August we came to the conclusion that we would not get anywhere in trying to carry out the plans we had under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act unless, when the time came for negotiation, we could associate ourselves directly with the persons concerned. So that the operating arrangement now made is for the province to evacuate all the land they can by tax sale. They obtain any understandings they can with companies and individuals and then make a proposal to us:

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation
and if they have sufficiently eliminated difficulties from their proposal to make it possible for it to be carried out, then we undertake to proceed further, to negotiate directly with the individuals and to make whatever arrangements are necessary to get the whole project cleared up and under way.


Mr. LEADER:: It is not my wish to interrupt this unusually friendly discussion between the minister and hon. members from Alberta, but I should like to make one or two observations. Listening to the great problem of resettling our friends in western Canada who have suffered from drought conditions,
I have been thinking that we in Manitoba have not suffered to anything like the same extent; in fact, there are in Manitoba areas that have not suffered at all from crop failure.
I heard the minister say that this project will cost so many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I believe I heard the sum of $3,500,000 mentioned to-night. I cannot help thinking that we might save a good deal of this expenditure and still not interfere too much with nature. My own province is perhaps specially endowed in having just what the minister requires in his business of resettling the farmers in question. I was interested in what he had to say with regard to community pastures. I believe we have one at Carberry, and it has served a useful purpose. In my own constituency, in that part of the country referred to as the interlake country, there are vast areas of land suitable for the raising of live stock. In fact, some of that land is suitable for cultivation. It is good land, but there are many stones, and for that reason it would be difficult to clear up large areas. That is not particularly disadvantageous for the reason that we are wondering what we are going to do with the surplus wheat and barley products we now have. But that land would be suitable for live stock, and an opportunity exists there for the settling of thousands of families.
I wish the minister would consider my suggestion and make an investigation to see whether we have not in Manitoba suitable land that could be procured by the government or by some other body at a very low price, with a view to bringing in these people from Alberta and parts of Saskatchewan where they find it difficult to make a living. We would welcome them, and I am sure that, if they are at all industrious, they could make a good home in my province. In growing live stock they would be close to the market at Winnipeg, and that is an inducement. I suggest that this suggestion is worthy of consideration. My concluding remark is that the
minister might take into consideration the fact that in Manitoba we have these areas that can be procured at a low price per acre, and the land would be well worth the money.


James Garfield Gardiner: The rate at which we require the provincial government to turn the land over is nothing at all. They give it to us. We are now getting from the provincial government, without charge, in so far as the lands are under their control, all the lands that we are fencing in Saskatchewan.


Harry Leader: I was thinking of the huge expenditures which the government is called upon to meet in rehabilitating those lands so that the farmers can make a living. Those lands might be dear at any price.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the cost of all these pastures that have been set up to date. There are some thirty of the larger sized pastures, and they are costing less than SI an acre for their establishment. That is, the whole cost to the government of procuring any lands that have to be obtained-lands which may have belonged to individuals and on which there were buildings-the cost of managing the pasture, the cost of fencing and the cost of placing water on the lands, amounts, generally speaking, to somewhere round $1 or a little more than $1 an acre. So that the total cost of projects of that kind is not high.
I have driven over a considerable part of Manitoba not only in recent years but over the last thirty-seven years, and I know that the part of the province which lies west of Verdun and south of Verdun, and also in the vicinity of Elkhorn, and the land even further south towards the United States boundary, is quite similar to the land in Alberta and Saskatchewan about which I have been speaking. If anything, it is of less value as land. The only difference between that area and some of the areas further west is that they get a little more rain there.


Harry Leader: I have reference to the land in the interlake country, between lake Manitoba and lake Winnipeg, north of Portage la Prairie. I have gone through that district in the driest years in the west, and I have seen grass three and a half feet high, acres upon acres of it, with scarcely any settlers- one here and another three or four miles away, and so on.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is something very much different between the interlake country in Manitoba and the country we are discussing. One difference is that they have a more
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation

bountiful rainfall. The prairie farm rehabilitation moneys are not for expenditure upon lands where the rainfall is sufficient. If we were to undertake that sort of work probably we should have to extend our operations from one end of Canada to the other. The activities under this measure are in relation to lands where the rainfall is comparatively light.
It is hardly correct to say that all lands being fenced into pastures are like the lands referred to a moment ago by the hon. member for Acadia. For example, there is an area in the southern end of Saskatchewan where buffalo grass grows naturally. There is all the difference in the world between buffalo grass and the grass up between the two lakes in Manitoba. Buffalo grass, in the short grass country, will finish cattle. They do not require any grain; they are finished on the grass, and even short grass in that country is very much more valuable as feed than long grass in some other areas.
In addition to that, may I say that while in 1937 that part of the country looked like summer fallow, though it had never been broken up, in 1938 one could cut the grass on that same land with a binder. I make that statement in order to indicate to hon. members that in a country of that kind there are possibilities that have to be dealt with having regard to the surrounding conditions. What we are attempting in that area is to take that large pasture I just mentioned, which contains 130,000 acres and which was almost bare in 1937, not out of cultivation because it never was cultivated, but out of ranching. It was pastured down in the dry years so as to be almost useless even for ranching purposes. We are making of it what we call a reserve pasture. We will never permit anyone to settle on it; we will never permit it to be leased again for ranching purposes. We will maintain it as open prairie country upon which we can run live stock in years when we have difficulties in regard to feed, thus removing the necessity of shipping cattle to the central part of Manitoba or bringing seed all the way from Three Rivers in Quebec. That is our objective in connection with a pasture of that kind. The people are not going to move out of that country; the land is too good. When it does rain there they get good crops, and even if they have to go for three or four years without crops they are going to continue to live there in the hope that they may get three or four of those bountiful crops to which they have been accustomed in the past. We think it is very

much better for the government so to organize that country that they can stay there and make a living without being government charges during years when they are without rain.


George Halsey Perley: Where is that pasture?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the one in the vicinity of Valmarie. It has not been completed as yet.


Mr. FAIR:: Does the government supervise the construction of dams by contractors?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; we have engineers supervising the work of building dams by contractors.


Robert Fair: In connection with the construction of the Bartman dam, could the minister tell us the amount of damage done by that wash-out and whether the Poole Construction Company made it good?


James Garfield Gardiner: The dam had to be
rebuilt, and it cost almost as much to rebuild it as it cost to put it up in the first place. As the hon. member for Acadia said, the dam washed out and had to be replaced.


Robert Fair: So the government had to pay twice for that dam?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Charles Landeryou: How many contracts were entered into in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan under the act last year, and just how many of these contracts were made with private companies and how many with government departments?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is for 1938-39?
I have the figures all the way back to 1935, if that would be satisfactory. These figures are as of February 28, 1939. In Manitoba there were 3,436 applications approved and aw-aiting approval; in Saskatchewan, 5,529, and in Alberta, only 712. Of these applications 2,838 have been approved in Manitoba, 4,275 in Saskatchewan and 634 in Alberta, which is a larger proportion, naturally, because the number was smaller and we would be able to get over those projects much more quickly. These are dug-outs to which I am referring, and of those approved 2,565 have been completed in Manitoba; 2,355 in Saskatchewan, and 258 in Alberta. The completion, of course, depends upon the activity of the farmers themselves rather than upon the activity of the government. We have passed 634 applications in Alberta, but only 258 have been completed.
I should have said that in some instances the activity has been on the part of municipal bodies, in all three provinces.

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation


John Charles Landeryou: Could the minister give the amount of money involved as well?


James Garfield Gardiner: I had better go back to the beginning, then. Dug-outs in Manitoba over the whole period involved the sum of $223,155; in Saskatchewan, $211,950, and in Alberta, $20,124, or a total of $455,229.
I now come to stock-watering dams, in regard to which the figures are as follows:
Saskatehe-
Manitoba wan Alberta
Applications .. . .	364	3,600	1,409Approved	
263	1,823	697Completed	
164	1,686	526Cost	$13,776	$128,136	$45,762
It will be noted that in regard to stockwatering dams there were very many more applications from Alberta than from Manitoba, and that in the case of Alberta and Saskatchewan approximately half the applications have been approved.
Province Manitoba-
Dug-outs	
Stock-water dams	
Irrigation	
Saskatchewan-
Dug-outs of the community type..
Stock-watering dams	
Irrigation of the community type
Alberta-
Dug-outs of the community type..
Stock-watering dams	
Irrigation	
I now come to irrigation projects, for which the figures are as follows:
Saskatche-
Manitoba wan Alberta Applications ....	19	1,398	714Approved	
16	403	218Completed	
4	358	163Cost	
$340	$48,688	$24,287
It will be noted that these are very small irrigation projects, and that the amount spent in Alberta was about half the amount spent in Saskatchewan for the same purpose.


John Charles Landeryou: Those would be
individual projects on farms?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: What period does this cover?


James Garfield Gardiner: From the beginning
down to February 28 of this year.
I now come to community and neighbour projects during the same period. The difference between these and the others is that these are for the use of more than one family:
Applications Approved Completed Cost
0	0	0	013	5	5	$13,4250	0	0	0126	102	93	55,800112	62	47	43,9455	2	2	2,0807	6	4	2,78843	38	30	16,68027	13	10	8,340
In connection with irrigation it will be noted that the costs are much higher than in any of the others.
The next classification deals with applications approved and awaiting approval.


John Charles Landeryou: What is the amount of money involved in contracts given to the provinces themselves and in contracts given to private contractors in each of the provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think I have the information in that form.


Mr. DONNELLY:: What is the total
amount spent on the smaller projects?


James Garfield Gardiner: The total amount spent on dug-outs is $455,229; on stock-watering dams, $187,674; on small irrigation projects, $73,315, making a grand total of $716,218.


George Halsey Perley: Some time ago I asked the minister to make a statement with regard to
the agreement with Saskatchewan, and the projects under way and not completed in that province?


James Garfield Gardiner: Although I have not a copy of the agreement with Saskatchewan before me, it is to the effect that they will turn over any lands of which the province has control and upon which it has asked the federal government to establish projects. Those lands will be turned over to the government of Canada free of any charge to it, on the understanding that we shall proceed to develop pasture projects on those particular lands.


George Halsey Perley: Would the minister give particulars with respect to those pastures. Some time ago I asked for information, and a return was tabled showing that the cost of fencing was $3.61 a mile. A few moments ago the minister made reference to Valmarie pasture. I have before me a sessional paper which gives
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation

me certain information, and I thought I heard the minister say that there are over 100,000 acres in that pasture.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is more than one, but one of them is 130,000 acres.


George Halsey Perley: In the one at Valmarie
there are 80,000 acres, and sixty-one miles of fencing. What is likely to be the total cost of that pasture?


James Garfield Gardiner: To answer first the question asked with regard to the pastures which have been set up in Saskatchewan, I would place on record certain information which I have before me. The first completed pasture is in the rural municipality of Brokenshell, No. 68. The pastures are numbered one and two. The first one has thirty-nine miles of fencing, and the second one has twenty-two miles. The acreage in the first is 20,960 and in the second, 8,160. This, as I understand the matter, will eventually develop into one and the same pasture. They start in two different parts of the project, with the idea that eventually other land will be evacuated. The total cost of the first one is 814,062.81. It will be noticed that this is considerably less than SI an acre. The total cost of the second one, in which the acreage is 8,160 is $8,368.63. Where there are smaller acreages, costs of fencing are naturally higher.


George Halsey Perley: Does that include fencing?


James Garfield Gardiner: 
George Halsey Perley: I might facilitate matters
by telling the minister that I have a return. All I am asking is the lump sum.. There are thirty odd pastures with about 473,000 acres, and 922 miles of fencing.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not wish to deny
the hon. member any information he wishes. I was going to give all of it to him.


George Halsey Perley: Could the minister give
us information for the Simpson pasture?


James Garfield Gardiner: The whole acreage is 473,360, and the total cost $400,883.97, or somewhat less than SI an acre for the whole undertaking. There will be some variation.


George Halsey Perley: Can the minister give just the Simpson pasture?


James Garfield Gardiner: In what municipality is that? It is not listed here as the Simpson pasture.


George Halsey Perley: It was a separate return brought down early in the session.


John Charles Landeryou: Is there any fee being put up in connection with these pastures?


James Garfield Gardiner: These pastures are
organized in this way. First, the municipality approaches the provincial government and asks to have a certain area organized into a pasture. The provincial government undertakes to have the lands evacuated by any persons who are living within the area. They usually succeed up to a point where only one or two are left. We then investigate the pasture to see whether it is possible to get those people who remain moved out on to lands immediately adjacent. We then put a

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation
fence round the lands and make them available to the people who are living roundabout. They pay a fee for putting their live stock into the pasture, and these fees are supposed to cover all costs of maintenance including the maintaining of the fences and the paying of the pasture manager. We assist as a government in raising the standard of the live stock within that pasture.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is there any limit to what any one farmer can put into the pasture?


James Garfield Gardiner: The government inspector decides how many cattle the pasture will carry. The grass is investigated by a man having the technical skill necessary to determine how many cattle or how many cattle and horses can be carried. We then take in the farmers in the first mile round the pasture, then those in the second mile, and so on until we get a sufficient number of farmers having approximately two-thirds of the stock the pasture will carry. The farmers are then asked to form themselves into a community pasture association and appoint a committee to operate the pasture. We allow' them to divide up the acreage and determine how much live stock in relation to the acreage shall be put in. We set up certain regulations which apply to the pasture. Hon. members may want to know the reason for placing the limit at two-thirds. In all probability after these men have gained a little experience they will want to add to their own herds or admit other farmers to the pasture. We leave it to them to determine what shall be done within certain limits, but we do not permit them to put in more cattle than the lands will properly carry.


Mr. POULIOT:: How much has been spent under this act up to the present time, and what are the proposed disbursements for this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: For the pastures?


Jean-François Pouliot: For everything.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount set up for the pastures up to the present time is the amount I gave a moment ago. Most of these pastures are in Saskatchewan, although there are two or three in Manitoba. The total area of the pastures is 473,360 acres and the disbursement is $400,883.97.


Jean-François Pouliot: AVould that include the
fences?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, everything.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just a word to say at this point. This legislation seems to be adopting an entirely new policy. The dominion government is dealing not only with provinces, but with municipalities and even with
private individuals. I take this opportunity to insist upon some works being carried out in the province of Quebec as well as in the western provinces. For instance, near the city of Riviere du Loup there is a very important dam, lake Morin dam, which could be used for irrigation purposes, just as is done in the west.


John Charles Landeryou: Are they suffering from drought there?


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not see why Riviere du Loup should not have the same advantages as any city,, town or municipality in any of the prairie provinces. We are not jealous of the prairie provinces, but we do not want them to pull the blanket too much to their side. There are good people in the province of Quebec; there are good people in the province of Ontario, there are good people in the maritime provinces, and we want our share. The farmers in some parts of Quebec are in distress. I live in one of the finest constituencies in Canada, but there have been forest fires in my constituency and there are settlers who are almost starving. Irrigation is sorely needed, and I should like this policy to be applied to Temiseouata constituency just the same as it is applied to the three prairie provinces. The western people are our brothers. We are good Samaritans and are ready to give them help, but on the other hand we do not think we should unclothe ourselves for them. The farmers and settlers in my constituency are in distress, and I want them to have at least as much as their western brothers.


John Charles Landeryou: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank my hon. friend for saying that. He knows my request is fair.
For the enlightenment of members of the committee I should like to describe a most absurd division of land which was made some years ago in my constituency by the provincial government. In order to make this distribution they used maps which contained no elevations. There were no hills and valleys, and the lands were divided like pieces of cake without taking into consideration the ups and downs of the country. Some of the settlers at St. Jean de la Lande parish, which the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) knows very well, have been placed on the side of a * steep hill and are apparently supposed to cultivate rocks. It is no easier to cultivate rocks than it is to try to cultivate under drought conditions. These men were induced to go there by former immigration agents who were employees of the railway company. They were well paid and in order to justify their positions they had to attempt to show that a
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation

conquest was being made of the soil. These settlers are just like the goats on the side of a mountain.
Many of these people are suffering. I have received many letters, some of which I sent to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), some to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and some to other members of the cabinet. When one of these men is very ill and is sent to the hospital for an operation, his family cannot get relief. I have had to write letters in order that a family might be given enough to subsist while a father or mother was in the hospital for an operation. These people are suffering and they need help. The government has done something for our western brothers, and I want something to be done for the settlers and farmers of Temiscouata constituency. We have suffered from the cutting of trees on a very large scale; there have also been forest fires at times, and by reason of the disappearance of timber, irrigation is badly needed to keep a certain amount of moisture in the soil in order that we may not have poor crops, one every second year or one every three years. We need crops regularly, a good average crop.
In many old parishes in my constituency there are good, sound, progressive farmers who have suffered from the drought, although perhaps not so much so as farmers in certain sections of the west, but they have suffered from the drought nevertheless, because of the trees having been cut. Hon. members are familiar with the comparsion between the straw roof and the tin roof. On a tin roof the water runs away fast, but a straw roof holds the water from running away fast. The water runs off a straw roof little by little, and it is the same with the land. The trees are a protection and hold the moisture longer in the land.
I want a fair and square deal for the farmers and settlers of Temiscouata constituency and of the province of Quebec at large. What would happen if we all died of hunger in the east? It would then be for the west to support us, and the western provinces would be very much embarrassed to do for us what we do for them. They should keep that in mind when they come here making requests, and when they make a request they should be fair enough to cut their request in two and let us have fifty per cent for necessary works in the east. We would be satisfied with that fifty per cent. I want to tell that to my hon. friends from the west.
I should also like to say to the Minister of Agriculture, who has been powerful enough to succeed in having the government change its policy, that I hope he will not forget the

eastern provinces. I remember that complaints were made against the Minister of Labour for not receiving the mayor and council of Toronto. He would not deal with any city because it was outside the constitution for him to do so. The constitution has not been amended since; it is still the same constitution, and yet the Minister of Agriculture can deal directly with the municipalities, although the Minister of Labour Says that he cannot. I should like a policy that is uniform, and when one member of the cabinet can deal with municipalities I should like his colleagues to have the same power. I wonder if it is really within the constitution or outside the constitution. I would not recommend anything unconstitutional, but when a thing is done for one part of the country it should be constitutional to do it for the whole country. That is my humble understanding.
May I place on record what I want. In the fiist place I want the lake Morin dam developed at Riviere du Loup. I did not have the opportunity to discuss it with the minister, but the Minister of Labour is thoroughly familiar with the project, as are the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), and I do not not know whether I have not spoken to my chief about it also. That is one thing, and a very important thing, because the city of Riviere du Loup has her own municipal plant, dating back to long before the time of Sir Adam Beck. Moreover, the dam would serve other purposes-


Mr. WALSH:: Mr. Chairman, I know that my hon. step-godfather will not mind my intrusion, but may I ask just which clause we are discussing at the present moment, and what relation the hon. gentleman's remarks have to the clause before the committee?


Jean-François Pouliot: I have adopted the hon. gentleman to keep him silent when I am speaking. I do not expect him to make interruptions because I have adopted him. But the more he interrupts me in the house when I am standing up for the rights of my electors, the bigger majority I shall have, because I receive letters from my constituents and when they see I am interrupted by the hon. gentleman they say, "Cheerio, you are doing good work. Continue."


William Allen Walsh: Mr. Chairman, we do not mind how many votes the hon. gentleman gets, but I hardly think the construction of a dam in Temiscouata constitu-ncy and other details the hon. gentleman is giving us have any reference to the clause under discus-

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation
sion at the present time. I think we should keep the discussion in order. His remarks might come in appropriately later.


Frederick George Sanderson: On the point of order-


Jean-François Pouliot: May I speak to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, before you give your decision?


Frederick George Sanderson: Certainly.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. Speaking on the point of order, and just as a matter of explanation and for the enlightenment of one hon. member who apparently did not understand what I have been discussing, we are now discussing the Prairie Harm Rehabilitation Act. It provides for a certain amount of expenditure, quite a large expenditure, $450,000, the minister has said, for certain farm property in the west. That is the question before the committee. But my contention is that this legislation is not wide enough, that it should include also the eastern provinces, where the need for such improvements is just as great as in the west, and therefore I put the whole matter before the committee. My idea is that the whole of Canada should be included within the scope of this bill, which should not be sectional but be for the benefit of the whole country. Moreover, I was pointing out the enormous change that has taken place in the policy of the government, with the minister now dealing directly with the municipalities.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is the hon. member
still on the point of order?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would ask the hon. member to make his remarks on the point of order as brief as possible.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir. My contention in the first place was that the legislation is too narrow, and I want it broadened. My second point was that there has been an enormous change in the policy of the government by virtue of which the minister now intends to deal directly with municipalities, and not only with municipalities but also with individuals.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have not reached that clause yet.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I will submit my first point only.


Frederick George Sanderson: On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh), I am of the opinion that his point is well taken, for the reason that we are discussing Bill No. 36, an act to amend 71492-131
the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. The hon. member for Temiseouata has been speaking of his own constituency. I am not aware that it is prairie country, and therefore I rule that the point of order is well taken.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I shall have to
deny my pet from Mount Royal.


John Charles Landeryou: May I ask if the
minister has entered directly into contacts with municipalities and individuals as mentioned by the hon. member for Temiseouata?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are undertakings on the part of municipalities to operate some of the pastures, and there are undertakings on the part of individuals in some instances. We hire men to do the work, just the same as we hire anyone else to do other work.


John Charles Landeryou: Are contracts entered into directly by the government with the municipalities?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; arrangements are
made by the government with municipalities all over Canada to do many things. We shall probably have some undertakings in connection with many of the cities and towns of the province of Quebec this year, as we always have had in connection with works carried on there.


John Charles Landeryou: How many of these individual associations have been formed to deal with these large areas?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are thirty pastures now set up, and there will be thirty individual organizations to deal with them.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: When this land is being turned over from the provinces to the dominion under this plan, who retains the mineral rights on that land-the province or the dominion?


James Garfield Gardiner: The province simply
turns over to the government the right to operate the land as a pasture; we get the land the same as a person purchasing it.


Charles Edward Johnston: Does the province retain the mineral rights?


James Garfield Gardiner: We would have no
objection to that.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister was explaining
how these different associations were set up, who determines the number of cattle that could be placed on a pasture by each member of the association, and how the amount of fees paid for each head of cattle was determined. I should like to have him finish that explanation, because I was under the

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation

impression that the fees are not very large, perhaps only large enough to pay the actual running expenses of the pasture; so it seemed to me that farmers were getting very cheap pasture, and it might pay them better to have cattle pastured in these government pastures than to keep them on their own places.


James Garfield Gardiner: The pastures are more
or less tributary to a man's farm; they are community pastures in the same sense as the common land in the older countries. The pasture equipment is not only fences but corrals and everything necessary for the proper keeping of several hundred head of cattle. The breeding sires are put in the pasture under the care of the manager of the pasture, and the whole breeding policy of that area is under his direction. The fees are made sufficient to cover not only the payment of the manager and the cost of other services, but to take care of maintenance and repairs to fencing and buildings and that kind of thing. In the first year the fees collected were slightly under the amount expended for those purposes-I have not the exact figure-and it will take two or three years of running experience to know exactly what the fees should be. But it is intended that the fees shall as nearly as possible cover the actual outlay. The whole policy and intent are to enable the farmers living in the surrounding sub-marginal lands, lands not of the highest type, to run live stock on these pasture lands which could not be occupied successively by individuals, and by having the right to run stock on those lands the farmers on adjoining lands should be able to maintain themselves and keep off relief. The intention is to do exactly what has been suggested by the hon. member for Haldi-mand (Mr. Senn), that is to make it less costly for the individual to maintain himself because of this common land being there.


Mark Cecil Senn: I was not finding any particular fault with the plan except that there might be one or two members of that association who own a large number of cattle, and naturally they will get more advantage from the land than a man who may be just as needy but has not so many cattle. Some provision whereby one or two or a few farmers may not monopolize the whole pasture seems to me desirable.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is taken care of in the regulations and the set-up of the committee. In the first place we do not form pastures for ranchers. These pastures are formed for people who are farming from a

half section to a section of land in the neighbourhood of the pasture. They may have ten or twenty or thirty cattle each. They themselves take care of the matter referred to; they see that no one has too large a number of cattle. We also have regulations which govern them in that respect.


Mr. NEEDHAM:: Do the regulations provide that cattle of the same breed shall be kept in the community pastures?


James Garfield Gardiner: The intention is to confine the breeds more or less to the three chief beef varieties, the Black Angus, the Shorthorn and the Hereford. That will be controlled by the association; they will determine which breed they desire to have, and all in the association will have to have the same breed, or breeds of the same type.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: The hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) asked a question, and if the minister answered it I did not catch the answer. What is the total amount spent under this act for each fiscal year since the act was passed in 1935?


James Garfield Gardiner: Let me first answer part of the question asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). I have not been able to locate which of the pastures is called the Simpson pasture. It is not listed under that heading here. However, I have the Valmarie pasture. The acreage of the pasture associated with the irrigation plan at Valmarie, that is the one pasture which is now under construction, is 79,840 acres; miles of fencing, sixty-one; estimated cost, $72,966. The construction costs up to date are $31,173.14, but 30^ miles of fencing has been done, or about half. The water development is partly done. The work was stopped on December 22, 1938 and will go on again this spring. The pasture work is about half completed.


George Halsey Perley: In connection with the thirty odd community pastures involving nearly one thousand miles of fencing, how were the posts and wire secured? Did they get any of the posts in the northern part of Saskatchewan, or were they brought from British Columbia?


James Garfield Gardiner: Tenders were called for; there had to be at least three tenders for any one pasture. These tenders were made by hardware merchants or dealers who sell these supplies. The same thing is true in regard to posts; the posts were purchased by tender and shipped to the railway point nearest to the pasture. The work itself was done under a foreman by the farmers in the locality;

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation
the fences were actually built by the farmers who are going to use that pasture and pay for its maintenance and everything connected with it.


George Halsey Perley: Have they a contract with the Northern Wood Preserving Company of Prince Albert for getting out posts, and how many posts did they get from that company?


James Garfield Gardiner: The Northern Wood Preserving Company has just established a plant in Prince Albert this last year. Prior to this time our posts were obtained largely from British Columbia; we had to ship cedar posts all the way from British Columbia, and have them tarred before they were put in the ground. Last year we tried to get some posts in the northern part of Saskatchewan and blue-stoned them. We have carried on experiments at the Swift Current farm which indicate that blue-stoned poplar posts will last about twenty years and give good service. We obtained blue-stone posts last year from the northern part of the province for a considerable portion of our supplies. I do not know exactly the percentage, but in the pastures spoken of in some of the eastern papers recently, the one in the southwestern part of the province, it was said to have been built with rough posts simply taken out of the bluffs here and there. In the first place, I would point out that there are no bluffs to take posts out of; and every second post was said to be a cedar post brought from British Columbia and tarred to the ground. Every second post was a blue-stone poplar post shipped from the northern end of Saskatchewan for fencing.
Again, the fence was not a three-wire fence, but a four-wire fence. The farmers there do not usually build a four-wire fence. So that this fence was of a higher cost of construction. The farmers in that area usually go to the Cypress hills, cut their own pickets, take them down and do their fencing there, but this fence was built with posts shipped in, because we do not want to have to replace them every four or five years. We want to have these pasture fences remain at least during the lifetime of the leases. We have leased some of the lands for twenty or twenty-five years, and the fences we put up to-day will probably stand for fifty years. The Northern Wood Preserving Company put in a plant last year at Prince Albert, and they can creosote jack pine and poplar posts in -that establishment. We have given them a contract to supply
400,000	posts next summer. No posts have been supplied from that plant to date. They are being supplied for the work next summer; we expect to get them at a very much lower 71492-1311	'
cost than those we have had shipped in from long distances, and at the same time employment will be provided for people in the vicinity.


George Halsey Perley: What persons constitute the Northern Wood Preserving Company?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know who the company are; but the manager, and I assume the man who is interested in it, is Mr. R. D. Pretty, who at one time ran a creosoting plant at Swift Current and, earlier than that, at Calgary. Lately he has been running one at Fort William or Port Arthur, I am not sure which, and he is also opening up this plant in the north.


George Halsey Perley: Was this Mr. Pretty
associated with the Canadian Pacific Railway at one time?


James Garfield Gardiner: Years ago he was an engineer, or had some connection with the Canadian Pacific. I am informed that at one time he was in charge of the horticultural work of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What are the total amounts spent under the act in each fiscal year?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are:
1935- 36	$ 411,542 79
1936- 37	 959,818 78
1937- 38	 1,831,676 87
1938-	39 (to February 28).. ..	2,945,728 59


George Halsey Perley: A return brought down on February 14 states that nineteen dams, large projects, were built during 1938. Can the minister tell us where they were and whether they were completed before freeze-up in the fall of 1938, or has any work been done on them during the winter?


James Garfield Gardiner: Just for 1938?


George Halsey Perley: Yes. It was for the year 1938. I wanted to know whether they were completed before freeze-up or whether any work has been done on them this winter?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be impossible to do work on earth dams in the winter. Once there is frost in the soil it is impossible to do anything, so that no work can be done on dams after a week following the freeze-up; the dam would not be there in the spring.


George Halsey Perley: These are said to be large projects, nineteen of them. Can the minister give the location in each case?


James Garfield Gardiner: These are the dams under construction as at February 28, 1939. The first on the list is the Big Arm storage irrigation. The storage capacity is 5,200 acre
20S2
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation

feet, the irrigable area being from 5,000 to
8.000	acres. The estimated cost of construction is $8,348.53.
Caron water storage: storage capacity is 43,500 acre feet. There is no irrigable area estimated in connection with this project at the moment. The total cost will be $400,000. This is the one west of Moose Jaw, from which Moose Jaw will eventually probably take water for the city.
Cypress Lake storage: storage capacity is
70.000	acre feet, the irrigable area being 20,000 acres. The cost is $304,696.13, and the project is ninety per cent completed.
Downie lake irrigation: storage capacity is
10.000	acre feet; irrigable area, 5,100 acres. The cost is $61,461.65, and the project is ninety-five per cent completed.
Financial assistance for the eastern irrigation district, that is the Rolling Hills area, south of the Brooks irrigation project in Alberta: I have not the figures for storage capacity, but the irrigable area is 25,000 acres.


George Halsey Perley: The return that I refer to had to do with Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is what the hon. member asked for, and I assume it is what he received.


George Halsey Perley: I asked for a statement
*with regard to nineteen dams undertaken in .'Saskatchewan, during 1938-all in that province, nineteen large projects.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will give the rest of these, because many of those that the hon. member asked for are included in this list and when they are counted he will probably find that all he has reference to are in the list. This includes Alberta as well.
Eastend extension irrigation: irrigable area, 2,896 acres. The cost is $30,661.45. The project is ninety-five per cent completed.
Glen Ewen dam storage: 250 acre feet. The estimated cost is $9,471.40.
Kisbey Flats irrigation: 5,000 acres. The total cost is $23,121.50.
Pipestone lake storage: 1,600 acre feet. The cost is $7,523.25.
Oxbow-Souris river storage dam: 600 acre feet; cost of construction, $16,130.
Souris-Estevan irrigation: 2,600 acre feet; estimated cost, $52,903.86. That is a flood irrigation project.
South Saskatchewan river storage: 2,760 acre feet. The cost is $243,10625.
West Valmarie irrigation, 2,000 acre feet, irrigable area 3,416 acres, estimated cost _ $43,987.50.
Weyburn rural municipality underground storage, $3,333.33, which is only part of

the cost of those works; the provincial government undertook to pay part of the cost as well.
In Alberta there is the Leavitt irrigation district, 7,000 acre feet, $46,304.80. All the preliminary arrangements have been made, but I do not think the work has actually started.
There is the Red Deer river test borings, which is the project I spoke of earlier in my remarks to-night, costing S5,000.
Then there are the St. Mary's, Waterton and Belly rivers irrigation projects, investigational work, $3,000.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How many
of these are actually under construction?


James Garfield Gardiner: Quite a number. In
some instances the contracts have just been let, among them the contract for the work at Leavitt. Our difficulty is to get the lands which are to be flooded.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister
has not the total, without counting them up?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I have not.


James J. Donnelly: Has the minister any
information with regard to the proposed Vanguard dam?


James Garfield Gardiner: The works at Vanguard have been all surveyed, but the contract in connection with that dam has not been let as yet,- and at the moment I am not in a position to state whether or not it will be let this year.


Mr. WEIR:: Could the minister give the
committee any information with respect to a proposal to build a dam on the Souris river at or near the town of Wawanesa. I understand this matter has been under consideration but is somewhat involved because of dams already built higher up on the Souris river both in Saskatchewan and in the United States. This river enters the United States and then comes back into Canada. The people in that vicinity are particularly concerned because these dams higher up in the river have cut off their normal water supply, and they are anxious that something should be done to get more water down the river to fill up their own water-holes and give them a normal flow of water, or that their water supply be protected in some other way. This is really giving them some concern, and it is a matter of some importance in that area. If the minister has any advice on the matter immediately at hand, I should be glad to hear it.

20S3
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation


James Garfield Gardiner: If we get our estimates through the house we are proposing to spend this year $500 for the purpose of carrying on further investigational work in connection with a dam at Wawanesa. The Souris river has its source in the province of Saskatchewan; then it runs into the state of North Dakota and then comes back into Manitoba. As a result there is some difficulty between the two provinces and the state of North Dakota on account of the fact that there has never been an international agreement in connection with the -Souris river. Most of the streams, such as the Milk river, which is further west, and Frenchman's river, are covered by international agreements, but none has been negotiated with regard to the Souris river. There is sufficient storage capacity in the loop in the United States to take up all the water that flows into North Dakota from Saskatchewan. In other words, if our United States friends so desired, and an arrangement were not entered into, they could keep all the water that accumulates in the province of Saskatchewan and flows into the United States.
At the present time negotiations are under way, through the international joint commission, looking to an agreement between the United States and Canada in regard to the Souris river. I do not anticipate that there will be any great difficulty, since there has been none in the past. The two countries have been quite reasonable about these matters, and in all probability that will be the case in this instance, but at the moment the matter is in the negotiation stage.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Did the minister give
us the details in connection with the Goven-lock pasture? I did not hear them if he did. Could I have the details?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. I had not reached the Govenlock pasture when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle thought he would not like any more of the list read. In our list this is known as the Nashlyn grazing area, special area A. It has fifty-seven miles of fencing; its acreage is 62,240, and the entire cost of construction was $28,237.59, which is considerably less than fifty cents an acre for the setting up of the pasture. This is the pasture to which I was referring a few moments ago when I said the fence was not a three-wire but a four-wire fence and when I said the posts were not pickets but cedar posts tarred up to the top of the ground, alternately with poplar posts that have been blue-stoned and thus made so that, according to our experience, they will last for at least twenty years.
In regard to an article which appeared in an eastern paper recently, I might just say that no barbed wire has been left lying round the place; it has been all rolled up and put away. Any barbed wire which was not used was wire which it would not pay anyone to use in building a new fence. If you have what is known as black barbed wire, not galvanized, that has been in a fence for some time, of course that wire will not stand stretching on a new fence, but it can be used in the cross-fencing of the pasture, and in this case any of this wire available will be so used ultimately. The outside fences have to be sufficiently strong to keep the stock which is put in by the farmers from getting out and damaging the crops. Again, anyone who has handled barbed wire knows that if you take it off a fence and allow it to lie round loose it kinks up, and when you start to stretch that wire with the kinks in it the wire ultimately breaks, if not while you are stretching it, then perhaps the first day after you leave it. In putting up a fence of this kind round an area containing 62,640 acres, we have not taken any chances by using wire of that kind. The cost of maintenance and of riding the fence would be so great, if we undertook to do anything of that kind, that the ultimate cost would be very much higher than the cost of using new wire in the first place and using the older wire for crossfencing. That cross-fencing has not been done as yet, but the wire is available.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: In connection with
that area the number of acres given me was 106,960. In the return brought down it was stated that in all instances permission was obtained from the leaseholders before the original fences were destroyed. Is the minister quite clear that no fences were destroyed without the permission of the leaseholders?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is our report. Of course I have to depend upon our officials who are out there, and that is true as far as our information goes. The pasture to which I have just referred is known as the Nashlyn grazing area, special area A. It is nearer Nashlyn than Govenlock. Then the quarantine reserve, special area A, in L.I.D. 22 has sixty-five miles of fencing. The first one I read had fifty-seven acres; it is part of the same project. There are 44,720 acres in that area. The cost of that was $15,603.75, which is about a third of a dollar an acre as the cost of fencing. There will be one of these others which forms part of it, too, but the costs are approximately the same in all.
20S4
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation


John Horne Blackmore: Before saying what I had in mind, may I commend the minister, as I have done on several occasions, for his interest and consistent work in developing the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. But in the light of what has been said to-night I feel, there are one or two observations which really ought to be made, so as to keep us all working together in Canada as a big family.
There are points of view in the west which probably easterners would not understand, unless they were given reasons. For a few moments I should like to set forth some of those points. The minister seemed to have the idea that the provinces could not be trusted to keep the land from being settled again, after the dominion had developed pastures. I would say, in passing, that the main difference between Alberta and the dominion over matters connected with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act seems to be that the province does not feel it ought to give up control of its lands simply because the dominion develops under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. I believe the reason for that difference needs to be set forth.
From what the minister said a few minutes ago I gathered he had a sort of apprehension that if the provinces had control of those lands they would be tempted to allow people to go back in upon them to settle, whereas if the dominion had control there would be less danger of that unfortunate occurrence. Was that the minister's idea?


James Garfield Gardiner: The idea was not that the province could not be trusted to do it. The position is that the province has no money with which to carry out these operations at the present time-at least the provinces .say they have not. All three provinces make that statement.
Before the present government took office the federal authorities undertook to carry on activities for the rehabilitation of that area. Since the present government has taken office we have [DOT] carried on and enlarged upon the activities established by the previous government. But we have felt that since we are putting up the money, and the money is given to us in trust by the taxpayers of Canada to reestablish that country-and it is not a matter of not trusting the province-having spent the money of the people of Canada it is our obligation to take the people off that land, to reestablish the country and to see that the policy is carried out.
While we might trust the government of Alberta to do just exactly what we might expect them to do, we do not know, of course, what government is going to be in Alberta
(Mr. Gardiner.]
or in any other province in the future. For that reason we feel that if anyone is going to undo the work it should be the government which spent the money in the first place-not necessarily the government in office at the moment, but the government which represents all the people of Canada and which collected money from all the taxpayers of Canada in order that it should carry on the work. We feel that the government representing all the people should accept the obligation of either keeping that land out of cultivation or in the future putting it back into cultivation. So far as the present government is concerned, we think it should never go back into cultivation.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad the minister has made that point clear, because I must say I did get the wrong impression from what he said earlier. I was going to make several observations which, under the present circumstances, I do not now propose to make.
With respect to the matter the minister has recently laid before us, may I say it is well that the people of Canada should understand that the west has a very real case which makes them feel, when they get their eyes thoroughly opened, that there is another side to what the minister has just said.
In the first place it was developed last year by an eminent authority in Ottawa that the three prairie provinces have, through tariffs, paid in the neighbourhood of S47,000,000 a year into the dominion treasury. That has been going on for a long time. The result is that when $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 are set aside for expenditures in connection with a proposition like prairie farm rehabilitation, we are likely to think of that $47,000,000 instead of the $3,000,000. After all is said and done, that is a matter which ought to be borne constantly in mind. I am sure the minister, coming from the west, will appreciate that point of view.
The remarks of the hon. member for Temiscouata show the importance of keeping these facts before our minds. In the west we are paying a large amount of money through the tariff. We are not getting any direct return from that expenditure, as are the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. We are not wishing to complain, but we do want hon. members to see our point of view. For a few moments may I indicate to hon. members some of the disadvantages from which we have suffered, and about which the hon. member for Temiscouata would no doubt like to hear. These are disadvantages which we have not been able to avoid.
The land settlement policies which for years were followed by dominion governments, and

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation
which on one or two occasions have been referred to in the house, have placed the three prairie provinces, and particularly Alberta and Saskatchewan, under a handicap which I believe is hardly realized by the rest of the dominion. In order to appreciate the situation we should remember that at least two great projects were paid for with land. One of these was the Hudson's Bay Company project. When the Hudson's Bay Company were persuaded to give up their holdings in the west they were allowed one-twentieth of the land surveyed in the townships from the United States boundary to the North Saskatchewan. One-twentieth was taken out here, there and all over the prairie provinces, and, in most instances, out of the choicest lands. When the time came for settlement people had to settle all round those pieces of land. This meant that the population was widely scattered. The extent to which Alberta alone is suffering to-day from that situation is remarkable. Before concluding my observations on this subject I shall say one or two things to indicate the extent of that suffering.
When the Canadian Pacific railway was built, the company were promised 25,000,000 acres, with mineral rights. According to figures I have they received about 18,000,000 acres. All hon. members have to do is to think of the colossal extent of 18,000,000 acres, and to remember that this land was selected all over the country and, to a large extent, from the choicest areas, to realize how settlement in the western provinces was spread out.
We say: What bearing has that on the situation? It has a tremendous bearing, and we will see shortly why. In addition, the Canadian Pacific Railway acquired perpetual exemption from taxation on their main line properties and on mineral rights for twenty years. The effect on the western provinces and on the communities in those provinces was serious. It put them under the handicap which started them to go into debt. Fifty-five million acres of prairie land were pledged to one organization or another. Even some other railway projects were supported with land. Unfortunately that land was given largely by Alberta and Saskatchewan. It is estimated that Alberta alone gave 13,120,000 acres. The whole cost, or practically all of it, fell on Alberta and Saskatchewan. Those provinces paid for not only -the railroad in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, -but for the railroad in western Ontario and British Columbia. I think this is a matter which should be kept steadily in mind -by hon. members.
I will say that since I have come down here I have found hon. members disposed to be
very sympathetic to the west, which is entirely as it ought to be, but we should still like to be understood a little more. I notice to-night that certain statements have been made -that since we are asking for certain things, we should be willing to divide up. All we are asking for is the right to live. But we find ourselves placed in a position where it is impossible to carry on. The impossibility of our situation has been developed through the years by conditions like the one I have just mentioned. This spreading out of our settlement has affected our economy. Let me point out that the telephones in Alberta-


Frederick George Sanderson: I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), but in my opinion he is out of order. We are dealing with a bill to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, and so far the hon. member has not touched upon that bill. I ask him to confine his remarks to Bill No. 36.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not blame you, Mr. Chairman, for thinking I have been off the subject. It will be only a minute or two until I am right on the subject.


Frederick George Sanderson: I ask the hon. member to get on the subject immediately.


John Horne Blackmore: I can jump right into the middle just as well as I can start at the beginning, but I rather like to start at the beginning. The minister has raised the question of the province not being able to pay any money. The province cannot pay any money for the development of these projects on lands which the dominion government's policy allowed to be settled entirely without the say of -the province. The minister pointed this out as the reason why the dominion should control the administration of the lands in question. I think it is quite clear now how this has a bearing on the subject. There are large areas in Alberta and Saskatchewan which were wished upon those provinces right over their heads. They are grappling with these situations. They have been placed under handicaps which are manifestly unjust and unfair. The dominion says that they will come in to help, but the provinces must give up the land. Just as soon as we got control of our lands we began to look after them. We did not obtain control of our lands until 1930, but immediately we did so we made stipulations which prevented the settlement of the country in such a way as to put us under a handicap. Having said that, I shall go on to say what I was going to say a minute ago. Because of the spreading out of our settlement Alberta has had to pay twenty per cent more for its telephone service than is
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation

paid in Ontario. For highways it costs us 500 per cent more per thousand than it does in Ontario.


Frederick George Sanderson: I ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to Bill No. 36.


John Horne Blackmore: I cannot see how it can be said that these remarks do not have a bearing upon the matter before us. I am going to bow to your ruling, but certainly the matter before us is one of money. The province of Alberta maintains that when the dominion comes in and undertakes to help it out of a difficulty into which the dominion put it, the dominion should not claim the lands.


Mr. VIEN:: The telephone is not in the picture.


John Horne Blackmore: Surely it is, because the dominion allowed the Canadian Pacific Railway to select the best areas of the land.


Thomas Vien: I mean in this particular bill.


John Horne Blackmore: When the dominion allowed the Canadian Pacific and the Hudson's Bay Company to select large areas of the choicest land, settlers coming in were forced to go on sub-marginal lands. The province of Alberta then had to undertake to keep those people on those lands. The province now finds it necessary to get help in taking care of those people. They feel they should have this as a just right. There is the connection of the whole thing with the question under discussion. I shall say no more about it because I have gone far enough to indicate that this matter is all bound up in our thinking. The province of Alberta is under a tremendous burden, but there is no province in the dominion to-day that is making a more determined effort to manage its affairs and its economy. We know what we are doing, but many people do not know. They say silly and unjustifiable things, but they do not convince us. We know, we are right there.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. For the last
time I am going to ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to Bill No. 26.


John Horne Blackmore: I hope no hon.
member asks me a question which I shall have to answer. I am going to say this again. We feel that money should be spent in Alberta as far as these lands are concerned. When these lands are rehabilitated, the men who go on them will be buying commodities upon which duty will be paid; they will be buying goods upon which the sales tax will be paid, and both the duty and the 
sales tax will go directly into the dominion treasury. The result is that the dominion is bound to get as much value out of these settlers as is any province. Why should the dominion hesitate to spend money to prepare the lands so that people can live there? We do not want to be stubborn or uncooperative. I think the minister will bear me out when I say that, generally speaking, the ministers from Alberta have been as cooperative as any group of ministers from anjr other province in the dominion. There are certain things to which they hold steadily, and this is one. They feel and we feel that if in the future there are obligations which result from the fact that the dominion owns certain lands in a province and the province has responsibilities in connection with those lands, then there will be discord which will be altogether undesirable. We would much rather keep control within the province. That is not saying that the dominion should not c.ome in and spend money in the province.
After all, provincial lands are dominion lands just as well as they are provincial lands. The situation cannot possibly be otherwise. I just want to lay that down for the committee so that hon. members can see our point of view. We feel that there should not be any halting because of this requirement that the dominion should have control of provincial lands. I have not the details before me because I have been working along other lines, but there is a tendency on the part of the dominion to take control of land where water is put on by irrigation works. We feel that is not necessary. We feel the dominion should leave control of the lands with the province. After all, the province must provide the schools; it must provide the health and other services which are distinctly provincial. All of these things cost money.


James Garfield Gardiner: As soon as anyone is living on the land he pays taxes to the province.


John Horne Blackmore: That is why we hold to the point that has been held, that we ought to have control of these lands. When the dominion spends money, it is simply collecting Alberta money and putting it back into the province.


James J. Donnelly: Does the hon. member think Alberta residents should be treated differently from residents of Saskatchewan or Manitoba?


John Horne Blackmore: Of course not.


James J. Donnelly: Then what is the hon. member debating?

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation


John Horne Blackmore: It is natural for a person to speak concerning his own province. The reason I mention my province is that there has been considerable discussion of it to-night. But I admit that Saskatchewan is in just as great need as Alberta, and has just as great a case; in fact I am not sure but that Saskatchewan's is not a more urgent case, but the Saskatchewan members have not said much about it.


Major James William Coldwell: We have not had a chance to-night.


John Horne Blackmore: That is very good.
Let me remind the hon. member that I mentioned, in connection with those lands, that Alberta and Saskatchewan supply all the land, so I think he will agree that I am concerned about Saskatchewan. I mention the three western provinces when I said that we were paying $47,000,000, so I think the hon. member's observation was perhaps not justified.


Major James William Coldwell: What is the position of the South Saskatchewan river scheme at the present time? Since the hon. member for Lethbridge was thinking perhaps that he was speaking for Saskatchewan, I should like to say that we do not agree that we "cheerfully" pay for millions of dollars in connection with the tariff. While I may be out of order, I want to dissociate myself from that remark of his.


James Garfield Gardiner: I gave the expenditure on the Saskatchewan river scheme a few moments ago. The total cost when complete is estimated at about $400,000, and there has been about $60,000 expended up to the present, most of which has been spent on the ditch between the river and Caron, on storage facilities at Caron, and putting in some piping in the Saskatchewan river. The work is all under way.


George Halsey Perley: Did not the city of Moose Jaw undertake to reimburse the government for some part of that cost?


James Garfield Gardiner: It will undertake any construction necessary to take the water from that storage to Moose Jaw, eighteen miles away, but we have no undertaking in connection with that at all.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is a large job like that done by contract?


James Garfield Gardiner: Tenders were called for, and the work is being done by contract.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Would the minister be good enough to ask the officials of his department to communicate with those charged with the responsibility and ascertain if the fences
on certain property taken over were not destroyed before the property was taken over? The leaseholders held their leases until January 30, 1939, but I am informed that away back in the previous summer their fences were destroyed and their cattle turned loose.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are two sections for which I did not read the details of pastures. There was LJ.D. 21 and 22, special area A, forty-two miles of fencing, acreage 48,080, and estimated cost, $42,636. There is another one of sixty-one miles, with an acreage of 79,840, and estimated cost of $72,966. Those two are not yet completed. I understand that there are one or two farmers in there with whom final arrangements have not yet been made, but negotiations are going on and will be concluded.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Perhaps the minister did not understand my question. The lands that were taken over were held under lease until January 30, 1939, and some men engaged by the department destroyed the fences away back in the previous summer, causing great inconvenience to the men who held the leases, which were good until January 30, 1939. The return I have says, "by permission of the leaseholders," but I have definite information that their permission was not obtained, and still the fences were destroyed. Would the minister be good enough to ascertain if that information in the return was not wrong.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand there were two instances in which complaint of that kind was made, but a thoi'ough investigation was made and our information is that there was no truth in the complaints.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar says that I said that we "cheerfully" paid the cost of the tariff. If I did, I wish to take those words back.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Agreement with the provinces, cities, et cetera.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I pointed out the other
evening the extraordinary character of the last of these three subsections, and without labouring the point I am going to make a suggestion to the minister and offer one or two reasons in support of it.
In the first place it is obvious that we are clear away from the emergency character of the original legislation. I think the minister will agree with that because to-night he has indicated that many thousands of acres of land, hundreds of thousands of acres, I think I am safe in saying, have been acquired in

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation

the name of the dominion and fenced; and, to use his own language, these fences are being constructed to last at least twenty years. Now there is a definite, permanent work.
Going through the report that was tabled, I find in harmony with what the minister has been saying to-night a lengthy recital of most important projects of one kind and another. Therefore this is no longer emergency legislation. Let us get that clear in our minds.
I am going to suggest to the minister that section 2 be amended in this way. I suggest that these three subsections be eliminated and that instead we have paragraphs A, B and C; and A would read, "The minister may, for the purpose of this act, and subject to section four, and with the approval of the governor in council, enter into agreements," and so forth.
Then, instead of having subsection 11, put in B, leaving out the words "The minister may, for the purposes of the act," because that would be repetition, and saying, "B. Purchase, lease or otherwise acquire," and so forth.
Then when you come to the next subsection 12, eliminate the first line and make it read, "C. Purchase or rent whatever machinery," and so forth.
This simply means that the powers granted here will be subject to the act, subject to section 4, and subject also to the approval of the governor in council. It will put all of these powers in the third subsection on exactly the same basis, and I submit that this would improve the legislation. The exact re-drafting would have to be attended to, but I think I have outlined my suggestion with sufficient clarity for the minister to see its importance.


James Garfield Gardiner: I see no difficulty at all in connection with clauses 10 and 11. The meaning is exactly the same. The only difficulty perhaps would be with clause 12, and I think we could have a re-drafting that probably would serve our purpose just as well and probably avoid some of the reasons for criticism that were made the other night.
The committee will understand that in carrying out one of these irrigation projects requiring an expenditure of some $50,000 or $60,000, when the work is completed you have some machinery partly worn out on which the freight to the next job, which may be one hundred miles away, would be considerable, whereas the machinery can be disposed of on the ground because it is going to be required there for further work. To go through all the process of getting an order in council when you are clearing that up, and

the consequent delays, might make the best and most profitable disposition of that limited amount of property impossible. We want to have some way of dealing with the matter that would be workable.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the minister will permit a further suggestion, we have, as a regular process in government circles of dealing with just this sort of thing, the salvage department. The minister will not take amiss what I am going to say. Let us just take his illustration. Here is an irrigation project finished up; there are a couple of tractors, maybe a truck or two, power scrapers and so on. Many of these projects run into large sums of money, $70,000, $80,000, $100,000 or more; they are quite substantial works. That machinery is valuable:	If the matter were
wide open, there would be a temptation to let some of that machinery go locally at sacrifice prices. We have the salvage branch, and the governor in council has power under the original act to make regulations. It keeps the wrhole thing working in an orderly way in harmony with good practice in government circles. If that course is departed from, whether by the present minister or future ministers, they are going to be clothed with an authority which I do not think exists in any other .department, or if it does it should not. It is bad legislation, and I say that not in any criticism of the present minister. I urge him to accept the suggestion I made.


James Garfield Gardiner: The proposal which
I have I think conforms fairly well with the practice referred to, which was discussed here generally in connection with another bill the other night. It would make section 12 read this way:
(1)	The minister may, for the purposes of this act, purchase or rent whatever machinery or equipment may be required in connection with the development construction or operation of any project or scheme; provided that the purchase of any single unit of machinery or equipment of a value greater than five thousand dollars shall require the approval of the governor in council.
(2)	Notwithstanding the provisions of any other act or law, the minister may sell any single unit of such machinery or equipment upon such terms as he may deem advisable, and the proceeds thereof shall be paid to the receiver general; provided that the sale of any such unit Bhall, if its initial cost exceeded five hundred dollars, require the approval of the governor in council.
That is, if the initial cost exceeded $500 he has to have an order in council. One can quite understand that a great deal of equipment purchased for less than $500 is used for maybe a few months in the summer, and if it is worn out, the sale price would be very small.

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister not
agree that he is definitely departing from one of the fixed rules of government, that all purchases over $5,000 must be made after public tender? He is suggesting that purchases up to $5,000 may be made without even reference to council.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the regular
procedure.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the minister is
letting himself in for a great deal of trouble in taking this position. I have no desire to hold this legislation up and I shall not say more, but it is not because I do not feel the grave importance of this legislation.


George Halsey Perley: I should very much like
to see the minister accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens). I do not agree that the cost of moving machinery would be so great. Nowadays, with modern facilities, trucks and so forth, I have seen them moving road building machinery where they just hitch it behind a tractor or load it on trucks; they move threshing machines around in that way. So I think the argument that the cost of moving the machinery might be so great that it would be better to sell it at a sacrifice is not a good argument.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not any particular objection, but I might point out what it really means. I am now asking this committee, which is composed of the elected representatives of the people, for permission to do this particular thing, sell certain odds and ends that are around, as a departmental matter. The practice in all departments of government is and always has been under every government that items costing up to $5,000 do not go to council, they are dealt with by the minister. This is following the same practice. To follow the suggestion of the hon. member would simply mean that instead of getting permission of this committee of the house, I go to this advisory committee that I picked myself which meets in Regina, and ask them to give me permission to sell this equipment. Knowing they are all business men representing institutions like the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the mortgage companies and the banks, men who are used to this kind of thing, I know I shall only have to make the suggestion to get the permission. But instead of asking them for that permission I ask this house, and I think it is much better that I should get permission from the elected representatives of the people than from that group of men whom I really appointed.
71492-132J


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister is not asking this house for permission to do any individual thing; he is asking for a free hand.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is exactly what I have to do with the committee. "The minister may, subject to section 4 of this act," which means I get the permission of the committee to do certain things, "and with the approval of the governor in council, enter into agreements with any of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta," Then you apply that also to paragraphs 11 and 12. In order to do that, all that is required is that I go to this meeting in Regina which will probably be held in April and say, "Now these things are lying round at the end of each job; they have to be disposed of; I would like the advice of the committee to do it in this way," and I have no doubt I would get advice from them to proceed and do it in that businesslike way. But I am asking the house to put that in the form of a resolution giving me that permission rather than asking the committee.


George Halsey Perley: How many members of the original committee that was set up are now on the committee?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that I have the list, but I think I can name them. The Canadian Pacific Railway is represented; the Canadian National Railways; The Banking Association of Canada-


George Halsey Perley: By the same men?


James Garfield Gardiner: By whatever men they appointed; they appointed them themselves, and they are pretty much the same men unless the men have been moved. Doctor E. S. Archibald is chairman; that is the same chairman as we had before. John Vallance is an appointee put on since this government came into office, but he fills a position that required representation, the water development branch. W. L. Jacobson is the secretary; he was the secretary before this government came in. O. S. Longman is the representative of Alberta; he was the representative before. J. Ellis is the representative of Manitoba; he was the representative before. F. H. Auld is the representative of Saskatchewan; he was the representative before. R. W. Hanan of La Fleche, Saskatchewan, is the representative of the provincial municipal association; I do not think he was on before; he was appointed by the provincial municipal association. Mr. Paul Farnals of Halkirk, Alberta, was appointed by the provincial municipal association. Mr. James Arthur Ross of Melita, Manitoba, was appointed by the Manitoba provincial municipal association. Mr. W. G.
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation

Yule, of Regina, Saskatchewan, was appointed by the Canadian Bankers' Association. Mr. J. D. Guild, of Winnipeg, Manitoba, was appointed by the Canadian National Railways, and I -believe was previously a representative. Mr. A. Newman, of Calgary, Alberta, was appointed by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and he had been a representative of that company. Mr. P. J. Freer of Winnipeg, Manitoba, represents the Mortgage Loans Association, and Mr. A. E. Joslyn of Winnipeg, Manitoba, represents the Hudson's Bay Company. They are practically the same men.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Section 4 of the amendment of 1937 provides that the advisory committees shall consider and advise the minister as to the best methods to be adopted for the rehabilitation of the drought and drifting areas. In the same statute amending -the original act section 3 was changed-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Repealed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes. A new section comprising two parts was substituted. It was provided in the first place that the governor in council might establish one or more advisory committees to be known as prairie farm rehabilitation committees, the members of which were to hold office during pleasure; and in the second place it was provided that one of the members should be appointed chairman by the minister. From then on the plural is used. The minister has read the names of only one committee. Does he propose setting up other committees?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are three committees. There is one advisory committee to be known as the water development committee, which deals with water development as distinct from land utilization. That is composed of the following: Mr. J. Vallance, of Regina, Saskatchewan, who is at the head of the water development; Mr. W. L. Jacobson, of Regina, Saskatchewan, secretary of the whole set-up; Mr. B. Russell, of Regina, Saskatchewan, consulting engineer; Mr. L. C. Charlesworth, of Edmonton, Alberta; Mr. C. J. McGavin, of Regina, Saskatchewan, and Mr. B. B. Hogarth of Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Then we come to the advisory committee of departmental officials located at Ottawa, comprising the deputy minister of agriculture; Doctor E. S. Archibald, who is head of the experimental farms; and Mr. R. A. Olmsted, legal adviser of the department.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Under section 12 in the amending section, would it be wise to specify that the machinery purchased ought to be obtained by tender and the machinery sold disposed of at auction? Perhaps rve
<iMr. Gardiner.]
should insert the words " .by tender " after the word " purchase," and -the words " by auction " after the word " sell." This bill may involve the purchasing of large amounts of machinery, and after some of these projects are completed a considerable amount of second-hand equipment will probably be sold.


James Garfield Gardiner: The proposed amendment will accomplish what the hon. member has in mind.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I hope it will.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Section 12 will now read:
(1)	The minister may, for the purposes of this act, purchase or rent whatever machinery or equipment may be required in connection with the development, construction or operation of any project or scheme; provided that the purchase of any single unit of machinery or equipment of a value greater than five thousand dollars shall require the approval of the governor in council.
(2)	Notwithstanding the provisions of any other act or law, the minister may sell any single unit of such machinery or equipment upon such terms as he may deem advisable, and the proceeds thereof shall be paid to the Receiver General; provided that the sale of any such unit shall, if its initial cost exceeded five hundred dollars require the approval of the governor in council.
I move this amendment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will there be any obstacles in the way of selling the machinery at auction?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is something that only a few individuals in the community may require and it would not be practicable, but if it were it would be carried out in that way. In most instances it would not be practicable.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to, on division.
Bill reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, March 21, 1939