1948-05-31

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: As a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call your attention and that of the members of the house to the Canadian international trade fair, a regular world fair in itself, which is being held for two weeks at the Canadian National Exhibition grounds. It was opened by His Excellency the Governor General, Viscount Alexander of Tunis, last Saturday, May 29, at which time you were present, Mr. Speaker, as well as representatives of all parties in the house.
The Canadian international trade fair contains exhibits from all over the world. I desire to congratulate not only the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) but his predecessor, the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) and his deputy, Mr. M. W. Mackenzie, on the great success of this vast undertaking for the good of the people of Canada. It must have been a great revelation to our governor general, his wife and party; to you, Mr. Speaker; to the government and to all those representing both houses of parliament who attended the opening last Saturday. The exhibits from the dominions and also from Britain, France, Czechoslovakia, China, Brazil and all the countries on the seven seas ivere most outstanding. I wish to thank the board of trade, the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Canadian National Exhibition authorities, and the mayor and the corporation of the city of Toronto for the co-operation they gave in this great national undertaking.
Yesterday I requested the chairman of the board of education, Mr. George Arnold-and also wired the chairman of the separate school board-to endeavour to secure a half holiday for the children so that they might visit this exhibition. I hope that all our members may see it before the end of next week when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is to open Sunny brook hospital in Toronto on Saturday, June 12.
Those who were there saw the value of continuing overseas trade with the sterling countries that have done so much in the past to develop the industries of this country and to provide markets for our great agricultural production, both in the overseas dominions and in many other countries of the seven seas; and they also saw the need of furthering such overseas trade accordingly, as this country has now become the fifth country of the world in foreign trade and commerce.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: With your permission, Mr. Speaker,
I should like to say that I was at the Canadian international trade fair, at which I saw you and many of our colleagues in the queen city of the hon. members for Broadview and Davenport. This international trade fair is something to see, because it shows the progress that Canadian industry lias made. Exhibits from all over the world are on display. I hope that Canadians will take advantage of it to see for themselves, as we have done, the evidences there of the unbelievable progress that has been made by our industry.
May I say that the international trade fair will do more to promote Canadian trade throughout the world than any multilateral agreements concocted at Geneva and signed or amended at Havana or anywhere else. This is the sound practice of trade as exemplified by Abraham, by Jacob, and by Job after he became rich again-display; let people see what we have to sell. It is pure common sense. The practice of trade is ancient but it is not too old and odd, because it is based on common sense and the-practice of the centuries.	*
Just one more word, Mr. Speaker; yesterday morning after attending church I was surprised to find that I had nothing to do in the city of Toronto, so I walked along the streets and admired the displays. I wish to congratulate especially the Robert Simpson company upon their magnificent display advertising the international trade fair. The way was paved by the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon)- the genial minister who sits near me-and his successor in office (Mr. Howe), who understand the importance of this matter; it is so important that it cannot be overlooked by any one of us. Therefore I was happy to
5849-289J
South African Election

see you there, Mr. Speaker, as the first commoner, as well as many others who are our colleagues and friends. They did well to go to the fair, and I hope that their example will be followed by many for the benefit of the country at large.


Mr. J. H. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to associate myself with the remarks of the two previous speakers with respect to their visit to the international trade fair in Toronto over the week end. I should like to say, not only for myself but for the other members of this group who participated in that visit, that we appreciate the kind invitation of the government to be their guests on that occasion, and to express the great pleasure that was ours in visiting the fair. The government, and particularly the Department of Trade and Commerce, are to be congratulated on the efforts they have put forth in bringing to Canada the representatives of various countries and exhibits from those countries indicating what they have to sell to us; as well as showing what goods we can sell to them. While I understand this is the first great fair of its kind we have staged in Canada, I sincerely hope it will not be the last. My one regret is that all hon. members were not able to visit the fair; for I am sure those who did go brought back with them pleasant and profitable memories of what they sa)w and a definite impression of what we may hope for in the way of trade.
Once again I wish to thank the government for the kind invitation to visit the fair.



FIELD MARSHAL SMUTS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I notice a Reuters news agency dispatch from Pretoria which reads as follows;
Prime Minister Mackenzie King has sent a telegram of good wishes and sympathy to General Jan Smuts after his defeat in the South African elections, it was disclosed here Saturday.
The dispatch is quite correct, but it may convey to some an erroneous impression as to the nature of the message sent. Of course I would not for a moment think of commenting upon the results of the election in South Africa, but Field Marshal Smuts is a very old personal friend, and when I read the results of the elections I followed my natural sympathies and inclinations in sending him a message. In order that there may be no mistake as to exactly what I said, and the purpose of the message, I think perhaps I should place
[Mr. PouliotJ
it on record. The message is dated Ottawa, May 28, 1948, and reads as follows:
Field Marshal Jan C. Smuts,
Capetown,
South Africa.
Personal. I realize that it would be most improper for me to comment upon a matter so completely related to the domestic affairs of another nation of the commonwealth as that of the results of the general elections in South Africa. I hope, however, I may be permitted to say to you personally how very much I regret that at the end of a life so completely devoted to public service in your country and in the arena of world affairs you should have met with defeat in your own constituency, and- that the results of the elections should have compelled your resignation as Prime Minister before the time came that you felt you, j'ourself, should lay down this high office. I hope the outcome may be for you a sense of relief from burdens which become increasingly heavy with the advance of years, and of freedom newly and honourably won for what may remain to you of the eventide of life. My warmest personal regards.
W. L. Mackenzie King. JUDGES ACT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 329, to amend the Judges Act, 1946.
He said: This is a very brief bill. It strikes out the additional allowance for a divorce court judge in Nova Scotia. All the judges of the supreme court of Nova Scotia are now being given divorce jurisdiction; therefore it is not appropriate that there should be any special additional remuneration for any one of them.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: 1.	How many two-motored planes are now owned by Trans-Canada Air Lines?
2.	What is the make and type of each plane so owned?
3.	How many four-motored planes are now owned by Trans-Canada Air Lines?
4.	What is the make and type of each plane so owned?
5.	How many four-motored planes have Trans-Canada Air Lines on order of which delivery has not yet been made?
6.	What is the make and type of any such planes on order?

Questions
7.	How many of the above-mentioned planes have been purchased for Trans-Canada Air Lines from Canadair Limited?
8.	How many planes so purchased for Trans-Canada Air Lines are yet to be delivered by Canadair Limited?
9.	What is the make and type of each plane?
10.	What is the purchase price of each plane already delivered by Canadair Limited to Trans-Canada Air Lines?
11.	What is the purchase price of each plane purchased and yet to be delivered by Canadair Limited to Trans-Canada Air Lines?
12.	What amount of the purchase price in each case paid to Canadair Limited represents royalties paid to any United States aircraft manufacturers?
13.	Has any commission been paid by Trans-Canada Air Lines to any person, firm or corporation in connection with the purchase of any of the above equipment?
14.	If so, what are the particulars of any commission so paid?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Thirty-nine.
2.	Three Douglas DC-3 Wright engined aircraft. Twenty-seven Douglas DC-3 Pratt & Whitney engined aircraft. Nine Lockheed Lodestar Pratt & Whitney engined aircraft.
3.	Eighteen.
4.	All Canadair North Star M 2.
5.	Two.
6.	Same as No. 4 above.
7.	Eighteen aircraft referred to under No. 3 above.
8.	Two.
9.	Same as No. 4 above.
10.	$660,000.
11.	Same as No. 10 above.
12.	Unknown.
13.	No.
14.	Not applicable.


PARI-MUTUEL BETTING
Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	Has the dominion government figures on the amounts of money collected by the provinces of Canada as taxes on pari-mutuel betting during the last two fiscal years?
2.	If so, what are these figures for each of the provinces?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes.
2. Provincial revenue from pari-mutuel betting (thousands of dollars):
Fiscal years
1945-46	1946-47	1947-48*	1948-49*
Not applicable to Prince Edward Island,
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick	
Quebec?	____ ....	____Ontario 	
2.558	3,001	2,833	2,200Saskatchewan 	
35	42	40	40Alberta 	
78	95	75	95British Columbia! 	
468	525	475	500Budget estimates except	for Ontario, 1947-48, which	is an interim figure of ten	months
actual and two months estimate. tNot separable in public accounts.
^Described in this provinces as a "races fax".


HEALTH INSURANCE-DOMINION COUNCIL OP HEALTH
Mr. TIMMINS:: 1.	What studies have been carried out by the department in respect to health insurance and in respect to a national health plan?
2.	What persons have been engaged or retained in these studies and for what periods of time, and what amounts have been paid as salaries, emoluments, or otherwise, in respect to such studies?
3.	How many full time, qualified doctors are now employed by the department on health insurance studies, where are they engaged, and what are their names?
4.	What is the Dominion Council of Health, and what officers and staff are engaged in the work of the council?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	The 1945 dominion government proposals for health grants and health insurance have been under continuous study and review by members of the staff of the directorate of health insurance studies and the research division. In addition, as a part of an over-all study of social security, in which Dr. H. M. Cassidy of the university of Toronto acted as a technical adviser to the department, work was carried out in the health field by the directorate of health, insurance studies and the research division.
2.	Dr. Kenneth Gray and later Dr. J. L. Little succeeded the late Dr. J. J. Heagerty in directing health insurance studies. After Dr.
Questions


POST OFFICES-SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. MENARY:: 1.	What are the names of postmasters in Aberdeen, Alvena, Cudworth, Wakaw, Dalmeny, Dundurn and Vonda?

Questions
2.	What total remuneration did each such postmaster receive during the fiscal years 194647 and 1947-48?
3.	What was the annual revenue of each such post office during the fiscal years aforesaid?
4.	What was the amount paid for rent of premises during the fiscal years aforesaid, indicating to whom such rent was paid?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1. Aberdeen, Nick Wiebe; Alvena, Michael Anton Tratch; Cudworth, Louis N. Schmidt; Wakaw, William Halbert; Dalmeny, Wilhelm Theodore Thiessen; Dundurn, John Thomas Shields; Vonda, John Arthur Fournier.
2.	1946-47	1947-48
Aberdeen	$ 1,676.27 $ 1,809.32
Alvena	
1,460.67	1,494.67Cudworth	
2,066.26	2,325.38Wakaw	2,698.15	3,153.38Dalmeny	
1,045.57	1,238.18Dundurn	
1,833.37	1,917.12Vonda	
1,765.73	1,888.263.	1946-47	1947-48Aberdeen	$ 3,022.19 $ 3,310.57Alvena	
1,997.20	1,877.86Cudworth	
4,055.44	4,260.87Wakaw	
6,119.57	5,698.83Dalmeny	
1,563.34	1,544.04Dundurn	
3,384.10	3,768.66Vonda	
3,192.02	2,938.20
4. The postmasters provided their own quarters and the following allowances were paid towards their costs in this connection, these being included in the amounts mentioned in
2	above:
1946-47	1947-48
Aberdeen	$	195.78 $	241.78Alvena	
156.00	159.78Cudworth	
250.00	324.44Wakaw	
320.73	489.57Dalmeny	
94.00	125.07Dundurn	
219.00	270.73Vonda	
219.00	255.36


CENSORSHIP-BOOKS
Mr. MENARY:: 1.	What is the name of the official responsible for the examination.1 of books entering Canada?
2.	What experience and qualifications has he for this position?
3.	What ale the names of persons on his staff?
4.	What are the duties of each such person?
5.	What experience and qualifications has each such person for such position?
6.	Since January 1, 1946, how many books have been excluded as unfit for Canadian readers?
7.	During the same period how many periodicals have been excluded?


Mr. WINTERS:: 1.	No single officer has the authority to determine what books shall be classified under
item 1201 of the customs tariff. This is i general responsibility of the Department of National Revenue.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Answered by No. 1.
5.	Answered by No. 1.
6.	Since January 1, 1946, 55 books have been prohibited importation under item 1201 of the customs tariff as treasonable, seditious, immoral or indecent.
7.	Since January 1, 1946, 24 periodicals have been prohibited importation under item 1201 of the customs tariff as treasonable, seditious, immoral or indecent.


FAP.M LOANS-&quot;CANADIAN NEWSPAPER REPORTS OF
[Stage Direction]
1946 operations"
Mr. BARRETT:: 1.	Did the Farm Improvement Loans Act administration publish a pamphlet entitled "Canadian Newspaper Reports of 1946 Operations"?
2.	If so, what was the purpose of the publication of this pamphlet?
3.	What was the total number of copies issued?
4.	To whom were they distributed?
5.	What was the total cost of (a) preparation; (b) printing; (c) distribution, of this pamphlet?
Mr. BELZ1LE:
1.	Yes.
2.	To stimulate interest in and obtain publicity for farm improvement loans and in particular to encourage rural newspapers and farm periodicals to maintain a continuing interest in the loan activities under the act.
3.	5,370.
4.	Banks, newspapers, farm and trade journals.
5.	(a) 8329.40; (b) $900.04 (revised figures); (c>
$54.83.


FARMBOROUGH, QUE., MAIL SERVICE
Mr. OAOUETTE:: 1.	What was the salary paid to the postmaster of Farmborough, Quebec, when that post office was in operation?
2.	Who has the contract for the conveyance of mails to Farmborough?
3.	From what point does the said contractor convey such mails?
4.	What is the contract price?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	$152.12 from 24th January to 3rd October, 1947.
2.	There is no contract at present.
3	and 4. See answer to No. 2.
Inquiries of the Ministry



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. HANSELL:: 
Mr. WINTERS:: Return tabled.



PASSPORTS-ADOPTED CHILDREN

Mr. CAMPBELL:: How many passports were issued to infants on the application of guardians during the calendar year 1947 and during 1948 to date?



RURAL MAIL SERVICE-NON-ACCEPTANCE OF TENDERS

Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	How many rural mail services have been discontinued following the refusal by the Post Office Department to accept the tenders, on the ground that the price submitted was too high?
2.	How many in each province?
3.	How many in each county of the province of Quebec and what are the said counties?



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Acting Minister of Mines and Resources) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to facilitate the construction and operation of electric power plants in the Northwest Territories and the supplying of power thereby generated to mining and other interests. The bill provides for the establishment of a power commission as the authority to carry out the construction and operation of the projects referred to in the bill. Provision is made for advances of moneys from the consolidated revenue fund to the commission to enable it, if and when required, to carry out its undertakings with provision also for the remuneration to be paid the commissioners.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Acting Minister of Mines and Resources) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Yukon Act to re-establish the positions of commissioner and of administrator of the Yukon Territory, to increase the indemnity of members of the Yukon council and provide for their travelling and living expenses, and for other purposes relating to the government of Yukon Territory.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, a Canadian Press dispatch from London today indicates at least the probability, so far as press speculation is concerned, of a meeting of commonwealth prime ministers in July. Can the Prime Minister tell us how far the formal or informal discussions or negotiations have progressed toward that end?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: All I can say to my hon. friend is that there have been communications between the government of the United Kingdom and, I understand, all governments of different parts of the commonwealth respecting the holding of a meeting of prime ministers either some time in July or in the autumn. No final conclusion has been reached as yet; but as soon as a decision has been made I will give my hon. friend the information.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES SASKATOON-VANCOUVER-SERVICE FROM MONTREAL TO PACIFIC COAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. KNIGHT (Saskatoon City):: Mr. Speaker, I sent a copy of a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who is not in his seat. Perhaps in his absence the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) will answer. Is the Trans-Canada Air Lines service from Saskatoon to Vancouver to be

Inquiries of the Ministry
discontinued on June 1? If so, has the government considered establishing a service from Saskatoon to Calgary to link up the direct Trans-Canada service from Montreal to Vancouver?


Mr. G. J. McILRAITH (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is that the service will not be discontinued. It will still be available, although on a schedule different from the present one. The second question is answered by my answer to the first one.
_Mr. KNIGHT: This would involve passengers staying overnight at Edmonton.


George James McIlraith: I am sorry, but I cannot give the precise times of various connections.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The point is that direct service-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member will realize that he cannot enter into a debate when asking a question.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Herbert Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister, a copy of which I have addressed to him. In view of the terrible flood damage sustained by the town of Kimberley, British Columbia, estimated to be well over $1,000,000, will the government give earnest consideration to the granting of some financial assistance to those who have been rendered homeless and who have lost their all? I may say, sir, that I have received a telegram from the mayor of Kimberley asking if it is possible to get some financial assistance from the government.


Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: Before the Prime Minister answers, may I ask if when he is answering he will deal with the whole problem in British Columbia because there are other areas in exactly the same position, and I had intended to ask a somewhat similar question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, when I
received a copy of the hon. member's question I did have prepared a statement to give to the house respecting the government's position in the matter of dealing with flood conditions, and the like, which I shall read to the house.
I would however direct the hon. member's attention to the wording of his question. Judging from the text, it would appear to be more for the purpose of conveying certain information than of asking a question. I cannot take any responsibility for the accuracy of the statement that losses are over a million dollars, or that they are estimated as such. The question as to the government's being prepared to consider what it should do in a matter of this kind I shall be glad to answer. My answer, however, will relate rather to the general situation, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Kamloops.
I should add that on Friday last my colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) dealt, I thought, rather fully with the situation when he replied to a question put by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). I shall now supplement, if not repeat, what the Minister of Public Works said on that occasion.
The responsibility for assistance to those suffering from floods and similar disasters of nature lies with provincial governments and local communities, as well as with non-governmental organizations such as the Red Cross, to which voluntary contributions have been made for this purpose. The government has no reason to believe at this time that these authorities and organizations will not be able to discharge their responsibilities in dealing with the unfortunate sufferers from the disastrous floods that have recently occurred in British Columbia and elsewhere in western Canada. The dominion has not the constitutional responsibility for dealing directly with assistance to victims of local disasters.
I assume that if the situation is such that the provinces in which these disasters occur would feel the necessity of financial assistance from the federal government, the government would be so advised by the provinces themselves. I do not believe we would be expected to act on communications received from municipalities. Municipalities would communicate with provinces in the first instance, and our action would be taken in the light of representations that might be made by provinces concerned. **


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the light of the statement the Prime Minister has just given, would he care to make further comment on a report which appeared in the press to the effect that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who is now out in British Columbia, is reported to have said that the dominion gov-
Reclamation of Marshlands

eminent would put up dollar for dollar with the provincial government in providing relief for the flood victims. I wonder if the Prime Minister would amplify his own statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: First of all, I have not seen the statement to which my hon. friend refers, although I have no doubt he has reported it correctly. I would wish to communicate with the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself as to what he may or may not have said before I would attempt to answer.



MARSHLANDS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 328, respecting the reclamation and development of marshlands in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I regret I was not in the house last week when the resolution was introduced. I was visiting Nova Scotia, the first opportunity I had to do so since Easter. Those of us who come from outlying sections of Canada are at a great disadvantage, as compared with those from central Canada, in the matter of visiting their homes and constituencies.
I appreciate greatly the action of the minister and the government in introducing this legislation and in making these proposals providing -for large appropriations for the reclamation and drainage of the marshlands of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. I also appreciate the sympathetic response the measure has had since it has been before the house, from all hon. members.
I had occasion to bring this matter up soon after I came to Ottawa in 1940, at which time I made a comparison of the negligible expenditures made in the maritimes with those which had been made in western Canada in connection with prairie farm rehabilitation.
No proposal had more wholehearted support from all members of the committee on reconstruction and rehabilitation than the proposal for the reclamation of marshlands in the maritimes. My colleague from Nova Scotia, the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) was so much impressed by the soundness of the proposal that he placed' on the order paper a motion recommending action in this regard. Expenditures amounting to about $25,000,000, beginning back in 1935 under a previous government, have been made in the west, with many millions -more for irrigation. Those expenditures have been made from year to

year by the present government under the direction of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), but there has been very little for the maritimes.
I have had a number of discussions personally with the minister about the reclamation and drainage of our marshlands, and I have been satisfied from the beginning the project had his support. It also has the support of the deputy minister, the director of experimental farms, and the officials of the department. It has had the active support of the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The premiers and the ministers of agriculture of those provinces came to Ottawa to make representations before the committee on reconstruction and rehabilitation. The committee made a favourable report to parliament which was adopted unanimously. We have been disappointed in the delay in making that report effective.
The appropriations which are being made on the definite recommendations of the provincial governments are generous, although they may not be sufficient in view of today's costs. (If the pioneer owners of years ago had had anything like this assistance in bringing their marshlands to a high state of fertility, they would not have believed it possible.
I have not had an opportunity to read the debate of Friday, nor have I had time to examine -the bill now before the house for second reading; therefore I shall not be able to deal with the details. It is recognized that the farm lands at the head of the bay of Fundy are the very basis of agricultural activity and prosperity in eastern Canada. This proposal will mean the reclamation of these lands. Many acres of uplands should be restored also to a high state of production, as in the past, as far as twenty miles from the marshlands.
Under this legislation a responsibility is being imposed upon the marshland owners. While they are receiving what would be called generous support from this government and the provincial governments, a responsibility still rests upon them. -Costs today are many times what they were a few years ago when the pioneers undertook the reclamation of these marshlands by the building of dikes and aboiteaux. Practically all that work was done by hand labour, but today it must be done by machinery. One of the necessities in undertaking this program is the designing and construction of the proper machinery for the handling of marsh mud. A committee has been doing such work in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, but machines to make the smaller ditches have not been perfected.
Farmers and marshland owners have a responsibility to rebuild barns for storage pur-

Reclamation oj Marshlands
poses. There is on some areas only one storage barn today where there were ten or fifty years ago. The cost of building or restoring barns is much more today than it was when the former barns were constructed. This will mean a large outlay on the part of marshland owners. While they appreciate what is being done, there may be some who will not be disposed or able to take advantage of what is being done for the whole area.
I would say to the marshland owners that if they have not confidence in this program they should hand over their marsh properties to others who will work with the governments. If there are not enough men locally to undertake full cultivation, then the government should bring in immigrants from Holland, Normandy and other European countries. There are many people in the old country who have had experience in agriculture under conditions something like these, although they have not had to deal with the tides we have. I think it was said the other day that the tides run as high as sixty feet. That is an extraordinary tide, but the usual high tides run to almost fifty feet.
I suggest to the minister that the experimental farm should take over some new areas of average quality marshlands. They should take a block of at least 100 acres, bring it to a high state of fertility and show the public what can be done in the production of hay. It would be an example to the farmers as to costs and quality of crop in that area stretching from Annapolis county to the riding of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Hazen).
A large block should be put into pasturage, because this is the best type of soil for pasturage purposes. Another block should be taken over for experimental purposes in the production of cereal and root crops.
This area should be the best live stock and dairy district in eastern Canada. For that reason alone I am going to support the dairy interests in their stand against the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine. We should give the dairy interests every possible encouragement in order that this may be made the finest dairying section in all Canada.
I do not know that there is much more that I need to say. On behalf of the marshland owners and agricultural interests in the maritime provinces I express appreciation of what the minister and the federal government and the provincial governments are doing. I appeal to the marshland owners that they respond wholeheartedly, and I hope that it will revive agriculture in eastern Canada.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I commend this bill to the house. In
the province of Ontario there is a very warm feeling in regard to the development of the maritime provinces, and there always has been, partly because there is such a large number of the Scottish race in our province.
In 1923 I brought in a bill for a national fuel policy, which would have been of great assistance to the maritime provinces. I urged the repairing of the dikes and breakwaters, many of which were erected by the early French settlers. I again urged this policy, which would have aided in the development of the maritimes, in 1916 when I saw the 75th battalion off at Halifax; I made an address there in which I urged a federal hydro policy, a national coal policy, reclamation of marshlands, and flood control.
This bill is limited to the three maritime provinces, and includes not only the reclamation of the marshlands but other benefits which are most commendable. I believe that such a policy is in the public interest for all the provinces as well as the maritimes. I hope that the work will be carried on expeditiously.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, matters affecting the maritimes should not be discussed only when we have by-elections or other situations which encourage people to make favourable statements to please certain parts of Canada. There is no such situation at the moment. I agree with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) that there is a very warm feeling in the province of Ontario toward the maritime provinces and a desire to help them where help can be given. I was one of those who went down to add my little weight, which turned out to be very small, in the Halifax by-election-


Mr. ISNOR:: We were pleased to see you.


Gordon Graydon: That was the trouble. I think you were glad to have me because you thought I might help your side. In any event I did not greatly help those I was trying to help, but I have always appreciated the hospitality that is so characteristic of the maritimes, and it was not lacking on that occasion. My hon. friend is fortunate in that he comes from a part of Canada which has that quality so well developed, and it is one of his own personal characteristics. At the time, as one coming from central Canada, I took a strong stand in favour of the development of the maritime provinces, and what I said was not prompted only by the occasion; because there has always been in central Canada a strong feeling, much stronger than our maritime friends sometimes realize, in favour of the development of the maritimes and doing what we can to see them get on their feet again.
Reclamation of Marshlands

It has often been said that prosperity in the world is indivisible, just as peace and war are indivisible. Certainly we cannot have a prosperous Canada if sections here and there are not prosperous. The disabilities under which the maritime provinces suffer have often been pointed out in this house, with much greater eloquence, perhaps with much more conviction, and certainly with more knowledge, than may be attached to my words. Sometimes I fancy the members from the maritimes are a little diffident about stating their disabilities, because they are a modest people and do not like to spread their woes and troubles across other parts of this land. Nevertheless the maritime provinces suffer from certain disadvantages, and I think this house ought to know that those who come from other parts of Canada are concerned in their problems and are prepared to help them in any practicable way. I realize that there are many obstacles, but we as a parliament and as a country ought to set our sights high in endeavouring to bring back the maritimes to what they ought to be-an integral part of this great dominion, flourishing and prosperous. The particular proposal in this bill cannot perhaps be regarded as a major factor in bringing the maritimes back to prosperity, but it is a step in the right direction. I would like to see more steps in this direction taken from time to time, because despite what has been said in the past, a goodly measure of support for maritime development will come from other parts of Canada, and this the people of the maritimes have perhaps not always expected.
As I went through the marshlands on one or two occasions I realized, as everyone must who sees them, the need for this kind of work. It seems to me that we should look upon it as just a beginning of a forward movement in the provinces down by the sea. I hope that this government and succeeding governments will take it as a precedent and will see that Canada throws its full weight behind many more such moves, to show that this country recognizes what the maritimes have done for Canada and that it is not going to forget those great contributions now.
While I cannot speak with the knowledge and experience of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) or the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) with reference to this particular proposal, I would like the people of the maritimes to know that there are large numbers of people all over Canada who are greatly concerned in the advancement and promotion and return to prosperity of the maritimes. It is something we have very much at heart, and I hope that 
similar assistance will be given to the maritime provinces in other directions, because they have many other problems; we should not stop with the reclamation of the marshlands, but go on from time to time in an effort to remove their disabilities so that they may enjoy the prosperity that many other parts of Canada enjoy. I am hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that in the days to come that will be done.
My sole object in rising was to lend support to this undertaking, because there are many who regard the maritimers as great people in our political, economic and national life.


Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: It is on very few occasions that I can rise in this house and endorse what a Conservative has said on this particular issue. On this occasion I do support the scheme that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has introduced in the house. I spent my boyhood days beside a tidal river, and perhaps I understand this proposal a little better than other hon. members who have supported it. I think I am quite safe in speaking for this group. I support the scheme and hope it will have all the success that the minister holds out for it.


Mr. C. T. RICHARD (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to say anything on this bill, but after listening to the last three speakers I am glad to know that after so many years the economic situation of the maritimes is arousing a certain interest throughout the rest of Canada. I know that these marshlands can be made very valuable. I wish particularly to thank the two hon. members from Ontario for having said that the economic conditions of the maritimes are appreciated and understood, and that a solution of these conditions is looked for by people in other parts of Canada. I want to impress upon the house the truth of the words used by one hon. member when he said that what is good for one section of Canada is good for the whole of Canada.
This confederation of ours is just as strong as the weakest link. If the maritime provinces are weak, it will mean a weak confederation of provinces. We all know that the economic situation of the maritimes is subnormal, and that that condition has existed for years. In order to appreciate the situation one must go back to the remote past. Some writer has said that the present is intelligible only in the light of the past. In order to understand the economic situation of the maritimes today we must go back to pre-confederation days. The other day one speaker referred to the promises that had been made to the maritime provinces when confederation was consummated. It might be wise for some hon. members to read the

Reclamation oj Marshlands
speeches of the fathers of confederation, and to learn from those speeches what was the economic situation of the maritime provinces at that time. It was higher than anywhere else in Canada, but it fell on the consummation of confederation. We must ascertain the causes of that, and try to find a remedy. It will not be simple. In the maritimes we do not demand that certain public works be undertaken just for the sake of spending money. We want to bring the economic situation of the maritimes on a par with that of the other provinces. I think this is a beginning.
As one hon. member said a while ago, there are other projects which might be undertaken there. There is one right next door to this project of marsh reclamation, namely, the Chignecto canal. That could be studied. In the maritime provinces we have all contributed our share to public works in the development of the rest of Canada, and we want the rest of Canada to come to our assistance and to study our situation. There are other projects we might study. There is the question of the development of our coal fields, our ports and our fisheries. I am glad to hear, therefore, that hon. members from other parts of the dominion feel that the maritime provinces deserve special study with a view to bringing us up to the point where we can hold our heads high with pride and march along with the other provinces of Canada.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: While those of us in the Social Credit group live a long way from the part of the country which is affected by this bill, we have great pleasure in supporting the views expressed by other hon. members. I feel that every part of Canada has its own particular problems. In the prairies we realize that we have problems which are not confronted in other parts of the dominion, and we know that in the maritimes they have their own particular problems. As the hon. member who has just taken his seat has said, we should all work for the betterment of Canada. To that end we in this group are certainly doing our utmost.	[DOT]


Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add one word. I presume that the minister will have something further to say on this matter. When he replies I trust that he will explain to the house why this bill is so specific. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Richard) referred to another project which was closely allied to the marshlands. I have in mind certain other things which might be included. I am thinking of all-embracing projects which might be of general benefit to Canada as a whole-fuel
supplies, and matters of the kind. Why is this legislation so specific? There may be a reason for it. When the minister replies perhaps he will cover that point.
Mr. JOHN R. MacNICOL (Davenport):
It certainly is very pleasant to my ears to hear hon. members from all parts of the house speak unanimously in favour of maritime reclamation. I have been preaching reclamation so long myself that I am glad to see others doing the same thing. I hope that the remarks made today will have a wholesome effect on some certain columnists.
On Tuesday last I made some remarks on another matter in connection with the maritimes, and hon. members and the press were generally unanimous in their support; but one columnist of our great papers failed to see that reclamation of the maritimes and reclamation of the west would mean prosperity for Ontario. I might say that it was not an editorial writer who expressed that opinion; it was one of the writers for the paper in question. I cannot understand that, because anyone who thinks for a moment- I mean a Torontonian, a Hamiltonian or anyone else living in Ontario-will know that prosperity in every other part of Canada means prosperity for Toronto and Canada. This particular writer did take quite a fling at me. I do not mind that; it is like water under the bridge. So long as I feel I am doing my duty, and can satisfy my conscience that I am right, I do not care a fig what anyone else thinks against what I say. I do the best I can.
This measure is being initiated by the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). As 1 said on Friday, I believe he is the first minister who has really put his teeth into the problem, and I have no hesitation in saying again that he deserves credit for the action he has taken. It has been talked about on many occasions in the house by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black), who has been persistent in asking for action in the matter.
Last October the hon. member for Cumberland took out his car after I had landed in his city and drove me over parts of these marsh areas, particularly through the part about which he was speaking today, where the agricultural college is situated. I have always been happy to support what the maritime members have said. They knew their problem, but they did not get very much attention paid to it. It is a delight to me to see them now all receiving support of what they have been fighting for for years. I should just ask if the minister will apply
Reclamation of Marshlands

similar reclamation measures to marshlands or flooded lands in Ontario. Recently I was in the onion area in Kent county, western Ontario, an area which the minister knows about. Some 2,000 acres of rich onion land in Kent county are threatened every day with flooding. I hope he will consider making sure that those rich lands in Kent county will also receive consideration.
One further word. The house will support a program like this, and it will support similar programs in other parts of Canada. It must be a comfort to the minister to know that when a reasonable proposal is brought forward, non-politically-and this is entirely nonpolitical-it will receive consideration. I presume that the reclamation departments or the public works departments of the three maritime provinces will co-operate in the whole program. When the bill is in committee I shall have some questions to ask about the organization which is to control the various projects. In New Brunswick considerable study has been made of the question of reclamation of marshlands. On Friday I referred to a bill which was passed last year, I believe. It was a good bill. If the minister has not a copy of it, I shall be glad to send one over to him.


Mr. GARDINER:: I have it. Nova Scotia passed one, too.


Mr. MacNICOL:: The bill I referred to on Friday pertains to Albert county in New Brunswick. Apparently the maritimes are working together harmoniously and cooperatively. If everyone does that, we will be sure to get somewhere.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable to see the degree of unanimity which on occasion can be found in this house when a matter of national importance comes before it. I listened with interest to the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black), and also to those of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Richard). They could not but have a profound effect on the thinking of all of us in this house. The bill now before us represents an attempt on the part of the national authority to meet a situation prevailing in one or more provinces. It would have been easy for the government to say that this matter was one of municipal or of provincial jurisdiction rather than to do what they did-recognize that the improvement and reclamation of the areas in question are necessary to the welfare of all parts of Canada.

As one who lives on the prairies I want to say to those who come from the maritimes that over the years we have been appreciative of the wonderful spirit of helpfulness shown to us by members from all other parts of Canada in the difficult days of drought-through which we passed. In supporting this measure we but show our appreciation of the support that has been given to us over the years.
There is one further thing I want to say in this connection. I said at the beginning that it would have been easy to say that this is a matter of provincial or municipal responsibility. We should realize that conditions of distress prevailing in British Columbia, while local in extent, may amount to a disaster national in scope. I hope that the responsibility of providing compensation to the flood sufferers will not be placed upon the municipal or provincial authorities in British Columbia. That matter too is a one of national importance ; the support of all members in this house must be secured to the end that compensation may be provided nationally, not provincial-Iy, to those who have suffered. The same spirit in which hon. members in all parts of this house support the need for reclamation in Nova Scotia calls for a recognition of conditions in British Columbia as a matter of national responsibility.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to reply to one or two of the remarks which have been made and some of the questions which have been asked.
The question was asked why the bill is confined to this one objective. I would answer that by saying that this is a question which has been under discussion for a long time. Some hon. members have referred to the fact that it has been discussed throughout the whole period that I have been here as Minister of Agriculture. That is thirteen years now.
I know it was discussed before that, because this ten-acre plot we have-it is a small acreage compared with that suggested by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black)-which is associated with the experimental farm, was taken over the year before, so that is fourteen years ago; and I presume there was discussion about it prior to that.
Naturally at the beginning, as in all proposals of this kind, we were confronted with the question of responsibility. Our constitution lays it down that a certain authority has the right to collect revenues from certain sources, or to give the right to other bodies,

Reclamation of Marshlands
such as municipal bodies, to collect funds from certain sources, and that then, as a result of having that right, they become responsible for doing certain types of work. I think that is generally acknowledged by all political parties right across Canada, and they have been inclined to adhere to that principle. But I am inclined to think that there are many developments which cannot take place on the basis that all funds that are collected must be charged up to lands affected by the expenditures. It has been proven, for example, over a long period of years, that it is impossible to have irrigation developments based upon the price of the land that will benefit thereby. The same is true with regard to projects of this kind. In other words you cannot just say that you can apply a certain method of revenue collection and then take sufficient out of the land affected by the expenditure to pay all the capital costs and other costs of making use of the water, or whatever it may be, in order to make it possible for people to live there. The theory is that somebody must step in and spend money in order to make the project a possibility at all, and that when that money is expended, others can make charges against the land or on the province as a whole and go on with further developments.
When we started to discuss this project that is the one question which always came up: this is a provincial responsibility. The provinces and the dominion were inclined to try to get a bill which would cover all these different projects. Two years ago we had one drafted to bring into the house, but for certain reasons I do not need to discuss now it has not reached the house. So, having reached that stage I rather took the position that it would be very much better to take some of these larger projects, which everyone is disposed to agree ought to be proceeded with, and pass a bill having to do with each, in order to get on with the work.
This bill does not bring up for discussion the hundred and one other ideas that people have with regard to drainage and everything else that might be involved. For the time being we are concentrating on the marshlands and the necessity of having dikes before those marshlands can be utilized at all. The difference between ourselves and the provinces, to begin with, had to do with where we should divide responsibility. As long as we maintained the attitude that we were going to spend one-third, the provinces one-third and those who were to utilize the land one-third, and that we would get it all into one vote and do
this, that and the other thing with it, we were not able to get very far, because we could not agree on the various details. This bill, therefore, says the federal government will do the thing someone has to do before anything else can be done-that is, keep the sea out. This bill says we will build the dikes and we will build the aboiteaux in connection with those dikes. We will keep the water out; and the provinces say: If you keep the water out we will start to do the things that must be done behind the dikes before the individual farmers can utilize the land. Then they set up legislation which makes provision for the construction of laterals, in the first place, and for the maintenance of those laterals after they are constructed.
That is the principle on which we are proceeding. In order to eliminate everything else we have confined this bill, as far as we are concerned, to the building of the dikes; then the provinces may undertake, in written agreements which will be signed under the terms of this bill, to do certain things behind those dikes after they are constructed.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: This would not apply, I take it, to any other project where dikes had to be built and water kept out?


James Garfield Gardiner: It applies generally
speaking to all the lands in the maritime provinces that require to be diked, but not to anything outside those provinces. There would have to be separate legislation if we were going outside the maritimes. This has to do with the maritimes provinces only, and the necessary diking in connection with these lands. That is one question which some hon. members have been asking, and I wanted to clear it up.
Another question was suggested by the hon. member for Davenport, as to the set-up. I have in my hand a record of what has been done by the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick; and the only reason similar action has not been taken by Prince Edward Island is that up to the present the question has not been discussed in relation to that province. But there are some small areas that require diking in Prince Edward Island, and we thought it well to include them in this bill while we are covering the other two provinces.
Both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have advisory boards or committees. They have both appointed the same chairman, W. W. Baird, superintendent of the experimental farm at Nappan. Each board has also appointed the same secretary, who is George R. Smith,
Reclamation oj Marshlands

of Truro, Nova Scotia. They have a common chairman, therefore, and a common secretary. The New Brunswick board is composed of J. A. Roberts, director of agricultural engineering services of the department of agriculture at Fredericton; Donald C. Oxley, assistant district highway engineer of the department of public works, Sussex; W. C. Harper, farmer, of Saclcville, and Roy Tingley, farmer, of Midway. Nova Scotia has appointed John E. Belliveau, chief engineer of the department of highways; Angus Banting, agricultural engineer, department of agriculture; Charles Logan, of Amherst, Nova Scotia, and Lebaron Troop, of Granville Centre. These men form the advisory committees mentioned in the bill; and I am sure the same committees would be continued. These men have made a thorough study of the whole situation and have advised in connection with the activities that are to be undertaken under the bill.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more at this time. If hon. members desire to ask questions when the bill is in committee I shall be glad to try to answer them. I only want to join with other hon. members in saying that we feel that in dealing with these larger projects consideration should be given to the possibility of the federal government doing the thing no other single authority can do in order to make it possible for those who must assume responsibility after this work is completed to carry out their responsibilities in that connection. This is the idea that has entered into the development of works under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in the prairie provinces. It is the idea behind what we have begun to undertake in British Columbia during the last two or three years, which possibly will be discussed still further on my estimates. It is the thing which has been considered also in relation to the central provinces, but which so far has been put into effect only during periods when relief has been required, in connection with flooding on some of the rivers, the cleaning out of river basins and other activities that have been carried on in central Canada. As has been said, however, this is a beginning, and we hope it will aid in the general development right across Canada.
I agree with what has been said as to the necessity for development in the maritimes. I have travelled extensively across Canada. I have never had any personal interest in the maritimes, but I have never gone there without feeling that there may be some reason for the suggestion so often advanced that they did not gain from confederation as much as might have been expected. One has only to look
fMr. Gardiner.]
around when there to realize that; and I am satisfied that one of the main tasks we ought to undertake here in Ottawa is the removal of any such feeling from the minds of people in any part of Canada by doing the things that are essential to their development. If this is a step in that direction, then I hope it may not be the end, but that we may have results from this beginning which will be beneficial to the whole dominion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. HAZEN:: How many acres of the marshlands which this bill will affect are in Prince Edward Island, how many in Nova Scotia, and how many in New Brunswick? What is the average acreage owned by the different landowners in New Brunswick?


The CHAIRMAN:: I suggest those questions might more properly be asked on section
3.


Douglas King Hazen: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Minister may construct dikes, etc.
Douglas King Hazen: I should like to add one or two further questions in connection with section 3. Perhaps the first is a minor one, but I note that in line 14 the word used is "aboi-teaux"; I suggest it should be "aboideaux". I do not know where the spelling with the letter "t" was found, but I have looked it up in Funk and Wagnalls New Standard dictionary and I find the word is spelled "aboideaux". I have been familiar with this word for some time, and I discovered that perhaps it is the one word which originated in the maritime provinces and has become part of the English language. My suggestion is that the spelling be changed to "aboideaux".
In the New Standard dictionary the word is spelled "aboideaux" and is described as a noun; there is a note that it originated in New Brunswick. It is defined as a dike-and perhaps the definition is not a good one-to exclude tidewater from low land.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think that is what this is.


Douglas King Hazen: Will the minister look into that point?


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall be pleased to look into it, but I hesitate to change the word. The word is not mine, but rather that of the

Reclamation of Marshlands
draftsman. In connection with the definition just given, I would say it is my understanding that this applies only to the gate in the dike.


Douglas King Hazen: Exactly.


James Garfield Gardiner: The word meaning a gate may be different from the word the definition of which the hon. member has just read, which defines it as a dike to exclude water from certain land. That is not what this is intended to be, because we have covered that by using the word "dike". An aboiteau, as mentioned in the bill, is just the frame for, and valve which swings on hinges, as was described a few days ago by the hon. member for Davenport. The dike is something different altogether.


Douglas King Hazen: But it is the intention of the dominion government to build these aboid-eaux?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Douglas King Hazen: I do not profess to be an authority on these matters, but I do believe the correct word should be used.
On Friday the minister told us that part of the money to be spent by the dominion government on this plan will be used for surveys and plans, to an estimated amount of $40,000. As I read the section the minister is given authority to construct and reconstruct and to assist the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island in the construction and reconstruction of dikes, aboi-teaux and breakwaters. I was wondering if at the end of that section we should add, "and to give authority to make surveys and plans for that purpose". No mention is made in the section that the minister has authority to make plans and surveys, unless such is implied.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Department of
Justice considers that it is implied.
In connection with the spelling of the word, may I point out that I have here the submissions made by the provinces, and they spell it the way it appears in the bill. The draftsmen have checked the word and have used the same spelling. As a matter of fact I was corrected when I used the other spelling, and I take it from that there is some reason for spelling the word as we have it in the bill. Perhaps we should leave it that way.
With respect to the acreage covered in each of the provinces, let me point out that the bill is not confined to any definite acreage. Under the bill it is possible to carry on in connection with any acreage in those three provinces which may be affected by this measure. We estimate that it covers about
80,000	acres. I believe there are only two small areas in Prince Edward Island, comprising perhaps a few hundred acres. I should say about sixty per cent is in Nova Scotia and about forty per cent in New Brunswick, and it is about on that basis the division of funds has been made in the last two or three years in making repairs.
Section 3 of the bill sets out what the dominion government is supposed to do. It states:
Subject to the provisions of this act, the minister may, for the reclamation and development of marshlands in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, construct and reconstruct and assist the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island in the construction and reconstruction of dikes, aboiteaux and breakwaters.
That is all my department can do. The next section states:
No work shall be undertaken in any province pursuant to this act unless . . .
And so on. Paragraph (b) states what the province undertakes to do. Those two sections separate what the federal government is going to do from what the provincial governments are to do. The section we are now discussing says that the dominion is to build these outer works. Perhaps I should add that a short time ago the premiers of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were here, along with their officials, and they made submissions to the dominion government as to what they thought they should do. There is only one difference between what they submitted and what is provided in the bill, and that is on the question whether we should do work behind the dikes. The only work which was suggested we might do behind the dikes was the building of main canals and the cleaning of old canals and creeks which had become more or less blocked. We have decided that the dikes should be the place where the division of responsibility is made. We build the dikes and make it possible for all the other works to be carried on behind the dikes, but we thought the responsibility for those works should rest with the provinces.


Douglas King Hazen: About this word "aboiteaux", before I came into the house this afternoon I examined three standard dictionaries and I could not find "aboiteaux" in any of them. I suggest that the minister change the spelling before the third reading if "aboiteaux" is not correct.


James Garfield Gardiner: We will do that.


Douglas King Hazen: How many owners are there of these 80,000 acres? What is the maximum
Reclamation of Marshlands

acreage owned by any owner? What is the average acreage? What is the value of the land today? What is it estimated the value will be after the improvements are made?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry that I have not information as to the average acreage, but from what I saw of the area down there-my hon. friend probably knows a great deal more about it-the farms together with the marshlands would be around a hundred acres, similar to the family-sized farms in other parts of eastern Canada. According to the statement made by the committee which reported upon it, the lands were valued at from $80 to $200 per acre in 1911. I understand that in recent years the valuation has been from $50 to $80 per acre. I presume the objective we would have in mind would be to raise the values to what they were at the earlier stage.
I want to repeat what I said on second reading. If we had followed the general reasoning that passes through people's minds with regard to this kind of thing we would never do it. If you take the cost of these outer works and apply it against the acreage and say that the land must be saleable at the total cost, you would never undertake it. If we approached it from that point of view we would stop right here. That' was the main difficulty I had to overcome as the minister who was responsible for convincing the officials and others. I am sure that if we went back and discussed it again we would arrive at just the same place, that these lands probably will never sell at enough to cover the cost of the dikes plus all the other works that must be erected in order to utilize the land. For that reason I do not think it is important that we should argue the matter from that point of view. My memory is that the cost involved would run it up to somewhere between $150 to $200 per acre.


Percy Chapman Black: I think the estimate of the minister is correct. Land at the experimental farm has been brought to a high state of cultivation and in a good year it will grow three tons of excellent timothy and clover hay. Such land is worth $200 per acre. Of course the cost of maintaining it in that state of cultivation would be high. It will take a few years, but I think this land should be brought to a state of cultivation where it would have a value of around $150 per acre.
With regard to the word "aboideau", I remember the first address I made in the house dealing with marshlands in 1940 or 1941. At that time I used the word "aboideaux", and my recollection is that Mr. Young called me in and asked what the word was so that it could

be checked as to spelling. A search was made and they found the word referred to by the hon. member for St. John-Albert.
There was another word used by the old Acadians; it sounded like "pamang". I am afraid I do not know how to spell this word. It refers to the method of using sod in building the face of dikes. This is one problem which will have to be faced by the commission that is to have the responsibility of building these dikes. When the early Acadians built their dikes they retained the sod on the face in a rhombus shape with the grass against the tide. One sod was fitted into another to form the early dikes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Have plans been submitted for constructing the aboideaux? Are there to be concrete walls into which the aboideaux will be fitted or will a framework be used?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand it is to be the old style construction of wood and brush.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It was that type of construction that really permitted the whole business to break down. The water got around the framework and washed backward and forward as the tide came in. They were not looked after and finally the whole thing was destroyed. I have sufficient confidence in the engineers to know that proper construction will be used. This is really the important part of the whole dike.


Percy Chapman Black: Locally "aboideaux" means the whole structure across the stream or drainage channel, not just the sluiceway. The sluiceways have always been built of wood. As they are kept continuously wet with salt water there is little deterioration. Aboideaux built by the Acadians 200 and more years ago are still there. Deterioration occurs by the water washing away the earth around the sluiceway and undermining the whole aboideau.
It takes a great deal of practical skill to construct these aboideaux. Most of the men experienced in this work have passed away. One of the last of them was Mr. John Lusby of the town of Amherst, Nova Scotia, who died about a year ago. Because of his wide practical experience he was called into consultation by the two provinces. An engineer, unless he has practical knowledge and can by study acquaint himself with the requirements will have considerable responsibility on his shoulders in placing these aboideaux, embedding them with brush, then the woodwork, and then the top. It is quite an undertaking.

Reclamation of Marshlands


Clovis-Thomas Richard: I have
listened with a great deal of interest to the suggestions that have been made as to the word "aboiteau" or "aboideau" and as to the construction of these works. I quite agree with the hon. member for St. John-Albert that the proper word is aboideau. I have seen the other word used, but I think the proper word is aboideau. I have forgotten its derivation, but you have to go back into Acadian history to find where the word comes from.
As far as the construction of the aboideaux is concerned, some of them, as the hon. member for Cumberland has said, have stood for 200 years. There is a knack in constructing them, and the Acadian people were the only ones who had the knack. They had brought it over with them from the old country and they could construct these works to withstand the strength of the tides. Whether the engineers of today can improve their methods I do not know. Somebody has suggested that the works be of concrete. I do not think it would work at all, because there is no sort of foundation for concrete. I do not know how far down you would have to dig before you came to rock; and the old settlers, having discovered that, used these wooden structures, which seemed to last for generation after generation, even though constantly submerged. As one hon. member has said there are very few people there now who have the knack of constructing these works. This may appear strange to some people, but you have to see the construction itself to know just why these works are so difficult to build. They have withstood the seas for two centuries. I know those who will have charge of constructing these works will have made a study of the works that exist there today and will know whether up-to-date engineering can suggest anything better.


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: I have had a French-Canadian dictionary brought to me from the library, and I should like to read the definition of this word in French; the English translation will be found on page 4600 of Hansard:
Aboiteau (abweto) s.m.
1.	Aboiteau, barrage, obstacle mis an cours de l'eau.
Flu-Le peuple prononce aboiteau.
Can.-Les aboiteaux sont des remblais etablis sur le bord d'une riviere.
2.	Vanne, dans un barrage, disposee de fagon qu'elle se ferine automatiquement quand la maree monte et qu'elle laisse s'ecouler 1'eau quand la maree est basse.
Dial.-Aboiteau=petit batardeau fait pour retenir l'eau, Saintonge.
3.	Masse de glace desagrdgee que les rivieres eharrient dans leurs debacles.
4.	Abrivent construit avec de la neige, des branches, pour s'abriter contre le vent (sur les lacs, les rivieres, ou l'on fait la peche l'liiver).
That is about all I can find in this dictionary.


Percy Chapman Black: And what is the spelling? There is no problem as to the spelling locally. They always call it "biteau". I would ask the minister this question. Have the provincial governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick agreed to the modifications in their proposals, as set out in the bill submitted to the house? Is there an undertaking on behalf of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to enter into agreements on the basis of the legislation now before us?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that I can say there has been an agreement, but there has been discussion back and forth between the provinces and the dominion. There has always been the question just where it should end, but never any great difference of opinion about i.t. Naturally the provinces would like us to construct the canals and clean out the creeks, because that is going to cost some money. I do not think there will be any great difficulty about it. It may be that the provinces will want to take longer to do the..-share, with responsibility for the creeks and canals placed on them. My own opinion with regard to the matter is that it is important that the outer dikes be built and that we get right on with that job. I would like to see it done within three or four years rather than spread it over ten years. A certain amount of work may have to be done to the creeks and canals inside the dikes immediately, and we may have to reach some agreement about that. It should be done while the equipment is there. I do not think there will be any great difficulty about coming to an arrangement in regard to it.
I think I should explain to the committee that the provinces recommended to the dominion. when we had a meeting some time ago, that the dominion government do those main ditches and clean out those creeks, but there has been some difference of opinion about, that, and I thought we had better get along with the job.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not want the hon. member for Gloucester to think I recommended concrete. I merely asked if concrete would be suitable, not because I wanted it to be used. Last spring, Mr. Chairman, you will remember the pictures that were shown under my auspices in the railway committee room, a lovely moving picture of the construction of dikes. Some of the pictures I
Reclamation of Marshlands

took myself, but most of them were films of the national film board, showing how to construct a large aboiteau, the framework and so forth on land, and then float it out to where it was to be sunk. It is quite a problem. It would be an interesting picture for the engineers who are to construct these works to see, and I suggest that the minister might arrange to have the picture shown again some Saturday. The maritime members are nearly always here on Saturday. The pictures would be of interest to them and to anybody else who would like to see them.
Mr. H'AZEN: The people of the maritime provinces, the French-Canadians and the English-speaking, have added a new word to the English language and that is "aboideau".


James Garfield Gardiner: We can have the proper word put in when the bill goes to the senate.


Douglas King Hazen: I think it would be a great mistake not to use that word if it is the word intended. Possibly in the French translation of this act the other word should be used, but in the English version I feel that the word "aboideaux" should be used.


James Garfield Gardiner: We shall have all this discussion referred to the legal authorities, and if that is the proper word to put in, then we shall have that amendment made in the senate when the bill is before the committee there. On the other question, all I should like to say is that we shall have to leave it to the engineers. I would not like to take any responsibility for saying how these aboiteaux should be built.


Percy Chapman Black: Have the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick had a copy of this bill we are now considering placed in their hands?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not as it is drafted. There is no difference at all in the bill. I have a copy of the submissions here, and I heard all the discussions, and took part in them myself. The bill is in accordance with what the provinces asked for. Everything is in it that they asked for, except the one thing that I have spoken of. Under this bill we have not undertaken to do the creeks and canals. I again submit that that is not a matter which should hold up the general procedure in getting these outer works done. If it must be discussed further at some other time that can be done. There is no reason why it cannot be done at a later time and changes made, but for the time being I think the bill ought to go through as it is.


Percy Chapman Black: Is the minister satisfied that the provincial governments will
(Mr. MacNicol.]
assume full responsibility for what is assigned to them under this measure?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am quite sure that they will, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-No work to be constructed unless recommended by advisory committee and agreement made with province.
Douglas King Hazen: Has a form of clause been drafted and agreed to with the provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, there has not been a form drafted for this particular purpose. We thought that could not very well be done until the bill was passed. We have had a form of agreement with them on the works that we have already been doing. I have a copy of it here. I may say it seems to have passed all right for a year or two with the word spelled as we have spelled it in the bill. It is in that agreement that we have it.


Douglas King Hazen: Has any consideration been given to what will happen if the provinces, either with or without assistance of the marsh owners, fail to live up to the conditions of the agreement in maintaining the works after they have been constructed?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is not a great deal that can happen. If we build the dikes the dikes will be there, and I do not think anyone will pull them down. If they do not make use of them we shall at least have done our share. We feel that a great many people will make use of them. It may be that there are some who occupy or own some of the
80,000	acres who may not do so. I do not think any penalty will be placed upon them so far as we are concerned, but we feel that a sufficient number of them will make use of the dikes to make this bill effective.


Douglas King Hazen: Dikes have to be constantly maintained. There is the wear and tear of the tide every day which comes against the face of these dikes. Unless attention is given to them yearly, they are bound to go down, and somebody has to see to them. If one part goes down and the sea comes in, it gets around and into the others. I know what happened at Hillsborough. One dike was washed out, or part of it, and then the sea got in and came around what might be called a lateral dike. I do not know whether that is the proper expression to use, but it went on to another area of dike land that was looked after by a different commission. That was washed out, and gradually the whole thing was destroyed.

Reclamation oj Marshlands
The responsibility must rest on somebody to maintain these dikes after they are built. Perhaps the law having to do with the maintenance of the dikes has been revised. I think it will have to be revised if the dikes are to be maintained, if they are to serve the purpose they are intended to serve by this bill, and if the money that has been expended is to be properly used and not wasted.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: It is only reasonable to
assume that in a three-way agreement under which the federal government is paying a certain proportion and the provincial governments are paying a certain proportion, and these two are paying $93 an acre toward the re-establishment of this land, and the landowner in turn pays another $18, they will look after the land. As I understand it, the agreement is practically the same as that which was presented by the provinces, with the exception of two items. The first two items which the provinces asked the federal government to take charge of have been included in the provincial government's proportion; otherwise the agreement is as presented to the federal government.


Douglas King Hazen: As I understand this bill, the landowner does not have to sign any agreement. Will he have to sign one with the provinces? Does the dominion spend so much money, the province spend so much money, and the landowner not have to sign any agreement at all? When the minister spoke on Friday he mentioned three divisions. He mentioned what the dominion was supposed to do, what the province was supposed to do and what the landowner was supposed to do; but the bill does not say that the landowner has to enter into an agreement with either the provincial or the dominion government.


James Garfield Gardiner: The bill gives the minister authority to make an agreement with the provinces involving all the matters which are now under discussion. The questions which are now being discussed will be discussed at that time. Either we will agree or we will not. I expect that we will agree. The province has made submissions to us with regard to the point that is now being discussed. A part of the submission reads as follows:
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick will control, operate and maintain, as provided for 'by legislation, and organization thereafter, of approved dikeland projects constructed or reconstructed under this agreement or transfer by Canada to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, such lands, rights or interests in lands acquired by Canada in respect of such projects.
There is a submission made by the provinces along that line having to do with all these
matters, but that submission does not bind them, and it does not bind us at the present time, but it is in the form of a model agreement. We will sit down and discuss all these things, and finally sign an agreement. This afternoon I do not want to try to say what agreement we are going to sign. I do not know. The particular point that is now being discussed will be a point of discussion between us. I would assume that they may say we should have certain responsibilities with regard to maintenance. We may be prepared to assume some responsibility with regard to maintenance, and the whole question of what is done with other works behind the dikes may come under discussion. At the same time the provinces may say, provided that you do so-and-so we will do so-and-so.
We may have to come back with an amendment to this bill at some future time. We have a temporary arrangement with the provinces under which we are proceeding this summer. We do not require this legislation at all for what we are doing this year, or for the responsibilities we have this year. With this bill in the hands of the provinces and ourselves we shall be in a much better position to sit down between now and the next session of the house and attempt to draw this agreement. If there are certain things that may have to be done or certain amendments brought in, we would be in a position to do that. I think it is better to put the legislation through as it now is, and then have our discussions between now and the next session and be in a position to make any amendments, if they are necessary.


Douglas King Hazen: Under the temporary arrangement to which the minister has referred, does the landowner pay a third?


James Garfield Gardiner: The provision is that the province can collect up to one-third, they are not allowed to collect more than a third; but they may not collect a third, or they may not collect anything. We pay up to $60,000 in one case and $40,000 in the other; three-fifths of the total is in Nova Scotia and two-fifths of it is in New Brunswick, or $100,000 altogether. We agree to pay up to that figure. Then the province agrees to pay double that amount, which makes $300,000 altogether, and they undertake to collect not more than one-third of that from the individual. That means that we pay a third, the province pays a third and the individual pays a third, if the province collects a third.


Percy Chapman Black: I agree with the minister that this legislation should be enacted as quickly as possible. I think it is unfortunate though that the agreement is not entered into with the provinces as soon as
Reclamation oj Marshlands

this legislation is enacted. There will be little work done this year under the three-way agreement referred to by the hon. member for St. John-Albert. Proprietors will not assume responsibility for undertaking construction that will impose upon them a much larger percentage of the cost than would be required after this legislation is passed. I know of aboideaux and stretches of dike that are out now, with respect to which, when this legislation is passed, the proprietors would not be required to contribute. They must contribute to the earlier work. They must bring their land to a high state of fertility and production under the present undertaking. There should be an understanding with the provinces as soon as this legislation is passed, that the legislation will apply to all work that will be done this year; and it should be made efiective just as quickly as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Purchase or rental of machinery.
Douglas King Hazen: Is it the intention of the government to build these dikes by calling for contracts, or do they intend to do some of the work themselves? I see they ask for the right to purchase or rent machinery. If they intend to let contracts, why do they want the right to purchase machinery or to rent it?


James Garfield Gardiner: In all probability we shall have most of the work done under contract, through calling for tenders. But I would imagine that we must have machinery of our own while the work is under construction. In any event, it will be our responsibility to see that it is there; and even if we do not do any of what one might call the actual contract work, it will be necessary for us to have machinery. We are profiting by our experience in work we have done in western Canada. We have machinery, although all of our large projects are done under tender, by contractors.


Douglas King Hazen: You rent the machines to the contractors?


James Garfield Gardiner: There may be cases where machines are rented to the contractors, and there may be cases where we rent machines from them.


Douglas King Hazen: And do some of the work yourselves?


James Garfield Gardiner: And do some work which has to be done in some of these cases, such as

levelling land and that type of work which may be done by the government.


Percy Chapman Black: I think this should go a little bit further. The advisory committee or the minister should take authority to construct or alter machinery according to the experience they may gain. This is a particular type of machinery. Marsh mud is one of the hardest types of soil to handle. Some machinery has been utilized that works well, but no machinery has yet been devised or built that I know of that will properly handle this marsh mud under all circumstances. The minister or the advisory committee, or whoever has responsibility, should be given authority to construct and experiment in the building of certain types of machinery. They may have to build one machine and then make changes in it after they have put it into actual operation. Someone will have to have that authority, if you are to get the full benefit of mechanical equipment in undertaking this work. I should like to ask the minister if, under this legislation, there is authority to build machinery.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should not like to put my legal knowledge up as final on anything of that kind. But section 3 gives us all the authority that is necessary to build a dike. If we have to build a machine to build a dike, I suppose we can build a machine to build a dike. What this clause 'has in mind is simply to limit the minister in what he can do. I cannot buy any more than $5,000 worth of machinery, and I cannot sell machinery worth more than a certain amount. We can buy it but it is limited in amount. If I want more, I must come back to council in order to get authority.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. GARDINER moved the third reading of the bill.
Mr. KNOWLES:: Did I understand the minister to say he would see to it that the senate look into the question of the spelling of the word, whether it is "aboideau" or "aboiteau"?


James Garfield Gardiner: I suggested that we shall see to it that the legal authorities look into the spelling of the word; and if an amendment is required, we shall have it done in the senate.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Immigration-Displaced Persons

Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee of supply.



DISPLACED PERSONS AND REFUGEES-BRITISH IMMIGRATION

Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss a matter that I had intended to discuss on Thursday evening last, but in order to allow the vote to be taken on the budget I agreed to make my speech at this time.
This is the seventh time in the last three years that I have risen to discuss the problem of displaced persons and refugees. I do so, knowing that displaced persons, in their present position, cannot speak for themselves. In one month from now the present session will likely be concluded and up to this time in this session but few references have been made to this tragic and extremely important problem. I desire, therefore, to take this opportunity to review in a sort of documentary way the displaced persons problem under the heading, "What have the democratic nations done to solve the displaced persons problem?"
First I wish to deal with repatriation. From the D-day landing in Normandy in May, 1944, to the present time the policy of the west has been the repatriation of displaced persons to their places of origin. That was the policy of UNRRA and it is now the policy of the preparatory commission of the IRO. UNRRA's United States zone headquarters administrative order No. 199 of November 11, 1946, is a good sample of the many orders issued in all zones from time to time in reference to this matter. It stated:
UNRRA and military authorities are in agreement on the advisability for speedy return of the greatest possible number of displaced persons to their homelands. . . This policy represents the substance of resolutions under which UINRRA now operates and is in keeping with the Yalta agreement.
Similarly the policy of the preparatory commission of IRO in this matter is based on the constitution of IRO, article 2, section (a), which states:
To encourage and assist in every way possible the early return to their country of nationality or of former habitual residence of those persons who are the concern of the organization . . .
Four methods have been used to carry out the repatriation programs of UNRRA and IRO. The first method was that of forced repatriation. For more than a year following the end of the war in Europe, repatriation was carried out by every means, including the use
of force. Persons who were both citizens of and actually present within the boundaries of the territories held by Soviet Russia on September 1, 1939, were forcibly repatriated in accordance with the terms of the ill-omened Yalta agreement to which the United Kingdom, the United States and the US.S.R. were signatories. Many persons who came from territories which, following world war II, were annexed to the U.S.S.R. were also forcibly repatriated. This is what Life magazine had to say on this matter in its editorial in the issue of September 29, 1947:
The first thing that happened to them in the hectic hours after V-E day was that, where-ever they found themselves outside the Soviet zones, masses of them were herded by British and American troops back over into the Russian side of the line . . . several millions of people who had been pulled out of Russia and Russian occupied territory and who now didn't want to go back went back whether they wanted to or not. And quite a few went back tied up in ropes, delivered like African slaves in the black-birding days . . . The more loath a non-returner is to return, the more eager the Soviet union is for bis return. You can guess why. Let loose in the capitalist world, he would not serve as a very good propagandist for communism. In short, these people are "not displaced persons." They are, in the simplest terms, political refugees. They are refugees from communism ... If the American people and their representatives were agents of the Kremlin, they could have scarcely done more to deliver these refugees to the assassin and slave master.
After a year of this bloody business, which is so vividly described in the editorial just quoted, the west discovered that most displaced persons would rather commit suicide than return to their places of origin. Many actually committed suicide; but finally the horrible tragedy stirred the conscience of true Christians in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, France and above all in the Vatican, and as a result appeals were made to the British and United States governments to terminate the policy of forced repatriation. Consequently forced repatriation was largely discontinued, except for three classes of persons, namely only those persons who were both citizens of and actually domiciled within the territories held by Soviet Russia on September 1, 1939; that :s: (1) those who were captured in German uniforms; (2) those who were members of the armed forces on or about June 22, 1941, and were not subsequently discharged therefrom; (3) those who, on the basis of responsible evidence, have been found to be collaborators with the enemy, having voluntarily rendered aid and comfort to the enemy.
Although the terms to which I have just referred lend themselves to various inter-

Immigration-Displaced, Persons
pretations, nevertheless the amended directives were an improvement over the previous vicious terms to which the west agreed at Yalta on February 11, 1945.
The second method which was used in repatriating a large number of defenceless and unfortunate D.P.'s was a practice privately arranged between the U.S.S.R. repatriation officers and some camp and area directors. Under this scheme the director would be conveniently absent from the camp when the Soviet repatriation teams called. With the use of firearms the Soviet officers would round up a number of D.P.'s and load them on trucks, and that would be the last anyone would see or hear of them. This kidnapping method of repatriation was employed until about a year and a half ago.
The third method followed in the matter of repatriation is still being used to this very day. Under this scheme the Soviet repatriation personnel are granted permission to carry on in camps what is called an "educational campaign". This is done by means of the distribution of literature depicting the "happy life" under communism. The moving-picture technique is also being used. Following the showing of a movie, or an educational program, appeals are made to D.P.'s by Soviet officers to return to their places of origin. In the past Soviet repatriation officers have been assisted in this work by UNRRA officials, while at the present time the IRO personnel is under obligation to render such assistance. However, this system of repatriation brought disappointing results, and for that reason still another system was initiated two years ago and is still being used.
The fourth system is called voluntary repatriation by incentive. The nations of the west adopted this system as a face-saving scheme. However, in the net result its operation is very much similar to forced repatriation. Under this method of repatriation, food rations are reduced considerably below the number of calories required by a normal person. The second step of this softening-up process as used in certain areas is the transfer of D.P.'s from camp to camp several times during the year. Orders are issued to move the occupants from one camp to another, in order to break their morale. Following such food reductions and camp movements, extra rations of food and better clothing are offered those who volunteer to be repatriated.
To those who have not followed this problem closely, my statements undoubtedly appear somewhat farfetched; but let me quote what was said on this matter by Mr. 
T. J. Keenan, former Canadian UNRRA officer, in his submission to the senate committee on immigration and labour, as it is recorded at page 108 of the proceedings of that committee for April 30, 1947. Mr. Keenan said:
My work dealt chiefly with Polish repatriation. We established a policy in Lubeck . . . of moving Poles from one camp to another simply to overcome the inertia of those people wishing to remain in one place. Always we had more Poles for repatriation when we had such a camp move.
As you will gather, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Keenan was describing what was done in the Polish camp of which he had charge, but the same practice was followed in camps in which Ukrainians, Yugoslavs and others were housed.
Another Canadian, the Reverend Ian MacKay, also a former UNRRA worker, in a statement to the immigration and labour committee at page 63 of the April 24, 1947, issue of the report quotes from a letter from his UNRRA co-worker as follows:
During the early months of winter most of our D.P.'s were shunted unmercifully around the country under a plan to hand back as much accommodation as possible . . . Necessary, but hardly humane, as some of them have .suffered five moves in three months.
Then, less than two months ago I received a letter dated March 19, 1948, from an official of the preparatory commission of IRO, stating that the shifting on DJP.'s from camp to camp is being continued. This is what this official has to say:
The D.P.'s in our camps have done a wonderful job in converting stables into living quarters. Both these camps have been improved out of recognition, simply by the work of the people themselves. One of our camps was recently threatened with a move to another camp. The committee and I went up in a truck one bleak Sunday to look over the new camp and on seeing it the spirits of the members of the committee sank to zero. Some of the blocks were damp and badly in need of repair. All of the blocks contained large rooms. Do you realize what that means? No privacy! Two or three families in one room. Then there was no ground for vegetable gardens. In fact, the place seemed like a desert. The D.P.'s would have had to begin all over again from scratch and, for some of them, this would have been the third or even the fourth move.
But after an awful struggle, we managed to have the move cancelled, but only after agreeing to take 500 more people into one of our camps. There is nothing more distressing for these poor people than to be moved from one place to another. They have made homes out of their over-crowded living quarters; they have established schools, churches, theatres, workshops, they have cleared away ruins and rubble; they have repaired the heating system, plumbing and

Immigration-Displaced Persons
electricity. What for? Only to be moved on to another camp to begin the same story -all over again.
As I have already stated, after several moves such as I described, those who volunteer to be repatriated are offered extra rations of food and better clothing. To quote from Mr. Keenan's presentation once again, this is what he had to say on that point:
The director general of UNRRA arranged a GO-day ration to be given to each person on arrival in Poland by UXRRA warehouse team, stored there for that purpose. UNRRA repatriation teams ran a transit camp in Lubeck w'here another warehouse team provided extra cigarettes and chocolate bars for those on their way back . . . Our policy was to "freeze" the better clothing for . . . repatriation. In my warehouse there were sixty-eight fur coats donated in the bundles for UXRRA, from either the United States or Canada. Some of them were damaged somewhat, but they made quite an impression w-hen we started giving them out to the women who were going back . . .
In addition to Mr. Keenan's revealing statement, I also have in my possession official UNRRA and IRO charts showing what effect the bribe of a 60-day or a 90-day promise of extra food ration had on repatriation. Life magazine, in the same editorial from which I have already quoted had this to say on that point:
For two years UNRRA team directors were told to "subjugate" all ideas except repatriation, for which they had to work "heart and soul". Other pressures wTere used. . . . Camp papers and even schools and shops were discontinued in an effort to break up the anti-repatriation sentiment. Leaders of the sentiment were sent to separate camps. And those who had been repatriated and bad then returned and been taken into custody, were likewise isolated.
The reason I have emphasized this particular point is that there is a moral principle involved and to show also to what lengths the nations of the west have gone in appeasing the evil totalitarian regimes even at the cost of suffering, and life itself, on the part of the defenceless DjP.'s. To me, that has only one meaning, namely a new form of slave trade in the twentieth century. It is obvious that such anti-Christian- treatment of people does not belong to the western world, nor can such treatment be reconciled with our concept of civilization. The use of bread as a bait in forcing starving, broken-down, unfortunate and defenceless Christians into the clutches of tyrannical and atheistic regimes will remain a hideous blot on the conscience of the west for generations to come. It is barbarism, regardless in what clothes of respectability it may be garbed.
The second phase of the D.P. problem with which I propose to deal has to do with the care 5849-290
and maintenance of displaced persons. It has been the responsibility of UNRRA and now it is the responsibility of the preparatory commission of IRO to provide displaced persons with living accommodation, food,, clothing, hospital and medical care. The following per day per capita maintenance cost is involved in the caring for the D.P.'s in the various regions:
Care and Maintenance (a) Analysis of per capita cost programs:
Per capita per diem
Germany, British zone	 $ .20
Germany, United States zone		.29
Germany, French zone	35
Austria, British zone	10
Austria, French zone	05
East Africa	 -60
Egypt	98
India	65
Lebanon	 1.33
Palestine	 1-33
(b)	-Cash assistance programs:
Belgium	   .76
France and North Africa	 1.00
Netherlands	42
Portugal	 1-48
Spain	 1-22
Czechoslovakia	 -42
For this direct assistance, not only D.P.'s but their relatives in many parts of the world are grateful to UNRRA and to the preparatory commission of IRO, but more particularly to the nations which so generously contributed to the budgets of these two organizations. World Report publication stated that the United States, United Kingdom and Canada contributed ninety-four per cent of the total budget of UNRRA. During the past few months of the operation of the preparatory commission of IRO some twelve or more countries committed themselves to the budgetary expenditures of IRO. I noted that Canada's contribution is $1,360,179.28. This money has been contributed with a view, of course, to solving the D.P. and refugee problem.
I have already stated that both UNRRA and the preparatory commission of IRO deserve credit for much of what they have done. In this connection I should like to pay a sincere tribute to a large number of conscientious men and women who served with UNRRA, and I should like to pay an equally sincere tribute to the conscientious workers who are now serving with the preparatory commission of IRO. During my tour of displaced persons camps a year ago, I personally met many of them. Of the majority of UNRRA and IRO personnel I will say that they are persons who have devoted themselves to a humanitarian and Christian task. But I must

Immigration-Displaced Persons
also make reference to a small number of former UNRRA personnel, and the same would apply to IRO personnel, occupying strategic positions, who looked for their directions to Moscow and not London or Washington. It was on account of the infiltration of these persons into the service of UNRRA at all levels that UNRRA fell into disrepute and finally had to be absorbed by the preparatory commission of IRO. It is regrettable that a small number of Soviet sympathizers succeeded in changing UNRRA into a repatriation organization and also into a Soviet propaganda agency.
Many directives which originated in UNRRA offices have been of the most vicious type. Under these directives, the people in the camps were screened and re-screened. They were moved from camp to camp. Camp publications were suspended. Newspapers published in the democratic countries of the west, in the languages in which D.P.'s could read, were not allowed into the camps. Anyone failing to produce sufficient identification cards was refused acceptance into the camp. This further reduced the ration of camp occupants, because they had to share their food with those living outside the camps. The facts are that a large number of genuine D.P.'s have not received and are not at present receiving any assistance. This assistance was refused to them, while they would have been entitled to it under a more humane set-up.
Before leaving this point I should like to put on record a decision which was made by the preparatory commission conference of IRO and which appeared in a statement issued to the press on October 15, 1947. Included in the list of classes of persons to whom IRO is forbidden to give any assistance is found the following clause:
Persons who. since the end of hostilities, have become leaders of movements hostile to the governments of their country of origin.
May I ask: To which governments have the leaders of displaced persons been hostile? Obviously to the communist governments in the totalitarian countries. It follows therefore, in fact, that this IRO resolution prohibits displaced persons from opposing communist regimes. I leave that statement to hon. members to ponder over.
I now come to the third phase of my discussion namely, the one on emigration. Millions of people having been repatriated and some thousands having been settled in the various countries of the world. In January, 1948, there still remained in the camps, supervised by the preparatory commission of IRO

626,200 D.P.'s. An additional 79,200 receive care and maintenance from sources other than the preparatory commission of IRO. A further 846,500 D.P.'s of various classifications do not receive care or maintenance from any organization. The net total of all DJVs is, therefore, 1,551,900. Of the last group mentioned, only a portion will qualify for emigration. For practical purposes a figure of 750,000 is the immediate concern of the countries that signed the IRO charter.
If at the end of my speech the house would permit me to put the latest table on the record showing the number of D.P.'s of various origins and where they are, I am sure that those who are following this question closely would appreciate having these figures.
Keeping these people in the camps is costly, in spite of the fact that many of them live on a below-subsistence level, and to continue keeping them in the camps will not solve the displaced persons problem. The obvious thing to do is to resettle them in the various countries which will accept them. The task of resettling this remaining number of D.P.'s was commenced about a year and a half ago by the inter-governmental committee on refugees. The work of IGCR has, however, been taken over by the preparatory commission of IRO. together with the responsibilities which were formerly carried by UNRRA, namely, those in connection with the caring for the D.P.'s.
The preparatory commission of IRO has in the past few months made a beginning in what may be considered an ultimate solution of the problem. It is a source of satisfaction to know that in the course of the past year or so a number of D.P.'s have emigrated to the United Kingdom, Belgium, Holland, France, Canada, the United States of America, Australia, South Africa, Switzerland, Guatemala, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela. The last nine countries mentioned have agreed to admit refugees and immigrants in considerable numbers, under mass settlement agreements, or as individual migrants. The United Kingdom, although in a weak economic position, is leading all countries in accepting the D.P.'s. The South American countries have made offers to accept large numbers of D.P.'s, but climate and settlement conditions in some of these countries are not entirely suitable. From a press report from Lake Success, of May 12, this is what appeared in the newspapers of May 13, 1948: Guatemala offered to -accept 50,000 European refugees, but on closer inspection the offer looked more like the harsh indenture contract

Immigration-Displaced Persons
. . . For five years D.P.'s accepting the Guatemalan government's offer would have to work in clearing and farming the remote Ixican valley at a wage of 16 cents a day. There would be guards to see they did not escape to commercial centres.
Thus far the United States of America made no special provision for admitting D.P.'s. It has, however, admitted a number of D.P.'s under the existing United States regulations, under a quota system. I notice in the press that the United States is now considering legislation which, if adopted, would provide for the acceptance of a substantial number of D.P.'s over and above the quotas provided for under the immigration act.
Canada has made a beginning in accepting D.P. settlers. According to the statement included in the proceedings of the committee on immigration and labour of April 28, 1948, out of a total of 16,010 D.P.'s who arrived in Canada up to April 26, 1948, 10,336 were workers brought over by various industrial firms through the Department of Labour. Of the remaining number, 5,168 were relatives of Canadians. I need hardly comment on the number admitted, except to say that it is also in Canada's interest to help in the solution of the displaced persons problem. At least one of the many considerations is that it is in the interest of the west to remove the D.P.'s from Germany and Austria as early as possible and before the peace treaties are signed.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: If my hon. friend would not go quite so fast we could all hear what he has to say. He is going too fast to hear. I hope the hon. member will accept my apology for interrupting him, but I know he has so much to say and it is so important that he should keep within the confines of the rules of the house which say that we must listen to what he has to say.


Anthony Hlynka: I want to get this message over in the time at my disposal and that is the reason I am hurrying.
At this point, on behalf of those who have already been admitted to our country since the end of the war I wish to express sincere thanks to those who in any way made it possible for these unfortunate, but now fortunate, people to come to Canada. I should particularly like to pay tribute to those industrialists on whose responsibility and through whose initiative a number of displaced persons workers were brought to Canada and for offering them employment. I quite realize that there may be an odd employer who may be taking advantage of the D.P.'s, but I have met a large number of D.P.'s who expressed gratitude to the management of their firms for bringing 5849-2904
them here, employing them and for the treatment they receive.
In spite of the fact, however, that a certain number of D.P.'s have been accepted by various countries, the problem of displaced persons has merely been touched. This is what a topranking preparatory commission IEO official had to say in his letter to me of March 23, 1948, about the displaced persons situation in Austria. He says:
I am very glad to hear from you again and only wish that I could report some real progress in the refugee operation. Unfortunately we are still struggling with the same obstacles and prejudices that you and I discussed a year ago. Although we have re-established a large number of people as workers on a more or less individual basis, the actual problem has not been touched. . . I had hoped that a scheme for group settlement, particularly of Baltic and Ukrainian people in the United States and Canada, would have been set up and in operation by this time. However, we are still as far from that as ever.
A similar view is expressed in a letter to me of March 19, 1948, by another important preparatory commission IRO official in charge of a number of camps in the United States zone of German}'. He says:
About 460 people from this camp have emigrated, mainly to Belgium (families) and England (single people) to work in the mines or on the land. We are still waiting for news that large numbers may emigrate and not just the young physically lit, but families and older people. We wait and wait and hope and hope. Over half a million people have their eyes fixed towards the west, straining to catch a glimpse of open doors and, hands stretched out to welcome them before it is too late. Alas, the doors are closed. They only open now and then to admit some physically perfect specimen-a much needed labourer or specialist. Then they close again hastily lest his mother or wife and child should manage to squeeze in with him.
Such is the displaced persons situation, Mr. Speaker, and in order that Canada may do her share in the solution of this problem, I wish tc submit to the house and the government the following ten points for sympathetic consideration:
1. In view of the fact that the majority of those already admitted have been brought to work in the mines, forests, and factories, I suggest that a land settlement scheme be worked out with the provinces and that a generous number of displaced persons be admitted to settle on the land. I have in mind the fact that Canadian-born young people are not likely to go into new settlements to start from scratch for, as we know, many of our young people are moving into the cities, and as our manufacturing industry expands they are being absorbed by these industries. In view of this
Immigration-Displaced Persons


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the source?


Anthony Hlynka: As I mentioned a moment ago, this is one of the large organizations. The publication had not been put out, and I could not divulge it before it was published.
On the basis of these figures, an average family of five persons may make a comfortable living on each farm unit. Multiplying the farm units by five will give us the number of persons that can be supported in the proposed settlements. According to these figures, therefore, Manitoba can settle an additional 29,680 persons; Saskatchewan an additional 105,120; Alberta an additional 363,155; and British Columbia an additional 233,780, or a total of 731,735 persons in the four western provinces. So much for land settlement possibilities.
2. Relax excessive health standards which were presumably set for the pre-war period and which do not take into account the human consideration that should enter into our dealing with these stateless people who are the victims of war and communism. The only life they have known in the past nine years was six years in the actual theatre of war and now three years in the camps. Official pre-

Other
I.N.R.	N.A.R.	R.R.'s.	Total3,S46	2,090	5,93613.117	7,907	21,02420,665	45,465	6.501	72,63120,396	5,500	20,860	46,75058,024	50,965	37,358	146,347
paratory commission IRO figures show that in the British zone of Germany hospitalization of camp population is 2-8 per cent; in the United States zone of Germany the population of hospitalized cases is 2-25 per cent; in the French zone of Germany the population of hospitalized displaced persons is 2-4 per cent. In Austria the rate of hospitalization is 2-4 per cent. These percentages are in excess of the normal rate, which is generally considered to be two per cent. But there are many reasons for this higher than normal percentage:
(a)	Lack of facilities for the sick in the camps;
(b)	Not sufficient fuel in sick bays;
(c)	Under-nourishment and lack of varieties of food;
(d)	Lack of fresh air due to over-crowding;
(e)	Many camp occupants spent a number of years in German and Soviet concentration camps;
(f)	Psychological factor of hopelessness as to the future.
At any rate, the rejections by selection immigration missions, which are from twenty to fifty-six per cent, are excessive, if the element

Immigration-Displaced Persons
of humanity enters into the picture at all. Under a much less exacting health examination than that of any other country, of the 30,500 D.P.'s that the United Kingdom accepted to November 30, 1947, only ninety refugees were returned to the camps.
Rejections on the following grounds should be reconsidered:
(a)	D.P.'s who are slightly underweight are not accepted, even though under the existing conditions it is impossible for them to gain in weight, but a few weeks in a new country and some additional food would solve the problem for the underweights;
(b)	A person minus a finger or two is now rejected;
(c)	A person with a natural mole on the body is rejected;
(d)	Persons fifty years and over are not readily accepted, although of the total D.P. population in the camps only 12-9 per cent are over forty-five years of age;
(e)	Endemic goitre which is due to local conditions of the water in certain countries, such as Austria and southern Germany, causes rejection, although the fitness of the person is not affected by it, and this condition could easily be remedied, especially upon removal from the region;
(f)	Mild cases of heart ailments without decompensation, and otherwise fit in every way, have been rejected;
(g)	Persons with healed minimal tubercular lesions which have been healed for some years are condemned as unfit, those who cannot produce a five-year test of cure. This test of cure is normally impossible for D.P.'s to furnish.
The exacting health requirements break up families or discourage them from accepting immigration. Consideration should therefore be given to the relaxation of health standards for persons who are members of a family unit in order that the stronger members of the family may assist a weaker member and the skill of one member balance a lack of skill in others.
3.	Extend the regulations to include not only immediate relatives, but also cousins, nephews, nieces, uncles and aunts.
4.	Give sympathetic consideration to applications made by Canadians who are in a position to guarantee employment and support to D.P.'s, regardless of profession, occupation, or age.
5.	Accept a number of people of cultured talents and professions. Among the D.P.'s there are many top-ranking artists.
6.	Make provision for the acceptance of a number of specialists in the various fields.
The British government has already accepted a number of such specialists and has granted to them the right to practise their professions, provided that they can produce evidence that they are qualified.
7.	I would suggest that the government accept a number of intellectuals who have lived under communism for twenty-five years but escaped, in order that they may tell Canadians the truth about communism. Why the government has not done this up to this time I cannot understand.
8.	Arrangements should be made by the immigration missions to process entire families at the same time as the breadwinner. At present, in some instances, examination of all members of the same family is not made at the same time, and the result is that the family unit is broken up or the examined members of the family refuse to leave.
9.	Make provision for allowing a certain number of orphan D.P. children. Representations have been made to the department to allow a number of D.P. children to enter Canada; but, for instance, not a single Ukrainian child has been allowed to enter Canada up to this time. Many well-to-do persons are anxious to adopt D.P. orphans. If organizations or private citizens desire to accept the guarantee for these children, why not improve the lot of them, or are we still thinking that by repatriating them we may gain the good will of the communist regimes?
10.	My last point has to do with the matter of correct information with respect to procedures and certain decisions in connection with immigration matters. For instance, the preparatory commission of IRO issued a statement on January 5, 1948, regarding transportation grants to group movement of immigrants and also individual immigrants. The people, however, do not know about this decision, and yet it is extremely important to those who cannot afford to pay transportation costs for their relatives. The following information was released by the preparatory commission on January 5, 1948:
Policy-
1. The temporary restriction imposed on September 18. 1947, limiting applications for assistance under mass resettlement schemes to those in receipt of care and maintenance was terminated early in November and, similarly, applicants for individual migration assistance are no longer required to contribute a minimum of 50 per cent of the total cost of their movement. At the present time all eligible refugees and displaced persons who come under section C of part I of annex I of the constitution are entitled to apply to POIRO for resettlement assistance under either mass resettlement schemes or as individual migrants.
/mmigralion-Displaced Persons


William Ross Macdonald: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Anthony Hlynka: 
Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to say anything this afternoon, but in view of the previous speaker opening up this subject I feel I must put forward a few of my own ideas and the ideas of hundreds of thousands of men in this country who are associated with me in a great organization. During the past week I had an opportunity to attend as a delegate at Saskatoon the Canadian Legion convention, a convention composed of approximately one thousand men who volunteered their services to defend this country. This organization has a right to be and is very much concerned about immigration; a question of national importance. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, this organization has had a committee on immigration for some years. In 1946 this matter came before the dominion convention, but because of the fact that hundreds of thousands of veterans had to be re-established under after-war conditions, the Canadian Legion took the stand that large-scale immigration was not desirable; but now, owing to the fact that greater numbers of our men are re-established and conditions in this country have changed, that policy was changed by unanimous consent at the convention which I recently had the honour to attend.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before the house rose at six o'clock, I had just started to bring to its attention the immigration policy proposed and suggested by the Canadian Legion. As I mentioned previously, it is an organization of some
300,000	or more veterans who served this country in war and who are anxious to serve it in peace. It is an organization that represents veterans in all provinces and the majority of racial stocks. Because it wishes to servo this country in peace, it gives serious consideration to national problems that are concerning the Canadian people as a whole. Therefore I wish to bring to the attention of this house the considered and unanimous opinion of the Canadian Legion as expressed at the recent convention held in Saskatoon.
I must say, before proceeding, that I fully realize the difficulties which surround this subject, particularly for the Canadian government. It is complicated, complex and presents difficulties that are not seen by the man in the street. But I suggest that the recommenda-

tions of the Canadian Legion offer a firm basis upon which to build an immigration policy that will receive the support of the majority of the Canadian people.
The committee that dealt with this question was appointed by the legion at the 1946 dominion convention in Quebec. It was a committee made up of some of the most responsible gentlemen in this country, and they gave a great deal of study to the question, considered it from all aspects in view of the rights and interests of Canadians at present resident in Canada and the necessities of Canada for the future.
The over-all tenor of the resolutions submitted to the committee clearly indicates that since the Quebec convention two major factors have been established.
As I previously stated, at the Quebec convention the legion was of the opinion that large-scale immigration was not desirable until the veterans were re-established and conditions had become more stable in this country. Now the legion suggests:
First-that the veterans of the second world war have been re-established to the point where it may now be considered to be in the national interest that immigration should be contemplated on a larger scale; and1
Second-That in connection with the over-all rehabilitation of Europe, Canada must assume her fair share, through immigration, in solving the problem of the displaced person.
I am now reading from the report of the committee on immigration adopted unanimously by that convention:
In connection with the immigration of displaced persons, it is the belief of the committee that, while Canada should stand prepared to do its fair share, the basic desire of Canadians is that the major proportion of new immigrants should be of British and kindred stock, and that immigration activities should be designed to that end.
Then in this report there is reference to the committee's receiving many resolutions in connection with the bringing of immigrants to this country, shall we say, by a process of indentured labour, and strong objection taken to a procedure of immigration which might develop and cause immigrants to be formed into pools of cheap labour. Strong objection was taken to that by many branches of the Canadian Legion; but, owing to the statutory conditions being changed, no action was taken to express an opinion in that respect at the convention. I am sure, however, it is the considered opinion of the legion that they could not support that type of immigration policy. I shall deal briefly with the policy, because I do not wish to take up the time

British Immigration
of the house more than is necessary. I am now again reading from the policy of the Canadian Legion on immigration:
The Canadian Legion is of the opinion that entry into Canada of considerable numbers of immigrants is desirable and should be encouraged, subject to rigid control and supervision. This opinion is based on the following premises:
(a)	Increased population would reduce the per capita cost of governmental and other services;
(b)	Canada is one of the richest, but one of the most under-populated countries in the world. No other country in the temperate zone has such a great wealth of undeveloped natural resources.
(c)	An increase in population is necessary to strengthen Canada's position in national defence;
(d)	Increased population is necessary to maintain our industrial capacity which so greatly expanded during the war, and we must have increased consumption at home for the products of our fields, mines, forests and factories, as well as to enlarge our export markets;
(e)	There is no pioneer or basic labour available in Canada, which is so necessary for the development of our natural resources;
(f)	The legion places strong emphasis on maintaining a favourable balance of British emigrants but appreciates the necessity ot assisting to the utmost the problem of absorbing suitable displaced persons m Europe, now the responsibility of the united nations; provided that adequate measures are taken to avoid embracing in such movements of displaced persons any with a philosophy or ideal alien to our free democratic -way of life. It is believed that persons with special skill or cratt entering Canada from displaced persons camps will enhance our economy by introducing new industries. which ir. turn will provide further opportunities for employment of our citizens. This has already become evident.
And finally:
(h)	The legion considers that with the enlarged importance of immigration it is now time to restore the establishment of a separate and well-organized department under a federal minister concerned only with immigration and settlement, instead of permitting immigration *o continue as a somewhat obscure branch ot the Department of Mines and Resources which has a multiplicity of other unrelated problems to deal with.
I think that is a sound program so far as immigration is concerned.
I wish to deal briefly with the question of displaced persons and of British immigration before resuming my seat. The question of displaced persons is receiving a great deal of consideration from people all across Canada. I am quite sure that the majority of the Canadian people are anxious that we shall play our part in bringing desirable displaced persons to this country. But there is a certain feeling of uneasiness as to the type of some of these displaced persons who are coming to this country, with regard to whether they are suitable people or are receiving suitable location and so on. I might say that, from my conversation with some representatives of organized labour, I find considerable uneasiness in this connection. Only recently I had a letter from the mother of a girl who served with the women's auxiliary corps during this war and who wished to enter domestic service. She did not secure the position because a displaced person offered to take the job at a lower rate of pay. These things are concerning organized labour. I think the government must pay strict attention to that sort of thing and see to it that these people who are brought into this country are not exploited because of their ignorance of conditions, and their natural desire, shall I say, to do something to express their appreciation of being allowed to come to Canada.
I might also say, Mr. Speaker, that the veterans are concerned about this problem. I have talked to a good number of veterans and I find many of them seriously concerned. When I was proceeding to the convention at Saskatoon there were two carloads of displaced persons on the train on which we were riding, and with a number of veterans-and incidentally some from the province of Quebec -I made a tour of those coaches. The least I can say in that respect is that we were not impressed with what we saw.
Quite recently I had occasion to have a conversation on this matter with an official of another government from Germany; and as a result, I would say the Canadian government has been too late in acting to secure the best type of displaced person to bring to Canada. From the information I received, it is my opinion that many of the best of these people have gone to other countries. I am all in favour of bringing to Canada the relatives of good citizens of this country. They can be provided with homes; they have contacts which will enable them to obtain jobs. I am all in favour of bringing those we are certain were on our side during the last war, who were willing to go to concentration camps for the sake of their principles, and who suffered. I know there are those who for political reasons, cannot return to certain European countries, but any man who is a political refugee and also a sound democrat should be able to come to this country.
At the same time, from what I hear, I am of the opinion our screening of these people is not entirely satisfactory. In making this criticism I fully realize the difficulties. We want to be certain that the people we bring here are those tvho will accept and develop.
British Immigration

our democratic ideals and our attitude toward life. We also want to make sure that when they come to this country they are not going to displace a veteran or another Canadian from a home, but that they will be able to find homes and employment, and can be properly absorbed.
Reference was made by the speaker who preceded me to the fact that a great many of these people are very suitable to go on the land, and I have no doubt that is true. Personally, however, I do not think we should take such a pessimistic view of Canadian youth as to suggest that they all wish to go to the cities. This government, and other governments in this country, must put forth a greater effort to make rural life attractive to young Canadian men and women. To me it is deplorable to see the sons of the pioneers who built this country leaving the farms and going to the cities. Why are they doing that? In many cases it is because rural life is not on a par with urban life as far as certain conveniences, remuneration and rewards are concerned. I believe we have to remedy that situation, if we are going to keep young Canadians at farming.
I want now to say just a word or two concerning British immigration; naturally, as an Englishman born, this subject is very dear to my heart. During the last two sessions I have been interested in reading the minutes of the committee on immigration of what I think is officially termed in this house "the other place." During those two whole sessions I challenge anyone to show that more than five minutes have been given to a discussion of British immigration. I think that is out of all proportion. It may be said that thousands of British people have been brought to this country, but if you take out of that total the wives and dependents of veterans who married overseas you will find that a very small number indeed of Britishers have been brought to this country since the conclusion of the war.
I brought up this matter previously in the house, and at that time the minister said the British people were welcome to this country.
I believe that is so; if they can pass the health tests and comply with all the regulations, they may come here. But that is not sufficient when we have in Britain over 180,000 ex-service men who stood side by side with us, who fought for us and who stand for the same type of civilization, dasiring to come to this country.
Therefore I believe that if this country is to have a balanced immigration policy, as between displaced persons and British and

kindred people, this government must give consideration to making arrangements for transportation for those people. They do not want charity; they do not want their fares paid. All they ask and all the legion asks of this government is that something be done to provide shipping, so that they may pay their fares and come to this country in the near future. I remember in the early days of this century seeing many British immigrants of the type generally known as cockneys, a fine people, arriving, at Halifax and Montreal. They were not met by committees of ladies with buns and hot coffee and popcorn and all the rest of it. They had their baggage on their shoulders, got into colonist cars and went to western Canada on their own, where they made a great contribution to the development of this country.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I do ask this government" to	give	consideration to	taking
some steps to make it possible for the thousands of veterans and others in Britain who wish to come to this country to obtain transportation, for which they are anxious and willing to pay.
CHRISTIAN SOCIALIZATION OF MEANS OF PRODUCTION	AND	DISTRIBUTION OF



NECESSITIES OF LIFE

Mr. E. L. BOWERMAN (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour leaves the chair, I should like to make a brief statement. On	February 25 of	this year, as recordedin Hansard at page 1621, I read to the house the following quotation from the report of the	committee	on	evangelism and	social
service of the United Church of Canada:
We are driven to the conclusion that the only thing that will solve our present day social and economic problems will he the absolute Christian socialization of the means of production and distribution of all the necessities of life.
I went on to say it was no wonder church bodies took this position, and I repeated the quotation I have just read. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) then interjected with this question: "Does that include the farmers?" In keeping with the view of the United Church which I was then quoting, I quite naturally replied: "That would include everybody." It is perfectly clear that in my reply to the hon. m.ember for Peel I expressed the belief that the views of the United Church applied to everyone. After all, the church believes that Christianity is for all, including the farmers, of whom I am one.
However I regret to say that this statement has been widely distorted outside this house

Palestine
by people who know better. In many newspaper editorials and advertisements it is being alleged that my remark means that the C.C.F. proposes to socialize farm lands. This is a deliberate distortion of what I said, and is completely untrue. Everyone knows I was simply asserting that the doctrines of the United Church apply universally and in particular to all its members, including the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), who at present is trying to spread this falsehood in Saskatchewan. Since Mr. Tucker is a member of the United Church, I assume he agrees with its views. If so, his distortion of the views of his own church is really amazing. If he wishes to quarrel with his own church that is his privilege; but I wish to make it clear that the interpretation he is trying to place upon what I said on February 25 is completely and utterly false, and he knows it.



PALESTINE-THREAT TO WORLD PEACE

Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, what I am about to say I had intended to say during the debate on the budget. In order to expedite the taking of the vote last Thursday evening, I agreed to defer my remarks until a motion for the house to go into committee; otherwise I would have spoken on the budget.
Tonight I wish to discuss a situation which I think is dangerous, and becoming more dangerous. I refer to the zionist-communist propaganda which is general not only in the United States but in Canada, and which is strongly anti-British. I refer particularly, of course, to the Palestine question. I am not going to discuss the actual conditions in Palestine itself; that matter does not concern me at the present time. What I am concerned about is how the war between the Zionists and the Arabs is extending outside, or is likely to extend outside beyond the boundaries of Palestine and to bring about-indeed it is bringing about-a great deal of ill-feeling and hostility among nations which otherwise w'ould be friendly and together.
In fact, if one reads the propaganda or listens to the radio, and statements made, one might believe that Great Britain is a foreign country. Canadians are being told to regard Great Britain, and those countries which agree with her foreign policies, as enemy countries.
According to the press, zionist high command have appealed to Russia for assistance not only against the Arabs but against Great Britain and the Arabs. That is the statement which appeared in Saturday's, press. Let me quote first
of all a British statement dated at London, May 22. which says:
Britain was reported reliably today to have told the United States preservation of Arab friendship is essential to safeguard the middle east against the march of communism.
Again it says that the United States ambassador saw Mr. Bevin and discussed the situation, and continues:-
Though official sources refused formal comment, it was learned British officials here and in Washington have told the United States Arab-Brutish relations must be maintained as a "great barrier against the flow of communism to the south."
Taking that as a basis, which I do-I accept it as the soundest statement that can be made on the subject-it now appears that in the united nations organization Russia and the United States are lined up against Great Britain. That is the situation which has arisen as a consequence of Palestine policy.
I should like to read this statement by Sir Ellsworth Flavelle which was printed last week in the press:
At this point I wish to state as a warning my profound conviction concerning the Irgunists and Sternists. My feeling is shared by my colleagues of the world committee and of the Canadian Palestine committee. The future prestige. welfare and indeed survival of this modern Jewish state depends upon the success of its government in eliminating from the Palestiniai: Jewish community the activities of these terrorists whose operations as gunmen and assassins have been deplored and condemned by all civilized peoples.
Failure to suppress these terrorists will alienate opinion and support from the Jewish state among men of good will throughout the world, and. through them, the support of their governments.
That may be the opinion of Sir Ellsworth Flavelle, but that is certainly not a true picture so far as the situation is concerned, because these terrorists operate not only or even mainly in Palestine, but outside as well. And all those people of good will who have seen the danger of the situation for several years and who have done their level best to inform and to warn the Canadian people-not only the Canadian people but the American people and the British people-as to its dangers; those of us who have tried to inform public opinion of the dangers we saw so clearly have come under the same terrorist organization as British soldiers and officials in Palestine itself. I shall give proof of that before I take my seat.
Then Sir Ellsworth Flavelle says:
All the world knows that the UNO are giving final form and substance to the best legal and moral judgment of united nations.
5849-291J
Palestine

That also I shall show is not the opinion of everybody by any means. It is all very well to say that we condemn the methods of these terrorists, but what has been done effectively?
Has anything effective been tried to put a stop to them?
Let me quote from an advertisement in the United States paper freely sold and circulated throughout Canada, from one side to the other. I refer to the New York paper PM. It states:
For the British the situation in Palestine deteriorated only when the Arabs began to run. Hagarni and Irgun took over Haifa. Irgun pushed into Jaffa, took Manshiyeh quarter and turned it over to Hagana. The Arab-nazi gangsters were thrown into panic. The Arabs began to run like rats. The British were shocked. They had expected the Arab-nazi stooges and pimps to slaughter "the Jews". By that time they expected to be well out of Palestine. Then Bevin could look the world in the eye and say: "Who, me? We weren't even there. Can we help it if the Arabs and Jews kill each other?"
I say that sort of propaganda is absolutely unfair and it is a menace to world peace. It states further:
Sanctimoniously the British will say, or are already saying, that they are sending their troops back to reinforce the truce to serve the U.N. Our state department-
That is the United States state department.
-is exerting itself to help foster this lie. It is a lie. The only truce the British will support in Palestine is a devil's truce designed to wipe out the Hebrews.
It is hardly necessary for me to mention the zionist intimidation and terrorism, the sending of bombs and of letters threatening death, the different methods which have been carried out in more than one instance even at the risk of innocent people being murdered. In contrast to this, I should like to quote a news release by the Canadian Arab news service which I, along with other members of the house, received last week. This is issued by Mr. Massoud, who I believe is president of the Canadian Arab friendship league:
"The hatred and propaganda dispensed by some high-pressure groups of this country and the United States has resulted in the present slaughter of thousands of innocent people in the Holy Land. Our warnings of the past five years and our appeals to the Jewish people and their fanatical supporters have not been heeded. Now that Arabs are fighting and defending their homes and while the battle is about to gain momentum, we are again appealing to all those responsible, including the members of the various governments who favoured partition of the Holy Land, to realize the implication of their action of the past.
"The Canadian Arab friendship league," Mr. Massoud said, "will have no part in the fighting. We are firstly Canadian citizens and, as such,

have done our duty when we worked for peace in the Holy Land. We also know that none of the Arab countries now engaged in the struggle would ask for our military assistance. There will be no maple leaf battalion fighting on the side of the Arabs, no matter how many similar groups may be recruited by the News."
I quote that to show the difference in the spirit of the two sides. It cannot be said that these things are being done only by groups like the Irgun and other so-called terrorist organizations because, as I said before, no effort has been made by the high command to suppress these people. In fact the terrorist groups are in the van leading the zionist troops. It was stated officially by these zionist terrorists that any British who were caught or captured in the war would be shot as criminals. I wonder what the reaction would have been in Canada if that threat had been made by the Arabs against the late "Buzz" Beurling. Had "Buzz" Beurling been fortunate enough to have survived and unfortunate enough to have been captured in Palestine, I have no doubt he would have been treated by the Arabs as an honourable prisoner of war. There again is the difference in the spirit of the two sides. That difference is not confined to Palestine; it extends outside Palestine.
I mentioned zionist propaganda and their control of the radio and the press. From time to time I have made radio broadcasts based on speeches I had made in this house in an effort to throw some light on a dangerous situation. One broadcast was simply suppressed; not one word was put on the air, though I knew nothing of it until afterward. The last broadcast of a few weeks ago was censored. I shall not mention the name of the station or of the manager, because I do not think that would be fair.
I do not hold this manager responsible, because he is in fear of this same terrorist organization. That is quite obvious from what he said when he objected to certain statements which I had made in my broadcast.
In particular, I find in your speech such statements as, page 5, "And so it is with Zionism: All Zionists may not be communists, but all communists and fellow-travelling socialists back zionism."
That is a fair statement and I make it without fear of successful contradiction. Then I mentioned that Henry Morgenthau is an international financier and zionist. I had to cross out the words "and zionist" for the same reason. Another statement to which he objected was:
In my speech I was glad to pay my humble tribute to the British soldiers and policemen in Palestine who through all these years have borne the brunt of savage zionist gangsterism.

Palestine
More than 300 British soldiers and policemen in Palestine have been murdered in cold blood by these same zionist organizations, but I was not to be allowed to pay that tribute over the radio to our own kith and kin. The station manager went on to say:
Within the listening area of this station there are many Jews of the highest probity and reputation-some of our best and most substantial citizens are of that race. I cannot think that it is in the public interest, nor that it is fair, for them and their race to be maligned and attacked.
In other words, I might hurt the feelings of these fine gentlemen by expressing my sympathy for the 300 British men, our kith and kin. who were murdered in Palestine by Zionists.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: And in a Canadian
broadcast.


Norman Jaques: Have those fine citizens ever raised their voices against these murderers? If they have I have never heard them. Have they ever come out and publicly condemned the terrorists in Palestine? If they have I have never heard them. I have every sympathy with the manager of this station because I know the power of this organization. He goes on to say:
I do not think that my obligation as the licensee of the station compels me to carry speeches containing quotations such as those outlined in the quotations given.
Everybody knows today that radio is one of the greatest means of expressing public opinion. We are told that if we are to preserve our freedom we must preserve the freedom of the press at all costs. But when you want to deal with political Zionism there is no freedom in the press or on the radio, as I shall prove.
I might mention, and here I am betraying no secrets because it was made public at the time, last December, the editor of the paper run by the movement of which I am a member published a statement which I put on Hansard the last time I spoke, and as a result of my attempts to warn the country of the danger of this situation, the Canadian Zionist League-this is their statement., not mine-forced the resignation of the two editors of the Canadian Social Crediter, because of its anti-Semitism, and it went on to say that the one chiefly affected would be Norman Jaques.
I have said it until I am tired of saying it, that to criticize political zionism is no more anti-Semitic than it would be for a Tory to criticize a socialist or a socialist a Tory. But even if it were anti-Semitic, let me point out, that recently a case went to the high court in
Great Britain in which an editor had in an editorial in his paper given vent to his feelings as a result of the outrages against his own countrymen in Palestine, and he was sued for seditious libel. That case attracted worldwide attention. It did not get too much publicity in this country; but I took the trouble to send for the evidence which I have here word for word. I am not a lawyer, of course, and I am only quoting counsel for the defence. Counsel for the defence said that subject to the ruling of the court, a man had as much right to criticize the Jews as he had to criticize anybody else. The judge, Mr. Justice Birkett, in summing up told the jury that the most vital aspect of the case was the preservation of the freedom of speech; that it was of the utmost importance that nothing should be done by the court which could in any way impair or injure freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Yet, as I say, with regard to the Palestine question, neither in the press nor on the radio in this country has one been free to make full statements other than for the zionist cause.
I might, quote two members of congress. Speaking in the house of representatives on December 18, 1947, the Hon. Lawrence Smith said:
Let us take a look at the record, Mr. Speaker, and see what happened in the united nations assembly meeting prior to the vote on partition. A two-thirds vote was required to pass the resolution. On two occasions the assembly was to vote and twice it was postponed. It was obvious that the delay was necessary because the proponents did not have the necessary votes. In the meantime, it is reliably reported that intense pressure was applied to the delegates of three small nations by the United States members and also by officials "at the highest levels in Washington." Now that is a serious charge. When the matter was finally considered on. the 29th-
That would be the 29th of September.
-what happened? The decisive votes for partition were cast by Haiti, Liberia, and the Philippines. These votes were sufficient to make the two-thirds majority. Previously, these countries opposed the move. Do not forget, Mr. Speaker, that they are considered satellites of our own country.
That is of the United States, of course.
The pressure by our delegates, by our officials, and by private citizens of the United States constitutes reprehensible conduct against them and against us . . . Time will tell, and this congress should authorize a full-dress investigation so that the people of this country may know that the united nations has been used in this instance as a vehicle of torture, and not as an instrument of international justice.
The fact is that faith has largely been lost in the united nations, and more on account of
Palestine

this Palestine question than anything else, and today we find that Moscow and New York are lining up against Great Britain. That is the situation which we face today. The people who have advocated political Zionism, which they have a perfect right to do, have gone beyond that and maligned those who have taken the other view and tried to point out the dangers of what they knew must develop. I say that all those people who have banned criticism of political Zionism will now have to rise and testify whether they are on the side of Russian communism or on the side of Canadian democracy and British freedom, or world freedom, for that matter.
I should like to quote another member of the United States Congress. Hon. Edward Gossett, addressing the house of representatives on December 11 last, said:
It seems to me to be ironic and tragic that we should be fighting communism with the one hand and encouraging it with the other. I refer to what seems to me a stupid, if not a criminal, act on the part of our delegation to the united nations in the partition of Palestine and in the delivery of that part of the world to communist influence. By that act alone we have taken a major step toward antagonizing the whole Moslem world . . .
In this Palestine partition we have played petty partisan politics on the very threshold of what should be an American century. We have jeopardized American leadership by such tactics; we may have signed the death knell of the united nations. It seems to me it might be well for the foreign affairs commitee to investigate the part played by American delegates to the united nations. Not only was their action in the partition of Palestine a great disservice to the Jews but it was also a very real service to communism in the far east, the middle east, and in the near east.
It is doubtful that all the money we have spent and will spend in Europe can offset the evil we have done in the rest of the world by our meddling with the Palestine question.
That opinion agrees with the British official statement which I quoted at the beginning of my remarks, in which they said that if communism is to be stopped spreading in the near, the middle and the far east, then we must retain the good will of the Moslem world. As I say, those who have supported the zionist cause, which, of course, they had a right to do, could plead that, up to now they were mistaken; but they cannot say that any longer in the face of the situation as it is today. We have to choose. We have either to make a stand for British, western and world freedom or take our stand in support of world communism. That is the situation, and without being political in the least I make the statement that one reason the communists are supporting the C.C.F. is that the C.C.F. as an 
organization, support and strongly support, have gone out of their way to support, political Zionism. It is a fact that not only the C.C.F., but socialists everywhere support zionism. I do not mean labour when I say socialists. The C.C.F. backed the Zionists and the communists back both. There is no doubt of that.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Do the C.C.F. concur in that?
Mr. JAQUES; I am quite willing to acquit them of any wrong intention. I am quite willing to believe that they did not understand just what they were doing. I am quite willing to give them that credit. I am perfectly sure that the rank and file have not the faintest idea of what it is all about.


Mr. ARGUE:: You know it all, of course.


Norman Jaques: 
James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but he has exhausted his
time.


Norman Jaques: If I might add one more
sentence.


John Lambert Gibson: Go ahead.


James Horace King: Unless the hon. member has unanimous consent, he cannot proceed.


John Lambert Gibson: Let him finish.


Norman Jaques: I merely wish to refer to a referendum in Australia, where the result was determined by a vote against the federal authorities retaining the controls, formerly belonging to the states, which the federal authorities had assumed during the war. This vote showed that the people of Australia do not believe in centralization. They voted to return to the states of Australia the powers which formerly had been taken from the states by the federal government.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-POSTAL SERVICE TO GRIERSON ESTATE, EDMONTON

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PATRICK H. ASHBY (Edmonton East): Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of my fellow members of parliament a matter of the utmost importance, namely, the growth of bureaucracy in this country which is completely ignoring the sovereignty of the people, and establishing the supremacy of rules and regulations over their lives. Today the people of Canada are being forced to adjust their 'lives and living to fit into rules and regulations instead of rules and regulations being adjusted to fit their needs and wants. Bureaucracy, or stateism, has reversed the functions for which these bureaux were originally established.
I shall deal briefly with only one department
of the government at this time, taking up only fifteen minutes or so, and that is the department known as the Post Office Department. I have deliberately avoided using the words "the postal services", because the Post Office Department no longer serves the people of Canada,
but is rather using the people as a means of obtaining revenue from which these bureaucrats in control can obtain their livelihood. I should like to quote from a broadcast I delivered some time ago, which outlined somewhat briefly the original functions of the postal services as established:
The postal services were originally established by far-seeing men for a purpose, and that purpose was to carry and deliver the mails to their destination; to carry news and knowledge; to promote mutual acquaintance; to bring the people of our nation closer together and not only the people of our own country, but of all peoples of all the nations who would associate with the postal services of our great British commonwealth of free nations. The postal services were established to bring peace and good will among all men and women no matter what colour or creed. The individuals employed by us in this great service were messengers of sympathy and of love. They carried messages that would console the lonely, that would be a bond holding together scattered members of a family. They carried news from departed friends and loved ones. The postal service in those days used as their motto "service first".
A motto that was apparently not known to the Postmaster General himself when I asked that question some time ago. Today the motto of the Post Office Department is apparently "service last."
In days gone by, the individuals employed in this wonderful service prided themselves on delivering His Majesty's mail if humanly possible. In fact, the first mails ever carried were messages from the king himself, and even to this day the postage stamp bears the likeness of our sovereign and king.
It is the king's mail today as always and refusal to deliver His Majesty's mail is an insult to our king and sovereign as well as to the sovereign people of Canada; for our king does not represent party politics, but the people of our great British commonwealth- all the people. That is why I say the people are sovereign in this country, not these hired bureaucrats nor their paid elected representatives who are sitting in this house today.
The people of Canada do not live in this country to serve this institution-the Post Office Department-or any other institution. All these institutions were created for no other purpose than to serve the sovereign people.
I should like now to quote from an early bulletin issued by the Post Office Department:
The post office opens up new territory in advance of the railways. As soon as a trail is blazed-*
Not paved or gravelled sidewalks and streets, let it be remembered.
-and settlers break new land for a home in the wilderness, the post office links up the new community with the other parts of the country.
[Stage Direction]
Postal Service-Edmonton District
In Rudyard Kipling's verses "The Overland Mail", he pays tribute to the carriers of the oeople's mail in these words:
Is the torrent in spate? He must ford it or swim.
Has the rain wrecked the road? He must climb by the cliff.
Docs the tempest cry halt? What are tempests to him?
The service admits not a "but" or an "if".
While the breath's in his mouth, he must bear without fail.
In the name of the Empress, the Overland Mail.
In those days, unfortunately of long ago, the postal services prided themselves, and rightly so, on visiting with kindly friendship and service every fireside. They mingled with the throbbings of almost every heart in our great British commonwealth of free nations. They administered to all the varied climates of our vast empire, from the far northern outposts amidst snow and perpetual ice to the steaming jungles of the tropics, with the same eagerness to serve the sovereign peoples. His Majesty's mail was delivered to its destination, and like a delicate stethoscope held to trusting ears, families and isolated individuals and even whole nations whispered their joys and their sorrows, their convictions and sympathetic understandings to each other though separated by thousands of miles of prairie or mountain ranges.
Now let us compare those wonderful services rendered by this institution years ago with the services they are rendering today. I should like to show hon. members the photograph of a postman delivering the mails in the city of Edmonton this spring, not in any particular area, but one of the many wearing rubber boots and tramping through the water. This was postman Wes. Ferry who braved the elements to deliver the mail. During the year January 1, 1947, to January 1, 1948

that is 365 full days-there were only eleven days when postmen had need to wear rubbers to deliver the mail in the Grierson estate area-in which are living 125 families of our veterans who purchased their homes through the D.V.A.-in order, of course to keep the boots of the postman free from mud. All winter long the ordinary footwear was sufficient to enable the postman to carry out his duties. Only during muddy conditions would he have need to wear rubbers; then only on eleven days had this condition existed, and even then he could have walked on the grass instead of on the rough gravel.
I should like to bring to the attention of the house another postman, named Alfred Forrest of Edmonton, who served the people faithfully for thirty-eight years. This is what

he had to say when he was told that the Post Office Department refused to deliver mail to these veterans and insisted upon concrete sidewalks:
Sidewalks indeed. I once had to build a raft to deliver mail on my route in the Norwood district of this city of Edmonton. The mail had to get through-
Remember that was the motto of days gone by.
[DOT]-so I hunted around, found some planks, lashed them together and made my raft. I slung my mail pouch over my shoulder, grabbed a pole and put out to sea. I delivered every letter as usual although I had to punt from door to door.
That was during the pioneer days of years gone by when the motto of the postal service was "service first," and mighty proud were the postmen of those days to wear the badge of the postal service and mighty proud were we of our sons and parents who delivered the mails.
I have here another photograph of a fourteen-year-old boy, named Terry Stubbert, of the city of Edmonton who volunteered to carry His Majesty's mails to each of these homes, along with the daily newspaper, the Edmonton Bulletin. This boy has delivered the Edmonton Bulletin regularly to these homes ever since they were first inhabited. They get all the services from private institutions. Laundry is picked up and delivered; groceries are delivered. Every service is rendered except that by a government controlled institution which forces these people to pay for these services and then refuses to render them.
John Lambert Gibson: Hurrah for free enterprise!


Mr. ASHBY:: That is right; that is what we want, free enterprise. I will guarantee that if the postal services were run as a free enterprise, in competition, postal rates would immediately be reduced fifty per cent and a better service would be given. I want to quote a letter from the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) himself, dated February 14, 1948, in which he says:
Governmental policy for the coming fiscal year calls for the reduction of controllable expenditures to the absolute minimum and for the postponement wherever possible of the introduction of new services and enlargement of existing ones. This means that no letter carrier services can be granted and that extensions oi delivery beyond existing boundaries will have to be withheld, except where the need is most urgent and where conditions are ideal.
In other words, the Post Office Department admits its failure to render efficient service to the people who now pay fully twice as much for these services as they have ever paid in the past.
Of course it is always easy to criticize, I know, and I sometimes hesitate to do so; but

Postal Service-Edmonton District
this is such a glaring instance of inefficiency, and I think I can say bureaucratic bungling, that I must bring it to the attention of hon. members. I sent a telegram to the Postmaster General last March. When I left Edmonton on April 1 no acknowledgement of that telegram had been received. When I arrived in Ottawa I got in touch with the Postmaster General, reminding him that I had received no reply to this telegram, and he assured me he would reply to it, which apparently he did immediately. But instead of sending the letter from his office to my office, a matter of a few yards, the letter was actually addressed to me at box 34, rural route No. 3, South Edmonton, Alberta; and it was mailed on April 5, the very day I was in my place in this house. Apparently they did not even know parliament was in session. This letter was carried thousands of miles to my home, where it was delayed a week because of the condition of the roads. My family could not get back into town to forward the letter. Then again it travelled thousands of miles back to me here, in order to be delivered a few yards from the office from *which it was originally mailed.
In this letter the Postmaster General states that the rules and regulations must be obeyed. He says first the householder must do his part. He must have a letter slot in his door; the house must be numbered, and there must be a sidewalk from the door to the street. Then the community must provide suitable walks and roads; the streets must be named, and so on. When all these conditions are fulfilled and ideal, then and not until then will the Post Office Department give the matter consideration.
You see, Mr. Speaker, the whole thing has been thrown into reverse. That is why one day I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself to tell us why members were originally elected by the people to assemble in parliament. The purpose was to prevent forced taxation of the people; and until we reverse the present process and abolish all forced taxation we shall gradually drift into dictatorship. Bureaucracy, of course, is the first step toward dictatorship.
The situation in the Grierson estate is this. We have 125 houses occupied by veterans and their families, all within the city limits of Edmonton, with no vacant space between this area and the old, established mail delivery routes. In other words, mail is delivered on the east, the west and the south. It is delivered on one side of the street, but not on the other side. In fact one family told me their mail was delivered at the front door but the mail man would not drop the mail of another family
living at the back, even though he had to walk right past the door, because it was not supposed to be on his route.
All services are rendered by free enterprise without taxation; let us remember that. No one taxes these people for these services which are rendered voluntarily by free enterprise. There is no forced payment of any kind. But the Post Office Department forces these veterans to pay through taxation for this service which is not being rendered to them.
I saw the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) about this matter, and he asssured me his department would do all they could. I believe he has done so. I know he is extremely busy, but he has co-operated with the city of Edmonton, and his department has undertaken to pay $2,700 toward the cost of graveling these roads. The city of Edmonton will pay up to $2,550; but, since $7,800 is required, the sum of $2,550 is still lacking, and the sidewalks will not be built until that amount is forthcoming. Where is that money to come from? We cannot blame these veterans; they have done their part. They were willing to go overseas and fight. They did not ask for paved sidewalks, or even umbrellas. They left their homes, their business, their education. They made every sacrifice in order that we might be preserved as a free country. When they came back they looked forward to this wonderful new social order they were promised. These homes were not given to them. They had to buy and pay for them at high cost, plus interest. Now they find they are not to be given postal service. We cannot blame them. We cannot blame the postmen, the sorters and others in the Post Office Department. They are all loyal workers and many have volunteered to deliver mail to this very area. As a matter of fact, the department has discharged men from the Edmonton post office since the war, claiming they were not required. These men begged me to help them remain in the service. They liked the work and wanted to remain there. They were quite willing to deliver mail in this area, but their request was refused.
So we cannot blame the postmen. Nor can we blame the people of Canada, who have done all they possibly could. I do not think we can blame the bureaucrats, the higher-ups, because they tell me, "We are merely carrying out the rules and regulations laid down by you people in parliament." Therefore the only people we can blame are ourselves, who have permitted these rules and regulations to be introduced into this house and passed. Therefore, since you and I are to blame, we should pay for this extra service, which would mean but a matter of $10 each.

Veterans Land Act-Saskatchewan
So, on behalf of the returned soldiers of this country I am assessing each member of the house the sum of $10. We get $4,000 a year plus $2,000, tax free, which we voted for ourselves; and it is nothing but fair and just that we should do so. Therefore in my hat I place my $10, and I shall go around and collect it from the other members.


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member for Lake Centre has the floor.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: May I pass the hat, sir?


James Horace King: I would ask the hon. member to take his seat.



VETERANS LAND ACT-ADMINISTRATION, SASKATCHEWAN-REFUGEES AND DISPLACED PERSONS

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has not carried out his threat to call on all of us.
Before Your Honour leaves the chair, there is one matter I should like to bring to the attention of the house, namely the administration of the Veterans Land Act. During the period of the last two or three years I have had occasion, on more than one visit among my constituents, to hear complaints made in respect of the administration of the act. Within the last three or four months a change has taken place in the directorship. It is now presided over by Brigadier Rutherford who, in March last, in accepting the new position said that many of the anomalies in connection with the administration of the act would be removed. He pointed out particularly the necessity for an improvement in public relations. Among other things he stated that, in the administration of the act, he intended that the officials should

and I use his own words-"Never forget that they are servants of the veteran and of the public".
During the past two or three years on more than one occasion I have raised strenuous objection to the fact that, in settling individual veterans under the act, in too many instanaes areas within the province of Saskatchewan were being discriminated against. I very well realize that the objection taken by the administration in connection with new settlers going into certain of these areas might be justifiable. But in too many cases veterans who have returned to the areas in which they were raised have been denied the opportunity of settlement there. On a number of occasions I have brought these matters to the attention of the department, and I feel that, conditions not having improved or changed, the time has now come to bring the matter to the attention of the house.

I am not going to speak at great length this evening, but in support of my contention that in the administration of the act discrimination has been practised as against certain areas, I point out that various areas in my own constituency have regularly been denied settlement by soldier settlers desirous of maintaining themselves adjacent to their parents' farms.
Then, too, in addition to the fact that there has been discrimination, one has no opportunity to find out the reasons why settlement is denied; for whenever an individual asks why he is denied settlement in an area, or why his application has not been accepted, the answer in every case by the department has been similar to the one I now have before me, as follows:
We regret to advise that our opinion of this farm must he treated as strictly confidential; and we are therefore unable to set out the reasons for declining.
I say that is unfair. When a decision is made against a veteran who desires to settle in a given area, the veteran should at least be entitled to the reasons why he has been denied the right to settle in the area where he believes he could make good. I would ask that this discrimination against certain areas in the province be removed, so far as veterans living in those areas and who are desirous of settling there are concerned.
My second objection to the present administration is that it is dilatory in its decisions. Veterans have to wait too long in too many instances for decisions regarding their applications. To show the effect of that, I would refer to one case only where a soldier settler intending to settle on land applied in 1946, and on January 14, 1948, received word that his application had finally been accepted. He also applied to purchase certain machinery. During the period between the time he made his application and the decision was rendered by the board, the machinery required for his purposes had materially increased in price. In 1946, when his application was made the price of an Oliver 70 tractor was $1,258; and by the time his application was decided the price of the tractor had gone up to $1772.25, or an increase of $487. He also required a 10-foot Oliver combine. At the time his application was made that combine could be procured for $1,460.90, but by the time the decision was made the cost had gone up to $2,046. Surely delays such as that should not be permitted.
I realize the minister is not here at the moment, but I am suggesting that he make a full investigation of the situation with a view to removing those anomalies.

Veterans Land Act-Saskatchewan
Then, too, I would place before the house the request of one branch of the legion in Saskatchewan-and it is generally approved now-that the amount of Veterans' Land Act grants and loans should be materially increased. I have before me in that connection a resolution passed by the Go van branch of the Canadian Legion, which summarizes the viewpoint generally held in that regard. Instead of enlarging upon it, I shall merely place the resolution upon record. It states:
That the dominion government be asked to increase the V.L.A. grants and loans to veteran farmers so that the amount of the grant or loan will have the same purchasing power today as the grant or loan to the veteran farmer had in September, 1945.
It points out increases which have taken place in prices of commodities the veteran has to buy. It points out that if there is to be reasonable equality as between veterans who today settle on the land and those who settled in September, 1945, there should be a material increase.
I pointed out discrimination against the prairies, and in that connection I have here a number of resolutions passed in various parts of the prairie provinces asking why it is that in their areas this is being practised. I pointed out instances of dilatoriness which I think are inexcusable. Then I want to refer to some of the arbitrary regulations which have been passed and which pare down the rights of the veteran under this act.
We in this house so often find ourselves in the position of passing an act which is generous in its application and then, because of regulations, we discover that the rights which flow from that act are greatly pared down by departmental officials. Prior to 1936, when regulations were to be passed under an act the act invariably contained these words or words to the same effect, "The regulations shall not increase or detract from the powers contained in the act." It is different today when we so often give the power to the governor in council or to officials to pass regulations uncontrolled in their application.
Under this act there are too many cases of regulations being passed which deny that fair and generous interpretation which the act should provide. I want to point out an instance of what I believe is an arbitrary attitude adopted by the administration of the Veterans' Land Act. I shall take the specific case of a number of veterans in Prince Albert who built houses on small urban holdings for which the act provides. They moved into their houses early in 1946. Each had been given a definite final price and they were promised certain further improvements.
After they had taken possession, they were advised that the price which had been quoted to them was incorrect and that a larger price would have to be paid, the increase being approximately S400. One man had actually signed an agreement for $5,575. He had made his monthly payments, but he was asked to return the agreement he had signed and to execute a new one for $6,020. That happened in eight cases in Prince Albert.
The veterans were advised that, unless they paid the larger price, they would have to vacate their premises. I say that is unfair and unjustified. Finally the one who had signed an agreement refused to sign another agreement. He had certain grants and allowances coming to him, and he received a notice from the departmental officials that unless he paid the larger price, unless he returned the agreement he had already executed and entered into another agreement for the price then asked by the department, he would be denied the allowances to which he was entitled. These are some of the reasons why I believe an investigation should be made even at this time into the administration of the Veterans' Land Act to the end that any injustice may be remedied.
I should like to see provision made for closer co-operation between the administration of the Veterans' Land Act and veterans in connection with providing machinery and the like. I found that when Mr. Mackenzie was minister and these matters were brought to his attention he invariably endeavoured to do what was humanly possible in order to assure a proper and necessary supply of the machinery required by the veteran. I realize the difficulties, but some provision should be made for priority of machinery, in particular priority of combines and the like when the present harvest season comes around.
I referred a moment ago to how regulations detract from the working out of the act, and I have here an example of an unjust interpretation of a regulation. The Veterans' Land Act provides an opportunity for veterans to take up land. I have before me the record of a veteran whose total disability was ruled in January last to be five per cent. Prior to his enlistment, this man had been a farmer, but he was turned down under the act on the ground that his physical condition would deny re-establishment as a farmer.
These are a few of the things which have caused injustice, which have caused unfairness and which have caused many veterans to believe that the administration of the act has not been as generous as the parliament of Canada intended it to be. I am not going to

Immigration-Displaced Persons
say any more at this time, but I ask the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, to review the situation in the prairie provinces generally and in Saskatchewan in particular, in order to remove the discrimination that is being exercised today against individuals who wish to settle in the areas in which they were raised, to the end that delays will be done away with as far as possible, that dilatoriness will be considered inexcusable in connection with matters such as this, that regulations will be widened rather than restricted as at the present time and that the provisions of the act will be carried out in accordance with the desires of parliament and the welfare of the veterans in general.


Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss briefly a matter which -was raised earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. ETerridge). I believe the house will agree that the provision of sanctuary to refugees is one of the oldest international institutions we know of. I have been looking around for a good definition of "refugee". I came across a little pamphlet written by John Hope Simpson, a gentleman who has been most intimately connected with refugee work from 1926 to 1933. His definition of "refugee" is as follows:
A "refugee" might be described as an involuntary migrant. He would rather remain where he is, but conditions religious, economic, political, or social have rendered his life there so uncomfortable or, indeed, so unbearable, that he is forced to migrate from his home and to search for more tolerable conditions of life elsew-here.
On the basis of that, I believe Canada has a definite responsibility to give sanctuary and help to refugees, regardless of whether they may be political, religious or any other sort of refugee. Aside from the more formal commitments we have made as a member of the united nations and as a participant in the international refugee organization, we have a moral responsibility, which I think is set out very well in the draft declaration of human rights which has been before the committee dealing with human rights and fundamental freedoms, and has found pretty general agreement among those who participated. I should like to quote from the second paragraph of article 10 of the draft declaration on human rights:
Individuals shall have the right to leave their own country and, if they so desire, to acquire the nationality of any country willing to grant it_
Article 11 reads:
Every one shall have the right to seek and be granted asylum from persecution. This right

will not be accorded to criminals nor to those whose acts are contrary to the principles and
aims of the united nations.
I think on the basis of the definition I have given of "refugee" and the draft declaration I have just quoted, we in this country, regardless of where we sit in this house, can subscribe to the sentiments expressed in that declaration and to the commitment that Canada has entered into in promising to do her share in providing a sanctuary for refugees and displaced persons.
Since some question might arise concerning the attitude of organized labour in this country toward the entry of displaced persons, I should like to quote from the evidence given by Mr. Mosher, president of the Canadian Congress of Labour, before the standing committee on immigration and labour in July, 1946. Speaking on behalf of the congress, he said:
The admission of refugees, though it has, of course, economic aspects, is primarily a humanitarian question. Canada is under an obligation to humanity to admit her due share of refugees even if it costs her something. It may actually bring her important economic benefits. But even it it does not, she must do her part.
That is the official attitude of the Canadian Congress of Labour. I should also like to quote a paragraph from a brief submitted by the Ukrainian Catholic Council, and endorsed by the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Diocese of Canada:
It is desirous that the dominion government, at the least, arrange for the immigration of the refugees who already have affidavits from their Canadian next-of-kin, and for whose transportation and welfare guarantees have been made by these Canadian citizens.
Lastly I want to quote from a speech by my own leader in this house on March 29, 1946, a passage which met with general agreement on all sides of the house:
Displaced persons or refugees who are [DOT] relatives of persons living in Great Britain are permitted to enter upon request being made and certain assurances being given by those persons in Great Britain. It seems to ine that if the British^ people with their many problems can open their hearts in this way, a country like Canada with its sparse population can give refuge at least to persons in the situation just referred to by the hon. member for Davenport.
Further on he said:
We are most anxious to see our country give refuge to those who have suffered, regardless of race or religion, particularly when they are relatives of persons in Canada who can
offer them a home and a new beginning in life.
As I say, that statement met with general agreement on all sides of the house, and the debates on this question and the comments made since that time have shown that the

Immigration-Displaced Persons
members of this house are anxious to contribute toward the realization of that ideal.
I should like to make a particular plea to the government in connection with the many thousands in Canada who have applied to bring their relatives to this country from displaced persons camps in Europe and in whose cases action has not yet been taken. I do not say that in any spirit of criticism, because I realize the many difficulties with which the department of immigration is faced, but I would point out that many of those who have applied have given the best assurances possible that their relatives, on arrival in Canada, will not be a charge upon this country or displace any one from work, or take up anybody else's living space, for their relatives here have made arrangements for their housing and employment and have guaranteed to look after them in case of illness or unemployment. These applicants have been waiting now in some cases for two and two and a half years, and it is difficult to keep these arrangements open indefinitely. They cannot continue to wait year after year without knowing whether their relatives in Europe will be permitted to come and what the decision of the immigration department will be. I do hope that the government can find some way to expedite the applications already on file on behalf of displaced persons for whom the best possible arrangements have been made so far as housing and employment are concerned.
#
I would emphasize that a displaced person who has a relative in Canada is probably the most desirable type of immigrant, because he will find employment and become a useful citizen immediately upon arrival. I do not believe that we are now entering into a serious era of unemployment, but there are pockets of unemployment across the country today. Naturally some people are fearful lest new arrivals may displace labour in this country, but the ones of whom I speak are assured of employment and housing and a start in life by their relatives in this country. I hope, therefore, that the government will do everything possible to expedite the consideration of these applications so that these displaced persons may find a haven and a new start in life in this great country of ours.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: I think I should call the attention of the house to the ruling which His Honour the Speaker gave in connection with airing grievances such as have been aired tonight. He pointed out that it was perfectly in order for an hon. member to raise any grievance;
but, having done so, if some other member raised another grievance, it was not permissible to go back to the grievance first raised.
I did not want to interrupt the hon. member when he was speaking, but I think I should call the attention of hon. members to that ruling, by which we must be governed.


Mr. LEWIS MEN  ARY@Wellington North: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on agriculture. I have the honour to represent one of the best agricultural counties in Canada, if not the very best.


William Henry Golding: Order. The hon. member is out of order in raising that question. The estimates of the Department of Agriculture have been before the committee and will be before the committee again as soon as the house goes into committee of supply.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to give a silent vote on this question regarding Palestine. I do not think the matter should have been brought up here, because a committee on external affairs is investigating that question. The Jewish people have been a very law abiding class of citizen, some of our best citizens.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member is out of order. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) dealt with the Palestine question; then we moved to another problem, and it is not in order for the hon. member to go back to the Palestine question.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to point out two or three facts. We should have discussed this question, as I wanted to, regarding the scuttling of the British empire a year ago last spring. This scuttling has been going on in India and in many other places. We have an authority in the person of the high commissioner, Sir Alan Cunningham. He said that Britain could have brought peace to Palestine if she had been left alone. The Archbishop of Canterbury said that the UNO work has been dilatory and futile in bringing the parties together. There are many people who ruled that country beside the Arabs. They were the Persians, the Tartars, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Turks, the Christians and the Moslems. They have all inhabited and ruled the country. We should have some statement from the government if we cannot discuss all the aspects of this matter. If you are going to rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, the question should have been ruled out of order at the start.
Potash Deposit in Saskatchewan


William Henry Golding: I should like to point out to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin was in order when he discussed that question; but since other grievances were brought up after that hon. member spoke, it is not in order to go back to that subject again.


Thomas Langton Church: The Turkish people owned and ruled that country for many years past. During the first great war Lord Allenby went in there victorious, and Britain received Palestine under a.mandate. I contend that we should have had a debate on this subject a year ago last spring when the matter was brought up. As I understand it, inasmuch as this question has gone to a committe you are ruling me out of order. I do not see why others were allowed to discuss it for two and a half hours. Many statements have been made which should not have been made. Britain is not to blame for the situation.


William Henry Golding: Order. I tried to explain to the hon. member as best I could that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin did raise the point, but after he had spoken, other grievances were aired. It is not permissible now to raise that point again. The hon. member is out of order.


Thomas Langton Church: I cannot argue with your ruling, but I want to say that if Britain had been left alone we never would have had any of (his trouble. It is time that Britain helped her dominions before mandated countries. I say that the UNO has caused all this trouble, and the United States is on again, off again, on again. Their policy has been one which has led to the whole trouble regarding Palestine, and the empire seems to be scuttled accordingly. Britain is one country which has defended the Jewish people all through its whole history, and she is getting nothing out of this but abuse, heartaches and headaches. That has been (he result of this mandate, which she carried out to the best of her ability. The Arab people have been in that country for many years past. There are two sides to the question. I am sorry that it has got mixed up in Canadian politics, because we have nothing to do with it. We are only' a small country. The five big powers settled this question. The British government and Washington are to blame for this trouble and for the efforts to scuttle the empire. One of the places scuttled was Palestine; others were India and the Suez canal. We lost our lifeline to the Mediterranean.
I have been a great admirer of the Jewish people. They are among our best citizens. 
The UNO has proved to be a failure. If it would only close up for about a year we would have some hope of peace again.



DISCOVERT OF POTASH DEPOSIT IN SASKATCHEWAN

Hazen Robert Argue: A matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the house tonight for a few minutes is something new, and something which I think is of considerable importance. I refer to the discovery made some time ago of a potash deposit in Saskatchewan. I should like to explain to hon. members that before that discovery no potash was known to exist in Canada. The fertilizer need of Canadian soil is large and growing. I should like to point out that surveys made by the Department of Agriculture, by the men who are qualified to make them, state that the present consumption of fertilizer in western Canada is some 57,000 tons. These experts estimate that future requirements will be approximately 237,000 tons, or four times the present consumption. In 1936 the consumption of fertilizer in eastern Canada amounted to something over 215.000 tons. In 1946 the use of fertilizer had increased to 571,000 tons, or an increase of 265 per cent.
I should like to point out that the main constituents of fertilizer in Canada used by Canadian farmers are phosphates, nitrates and potash. Of these three, potash is probably of the least importance, but it is of some considerable importance. Also, since 1944 Canada used 44,000 tons of potash.
As I said a moment ago, a potash deposit was discovered in Saskatchewan. It was discovered in connection with the drilling of a gas and oil well at Unity. The deposit was eleven feet in thickness, and had an average potassium oxide content of 21-5 per cent, which compares favourably with other potash deposits being mined at the present time for commercial production in other parts of the world. Because little was known of potash mining in Canada, experts from the Saskatchewan department of national resources and the dominion bureau of mines and resources paid a visit to New Mexico to study mining methods there. It was found that in New Mexico the potash deposits occurred much nearer to the surface. It was estimated by' some.of the experts that the potash deposit in Saskatchewan was perhaps too deep for commercial development. However, I want to point out that the oil and gas exploration work in that particular vicinity has been completed, and it is not known whether or not the potash deposit-


William Henry Golding: Order. The hon. member is also out of order. There are items in the agricultural estimates

Speaker's Ruling
which cover fertilizer. If that is so, then he would be out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member made reference to fertilizer, his interest is in the development of potash resources which, I understand, comes under the Department of Mines and Resources, and not under the Department of Agriculture.


William Henry Golding: If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is correct, then it is out of order. So long as it comes under any estimate it is not in order to raise the point as a grievance. If, as the hon. member said, it comes under mines and resources, then an opportunity is given to discuss it under that head. Matters that come up on the estimates cannot be raised as a grievance as hon. members are doing now.
The estimates give members an opportunity to discuss these problems when they come up. It is only when there is not that opportunity that hon. members should take advantage of the opportunity, when we are going into supply, to raise some grievance.


John Ritchie MacNicol: These are not grievances anyway.


William Henry Golding: No.


Hazen Robert Argue: Other members have taken part in the discussion this evening and have raised various matters. If you enforce a rule such as that, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it would make entirely impossible the discussion of any matter on the motion to go into supply.


William Henry Golding: For the benefit of the hon. member himself and that of other hon. members, I will read what His Honour the Speaker said to hon. members the other day at page 3987 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker: Before I leave the chair I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to citation 488 of Beauchesne, second edition, page 148:
"Whenever an order of the day has been read for the house to resolve itself into the committee of supply or the committee of ways and means, the motion 'that the Speaker do now leave the chair' must be proposed, except in cases provided by standing order 28. When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance, and it is not necessary to move an amendment for that purpose; provided that the discussion and the amendment, if one is moved, shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means, nor to any matter placed on
or whereof notice has been given in the order paper."	_
1 should like also to bring to the attention of hon. members the last part of citation 345 at page 137 of Beauchesne, third edition:
"Members may discuss various matters on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair without any amendment being proposed. . . ."
Then I call attention to the following:
". . . but once debate is stopped on one matter and another matter intervenes, members cannot again discuss the former."
That was the point I was trying to raise. It is quite clear that if the point the hon. member is now bringing to the attention of the house comes under any estimate, then he has full opportunity of discussing that under the estimates. It would not be in order to raise it as a point of grievance. I think we should abide by the rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make clear what I said a moment ago. This matter which the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Argue) is raising, comes under the Department of Mines and Resources; but I think his point is that there is no specific item in the estimates providing for that which he is asking to be done. If the interpretation of the rule that you are making holds, it would mean that there is literally nothing that can be discussed on a motion to go into supply. That same ruling, if applied strictly, could have stopped the discussion on immigration, on the ground that the matter could be discussed under the estimates of the immigration branch; the same rule could have stopped the discussion on Palestine, on the ground that it could be discussed under the estimates of the Department of External Affairs and so on with regard to all the matters discussed today. But I would point out also, Mr. Speaker, citation 243 of Beauchesne, second edition, which reads as follows: 243. In determining whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation-
And that is what you are doing, Mr. Speaker; you are telling the hon. member that he must anticipate the fact that he can do this at another time.
-regard shall be had by Mr. Speaker to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the house within a reasonable time.
I submit that it was under that latitude that Your Honour or Mr. Speaker himself permitted the other discussions, and that under that same latitude the hon. member for Wood Mountain should be permitted to go ahead with this point; because I submit that the probability of this subject being brought before the house within a reasonable time is somewhat remote.
4592	COMMONS
Flood Conditions in British Columbia


William Henry Golding: The rule that the hon. member has read would not apply. The estimates will be before the house; indeed, some of them are now before the house. I submit that this discussion is out of order, and that we should go on with the business of the house.



FLOOD CONDITIONS-BRITISH COLUMBIA

Edmund Davie Fulton: Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, and having regard to the ruling to which you have referred, I think the subject I should like to discuss for a few minutes at this time is in order, it being a matter that cannot be discussed at any time under the estimates, one which has arisen within the last few hours and one on which I should like to ask the government to take action which so far they have not indicated that they are willing to do.
I refer again to the flood situation in British Columbia; and I do so because I have just received word, through a Canadian Press dispatch headlined Vancouver, 9.11 p.m., to the effect that the Premier of British Columbia, Mr. Johnson, has declared martial law in the British Columbia flooded areas, and that he has implored the army to conscript civilians. There is another item, datelined 9.18 p.m., reporting the declaration of an emergency and calling on the local army commanders to call out all troops available in the province to assist in handling the situation. As hon. members will have seen by the press, apparently the floods are becoming worse hourly. The last actual information we had was that the Kootenay and Columbia river systems were now going on the rampage, had burst a dam and inundated some 8,000 acres of wheat land and were-I do not state this as fact but as a rumour- imperilling the Consolidated Smelters plant at Trail, British Columbia, or at least placing it under some danger.
I rise to speak on this matter now, because this afternoon, when it was raised before the orders of the day were called, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) indicated in a statement he made that he felt there was no reason to believe that the local authorities, the Red Cross and such other charitable and auxiliary organizations could not cope with the situation. Although I have not had a chance to see the report of his remarks in Hansard, as I recall it he went on to indicate that the present feeling of the federal government was that it was not a matter on which they should, of their own accord, take any

action; and he supported the stand in that regard set forth by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) on Friday last.
That to my mind indicates clearly that, with respect to initiating any action, the federal government have not up to the moment felt that they should do anything of the sort. Now that we have this situation growing so much worse that the premier of our province has had to take the important and serious step of declaring martial law and asking that the troops be called out-not to impose order but simply to help him handle the situation-I think that fact speaks for itself, and it must be obvious that the situation is far beyond the control of any local authority. Therefore I take this opportunity of raising the matter as a grievance, because I think it certainly would give us cause for a grievance if the government should not change their attitude. We ask that they change their attitude, that they now take the initiative in calling out the troops and in taking measures to make available, of their own accord, funds with which to buy materials for the relief of those suffering from the floods; also to make funds available to provincial and local authorities for the same purpose; and also to make supplies available.
I should like to pay tribute to what the forces are doing at the moment in the supplying of sandbags, tents and, I believe, food supplies as well in these stricken areas. But it is obvious that not only to cope with the existing situation but to rehabilitate the areas being devastated will be very expensive, and will require a great quantity of supplies. So I think the federal government should take the initiative in making funds available to assist in that work and in gathering together those supplies and sending them in the quantities in which they will be needed, as I say, to deal with the floods and to rehabilitate the areas, to drive the waters back and to divert the streams to their former channels.
Then I think the question will arise in regard to compensation for those who have lost their crops, their homes, their livestock and so on in the floods; but that will have to come up later. The request I make at the moment is that the government change its attitude. We have three ministers in the house at the moment. I wish the Prime Minister were here, but perhaps one of the hon. gentlemen who occupy the front benches at the moment will communicate with his colleagues in the government; and in view of the emergency that exists I am sure they would be willing even to have a special meeting so that we might have some assurance, if not tonight, then the

Supply-Agriculture
first thing 'tomorrow, in regard to what has been done and what will be the future action by this government to assist our own province to deal with this terrible emergency.


James Garfield Gardiner: The answer given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) today, as I understood it, was in reply to a request from the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Matthews), which in turn came from the town of Kimberley. The answer was to the effect that this government would not deal directly with the town of Kimberley or any other town or city, but that this government would deal with the provincial government through the premier of the province. Any appeal made to this government by the premier of British Columbia certainly will receive consideration and will be acted upon. That has already been demonstrated. The troops have been made available; the navy has been made available, officials of the various departments have been made available; I understand that the health department have offered their services in taking care of persons who may require medical attention, and I believe every assistance that has been asked for so far has been granted. As far as I know, nothing that has been requested through the proper channels has been denied; and I am quite sure anything that can be supplied will be forthcoming. The only suggestion made this afternoon was that requests should come from the correct source, that is through the premier of the province, and I am sure, when those requests are received, everything possible under the circumstances will be done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as one coming from a different part of the country, may I take just a moment to support wholeheartedly the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and the statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Matthews), together with the appeals for British Columbia made on previous occasions by other hon. members from that province. We all know and appreciate the steps that have already been taken by the Department of National Defence, the offer made by the Department of National Health and Welfare, and anything else that may have been done by the federal government. But I want to say further that anything done by the federal government in the name of the people of Canada as a whole to assist our stricken fellow citizens in British Columbia will, I am sure, have the support of Canadians
from coast to coast. I happen to come from an area which only a short time ago suffered a flood condition which we felt to be extremely serious, but even parts of Canada that have not had this experience will, I am sure, support me when I say that in a time like this we are Canadians all and anything this government can do for the people of British Columbia, even if the cost should run into large figures, will have the support of all the people of this country.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.



MINES AND RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
161. Departmental administration, $305,232.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
^28. Departmental administration, $141,048.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
Special-
30. Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage (does not include the costs of survey and engineering work on the Medicine Hat irrigation and Red Deer diversion projects in Alberta and the South Saskatchewan river project in Saskatchewan, which costs are to be made available from the item of $1,000,000, No. 409, Department of Reconstruction and Supply), $3,000,000.
Mr. BENTLEY:: When we were dealing with the agriculture estimates the last time we were in committee the minister told about the interprovincial council or water board, as I believe he called it, and explained that they were acting in an advisory capacity, but that any recommendations they made which were acceptable to the four governments concerned, which I suppose would be the governments of the three prairie provinces and the dominion government would be put into operation. I believe that is correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is going a little further than I went, I think. We are not committed to get any project under way. This board is called the prairie provinces water board. It considers projects that should be recommended, and makes recommendations; but that does not compel any of the authorities to go ahead with the work.


Thomas John Bentley: But I believe the minister said, if this government accepted it and passed an order in council, and the province affected also passed an order in council, that would be the go-ahead signal?
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: At that time I was speaking of the division of water as among the provinces. When that is accepted and the provinces pass orders in council that will go ahead. But I assume no order in council will be passed by the federal government until we are prepared to proceed. When we pass an order in council the money will be available and we shall go ahead.


Thomas John Bentley: In the event of a project being undertaken after this procedure has been followed, I should like to be clear on one thing. Let us say the project was a large water storage undertaking which had to be agreed upon by all the provinces, since it had reference to a river passing through two or more of the provinces. In the storage of this large amount of water, one province might have many of its citizens affected in their property, farms and so on. or grazing land, or whatever might be wherever the lake is created to store the water. In addition, roads and other public services, even telephones lines, might be disrupted. Would the province affected in that way have to stand the whole of that cost itself, or would there be an arrangement under which that province would be reimbursed by this government and the other two provincial governments concerned?


James Garfield Gardiner: An agreement will be drawn up between the governments concerned and this government as to what is to be done. For example, we have an order in council which has already been passed and which has been accepted by each of the provinces, which indicates that, before the federal government will proceed with any project, we must have an undertaking from the province that any lands belonging to the province which are to be flooded will be turned over to the dominion. Then there is the further undertaking that the water will be utilized, that either the province or some organization set up for the purpose will utilize the water for irrigation or power purposes. These undertakings will be given previously; and the conditions under which any particular project will be carried on will be written into the agreement. But, in so far as any works we have done up to the present are concerned, when we have flooded roads we have had to put a new road in, if that were possible. Where it has been necessary to raise grades because of the storing of water, we have raised grades. Where it has been possible to put in a bridge, we have put a bridge in.


Thomas John Bentley: The P.F.R.A. branch of the department?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, at Valmarie, and dams which have been put in outside of Regina and elsewhere. We have taken care of any extra costs put on because of the work. In some places where railway lines have had to be changed, we have become responsible for them. We make our decision on that before we enter upon the project. If we decide that it will be too expensive we do not enter upon the project; but if we decide to go ahead with them, then we have done those things.


Thomas John Bentley: To be specific, what is
worrying me in connection with this is that *the Minister of Public Works has just announced that an order in council has been passed permitting the building of a bridge at Saskatchewan Landing but with conditions. One of the conditions is that the provincial government would be responsible for any damage that might occur if the bridge should be submerged by reason of the P.F.R.A. building a water storage at Tichfield, or whatever it happens to be.
It may be difficult for Saskatchewan to agree to any large water storage plan, or to pass an order in council for any large water storage project such as might be considered later on, unless the government here is prepared to give consideration to taking care of that additional cost. I think we should have some announcement in that regard.


James Garfield Gardiner: So many things are involved before we get that far that I do not think an announcement would be of much use at this time. All I can say is that it is estimated there will be a certain cost result because of the bridge already across the Saskatchewan river south of the point in question where the dam is to be built. That area will be flooded. The railway goes across at that point. The cost of taking that bridge out of there altogether and putting the railway across somewhere else is all involved in these costs.
On the other matter, as to the bridge north of Swift Current, as I said the other night it has been estimated that if a certain dam were built-not the one the hon. member is speaking about, but another dam-to serve a little different purpose, the water would be raised only fourteen feet. And if it is raised only fourteen feet, then all that is required is a bridge to take care of that. That is what I understand the provincial government intends to build. But they are being asked to put in abutments which will carry a bridge fifty-three feet higher. And when that time comes,

Supply-Agriculture
if we were going to build the dam I imagine there would be some cost which would have to be taken care of as part of the costs of putting in water storage. But as to what part it would be, I am not in a position to say; and I do not think anyone can say. There would be some part of the cost of raising the bridge, of putting it at a different level, which would probably have to be taken care of as part of the expense of doing the construction.


Thomas John Bentley: By all concerned?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to add something to what has been said with respect to water storage on the Saskatchewan river and the use of that basin's water for the two main purposes of irrigation and power.
I would judge, from what has been said by the minister, that the program as to what is to be carried out is not yet in definite form, and in my opinion that is all to the good. It is a big job, and it will have to be surveyed from every angle. Having covered most of the great rivers in western America which have been put under control for irrigation and power purposes, I can also say I have covered the Saskatchewan river. Five different trips were required to do the full job, and these were taken in as many recesses of parliament. During those recesses I did cover the river from its main source in the Columbia glacier right down to Grand Rapids. I do not. mean I traversed every step of the river; but I investigated every pertinent area which had anything to do with flood controls, water conservation or irrigation.
Across the line they have followed the very same procedure and have set up a good program or a series of programs in connection with their control over their great rivers. I, myself, thoroughly surveyed the Platte river basin from its source in the mountains to its mouth where it pours into the Missouri river. The Missouri river program is not yet complete, but I have covered most of that part which is complete.
It starts in the Rocky mountains and flows into the Mississippi. I did the same in connection with the Colorado river, one of the great rivers of America, from where it rises in the southern part of Wyoming, Utah and northern Colorado right down to a point below Boulder dam, where the river flows between California and Arizona.	In like
manner I have investigated the Salt river valley in Arizona from its source in the mountains.
So I feel I have had some little experience in these problems. In each of those basins, the basin is under an authority. I have in mind the Tennessee valley authority, which I thoroughly surveyed from beginning to end. It was the first valley to have an authority. It was ten years or more ago, after the defeat of the Bennett government. I do not recall exactly whether the minister was in the house at that time, but if he was he will recall my proposing to the house that we should have a Saskatchewan river authority, so that there would be a unified program agreed upon by the different departments having to do with this matter in the three western provinces, in association with the federal government.
In the United States that is all under control of the bureau of reclamation. But its program is laid out after consultation with the very states through which the rivers flow. For instance, in connection with the Colorado river the conference takes place between Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, California and Arizona; and I believe one source in and of the river also touches the west of New Mexico. There are six or seven states in all.
In respect of the Tennessee river, it was a conference of seven states, through which the Tennessee flows or the boundaries of which it touches. In respect of the Platte river the states of Colorado, Wyoming and Nebraska were involved. The same program is now in operation in connection with the Columbia river which, I might say, has the greatest flow of any river in the United States with the exception of the Mississippi. It is a very great river indeed.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what this board is for.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to hear that. Perhaps it has not come to fruition yet; but if the minister follows that program, a program similar to that followed by the bureau of reclamation, he will be on eminently safe ground, because each of those states has its own rights and privileges, the same as our provinces would have. In a conference you would decide how much of the flow would belong to each of the provinces in the west. In our case I would say approximately ninety per cent of the flow comes from Alberta. At Fort a la Corne I believe the average volume is about 56,000,000 tons per twenty-four hours, or something between 27,000 and 30,000 cubic feet per second.
The North Saskatchewan and South Saskatchewan have not the same flow. At Cole rapids the average flow of the North Saskat-
Supply-Agriculture

chewan is about 9,500 cubic feet per second, while at Saskatoon the average flow of the South Saskatchewan is about 11,000 cubic feet per second. The South Saskatchewan has the larger flow of the two rivers.
While it may not come under this vote, I think I should compliment the minister upon what he is doing on the St. Mary river. There he is following the program carried out in the United States and, as I have often recommended, of commencing conservation operations at the headwaters of all the source branches of the main river. I should think the board or authority set up to take charge of the Saskatchewan river basin should plan along the same lines as those followed in the United States. It should try to do on the other headwaters of the Saskatchewan river what you are now doing on the St. Mary river.
There are at least twenty-four splendid reservoir sites at the headwaters of the North Saskatchewan and at least six on the South Saskatchewan. There are more than that, but I have not seen the others. All those sites should be included in the final basin program for the conservation of that water. Water is the second most priceless resource of the prairie provinces. The first is land, but neither the one nor the other is worth anything unless they are both included in a program of conservation.
The land in the west has all the required chemicals to produce the food necessary for the maintenance of peace in the world. With a minimum rainfall of about ten inches, the water requirements of the whole basin can be met if conserved as outlined. The volume of water here is not the same by any means to be found in the United States rivers. In Salt river basin in Arizona they are able to provide three to five feet per acre. I doubt if they could raise any crops there without that water, but even with that amount they cannot raise any more in that hot climate than is raised in Alberta with a minimum of eighteen inches of irrigation water per acre, and even that is not always available.
I have made a careful study of the effects of water in southern Alberta. I learn that until July, 1947, they had average moisture conditions, but in July it went down to as low as -21 inches of rainfall. That amount of rain is almost worthless. During the summer time they had only a flow of about 400 to 500 cubic feet per second from the St. Mary river, but with that they were able to produce about $85,000,000 worth of crops and livestock. If they had had all the water they should have had with a normal rainfall of about ten

inches, they would have been able to produce crops of two more bushels of wheat to the acre than they did, or twenty bushels per acre.
The program the minister has in view will provide water, and I for one am going to support it as strongly as I can. We should store the water that God has given this western country. As I say, I have seen many good reservoir sites, at the cost of a great deal of exertion, particularly those on the North Saskatchewan. There is the large and splendid site at the gap and another one at the whirlpool, and twenty-five or more others, each of which could store a large volume of water. I am speaking from memory, but I believe I am safe in saying that there could be stored on the whole Saskatchewan river basin, mostly within Alberta, approximately 30,000,000 acre feet of water, water which now runs away to melt ice in Hudson bay.
I am glad the minister has taken hold of this project. If he is long enough in office, which I cannot say he should be-as long as he is in- office, I for one will support this program to survey thoroughly and conserve the priceless water resources of the Saskatchewan river for use for irrigation and power.
If my memory serves me correctly, there could be developed, if the water is judiciously used, 5,000,000 horsepower more or less from the source to the mouth of the river. That is a lot of power. That would include the diversion of the river at Cedar lake, down through lake Winnipegosis and lake Manitoba. A very large amount of power can be developed where the diverted river would fall into lake Winnipeg at Dauphin river.
From my point of view it does not matter how much money the government must have to conserve the water on this watershed and to use it properly. As I said a few moments ago, in southern Alberta below Lethbridge, where only 250,000 or 300,000 acres are partly irrigated with approximately eighteen inches of water per acre, they were able to produce in 1947 $85,000,000 of new wealth. That would never have been produced without even that -minimum amount of water. They are not getting maximum amounts like they do in Arizona.
The program the minister has envisioned is a gigantic one. It may cost 8100 million, or perhaps $200 million, with the power development. On the basis "of a 20-year program that means approximately $10,000,000 a year. That would be simply an investment; it would not be a charge at all.
I do not want to prolong this discussion. In a word this covers what I have in mind

Supply-Agriculture
about the Saskatchewan river. This is a gigantic profit-making program, and I am willing to support such a program which will be for the benefit of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: I listened with great interest to the discussion of the hon. member for Davenport and I am in agreement with his views respecting the great possibilities and potentialities connected with power development on the western plains. But I do not share with him quite the optimism with which he views the immediate future and the probability of this development taking place, in view' of the agreement entered into as between the provinces and the dominion.
I am very much in favour of the setting up of a water power board. It is necessary by reason of the divided jurisdiction between the provinces and the dominion covering the development of our natural resources. But order in council P.C. 2413 in my belief may well postpone indefinitely or for many years to come any development in connection with irrigation in Saskatchewan. I point out this, and I wish the minister would deal with it at some length. In the preamble to the order in council these words appear in paragraph 3:
And whereas in view of representations received from the provinces concerned it is now considered desirable that any recommendations of the board should become effective only upon ratification by the two or more provinces concerned and by Canada;
Therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture and the Acting Minister of Mines and Resources, is pleased, hereby, to approve the revised form of agreement, of which a copy is hereto attached.
Apparently some negotiations have gone on between the provinces and the dominion in the past two years in regard to this matter, and I would suggest to the minister that, in order to clarify the meaning of that portion of the order in council, he table in the house and make part of the proceedings of the house the reports or correspondence which have passed between the several provinces and the dominion with respect to this matter.
To this order in council is attached an agreement which I have in my hand. It provides for the setting up of a board to be known as the prairie provinces water board, to be composed of five members, two to be appointed by the governor general in council, and one by the lieutenant governor in council in each of the provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Its functions are set forth, and those functions are mainly administrative, to collate and analyse the data now available relating to the water and associated resources of interprovincial streams with respect to their utiliz-tion for irrigation, drainage, storage, power, industrial, municipal, navigation and other purposes. Those powers are merely administrative powers.
The essence of the agreement is this:
Upon the request of any one of the three provinces or the dominion to recommend the allocation of the waters of any interprovincial stream among the respective provinces.
In other words, the power of this board is restricted to the administrative job of collating the information and finally, upon the request of the dominion or the provinces, recommending the allocation of the waters.
I try to picture the situation-each of the provinces jealous of its own rights and powers, each of the provinces anxious to conserve as much as possible the waters that would ordinarily flow through its territory. Well, a recommendation is made, and then the trouble begins, because section 5 of the agreement reads:
A recommendation of the board with respect to any matters referred to it under subsections c and d of section 4 hereof

One of those has to do with the allocation of the waters.
-shall become effective when adopted by orders in council passed by Canada and by each of the provinces affected thereby.
I fully realize the difficulties in getting an agreement with the provinces, but we have all had experience in recent years of the emasculating effect of the veto.


James Garfield Gardiner: How would you propose to get around it?


John George Diefenbaker: I am just pointing out the difficulty at the moment. The effect of that is this, that nothing can be done without unanimity.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no.


John George Diefenbaker: I will read the section again:
A recommendation of the hoard with respect to any matters referred to it under subsections c and d of section 4 hereof shall become effective when adopted by orders in, council passed by Canada and by each of the provinces affected thereby.
The minister says that is not the effect, that it does not require unanimity, that any one province may not apply the veto. I say to him this: that is the way I read it; that is the way it is drafted; that is the purport of that section of the agreement in its present form. The minister asks: How are you going to get around that? I realize the difficulty, but I would point out this-
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: 
John Ritchie MacNicol: That is what they did on the Colorado.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and it cannot be done in any other way. That is what is being done on the St. Mary river now. We must, before some particular time, take advantage of the fact that this water is allotted to us, and that is why we are building the dam at this moment on the St. Mary river to store up the water to which we have a right as a result of the decision of the international joint commission. This board will operate in exactly the same way. There is nobody going to sit down and veto things like the Russian government. The provinces will be anxious to have the money spent in their respective provinces. They will be anxious to have the work done.


John George Diefenbaker: If they are so
anxious, they would not have asked for the powers of veto.


James Garfield Gardiner: They did not ask for the powers of veto. They refused to have an order in council with the power of veto in it.


John George Diefenbaker: All right; let me complete my argument. The very fact that the minister immediately jumps before I get even part of the way indicates that I have touched a point of pronounced interest.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it does not indicate that at all; it indicates that the hon. member is trying to put up a theory which does not exist, and talk until eleven o'clock so that it is given publicity over the country and goes out that way. It just cannot go out that way in view of what I have said.


John George Diefenbaker: I say to the minister that if he has a plan for the expenditure of $110 million that is today being dangled before the western provinces, why did he not submit that plan to the provinces and secure their agreement to that expenditure, provided that it could be proven efficacious.


James Garfield Gardiner: That plan was submitted to the provinces two years ago.


John George Diefenbaker: That is fine. If it was submitted to the provinces two years ago, why is it that they are not prepared to accept the plan that was submitted to them? If it has been submitted to them, then we already know that plan has not been accepted by each of the provinces.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; the point is this. We did not assume the position that we have all the knowledge on the matter. We submitted to the provinces the plan which they thought they could improve upon. We have accepted some of their suggestions and put them in the form of this resolution.


John George Diefenbaker: In order to clarify the whole situation, I am pointing out that if the people of western Canada believe that the plan which the minister has placed before them could be carried into effect without the consent of the provinces they are due to be undeceived.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are not being asked to do that; they are going to consent.


John George Diefenbaker: 
James Garfield Gardiner: Placed before this house and the country.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate the
general plan, but I want to see how it was placed before the provinces. Certainly, as far as this house is concerned, what was placed before it was merely a generality. I wish the

Suppl y-A griculture
minister would table the correspondence passed between the provinces and the dominion on this matter-


James Garfield Gardiner: May I point out to my hon. friend that a considerable part of it is right in front of him, and he is discussing it under an item under which he is not entitled to discuss it at all. The whole plan is enunciated in the items that are recited, one being this very item, but part of it is covered in the next item, the St. Mary river dam project, which is already under way, and a very considerable part of it constructed. Then you go on down through the items and you find parts of it on the next page. The items have already been dealt with session after session. If you take the items which are mentioned in No. 30 and add them to the St. Mary river dam project it will amount to SI 10 million.
.Mr. DIEFENBAKER:	I am directing my
attention at the moment to the general scheme which has been brought to the attention of the people of Saskatchewan. That scheme will cost approximately $66,000,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is one of the projects.


John George Diefenbaker: What we have
before us under item 30 amounts to 13,000,000 in 1948-49, and item No. 31, the St. Mary river dam project, amounts to $2,200,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: In the projects that are here, there are: the Medicine Hat irrigation scheme, which is $4,000,000; the Red Deer diversion project, which runs somewhere between $15,000,000 and $20,000,000; the South Saskatchewan river project, which is $66,000,000. These items together will come very close to what is being proposed, and then there is the St. Mary river dam project, which will cost $15,000,000 to $20,000,000. These total up to around $110 million. The whole program is right in front of the hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: Merely a survey of these various projects.


James Garfield Gardiner: They have to be surveyed first.


John George Diefenbaker: I am asking the minister this simple question. Our people are being led to believe that within a couple of years a great construction proposition will be undertaken in our province, provided that it is proven by surveys to be efficacious and efficient.


James Garfield Gardiner: And provided that the province is prepared to go on with the development.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, we have that veto. It still rests with the province.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not a veto at all. It is whether they want to spend the money, that is all.


John George Diefenbaker: So that we can get this out of the sphere of a more or less ephemeral promise or the expectation of a hope, I am asking the minister to table the correspondence regarding the particular matter, and I am not going outside my own province. All I am asking for at the moment is the correspondence that passed between his department, or any other department of government, and the governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba respecting the river projects in Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will answer that by saying that every bit of discussion and correspondence, and the forms in connection with it, have already been tabled in this house. The main part of it is the report of the engineers, and that has been a matter of discussion as between the province and ourselves. We have spent the money with regard to it, and we have the report. We have put the report on the table of the house. We have said to the provinces, Are you prepared to proceed with the development of irrigation or power as a result of the building of the dam, if it is built?


John George Diefenbaker: Are these questions in writing?


James Garfield Gardiner: These discussions have all taken place, most of them orally as between the governments, but everything of importance in connection with the matter is in writing. It is set down, and it has all been placed on the table of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of privilege, I wonder whether the committee might give unanimous consent to sitting on for another hour. If we were to do so we might get the minister's estimates through, and we might also have more complete returns on the Yale by-election. They are pretty good at the moment. They are as follows: C.C.F., 3,383; Liberal, 2,589; Progressive Conservative, 2,572. That is for 35 out of 122 polls.


Gordon Graydon: We will wait until a week tonight to get the real returns.
Business of the Home


Stanley Howard Knowles: That may be the end of Drew.


William Henry Golding: Shall I report progress?
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall proceed to consider the budget resolutions, and if they are passed we shall take up second reading of Bill No. 228, to amend the Excise Act, and second reading of Bill No. 229 to amend the Customs Act.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
The following is the English translation of remarks made in French on the date indicated.
Monday, May 31, 1948.
Alphonse Fournier: Aboiteau (abweto) s.m.
1.	Aboiteau, dike, obstacle to the flow of water.
Fr.-The popular pronunciation is aboiteau.
Can.

Aboiteaux	are embankments constructed on a river bank.
2.	Sluice, in a dam, laid out so as to close automatically when the tide rises and to let the water out at low tide.
Dial.-Aboiteau:	a small cofferdam to impound water. Saintonge.
3.	Mass of disintegrated ice drifting on rivers at break-up time.
4.	Windscreen of snow and branches, as a shelter against the wind while fishing on lakes or rivers in the *winter.

Tuesday, June 1, 1948