1948-05-13

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that yesterday a bill was introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). When Mr. Speaker proceeded to read it a first time objection was taken. A vote followed, and it was decided that the bill should be read a first time. In my view that was all to the good. I notice however that some of the press are misinterpreting the nature of the vote. I have before me, for example, one newspaper which says: "PM"-I presume that refers to myself

"votes for no secrecy in income tax." I did not do anything of the kind. I voted for the first reading of a bill, to which I think an hon. member is entitled, unless there is something particularly obnoxious to the house in his bill. I cannot imagine anything that would help to do more to destroy the hon. member's bill than to have it read so that the house might know what it contains.
I wish to have it clearly understood that my vote was given simply on the basis of the right of a member to have his bill read the first time. The decision as to the principle would come up on the motion for second reading. However that motion has not yet been made -and I doubt if it will be made at any time this session. What I have said as to my vote applies I think equally as to the votes of many others given at the time.



BIRTHDAY GREETINGS


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, on April 20, when there was a celebration in honour of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), I suggested we should celebrate the birthdays of all members of parliament. Today is the birthday of one of our colleagues who, although he does not belong to my party, is the only privy councillor left in the House of Commons from the Bennett regime. He is a most likeable man,
and he has achieved the rare distinction of being the only person who has spiritual authority over the chief opposition whip, his son-in-law. I refer of course to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simeoe (Mr. Rowe). This does not mean that I subscribe to all the policies the hon. member advocates; but I do congratulate him, offer him my best wishes, and express the hope that on the next occasion of a birthday anniversary one of our colleagues will offer the good wishes of the whole House of Commons.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) in extending warm congratulations to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simeoe. The hon. member, in point of service in the house, is one of the oldest members. He has taken a most faithful and prominent part in the discharge of his duties here as well as having been a long time in public life. Those of us who have associated with him in parliament over the years will be the first to wish him continued health, strength and happiness for many years to come. This wish I am sure will be shared by all hon. members.


Hon. W. EARL ROWE (Dufferin-Simeoe):: Mr. Speaker, while this is somewhat unusual, nevertheless it is appreciated. I should like particularly to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), both of whom have served many years in the house. It is a source of great pleasure to me to have been associated with them, and I can assure them I have always had the most kindly personal feelings toward them. May I reciprocate by offering them my good wishes and expressing the hope that they may celebrate many more birthdays-and that in that event many more of us may be here on this side to congratulate them.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. ISNOR:: Is any subsidy now im effect and being paid on coal imported from tbe United States of America (a) anthracite; (b) bituminous; (c) coke?

Questions


Mr. BELZILE:: In so far as the wartime prices and trade board is concerned:
By Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation Limited-none.


REGISTRY HOG TESTING STATION-EDMONTON
Mr. ASHBY:: 1.	Has the government or any department thereof purchased a property in or near the city of Edmonton, Alberta, to replace the advanced registry hog testing station which was burned down in Edmonton last March?
2.	If so, by whom was this property formerly owned ?
3.	For what purpose was this property formerly used?
4.	What price was paid for this property?


Mr. McCUBBIN:: 1.	The Department of Agriculture has had under consideration the possibility of purchasing a property, but no purchase has been made.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


MERCHANT NAVY-PENSIONS
Mr. MOORE:: 1. How many widows of those who served with the merchant navy are drawing pension?
Navy
Province	Officers	MenPrince Edward Island ...	. 1	10Nova Scotia 	. 11	79New Brunswick 	. 5	34Quebec 	. 19	80Ontario 	. 92	305Manitoba 	. 9	64Saskatchewan 	. 13	73Alberta 	. 18	76British Columbia	. 37	91Abroad, including U.S.A...	. 13	3Total 	. 218	815


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-TERREBONNE, QUE.
Mr. BERTRAND (Terrebonne):: What was the amount of unemployment insurance benefits paid by the unemployment insurance commission offices, in the county of Terrebonne, during 1945, 1946 and 1947?


Mr. COTE (Verdun):: The amount of benefits paid in the county of Terrebonne is not available as this county is serviced through the local office at Ste. Therese, Que* Benefits paid through Ste. Therese from April 1, 1945 to March 31, 1948, by fiscal years are as follows: 1945-46, SS2.945.87; 1946-47, $102,849.70; 1947-48, $108,854.08.

2. How many dependents other than widows are involved?


Mr. GREGG:: Awards made under the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act to March 31, 1948:
1.	173.
2.	455.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Lionel Bertrand: What was the amount of unemployment insurance 'benefits paid .in the province of Quebec during 1945, 1946 and 1947?


Paul-Émile Côté: The amount of unemployment insurance benefits paid in the province of Quebec from April 1, 1945, to March 31, 1948, by fiscal years, is: 1945-46, $13,371,141.60; 1946-47, $14,554,400.20; 1947-48, $10,605,824.57.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-ENLISTMENTS
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: How many recruits were enlisted for each branch of the Canadian armed forces during 1947 from each of the provinces?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Army	Air Force
Officers	Men	Officers Men	Total2	29	26	6810	413	1	88	60212	209	41	30144	917	6	117	1,183115	1,901	19	382	2,81411	466	5	86	6419	334	14	121	56415	423	5	111	64820	386	3	62	5998	34	1	8	67246	5,112	54	1,042	7,487* These	figures	are for	the areas	serviced
through St. Therese local office, comprising: lie Jesus-Town of Ste. Rose.
L'Assomption-Towns of La Plaine, Lauren-tides, Mascouche, St. Henri de Mascouche, St. Lin and Sault St. Lin.
Terrebonne-Part south of Mascouche river (but not including that portion of St. Janvier parish south of the river), plus municipality of Ste. Anne des Plaines which is north of the Mascouche river.
Two Mountains-Part south of C.P.R. line excepting parish of St. Hermas.

Inquiries of the Ministry


WAR PENSIONS-QUEBEC
Lionel Bertrand: What was the total amount of pensions paid to veterans of world war I and world war II, in the province of Quebec, during 1945, 1946 and 1947?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Disability and Death Awards World War I
Annual Liability
At March 31, 1945.. $2,700,000 approximately At March 31, 1946 .. 2,700,000 approximately At March 31, 1947 ..	2,700,000 approximately
At December 31, 1947 2,700,000 approximately
World War II Annual Liability
At March 31, 1945.. $1,500,000 approximately At March 31, 1946.. 2,500,000 approximately At March 31, 1947.. 3,700,000 approximately At December 31,1947 4,100,000 approximately



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Although there was no
formal announcement at the close of the session last night it was understood, I believe, by the leaders of the different parties that the first order of business today would be interim supply. If I am right in that, I assume the Minister of Finance will be allowed precedence with his measure.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: There will be no objection from this side of the house to the minister proceeding.



OLEOMARGARINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue, arising out of press dispatches to the effect that margarine has been brought into this country despite the ban. I have received inquiries asking if certain sections of the public are immune from the law in this respect. In view of the publicity this matter has received I think some official statement is necessary, and I should like to know if the minister intends to make a statement clarifying these press dispatches.
Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National
Revenue): Mr. Speaker, this is the first time
this matter has been brought officially to my attention, and consideration will be given to the question asked by the hon. gentleman.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Mines and Resources. As the committee on Indian affairs has had to suspend sittings for lack of a committee room, will the minister intercede on behalf of the committee so that this important work may be completed for presentation to the house this session?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Acting Minister of Mines and Resources):: The hon. member for Selkirk was good enough to send me notice of his intention to ask this question. I made inquiries and I am informed that there is no problem about space.


William Scottie Bryce: May I ask the minister if it is the election in Ontario that is hindering the proceedings?



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Mr. ABBOTT moved:: Resolved', that a sum not exceeding $'89,567,384.33, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted, as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1949, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, and in addition thereto the sum of $17,982,745.67. being one-sixth of the amount of items 43. 151. 154, 155, 447, 541 and 542 of the said estimates be granted to His Majesty on account for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1949.


John Bracken: I thought the Minister of Finance would make a brief statement with respect to this matter.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In the proposed resolution, provision is being made for an additional one-twelfth of the main estimates, and an additional one-sixth of certain special items which provide for services coming up for payment within the early part of this year. These additional items are item 43 in the agriculture estimates covering freight assistance on western feed grains; items 151, 154 and 155, which relate to the Senate and the
Interim Supply

House of Commons, where, as hon. members will appreciate, the greater part of the expense has to be met early in the year; item 447 of the estimates of trade and commerce, which cover exhibitions, and where an additional amount is required at an early day for the expenses of the international trade fair which is being held in Toronto from May 31 to June 12; items 541 and 542, for estimated additional requirements in the Department of Veterans Affairs to cover increases in pensions and war veterans allowances which have either been adopted by the *house or are now under consideration.
The form of the bill which will be founded upon this resolution is exactly the same as the bill which has been presented in previous years. Of course the passage of the bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of hon. members to discuss any item in the estimates which will come up for consideration from time to time during the remainder of the session. I give the usual undertaking that such rights and privileges will be respected and not curtailed and restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.


John Bracken: Mr. Chairman, the matter before us is spoken of as interim supply. Interim supply means the granting of huge sums of money to the government for its purposes, practically without debate. The minister is now asking that one-twelfth of the total amount of this year's estimates be voted without debate. Prior to this one-sixth of the total amount was passed under a similar motion. When this measure passes one-quarter of the total supply will have been voted, without debate. The reason why this motion comes before us is that we are now in the early part of a new financial year and the government has financial obligations, salaries to pay and other expenses to meet. The government finds itself without money and has to ask for a measure of this kind, to be passed practically without debate.
There is no question that the house will grant requests of this kind when they are made under similar circumstances. I rose simply to say that this practice, which is not a wise one, arises from the fact that the budget is not brought down early enough.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has nothing to do with the budget.


John Bracken: That is the moral of my remarks. An opportunity is not given, to deal with all these matters and to pass the budget, and so we are asked for these interim amounts. As I said, one-sixth has been voted already, and

another one-twelfth is being asked for, making one-quarter of the whole. The only point I wish to make is that the budget, including the estimates, should be considered earlier in the session.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think the remarks of my hon. friend call for a brief comment. Obviously, of course, the date on which the budget is brought down has nothing to do with the date on which supply is voted. The budget simply outlines the means by which the taxes will be raised to provide for the expenses of government, and that is a completely separate function from the voting of supply by the committee of supply.
There is nothing new in voting interim supply, as my hon. friend has indicated; but each year when it is asked for I listen to a repetition of this statement, that it is improper to vote large sums like this without debate. I w7ant to point out to the country what is well known, of course, to the house, that the estimates, which indicate the sums of money which parliament will be asked to provide for the public service of the financial year, are prepared early in the year. They were tabled this year in good time-in the month of February, I think-and have been before hon. members ever since that time. They are discussed, it is true, and formally voted in committee of supply; but my experience has been that the discussion in committee of supply rarely relates to the item under discussion and never suggests that an item be reduced. I have been here some little time and I recall no case in which the opposition has suggested that an item of proposed expenditure be reduced. The house and the country have been aware for months of the government's estimates of the amounts required to maintain the services of the country for the year. The practice of voting interim supply-one-sixth or one-twelfth of the estimates, as the case may be-is not for the purposes of the government as a government, but to carry on the essential services of the country.
I am not taking exception to what my hon. friend has said, but the date on which the budget is brought down has nothing whatever to do with the date on which the house may or may not be able to discuss the items of supply. Let me add that consideration of the estimates by the committee of supply has been unavoidably but inevitably delayed by the necessity of considering other measures such as emergency exchange conservation and the like. I must, however, take exception to any suggestion that the government has delayed the consideration of supply by not bringing down the budget.

Ways and Means-Interim Supply


Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Chairman, this is the eighty-third day of the session and we have had little or no opportunity yet of discussing the main estimates. While it is true that the minister must have money to run the sendees of the country, I would point out that businessmen and retail merchants and others have been looking for retrenchment in government expenditures. Practically all we are doing now in committee of supply is holding a post mortem after the money is spent. That is no way to conduct the business of the country. The government is spending money like water. I can see no sign of retrenchment in the main estimates or the supplementaries. We are being asked to vote large sums of money for bonuses, subventions and subsidies for the prairie provinces, and the other provinces do not get anything. There are manjr items here for interim supply, one for 880,000,000, another for $17,000,000, and so on. These expenditures, under this method of conducting the business of the country, really mean expenditures and taxation without representation. The house is abdicating its functions to the executive. It is a dangerous principle. The expenditures for civil government in the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier amounted in 1897 to $36,000,000. and the population of the country has increased by only one-third or one-quarter since; but the civil estimates now are nearly two billions.
There should be some better way of conducting public business. The municipalities would be bankrupt if they did business'in this way. The auditor general should have wider powers to deal with some of these expenditures. The Minister of Finance may take this humorously, but it is no laughing matter for the working classes I represent. Government extravagance and lack of retrenchment, added to the high cost of living, are becoming scandalous, and the public will not stand for it. We should have some redress of grievances before we are asked to vote any further interim supply on this eighty-third day of the session.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I do not rise to object to passing interim supply but rather to take exception to the minister's statement that nobody has ever moved to reduce an item of supply.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said that I had never heard it done.


James Arthur Ross: The minister was
sitting in the house in the session of 1946 when we were discussing the administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs and my colleague the hon. member for Lake Centre moved that a certain item be reduced to one dollar. Despite the fact that the minister never explained what the item was for, the government supporters trooped in and we were voted down.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Did not my hon. friend suggest that the agriculture estimates ought to be $80,000,000 instead of $40,000,000?


James Arthur Ross: Certainly I did, and I gave reasons why.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $89,567,384.33, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted, as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1949, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, and in addition thereto the sum of $17,982,745.67, being one-sixth of the amount of items 43, 151, 154, 155, 447, 541 and 542 of the said estimates be granted to His Majesty on account for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1949.


Mr. GRAYDON:: I do not want the minister to say that the question I am about to raise is one which should be dealt with by the rules committee, of which I am a member; so I anticipate and protect myself beforehand. Has the government given serious consideration this session or in previous sessions to the whole question of dealing with the estimates of the various departments in a much more efficient way? Time after time, in session after session, members on both sides of the house have contended that our system of dealing with the estimates would not commend itself to any business handling even a fraction of the amount that this house is asked to vote from year to year. This is a matter that rests with the government rather than with other parties or with private members, because it would have to be a matter of government policy before any other system could be brought before the rules committee or before parliament.
The estimates of the Department of External Affairs are the only ones, outside of the railway estimates, that are dealt with in
3884	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Interim Supply
detail by committees before they are dealt with by the house. If the minister has carefully scrutinized the work of these committees he must have found that they have done a reasonably good job in investigating the details of the expenditures of money by the departments concerned.
Suggestions have been made from time to time. One was that the various committees of the house might have referred to them at each session the estimates of the department whose activities are closely related to the kind of work that they are supposed to do. On the other hand, it has been suggested that a committee on estimates ought to be set up in the house which would deal with the question of estimates generally. That would be different from the public accounts committee, which, as I understand it, considers the auditor general's report. On every ground it would be distinctly different from the ordinary committees. I am not here to advocate one scheme or plan as against another, but I do advocate a change in a system which must have worked all right when we had a few million dollars to vote year after year but is not satisfactory now. We have the same machinery and we are doing the same thing in parliament that we did when I first came here twelve years ago-and twelve years is a short time compared with the length of time that some other hon. members on both sides of the house have been here. We are spending at least five times as much as we did when I first came here, and passing appropriations of five times as much money as we did at that time. Surely the situation calls for some reform.
The minister and the government might give serious consideration to this matter, because I think they will find on all sides a strong feeling of approval, of some change. People who are in business, people who are used to handling large sums of money and seeing that it is properly spent, must find this kind of arrangement antiquated, to say the least, and certainly not always productive of the best kind of audit and examination of our public expenditures. I ask the minister if he will consider the suggestion. Having brought it to his attention I think I have at least discharged part of my duty in connection with a serious matter.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member for Peel has raised an interesting and important question, one to which, speaking for myself, I have given a good deal of consideration. It is not easy, though, to find what would be an acceptable alternative method of dealing with estimates. I am told that in the British parliament they do not give the detailed consideration to estimates that we do in our house; that

the estimates of the service departments are always considered in some detail, and several days are set aside for that purpose, but that the estimates of almost every department are simply passed en bloc. No opportunity is given for detailed consideration. Each year certain departments are selected and the estimates are discussed in some detail. That is one method. As hon. members will appreciate, it is not always the estimate which provides for the largest amount that provokes the greatest discussion. An estimate of an expenditure of 810,000 or 815,000 may promote more discussion and arouse more interest among members than one which involves $50,000,000 or $60,000,000. Therefore one cannot take the size of the estimate as a test of the amount of time that should be given to its discussion. The impression I have got from members is that in respect to various departments- fisheries, agriculture, trade and commerce, or whatever it may be-where special interest lies, they feel that they want an opportunity in the house to discuss these estimates and get information from the minister. I have not been given the impression that members would be satisfied to have these estimates considered and passed by a small committee.


Gordon Graydon: Opportunity for discussion in the house is still guaranteed to them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, and I do not think it would save much time to refer them to a committee. I simply mention that to point out some of the difficulties with which I know all hon. members are familiar. All I can say is that I have not yet been able to think of a solution which would be generally acceptable. Perhaps that inspiration may come to me later.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: The minister has referred-no doubt correctly -to the substantial difference in practice which prevails in the British house. Has he fully considered what I understand to be the very different procedure which they adopt before the estimates are finally brought down to the house? I think he will agree it is different, and perhaps he knows more about the actual difference than I do. I suggest that is well worthy of consideration from our point of view.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is not greatly different. Of course these estimates receive long, detailed and painstaking consideration by treasury board. May I say that my opening gambit to each member who came into treasury board with these estimates was: "The only savings that will be made in expenditures this year will

Ways and Means-Interim Supply
be made in this room". I was referring to my office in the east block, where we were holding the meeting. I said: "There will not be any savings made when these estimates are being considered by the house, because in my experience that is not the place where reductions of expenditures are made. Any savings on public expenditures will be made right inside this room." I simply mention this to show that that is where the estimates of expenditures receive detailed and painstaking consideration. I may be mistaken, but so far as I am aware our method does not differ substantially from that under which estimates of expenditures are prepared in Great Britain. The estimates are prepared by the departments. They are submitted to the treasury, and then are settled by the treasury, and by the government finally, before being presented to parliament. That is the procedure which is followed here.


Mr. KNOWLES:: May I point out that one of the provisions of the proposed bill is to provide an additional one-sixth of certain items, namely, items 43, 151, 154, 155, 447, 541 and 542. I should like to say a word or two about items 154 and 155. which relate to the House of Commons itself.
The Minister of Finance has already indicated that because of the heavy sessional expenses of the House of Commons it is necessary for him to ask for a little more interim money for these items than for the others. A motion is before the House of Commons calling for the approval of certain salary increases. I am not going to discuss that at this time; I might be out of order if I did; at any rate I approve that motion and therefore I do not need to discuss it. But I do wish to point out that the increases proposed do not cover all the employees of the House of Commons, as was promised to us on March 24. I hope that in the additional increases which were suggested yesterday by the Secretary of State consideration will be given to some of our House of Commons employees who are not now covered.
My reasons for speaking about this matter at this time are these. First, if one does not get a word in on the matter before final decision is made, it is too late when the motion is before us. Furthermore, the Minister of Finance is a member of treasury board, but, as I understand it, the Secretary of State is not, and the only matter before us on his motion-


Douglas Charles Abbott: These increases do not relate to treasury board.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. Probably I should call the attention of the committee to the fact that we are now in committee of ways and means. These items have been before the committee of supply and have been passed by that committee. This resolution is to the effect that the sums referred to therein be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada. I hardly think that the discussion thus far in this committee has been strictly in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are we not in committee of ways and r-rang on the bill?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


William Ross Macdonald: Probably the hon.
member was not in the house at the time, but we are now in committee of ways and means on the resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In a few moments a bill will be introduced based on this resolution. I shall carry on then.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. ADAMSON:: I have one question about the proposed setting up of committees to consider the estimates. Some time ago a motion was made in the house that we adopt the British practice of sending the defence estimates to a defence committee. I know we have not set up a defence committee here, but the defence estimates are some of the largest and most important spending items. Has any progress been made in this regard at cabinet level?


Douglas Charles Abbott: So far as I am aware, no further consideration has been given the question of referring the defence estimates to a special committee.


Thomas Langton Church: I would object to any proposal to send these estimates to a committee. This is the eighty-third day of the session and it would be just a whitewashing committee.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 299, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1949.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee * thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Ways and Means-Interim Supply
On section 3-817,982,745.67 granted for 1948-49.
Stanley Howard Knowles: If I may continue with the remarks I began a few moments ago-I believe I am in order, inasmuch as we are on clause 3, which refers to the schedule attached to the bill and to the items in connection with which the minister is asldng for an additional amount to the extent of one-sixth of those items, including the amounts asked on behalf of the House of Commons. What I have to say can be put briefly. It is to this effect. So far as I can find out, there have yet been provided no increases for any of the mechanics around the building, or for the ordinary messengers. When I say ordinary messengers I distinguish them from confidential messengers, for whom I understand there have been increases. I am led to believe also that there have been no increases for the cleaners in this building, though I am told, unless there has been a change in the last few days, that the men cleaners on the senate side get fifty cents a day more than the men who clean our side of this building.


Mr. McILRAITH:: You are quite out of date in your remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Am I? Then I shall be glad to be corrected.


George James McIlraith: You are quite out of date. They got their increases.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The men cleaners?


George James McIlraith: I think so. You spoke of the messengers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand up and put it on the record. I should be glad to hear it if it is so, but it certainly is not the information communicated to me.
I would point out also that there have been no increases for the House of Commons stenographers, nor have there been for the amanuenses on the third floor who put into typescript our words which the Hansard reporters take down on the floor of the house. I am interested in the remark interjected by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith). I hope that what he says is true, that there have been increases for those to whom I have referred; but if so they do not know it. I repeat, however, that when the matter was before the house on March 24 we were told that all employees of the House of Commons were being considered, and that as a result of that consideration all our employees would be satisfied. That has not yet been

done, and I hope that further consideration will be given to the matter by the financial authorities.


George James McIlraith: I do not propose to discuss the other matter which is before the house, and which is on the order paper, with respect to the establishment and increases.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are all in favour of that.


George James McIlraith: Without going into that question, leaving it aside at the moment, I would point out that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is somewhat in error about the staff that does not come under the civil service commission, and their increases. They did get their increases, as I understand it. I am speaking about the men, the messengers and the cleaners.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member know when it was done, or can he find out?


George James McIlraith: First the messengers got theirs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All messengers, or just the confidential messengers?


George James McIlraith: All the messengers, as I understand it. I had not expected that this was coming up or I would have had the information more accurately.


Gordon Graydon: You have been busy with the voters' list, anyway.


George James McIlraith: I am quite sure they got their increases.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope you are right.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not wish to assume any credit for what the government tries to do for the staff of the House of Commons, but the government should be congratulated on having taken the matter into serious consideration and having submitted to us a list of the proposed increases. They are not complete; they are supposed to be completed and adjusted. I wish however to pay a special tribute to the two members representing Ottawa for the care they are taking not only of the employees of the House of Commons but of the whole staff in the civil service in the city of Ottawa. I refer especially to the hon. member for Ottawa West, the very able assistant to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply and Trade and Commerce.
I have been dealing with the hon. member for many years and I have always admired his patience and his devotion to his electors.


[Stage Direction]
Ways and Means-Interim Supply
No one knows what it is to be a member representing the city of Ottawa, with long lines of people waiting to be heard, having a good word for each of them, and ready to help anyone. That is what has been done by the two members representing the city of Ottawa, especially by the hon. member for Ottawa West. I bow to the hon. member and assure him of my sincere admiration for his understanding of the problems of civil servants. The hon. member deserves every praise; and he should have some other reward than that of being parliamentary assistant to a cabinet minister. I do not know how on earth a member of parliament can represent one of the constituencies in the city of Ottawa and at the same time fulfil his duties as parliamentary assistant to a cabinet minister. It is bej'ond me. I cannot understand it.
For a time I had my office near that of a former member, who is now Mr. Justice Chevrier. At that time he represented one of the Ottawa ridings. He could not go out of his office without meeting forty or fifty people who were waiting for him, and when those forty or fifty had gone they were replaced by another forty or fifty. He never complained about it; he was always pleasant to all.
Is it not admirable? I have the greatest admiration for the hon. gentleman and I take this opportunity to say so. I say it with the utmost pleasure. I consider it is my duty to say it, because at times I have business to do with the hon. member for Ottawa West. I have to call at his office.
Mr. LOCKHART:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Doesn't that apply to all hon. members from this area?


Jean-François Pouliot: I have shown today that I appreciate the work of my colleagues, and I am proud to be one of theirs. On the other hand, outside of the hon. gentleman I have mentioned, there is no one of us who is at the same time a member for one of the Ottawa constituencies and parliamentary assistant to a cabinet minister w'ho is responsible for a department which has so much to do with everything. Therefore I am not minimizing the work of my other colleagues, for whom I have respect and admiration, when I say that the position of the hon. member for Ottawa West is unique and he deserves all our admiration.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I wish to add a word or two to the remarks made by the hon. member for Peel. I feel, as do a great many others-and I refer not only to members of this house but to the public in general-that sufficient time is not given to the consideration of the estimates. If we could spread out consideration of the various items, it would do much to foster greater confidence in our democratic system of government. We rush through, in the short time of just a few minutes, estimates dealing with hundreds of millions of dollars. If I sit down and no one else speaks, it will mean that we shall have passed this huge amount in a matter of ten minutes. The suggestion made by the hon. member for Peel is worthy of serious thought. Of course he is not the only one who in the past has made that suggestion. I think the government would be well advised to consider a method by which greater consideration could be given to the estimates.
That was not my purpose in rising, however, Mr. Chairman; it was rather to deal particularly with item 154. which covers the sessional stenographers. We shall be appointing, I believe, an additional number of permanent members to the stenographic staff; and they will be receiving employment the year around, with a stated yearly salary. I have no objection to the additional number who will be appointed or to any salary which might be set for their employment. But I do say that the sessional stenographers are not receiving sufficient pay; and I say that from a business standpoint. They are brought to Ottawa and are kept here for a period of six months. They pay their own transportation to and from Ottawa. They are paid at the rate of $5 a day. A	few	years	ago	theystarted out at $4, and	they	were	given an
increase; after a certain period of employment they were given SI extra, thus bringing the pay up to $5. So far as I know, that is the rate at which they are paid today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit an interjection?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Yes.	.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wholly	agree	with	him
that the pay should be higher. But just in order to have the record straight, may I say that the amount is now $5.90 a day. I agree with the hon. member that it should be higher, in view of the fact- that it is not year-round employment.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Yes, that is quite true. The point I am making is that they are only part-time employees.

Ways and Means-Interim Supply


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I think it is recognized today by practically every employer of labour that a part-time man is entitled to a higher rate than that which is paid to a permanent employee. For that reason, although I do not wish to press the matter, I thought it was an opportune time to bring it to the attention of the Minister of Finance or the Speaker, or the Clerk of the House-whoever happens to have jurisdiction as to that particular item1-so that consideration could be given to increasing the pay of the sessional stenographers. I have that particular class of employees in mind when I make these remarks. I go further: I think there should be an allowance for travelling expenses. If it is necessary to bring to Ottawa stenographers of this particularly efficient type, I believe they should be provided with transportation to and from their place of employment.


Clarence Gillis: When this bill was brought down, my conception of the matter was that it was for the purpose of getting interim, supply, and that it did not open up a detailed discussion of the estimates. The purpose for which the money is required is clearly set out in the bill: agriculture, freight assistance on western grains-and I think most hon. members will agree that it is necessary-and so forth. I am not disagreeing with anything that is in the bill. It simply represents a certain amount of the regular estimates necessary now in order to enable the departments to carry on. It is unfortunate that the discussion of the House of Commons staff was injected into the discussion at this time, because-


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman.. I referred particularly to one of the items which was included in this bill, namely, item 154. If any objection is taken it would not be to the part of the staff of the House of Commons to which I referred, but rather to the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Clarence Gillis: I was not specifying anybody. I merely said it was unfortunate that it was injected into the discussion-


James Arthur Ross: No matter where it came from.


Clarence Gillis: [DOT]-for the simple reason there is already on the order paper a motion by the Secretary of State which will enable anyone to carry on a detailed discussion of that particular question. Now that the matter has been injected, I have just this to say- and I think the chairman himself can accept responsibility for allowing this discussion to

take place. On the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and what he said was concurred in by the senior member for Halifax, I say that the question of the stenographic staff is one that cannot be passed over by just saying that the salaries are too high or too low. It is a question that requires detailed study. It is a matter concerning 155 people who are in this building for the purpose of rendering certain services to members of parliament, and that aspect of it must be considered. I think the most important question in connection with the sessional stenographers is the matter of transportation. They come from long distances, and they are not employed the year round. I think they should be provided with transportation.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. member agrees with me on that point.


Clarence Gillis: Yes. I say it is a point that should be considered. Second, and I think more important than fixing a higher rate, is the question of superannuation.


Mr. FRASER:: That is right,


Clarence Gillis: A great many of the girls who are sessional stenographers have been on the staff for twenty or twenty-five years.


Gordon Graydon: Permanent temporaries.


Clarence Gillis: They have reached the age where they should be retiring. Adequate retirement provision should be made for them. If you continue as you are, what you are making of the stenographic pool is not a pool that will give service to the members of the house, but rather a home in which to take care of people whom you are afraid to put out because the system has not provided for them.
I am not going to enter upon a detailed discussion of the matter now, because I said it was unfortunate that the question had been opened up under this bill. But when the Secretary of State brings in the motion he now' has on the order paper with regard to establishment and revisions in classifications, I am going to say something about it and make certain definite recommendations.
With this short explanation I hope this bill will pass to enable the departments to get along.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I suppose, strictly speaking, it is in order when this bill is before the committee to discuss any item which may be in the main estimates. It has been the practice when the minister has moved for interim

Ways and Means-Interim Supply
supply to make general observations and perhaps to refer to particular grievances, but I do not think it has been customary to discuss items in detail.
I should imagine a good many members might wish to speak about the matter of the House of Commons staff. If we were to proceed to do that now, this would develop into a full-dress debate. I appeal to members of the committee to defer discussion of that question until the motion standing in the name of the Secretary of State is before the house.
I wish to point out that the question of the salaries of the house staff is not within the jurisdiction of treasury board or of the Minister of Finance. It is a question which is in the control of the house itself, and which will no doubt be discussed when the resolution is before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On that last point, it seems to me we should not for ever be pushed back and forth from one authority to the other. I do feel it is not fair for the Minister of Finance to put the responsibility for this solely upon t he officials of the house. They may have their ideas, but they cannot-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not the officials of the house; it is the house itself. The house is master of its own staff. The staff of the House of Commons is not subject to treasury board control, as are the staffs of every other department of government. That is the point I wish to make clear. Treasury board, of which I am chairman, and which is a committee of cabinet ministers, does exercise general financial supervision over expenditures and has control over the regular departments of government. But the House of Commons, and rightly so, has always been very jealous of its prerogatives and its control over its own staff. The committee of the house which considers these matters of establishment and the like is the internal economy commission, consisting of four cabinet ministers, of which I am one, and Mr. Speaker. It is a committee of the house, not a committee of the government; and Mr. Speaker is chairman. The estimates of expenditures of the house are presented by Mr. Speaker. The Clerk of the House in that respect occupies the same position as a deputy minister in a government department.
I have interjected this by way of explanation, because I think there is some misconception as to the government's responsibility for salaries and the like in the House of Commons. It is not the government's responsibility at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says this matter comes within the purview and responsibility of the House of Commons itself, not of the government. Does that mean that members of the House of Commons can propose salary increases or salary changes?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, I would assume so. I am not an expert on the rules, but I assume that is so.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Where would a private member of the house get with a motion to increase these salaries?


An hon. MEMBER:: Not very far.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps not very far; but that is-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the answer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a different matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We would be told that it involved increased expenditure and we would have to get approval either of the internal economy commission or of the treasury board itself.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think that is correct; that is completely incorrect. I take exception to that, and I think the Clerk of the House would sustain me in it. A member of the house who proposed a resolution for expenditures with respect to service of the house would not have to get permission from treasury board or from the government. He would not have to get permission of the internal economy commission. I may be wrong but I notice the Clerk is nodding his head, and I think I am right.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would the Speaker of the house not have to go before the Minister of Finance with his estimates?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Because it is in the minister's office that they are made. Suppose they are too high; would it not be up to the minister to cut them?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have no power to cut them.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But you would, though.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I could not.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You would have no power, but you would do it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have no power to cut them. All I am interested in is in putting this responsibility where it lies.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Passing the buck.


George Hugh Castleden: With respect to this item of 87,750,000 on freight assistance, will the minister make a statement as to what has

Ways and Means-Interim Supply
been used already out of this fund, and the quality of feed grains now in storage in the west and on the western farms which he expects to ship in using up this $7,750,000?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot give that information. As I said a minute ago, in passing interim supply the minister does not give that kind of information about expenditures. If he were to do so he would have to have with him the details of all the items. The invariable practice in interim supply, so far as my experience goes, is that we do not give details and members do not expect to receive detailed information on the items. That is all asked for when the main estimates are being considered. I shall be glad, therefore, to give the information when this item is reached in the main estimates. Or if my hon. friend wishes to have the information in the meantime. Of course I shall gladly get it for him. But if we were to attempt today to go into the details of all these matters-


George Hugh Castleden: The Minister of Agriculture is in his seat. Perhaps he would give us a brief statement as to how he expects to use the $7,750,000.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is an amount of $20,000,000 for the whole year. What is asked for here is to cover until July 31. It has already been announced that in the supplementary estimates provision will be made for the continuance of this form of assistance during the coming crop year. I cannot give further information now because I have not the details here.


George Hugh Castleden: The Minister of Agriculture is here, and he knows what was used last year.


Mr. GARDINER:: The Minister of Agriculture gave that information when his own estimates were under consideration the other night. It is on Hansard.


George Hugh Castleden: For the coming year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The explanation I have on that is this. The main estimates of course include provision only to the end of the present year, July 31. This will have the effect of concentrating the bulk of claims coming for payment into the -first quarter of the fiscal year. Those in April, May, June and July will require a substantial proportion of the vote at this time. That is what my officials, who watch the rate at which these moneys have to be paid out, inform me. In effect we are asking for what it is estimated will be required before the end of June to cover these items.


John Bracken: Mr. Chairman, since a matter having to do with employees of the House of Commons has been brought up, I wish to ask one question about it. The minister says this matter comes within the jurisdiction of the house as distinguished from the government itself. He has indicated that the body which represents the house in dealing with matters of this kind is the internal economy commission, of which he has told us he is a member. Reference has been made to certain reports tabled the other day, and a resolution on the order paper with respect to these officials. Certain salary increases have been proposed, and I have heard no opposition to those increases. There is in the minds of many members of the House of Commons the thought that some of the employees of the house have not had an increase within the last year. My question is this: Is it correct that certain employees of the House of Commons have not had an increase within the last year? If so, is it the intention of the internal economy commission or the government-and I fail to see much difference between the two, since that commission is made up of a number of government officials-to see that all employees, or those at least who have not had one, receive an increase this year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a question which, in the organization of the House of Commons, could more properly be put to Mr. Speaker. I cannot vouch for it, because it is not my department and not my responsibility, but I am informed that there is no employee. of the House of Commons who has not had an increase within approximately the last eighteen months or two years.


John Bracken: I suggest then, that the internal economy commission order an examination of these positions, because I am informed that increases have not been made to all these employees within the last year. I am informed also that the increases made to some within the last two years covered only the cost of living bonus. I ask that those who may not have received favourable consideration during the last twelve months be given that consideration.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have no doubt that Mr. Speaker will have taken note of my hon. friend's observations.


John Bracken: There is one other thing, if I may be permitted to bring it up at this time. There is a resolution before us with

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act
respect to this matter. When that resolution comes up for consideration, the freedom of the house will be greatly limited because we shall 'be asked only to approve a certain report. We shall not be going into committee where we could ask questions of any individual. If we hold to the rule we shall 'be able to speak only once, and the minister will be able to reply only at the end of the debate; there will be no questions at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: According to the Minister of Finance, we can move amendments.


John Bracken: I venture to say that we shall learn better when we come to deal with the motion which is now on the order paper.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 282, to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the other day when I asked to have the resolution advanced it was suggested to me that I should make a statement having to do with the level of the water in Long lake and with the dam which is being considered for the South Saskatchewan river. I would suggest that neither one of these matters is dealt with in the bill now before us, because the bill simply provides for the appointment of certain officials. However, I am quite willing to make a statement with regard to both these projects. If hon. members desire to ask questions at the time the statement is being made it might be better for us to go into committee although I am prepared to make the statement on second reading.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Go ahead and make the statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I suggested the other day, the bill contains only one section which provides:
The minister may appoint a director of rehabilitation and an associate director of rehabilitation, and such temporary technical and other officers and employees as he may deem necessary and expedient for carrying out the provisions of this act and the salaries and expenses of all persons appointed under this section shall be fixed by the governor in council.
That section, with the exception of the first two lines and the phrase, "persons appointed under this section" in the latter part of the section, is as it was in the original act. In other words, under the original act the mini-ter has the authority to appoint such temporary technical and other officers and employees as he may deem neceessary and expedient for carrying out the provisions of this act, and the salaries and expenses of all shall be fixed by the governor in council.
The reason for bringing this amendment before the house is that we desired to appoint as director of rehabilitation a gentleman who is a member of the civil service in the Department of Agriculture. Being a permanent appointee, he is entitled to certain superannuation rights which he has established over a long period of service. When this position was offered to him he said that he desired to maintain his present position in relation to superannuation. After considerable discussion and an examination into the means of bringing this about, this amendment was decided upon as being the reasonable way to do it. The minister would simply be given authority to appoint a person who would be permanent, that is, a person who is already a permanent member of the civil service.
It was decided at the same time that an associate director of rehabilitation should be appointed. This is necessary, partly because additional responsibilities have been added to the prairie farm rehabilitation organization through the estimates which were passed last year and which are before the house this session. Larger projects, such as the South Saskatchewan project and other activities, will be carried on, not only in the Palliser triangle but in other parts of Canada. It was felt that we should have here in the Department of Agriculture an official who would be in direct touch at all times with the director in Regina.
I was asked the other night who the individual would be. That has not been decided, but it is anticipated that he will be either a member of the civil service or someone who could qualify as a civil servant through service in some other office. Since the individual has not yet been selected, I am not able to give his name to the house. It is anticipated that when the appointment is made the person will be either in the same position as the director in relation to superannuation or be able to qualify to be placed in that position. If that is the case, then the appointment would be made under this amendment; but if that is

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act
not the case and if we go outside those who can qualify for the civil service to find someone, then he could be appointed under the terms of the act as it stood before this amendment is made. I think that is sufficient to explain the position in relation to the bill itself.
Since I stated the other evening that I would discuss the two other matters in question, I think I should do so at this time. The first has to do with the water levels in Long lake. As was stated by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) this is the largest body of water in the settled portion of Saskatchewan. The lake is about seventy miles long and from five to six miles wide at its widest parts. It stores a very considerable amount of water.
The lake is peculiarly situated, in that water runs into it from the Qu'Appelle river which is located about a mile or a mile and a half from the south end of the lake. Originally there was a natural stream which flowed from the Qu'Appelle river into the south end of Long lake. During the time of high water in the spring the water would run into the lake, but if the lake filled up above its natural level the water would flow out from the lake during the remaining part of the season until the level was brought down to the bottom of the old creek.
Some years ago a channel was constructed from the south end of the lake to the Qu'Appelle, and at the same time a dam was put in the Qu'Appelle river. That was done many years ago when the natural resources of the west were under the control of the federal government and before the province of Saskatchewan was formed. The dam which was put in the river at the south end of the lake was put there for the purpose of raising the level of Long lake in order that a boat could be operated on Long lake, and at that period a boat was operated on that lake, going north from Valeport. I have seen the boat often myself in the earlier days.
'As a result of putting the dam in the river and raising the water level of the lake, the parties who owned the flats at the south end of the lake took action against the federal government for having flooded their land, and my memory is that they secured damages in the amount of $50,000. From that time on, these lands were often flooded. They are natural hay lands, but they were flooded sometimes during a greater part of the season. That continued down until the drought period began in the latter part of the 1920's and the early 1930's. During that period I happened to be in the government of Saskatchewan, and a

damage suit was started against the federal government, because at that time the resources were still under its control, on account of the way in which the dam was being operated by Ottawa. In other words, it was maintained that in order to keep Long lake at a higher level than it otherwise would have been the dam was closed and the water was run into Long lake, and in the summer when hay should be growing on the flats below the dam the water was allowed to flood the flats, which, instead of growing hay, were growing what we called foxtail. So the owners down the valley started an action. About that time the operation of the dam was transferred from the interior department at Ottawa to the department of highways of Saskatchewan, to be operated in such a manner as to provide that the waters did not flood these lands at the WTong time. As a result of the transfer of the operation of the dam, the suit was not proceeded with.
A little later, 1931 to be exact, the natural resources were transferred to the province, and from that time on until P.F.R.A. took an interest in the levels of the lake the dam was operated by the department of highways of Saskatchewan. I think it is now operated under an arrangement between the department of highways at Regina and P.F.R.A., but latterly under the direction largely of P.F.R.A.
This spring, when word was coming through that there were considerable floods in western Canada as a result of the rapid thawing of snow toward the end of April, I wired the office at Regina, or had Mr. Stevenson wire the director of P.F.R.A. at Regina, as follows: Director P.F.R.A.
MeCallum Hill Bldg.
Regina, Sask.
Minister wishes assurance Craven dam being operated to divert flood waters to Long Lake. Please let us have brief report !by wire.
A. L. Stevenson.
Later that same day, April 28, we received this wire:
Moose Jaw, Sask.
April 28, 1948
A. L. Stevenson,
Office of Deputy Minister Department of Agriculture,
Ottawa.
Re telegram Craven dam being operated to divert all possible water to Long lake and we have purposely broken our Valeport dyke to permit free flo,w. Over four thousand acre feet entering daily and lake has already risen two and one-half feet over last year.
E. L. Gray,
Superintendent Water Development P.FRA..
After the discussion which took place here the other day, I again had Mr. Stevenson

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act .
wire the director of P.F.R.A. at Regina, under date of May 11, as follows:
Director, P.F.R.A.
910 McCallum Hill Building,
Regina, Saskatchewan
Please let us have a report for use of minister further to your wire of April twenty-eighth regarding level of Long lake. Advise if diversion continuing.
A. L. Stevenson.
We received this wire in reply, dated May 11:
A. L. Stevenson,
10 Confederation Bldg., Ottawa, Ontario
Re telegram diversion Long lake continuing at full capacity of C.P.R. structure at Valeport. Holding water very high in Craven Lumsden area to get full flow. Long lake rising steadily. Will give definite measurement during week.
E. L. Gray,
Superintendent of Water Development.
I then telephoned the office in Regina and said that definite measurement during the week would not be much help to us this afternoon in the house when we were discussing this matter, and that I had given the house an undertaking that I would give as definite information as possible before the bill was passed. As a result of that telephone conversation, I have this information:
Mr. Gray informs me that up to last night the water in Long lake had been raised over four feet above the level existing at the end of last season. The diversion is continuing and the water in the lake is being raised at the Tate of about one inch per day. It is expected that a further increase of at least one foot, andi possibly more, can be achieved. This means a net increase of at least five feet altogether.
When one remembers that Long lake is seventy miles long and five or six miles wide at some points one can understand that a very considerable amount of water ran into the lake this year in order to fill it up to that level. I would say, however, that not all the water came into the lake out of the Qu'Appelle river, because other streams all around run into the lake and these streams have, of course, been adding to the volume of water in the lake, but they at all times add all their water to that lake. The only place where we can control diversion into the lake is on the Qu'Appelle river, and I am sure it will be realized from what has been said that everything which could be done to raise the level of Long lake as a result of the operation of the dam has been done this year, and the result obtained is, I think, very satisfactory.


Mr. BURTON:: Can the minister say how much below the high level that still leaves the lake?


James Garfield Gardiner: Unfortunately I am not able to do that, but I wruld think it is getting back very close to what was the normal level; probably not up to what was the high level. At one time the level was down eight feet, and it may have been down ten feet at one time. But the level was increased somewhat last season, and five feet of water has been added again this year.
The other question raised1 had to do with expenditures on the South Saskatchewan. At the present time one is quite within the rules to discuss expenditures on the South Saskatchewan under the P.F.R.A. vote or in connection with legislation having to do with P.F.R.A. But so far as regards the future development of the South Saskatchewan, the building of the South Saskatchewan dam and everything that would go along with it, such works would not be carried on under votes for P.F.R.A.
The reason I say that the votes up to date would be votes which could quite properly be discussed under P.F.R.A. is that one of the functions of P.F.R.A. is to investigate all the possibilities within the P.F.R.A. area; that is, within the old Palliser triangle, and to report from time to time as to what those possibilities are. But the total amount which is voted for P.F.R.A. has never been more than $3,000,000 for what we generally call P.F.R.A. work. I think in one or two sessions $3,500,000 was voted, but $500,000 of it was for special work being carried on to demonstrate whether water could be pumped out of the Saskatchewan river and brought down to within eighteen miles of the city of Moose Jaw and stored in the sands there and utilized for city purposes later on. But this house has provided for expenditures under the act as originally drawn, and as it is still drawn, of about $3,000,000.
One of the investigational operations that has been carried on is to determine just what could be done with the waters of the South Saskatchewan river. We have been carrying on engineering investigations, beginning, so far as Saskatchewan is concerned, up on the Alberta boundary line. As a matter of fact, we carried on investigations farther west than that, but the investigations that we are concerned about in so far as the bridge north of Swift Current is concerned, and so far as the dam farther down the Saskatchewan river is concerned, started at the Alberta boundary line, and we have investigated two or three different possibilities. One is the matter of pumping water out of the Saskatchewan river at different points and irrigating table land areas similar to that which has been irrigated

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act
just west of Medicine Hat, where a very-considerable area is irrigated by the pumping of water up a hundred feet or so and then distributing it over a table land, which is only part way up toward the height of land at the top of the valley.
We did make examinations all along the Saskatchewan river in an effort to determine at how many points a similar type of irrigation could be carried on. While we were doing that, we made investigations by boring as to possible sites for a dam. As a result of these investigations we have located ten possible sites, and these are indicated on a map. I think we have spent about 8250,000 in boring holes and carrying on investigational work at these different sites. Eventually we came to the conclusion that there are only two places at which a dam could be built which could serve the purpose of most people who discuss the possibility of a dam there of any kind. One is near Outlook, which I think is numbered S, and the other is near the mouth of Coteau creek which is numbered 10 on the plan. No. 10 is the site which has been reported most favourably upon; but there is no engineer who, up to the present moment, will take the responsibility for saying that there is no possibility of making any mistake in building a dam at that site. Therefore the borings are still going on.
The report which was tabled in the house during the last session, and a copy of which I have before me, is noted as an interim report on the South Saskatchewan river development, It will be noted that it is not a final report; it is an interim report. This interim report shows that all the information which they have been able to gain up to the present would indicate that a dam could be built near the mouth of Coteau creek, and it would serve certain purposes. The information which the report contains is to the effect that if [DOT] borings demonstrate that the formations below are what they have reason now to believe they are, it will be possible to build a dam there very much of the same type of construction and with the same kind of materials as dams have been constructed on the Missouri river in the United States at two or three different points.
It is said that the dam ought to be about 210 feet high. From the bottom of the river basin as it now is to the top of the dam would be about 210 feet. It is said that if we built a dam that high we would still have to do some pumping in order to get water out for irrigation purposes in certain areas; but that a dam built that high would be 120 feet higher than the embankment along the river

which separates the South Saskatchewan river from the Qu'Appelle river valley. The distance from the South Saskatchewan to the Qu'Appelle is only a matter of some two miles. Therefore, if the dam were built 210 feet high the water level would be such that at least half of the water intended to be stored would go naturally down the Qu'Appelle and would not remain in the Saskatchewan at all. Not only must there be a dam built across the Saskatchewan river of a very considerable size and at great cost, but there would have to be a dam built along the east bank of the Saskatchewan river in order to prevent the waters going out, excepting under regulation, into the Qu'Appelle. It is said that if we were to build these structures the cost would be in the neighbourhood of $66,000,000. It is also said that the lake which would be created would be probably 145 miles long, and that it would be of varying widths, depending upon the widths of the Saskatchewan river valley. It would flood a very considerable area of land which is now being cultivated, and it would cause some persons to be moved from the valley up onto the higher lands. Further all the expenses in connection with this matter and the construction of the dam would total somewhere in the neighbourhood of $66,000,000.
As a result of building a dam of that kind, the water level just north of Swift Current where the ferry now is, at what is known as Saskatchewan Landing, would be raised to a level which would be some fifty-three feet above its present level. And it is at a point, at Saskatchewan Landing, where the ferry now is, that the Saskatchewan government desires to build a bridge. That bridge has been under discussion for many years. One has only to look at the area to see that the railways have been built up to the river or toward the river, from both the north side and the south side, but that no railway or traffic bridge has been built across the river at that point. The question that has been under discussion for some considerable time is as to whether the people who live on the two sides of the river should be asked to utilize the ferry until such time as the railway was prepared to join the provincial government at this point in doing what they have done at many other points in building a bridge across the river.
My understanding is that the people have become a little tired of waiting. They think the time has been too long already. They think a traffic bridge ought to be built. I understand that all groups who are discussing the matter are pretty well agreed that a traffic bridge ought to be built. The question that is under discussion out there at the

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act
moment is, should it be built for an increased water level of fourteen feet or an increased -water level of fifty-three feet? The 14-foot level only became a matter of discussion when we were talking about another dam site. As I stated, there are ten of them. There was a time when we had a report which indicated that if we built a dam of a certain kind at a certain place the level would be raised fourteen feet. And it was on that assumption that plans were laid out for the building of a bridge which would provide for a water level fourteen feet higher than the present level.
I am sorry I am not in a position, and I do not think anyone is in a position, to state at this moment whether the large project which I have outlined in a few words, which would cost approximately 866,000,000, will be undertaken, and how soon it will be undertaken. The only thing I can state at the moment is that no project of that kind can be undertaken inside two years. It cannot be started inside two years. The reason is that all the best engineers we can employ tell us it has taken at least that long, in connection with all the large United States projects, to make the final decision, because of the borings that must be made. And they would not undertake to recommend to the government, until after two more seasons of investigational work had been carried on, whether that is the proper site at which to build a dam, and whether we should proceed on the basis that has been discussed up to the moment.
All I can say that is definite at the moment is that we are told by the engineers that it will take two years, this year and another, in order to examine fully into the possibility of constructing a dam at that location and keeping it there after it is built. The question as to whether they can make it stay or not does not depend on anything you can see at the surface. They have to bore some 200 feet at many points, extending back east and west from the river and in the basin of the river itself, in order to determine whether we can make the dam stay there.
So we have five or six outfits drilling holes and keeping records as to what the nature of the area is below where the dam is to be built, and as this dam would be a very considerable structure it will take some time. The shortest time in which it can be efficiently done-completed rather, because much of it has been done-would ;be this year and one more year.
What I wanted to point out was that until the end of that time these engineers are employed under the P.F.R.A. vote; but if at the end of that time the report is that this
is a proper site and that the dam might be built there, this government would consider proceeding with construction. After the federal government has so decided, we must then deal with three provincial governments. I have been dealing with them for the last year with regard to this structure and others, and in that time I have discovered some of the difficulties. I am going to give them to the house in order to indicate that we cannot speed these things up just as much as some of us would like to have them speeded up. Three provinces are concerned.
All these rivers we are discussing-the Red Deer, the Bow, the Saskatchewan, the Red, the Assiniboine, the Souris-are in the Nelson river 'basin. They all have their origin out-near the Rocky mountains or in them, in the province of Alberta, with the exception of the Souris, the Red and the Assiniboine. These rivers have their origin either in the province of Saskatchewan or down in the United States, but the larger streams all have their origin in the province of Alberta.
The province of Alberta is interested in retaining as much of the water as it is entitled to in the province, because I presume there are just as great acreages-I think I am right in saying there are just as great acreages-which could be irrigated in Alberta as there are in Saskatchewan, while there are lesser areas in Manitoba which might be benefited by irrigation. And so Alberta is interested in one thing, namely utilizing as much of the water as it is entitled to.
At the other extreme you have the province of Manitoba. They are interested in two or three things. The first is to see that lakes Manitoba and Winnipeg and other smaller lakes are kept at the proper level. They are as much interested in that as the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) is in keeping up the level of Long lake, and therefore they must be consulted before we dam up any of these streams and make these large lakes we are talking about.
Not only that, but they say they are now reaching the point where the development of power is their main consideration, and the only place they can go, in order to develop additional power to what they now know of down in the south, is up north at the mouth of the Saskatchewan river. Therefore they are interested in what we do back along that river.
We have tried to have this matter settled by setting up a board. That board was proposed a year ago. We drew up an order in
3896

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act
council here and presented it to the three provinces, suggesting that each of the provinces appoint its chief engineer, and we would appoint one from the P.F.R.A. and one from Mines and Resources. This board of five would divide these waters and say that we must allow a certain number of gallons to flow over the boundary of Alberta into Saskatchewan, and then allow a certain number of gallons to flow out of Saskatchewan into Manitoba.
We thought that board would be quite satisfactory, but we found that the provinces were not altogether agreeable. They thought the recommendations of the board ought to go back to the governments. We next attempted to have the provision of the veto apply, so as to allow a representative of one province to veto the decision.


John George Diefenbaker: Who were the members of the board?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has not yet been set up. The proposal was that we have a board. I may say, though, that the order provides that the provinces name their men, and we presumed they would appoint the chief engineer in each province; and it is the chief engineers who have been discussing the matter with us. We suggested that the decision ought to be unanimous, and that was acceptable to both Saskatchewan and Alberta but not to Manitoba. So ten days ago, when the premiers of the provinces were here, I had them together and they brought along with them some of their officials. We discussed the question again, and I think we finally agreed on a kind of board which will be satisfactory to all of us. The provision to be made is that this board can only recommend; it cannot decide anything.
In other words, the board will meet and figure out what they think the division of water ought to be among the three provinces, and an order in council will have to be passed by each of the provinces and by the federal government before we are in a position to proceed with any of these matters. I hope that it is not going to take too long, but I am not in a position to tell the house how long it will take. I think the engineers are in a position to say what amount of water has flowed from one province into another over a long period of time, and I hope that within a short time they will be able to recommend what they think ought to be allowed.
When they have made that recommendation I hope that the provincial governments and the federal government will be able to pass, as soon as possible, orders in council which will put the results of their investigations into

effect. After they are put into effect, of course each one of the projects will have to be again agreed upon, and we shall be required to demonstrate to the provinces concerned that we have so built these structures as to permit of the agreed upon proportion of the water passing from one province into another.
I need only to remind hon. members again that if we build this dam 210 feet high on the Saskatchewan-it is 120 feet above the level at which the waters go into the Qu'Appelle; the waters that go into the Qu'Appelle go into the Assiniboine; and the Assiniboine has been flooding the city of Brandon and the city of Portage during this season-that Manitoba is somewhat concerned about what we do.


James Arthur Ross: And the Souris river.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then there are others who are concerned. So I do not think we can rush these projects through as fast as some hon. members were suggesting the other day. A great many people will be concerned about this. I can agree that Mr. Thomson, the gentleman who has been chosen as director, will get the whole matter straightened out as soon as anyone could get it straightened1 out. All I can say is that we shall proceed1 with the task just as rapidly as we can, but I am not able to tell the house when we shall be able to start to build the dam.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure the house has listened, Mr. Speaker, with interest to the minister's recital in connection with the projected dam on the Saskatchewan river. That is a matter of interest not only to the people of Saskatchewan but to the people throughout western Canada in general.
First I want to thank him for what he has told the house about what the P.F.R.A. department has done during the current year to maintain the level of Long lake, also known as Last Mountain lake. As he pointed out, this is the largest body of water in central Saskatchewan.
I now wish to refer to the Saskatchewan river project, the one to which he devoted a large portion of his remarks. That project has been a dream in the minds of the western farmers for a great many years. As far back as 1854 when Captain Palliser made his expedition which resulted in the finding of Kicking Horse pass, it was realized that there were areas of what are now Saskatchewan and Alberta which might never be utilized for farm purposes.
Only recently I was reading the diaries of Captain Palliser wherein he pointed out that a large area of what are now the western

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act
provinces-from a point at Emerson in Manitoba, thence by a direct line to a point that is now Lloydminster; thence in a direct line to what is now Macleod-was an area so arid that he doubted whether it would ever be settled. The last survivor of the Palliser expedition, John Moberly of Prince Albert, who was water-boy with the expedition, some fifteen or eighteen years ago told me that as that expedition crossed the great western plains in 1854, they never believed that it would ever be settled. It was dry as a desert. However, it was settled. The history of that area has been that over periods of eight, nine and ten years, there has been good production followed by periods of similar length wherein drought has all but destroyed the hopes of the people living there; yet they have stayed on and continued to live there, hoping for a diminution in the length of these periods of drought or hoping that, with the passing of the years, the rainfall would not be as uncertain as in the past.
The project has been a dream. I know the interest shown by the minister. But as I listened to him, I could not but conclude that he was doubtful whether the building of a dam either at Outlook or at Coteau creek will be achieved within the immediate future. Indeed, on occasion when he has been speaking to western organizations, service clubs and the like, I have detected a higher degree of optimism as to this project than I did in his remarks today.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have never put it at less than twelve years.


John George Diefenbaker: We would not have long to wait if the minister was in a position now to say that this project will be undertaken if it is found to be feasible, and if the engineering reports are favourable to its continuance. The residents of large areas of Saskatchewan that are subject to drought have had held out to them that, with the building of a dam, an area of about 500,000 acres would, as a result of irrigation, have its productivity increased considerably. I have looked up some of the figures in connection with production being materially increased by irrigation. They establish that if this plan could be evolved-and it requires vision and the enlistment of the support of the people in all parts of Canada-it would mean a national investment. Even though the cost be
863.300,000,	it would pay dividends far beyond the amount of the expenditure. I am one of those who do not believe in coming before the government and asking for expenditures while at the same time asking for a reduction in taxation. But this type of national work is 5849-247i
of such a character that if it can be carried into effect, I believe it will mean the salvation of large areas in western Canada, and will assure the return of dividends nationally.
I think a word should be said with regard to what has been done by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) in connection with irrigation, not only in Saskatchewan but generally throughout Canada. He has travelled over large portions of this dominion and has drawn the picture of what a great irrigation plan would mean in the national development of our country.
When this dam is built on the Saskatchewan river, thus bringing hope to areas which, were it not for the spirit of the people, would long since have been vacated, I trust the minister will give consideration to naming the danl after the hon. member for Davenport, whose contribution has meant so much, and who has impressed the people of Canada with the need of this and other national self-liquidating projects.
As to the advantages of irrigation, I find that in Alberta in respect of ten areas, over the ten-year period between 1936 and 1945 the average yield in the non-irrigated areas of a similar kind and with similar soil texture was 8-1 bushels per acre, while the yield in the irrigated areas was 19-8 bushels.
Canada has not as yet achieved the vision of the need for irrigation which has caught the imagination of the people of the United States. Our total acreage under irrigation is only
750,000	acres, while in the United States it is about 28,000,000 acres, and in the U.S.S.R., which has only recently undertaken irrigation development on a large scale, the number of acres is 8,000,000.
I wish now to refer to a brief submitted to the government in December last by an organization known as the South Saskatchewan river development association. In its brief it asks for co-operation of the provinces. As I listened to the minister pointing out the difficulties inherent in a matter of this kind, I felt that he could hasten along a higher degree of agreement than has been experienced here before, were he to ask for and secure the setting up of committees on water conservation and irrigation, representative of boards of trade, chambers of commerce, rural municipalities and civic organizations in the three western provinces. There is agreement among such representative people as to the necessity of having something done. Public opinion resulting therefrom will bring agreement from any governments which at present are averse to participation in a scheme which in part may mean a loss to them of some water resources.
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act


James Garfield Gardiner: May I make that, clear?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: We can utilize only the funds provided under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act for work up to that time. When we have passed that point, and it is decided to igo ahead, we shall have to get funds under the reconstruction vote, but the work will probably be done by the prairie farm rehabilitation engineers following that.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister for his explanation, but I would point out that some years ago when iC dam was built at Saskatoon costing some $290,000 it was shown as coming out of P.F.R.A.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it did not; there was an extra amount of money voted for the storage of water.


John George Diefenbaker: It is shown as one of the P.F.R.A. projects in the report of the minister of March 31, 1947.


James Garfield Gardiner: The listing of it is for water storage.


John George Diefenbaker: It sets out the projects under P.F.R.A. I was particularly struck with the fact that it sets out the Saskatoon dam and concrete weir across the Saskatchewan river, 1940, $290,446.

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act


James Garfield Gardiner: Both the Saskatchewan river dam at Saskatoon and the project at Moose Jaw were constructed under a special vote of $500,000 which was added to the amount voted for P.F.R.A.


John George Diefenbaker: But made under
P.F.R.A. and reported as such.


James Garfield Gardiner: In that sense this probably will be, too.


John George Diefenbaker: The question as to whether expenditures will be made by P.F.R.A. or otherwise is not one of serious moment. I do not think the minister, in what he said, holds out the hope that the people of western Canada expect. He has spoken at full length and most frankly. In spite of the arguments over water levels that are taking place regarding the bridge at Swift Current, the minds of the people in Saskatchewan are made up that this project must be undertaken.
Excuses for delay will not be accepted. As far back as 1943 Mr. George Spence, the former director, gave evidence before the reconstruction committee of the House of Commons. He was speaking with a vast experience behind him, and he said that $111 million should be spent on water development in the west. He outlined a plan which he thought was necessary to the development, not only of western Canada but of Canada as a whole.
This project may seem to be a great one' in so far as cost is concerned. Sixty-six million dollars is a large amount of money. However, if the plan is feasible it will mean dividends to the Canadian people. It will mean that large expenditures now being made today under P.F.A.A. will no longer be necessary. It will mean that areas which have been submarginal will become productive as have similar areas in the United States and in other parts of Canada where irrigation has been introduced. It will mean new hope to tens of thousands of people in the area which would be served by this dam. Fifty-three per cent of the population of Saskatchewan live within a radius of 125 miles of either of the suggested sites.
This is not a purely provincial matter. This matter is as national in scope as the building of canals in Ontario, Quebec or the maritimes. It is as national in scope as any project that can be brought before the Canadian parliament.


Mr. H. R. ARGUE (Wood Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I think we were all glad to hear the minister give his explanation this afternoon in regard to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and possible irrigation developments.
I am sure the members of this group will go along with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the demand he has made that something be done in the near future to irrigate those areas which it is feasible to irrigate.
As has been said before, the director of rehabilitation, Mr. L. B. Thomson, is an energetic and capable man. In my discussions with people in Saskatchewan who are trained in agricultural matters, I have always heard him spoken of most highly. The hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley) and the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) are not able to be present this afternoon as they are attending committee meetings, but I know they are interested in what is to be done in connection with the development of the South Saskatchewan river to provide irrigation and an adequate water supply for Moose Jaw and Regina.
The discussion so far has been centred around irrigation, but it seems to me that the purpose of P.F.R.A. should be broader than that. Irrigation is only one method of land use. We need legislation and aid, so that all our land may be put to the best use. The other day I was reading a publication which stated that eastern Canada had lost 4,000,000 acres of land that was once arable. Soil erosion due to water and wind is a grave problem. The United States estimate that they have permanently lost 50,000,000 acres of land because the soil has been badly eroded. It is estimated that an additional 50,000,000 acres of land have been severely damaged.
I should like to see incorporated in the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act provisions for payments to farmers for certain agricultural practices. In the 'United States payments are made for contour cultivation, regrassing and certain other agricultural practices, and I believe it is time that similar payments were made in this country. There is danger of our losing more land through improper agricultural practices than we could gain under adequate irrigation developments.
I believe Mr. Thomson will be a good man for the job, but I am wondering if the job will be good enough for the man. On many occasions Mr. Thomson has advocated that more money be spent, so that the land in this great nation may be better used and made more productive.
The P.F.R.A. estimates are the same this year as last, but last year provision was made in another place for the possible expenditure of $5,000,000 on irrigation developments. That particular sum has been cut to $1,000,000 this year. There has been an increase this year

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act
over last of approximately $700,000 which may be used on the St. Mary river dam project. So that if we compare the total provision for irrigation and P.F.R.A. this year and last year, there is some $3,300,000 less this year. It can easily be seen therefore that the government is not in earnest in trying to bring under irrigation land that it is feasible to irrigate. Instead the minister announces that it will take another two years.
I have here a report of the Saskatchewan reconstruction council in 1944, based on evidence given to the council by Mr. George Spence, who was then with the P.F.R.A. In their report they then came to the conclusion that certain projects are feasible. But now, four years later, this government is still in no position to tell the people of western Canada whether or not further irrigation projects will be undertaken.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may interject, today I was discussing only two questions. One was the level of Long lake, and the other the South Saskatchewan river project. We have had two or three others under way since four years ago.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think the minister will agree that the total amount available for expenditure on all these projects this year is less than the amount available for expenditure last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be more than has ever been spent before. It is increasing all the time.


Hazen Robert Argue: There was provision for
15,000,000 in the estimates of the reconstruction department last year, if approved by the treasury board.


James Garfield Gardiner: What it stated was that there was an amount of $5,000,000 under reconstruction upon which we could draw. The amount that we have estimated we shall draw this year is $1,000,000. Last year we did not draw $1,000,000 or $5,000,000.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is the point I have been making, that last year there was an allocation of $5,000,000, and this year it is only $1,000,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: Upon which we can draw.


Hazen Robert Argue: But in this year's estimates it says, "subject to allocation by the treasury board." It is still subject to allocation this year, and our hope of getting an adequate amount of money is a whole lot less this year because there is $4,000,000 less to draw upon.

There has been a good deal of talk in the past of a bridge to be built over the South Saskatchewan river north of Swift Current. I think the federal government should be willing to provide some money for the building of this bridge, and not wish, as the minister stated, to leave it to the railways and provincial governments. The federal government provided for the settlement of people in that area of southern Saskatchewan. They have need of that bridge, and I think this government is responsible for providing money so that the bridge can be built.
The minister explained that he would have to take into consideration the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba in relation to the quantities of water that might be dammed in the province of Saskatchewan or in any other province. That certainly needs to be considered and a fair distribution should be made; but when the minister states that a dam cannot be undertaken until the reports are made, which will take at least two years, and that in the meantime the provinces must be got together, and that it will cost $66,000,000, for which no provision has been made and no guarantee can be given that the money will be spent, it seems to me that the government is not taking irrigation seriously at all.
This government can tackle any problem within the Dominion of Canada within its own jurisdiction and, I believe, can solve that problem within a reasonable period of time; and if it takes so much money over a period of two years to decide whether this particular dam or that particular project is feasible, I say that if the minister would spend twice as much money in one year he would probably arrive at the same result. The government should go ahead and spend the necessary money and provide irrigation instead of continuing to examine the feasibility one year after another, holding the carrot on the stick in front of the farmers of western Canada for a period of years and years.
Irrigation can increase the productivity of our soil tremendously. It has been estimated that up to 3,000,000 acres can be irrigated in western Canada. That amount of land would provide a good livelihood for thousands of farmers and increase the agricultural production of this country tremendously. It has often been said but it cannot be said too often that agriculture is our basic industry and that the prosperity of Canada depends on the prosperity of agriculture. If the government will take the matter of irrigation seriously and undertake the irrigation of tracts of land up to 3,000,000 acres it would thereby, I am sure, increase the prosperity of agriculture, which

* Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act
would in turn increase the prosperity of Canada and help all our people.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, this prairie farm rehabilitation bill gives the minister power to appoint a director of rehabilitation, an associate director and other officers and employees and provides that the director and associate director may come within the pension provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act, with the approval of the treasury board. That was also done in another department with our ambassadors. They were given a pension and all that kind of thing. But I suppose these are "ambassadors of agriculture".
I cannot understand, as I travel about the country and look at our many idle Ontario farms why we cannot have a farm rehabilitation act applicable to Ontario. I believe in equality of treatment, and what is good for one province is good for another, following the old Cornish battle-cry, "Each for all and all for each". That is the principle underlying confederation. I see in Ontario, as I travel on the train, a great many farms which need rehabilitation, and they cannot get it.
The time has come when Ontario farmers should get some consideration, since this is concurrent jurisdiction, federal and provincial, because the consolidated revenue fund will be charged with this, and it will come out of the cash taxes of Canada. The two central provinces are paying over 72 per cent of the cash taxes. That is where the money will come from, and from the consolidated revenue fund. I am not objecting to the prairies getting everything they can, because I believe that they do need real assistance in this form and others. This is a protectionist doctrine of bonuses, subventions and subsidies, which the present minister, as a former free trader, opposed for many years. The government are now adopting all kinds of protectionist policies.
The time has come when there should be reciprocity in connection with rehabilitation of farms in this country. Dear knows in Ontario a great deal of rehabilitation is long over-due. It was held up because of the war and other conditions. I do hope that at the next session this act as to rehabilitation of farms will be made to apply to the industrial provinces and other parts of the country which need at once similar aid and help.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, before the house decides upon the principle of this bill by giving second reading to it, I wish to say a few words, which may not come within the exact terms of the bill
itself, but have to do with the principle involved. I think I have the right to do this on second reading.
The whole question of prairie farm rehabilitation is one which has been endorsed in principle in this house time after time for the very good reason that the work is necessary. Much of the work that has been done has been a great boon to western Canada. Coming from another part of the dominion, I also want to endorse the principle of prairie farm rehabilitation. I have never spoken on this subject before in the House of Commons, and I am not going to speak at any length this afternoon, but I want to point out one thing that logically follows what the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has just said.
I understand that in the eastern part of Canada we are to have an extension of the prairie farm rehabilitation principle. With that I am in entire agreement. Those of us who have seen the maritime marshlands and the need for some attention and government assistance will be of only one voice with respect to that proposal.
I want to point out to the minister and to the government that there is another problem facing many municipalities at the present time. Some of these municipalities are in my constituency, and because of that I have knowledge of it. In my part of the country it is not a question of where you are to find water, but what you are to do at times with the water that you have. The flood control problem this year has aroused the keenest kind of interest and concern in many parts of Ontario. I am not suggesting that it is not a matter of importance in other parts of Canada as well; but I want to point out to the minister, and particularly to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), who is in his place, and under whose jurisdiction this matter would normally come, that flood control is a serious matter in our province.
In Ontario in recent years legislation was passed dealing with the question of conservation. With the question of conservation is tied up the whole matter of flood control. In that legislation, which I am not going to place on Hansard because I am interested only in the principle of the thing, passed by the provincial government-a very advanced piece of legislation, which one would expect from a government in Ontario; by the way, it was unanimously supported by all parties in the legislature when it was introduced-provision was made that, in any area in Ontario where the question of flood control was an important one or the conservation of our natural resources was involved, the munici-

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act
palities which were closely connected with the area affected could set up what was known as a conservation authority.
The cost of such schemes of conservation and flood control was to be borne on a particular basis. The basis was this: 25 per cent to be put up by the municipalities involved, 37* per cent by the provincial government and 37J per cent by the dominion. The provincial government set as a condition of their putting up 371 per cent, and the municipalities as well, that they would be helped to the extent of 37^ per cent by the dominion government. In some instances, not many, these authorities have been set up. Certainly in the instance with respect to which I am going to speak, that of the Etobicoke conservation authority, it was properly set up.
Before the plan was finally put into operation, we had one of the most disastrous floods that have ever affected our part of the province in many years. I wish to point out that in my own town of Brampton the floods descended upon us in a way that we have never had before. The damage in the business section of that town of over 6,000 people amounted to over half a million dollars. Those of us who went to see the damage and the site after the flood realized that losses of that kind were beyond the capacity of an ordinary municipality to stand. Certainly in the case of that municipality the damage is so great that we shall be some time in getting over it.
To divert the Etobicoke river at that particular point would cost a considerable amount of money. Depending upon the plans which have been prepared by the department of planning and development of the provincial government, and which have been approved by them, I think, the cost would run more than $360,000 for one plan and nearly $750,000 for another to divert the Etobicoke river.
As soon as this matter came up, the difficulty we faced was that, while the provincial government was prepared to put up 37i per cent and the municipalities involved were prepared to give their share, the dominion government was not anxious to bear its share of the cost. The minister and I are too good friends for us to have a personal quarrel about a matter of this kind. He has been most courteous. His reception of the delegates who came here left nothing to be desired, but I wish to point out that from the standpoint of the policy of the government I think it is wrong. Before the government goes any further, it should announce a policy with respect to these control and conservation authority schemes and not allow the province of Ontario to have to bear the entire cost of the whole

75 per cent of the flood control scheme. If there ever was a reasonable case presented, and one that ought to have commended itself to the administration, this was one. I know the government takes this position: We are not interested in, nor have we any jurisdiction over, waters that are not navigable; why, therefore, should we have any part in this?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I think it is my duty to point out to him that the question before the house is a bill to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, and I do not consider his present remarks relevant to the bill.


Gordon Graydon: 
Mr. J. A. CHARLTON (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without thoroughly endorsing what has been said by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) and the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon).


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if we are to have a debate on flood conditions, a question that has nothing to do with the 'bill before the house, I shall have to take part in the debate, and I do not think I could do so and be in order. The subject raised by the hon. member for Peel is not at all relevant to the principle of the appointment of a director of prairie farm rehabilitation. I cannot see the relationship at all. I have listened attentively to the hon. member. I said we would give unanimous consent to the statement of his grievance. He said he would like to know whether the government would decide upon some policy in these matters of flooding, and he described the conditions in his districts, but I am sure he was absolutely out of order.


James Horace King: As the minister has
properly observed, the discussion that has been taking place is irrelevant. The title of the bill is clear. "An act to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act." I would refer the hon. member also to what is set out in the explanatory notes:
The minister may appoint temporary technical, professional and other officers and employees as he may deem necessary and expedient for carrying out the provisions of this act and the salaries and expenses of such officers shall be fixed by the governor in council.
The object of the bill is to authorize the minister to appoint certain officers, and I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks to that principle.


John Alpheus Charlton: I think I can do that, Mr. Speaker. I was going to make certain remarks on the principle of the bill; but, having heard the hon. member for Broadview and the hon. member for Peel speaking of the Ontario flood situation, which is quite serious in many localities, and in view of the fact that the Grand river, which has been mentioned, is in my riding, I thought I would refer to that question briefly. However, if Your Honour rules that I cannot do so at this time I shall confine my remarks to the principle of the bill.
I was going to wait until the bill had gone into committee to ask the minister a few 5849-248
questions, but on reading the bill and comparing it with the original bill passed in 1935, it strikes me that we are going rather far with respect to the authority of ministers to make appointments, as for instance in the case of crown companies. It might be all right for the minister to appoint temporary employees, but I do not think it is right for him to make appointments outside the civil service commission under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act so far as permanent employees are concerned.
This is a precedent, applicable perhaps to this one particular person, and possibly the best way in this case. But the minister himself said this afternoon that the bill was being drawn up for that simple purpose and, notwithstanding that, in another part of his speech-if I am wrong I would ask him to correct me-he said the associate director also might be appointed outside the civil service commission.


James Garfield Gardiner: The act is in that form now. I could select both the director and the associate from anywhere in Canada, including the civil service, but if they were selected from within the service they would not be entitled to superannuation. That is what the bill deals with.


John Alpheus Charlton: The bill provides that the minister may appoint a director of rehabilitation and an associate director of rehabilitation, and the present section provides that the minister may appoint such temporary technical, professional and other officers and employees.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is only temporary in the legal sense. Mr. Spence, who was the original director, was appointed ten or twelve years ago under that provision and was director until he was put on the international commission. I could appoint anyone else in just the same way, with whatever salary the governor in council decided he should have, whether he was in the civil service or outside.


John Alpheus Charlton: Under the bill the minister may appoint a director and an associate director of rehabilitation. That means not only this particular appointment but any future appointment, should the person now to be appointed pass away. It is left entirely in the hands of the minister who that director and associate director shall be. They are permanent employees, and I do not agree with the principle of making these appointments absolutely outside the civil service commission, when similar positions have to go through the commission. I do not think the principle is a good one.
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was on another committee when the bill first came up, and I do not know that anyone has said anything about the former director. At any rate, I should like to say a word about him.
The former director of the prairie farm rehabilitation program, Mr. George Spence of Regina, is now engaged, I believe, on another government program in connection with the St. Mary river, the Belly river, the Waterton river and the rivers flowing into southern Alberta from the United States. On that he will do a fine job, for in all my experience I have never met a man who was more interested in his work, and more sincere in carrying it out than George Spence was in the direction of the prairie farm rehabilitation program. I have been all over the province of Saskatchewan with him or his engineers, and I have also been in Alberta with one or other of them. Everywhere I went I found them spoken, of in the highest regard. I found everywhere that everybody looked up to George Spence for advice and information and the promotion of prairie farm rehabilitation. I was sorry when I read that he had been moved from his post as director to the post to which he has been appointed. But I know he will do a grand job in his new post. From all I can hear about the man who has taken his place, he, too, will do a grand job in the prairie farm rehabilitation program. I believe I met him on a trip I made to the experimental farm at Swift Current. I took to him right away as a sincere and honest man, and that is the type of man I like to work with in supporting any program.
As Your Honour knows, I have been a warm supporter and advocate of prairie farm rehabilitation and I propose to continue as one. I felt it was up to me, having had so much to do with George Spence-inasmuch as nothing had been said about him; and I know the minister could say a great deal more than I can-just to express, as a member of this house, my appreciation of the grand job of work that was performed by a member of the staff of the prairie farm rehabilitation program.
I am not going to talk about the other matter that was under review when I came into the house, namely flood control. I will just say this, your own province, Your Honour, can do with a great deal of flood control. There are some fine rivers in that province, because I have surveyed many of them. On an appropriate occasion I will support a program of flood control all over Canada.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: The east central part of Alberta, Mr. Speaker, has a great interest in prairie farm rehabilitation.

Many small dug-outs and dams have been completed. Unfortunately this spring, owing to the heavy run-offs, a large number of dams have apparently been washed out, creeks and rivers have flooded and this water has been lost. Yet in a few weeks now, no doubt, if history repeats itself, a great deal of this land will be parched severely and in need of water.
For many years in that part of the country there has been a great deal of interest in a project which is now known as the Red Deer diversion project.
Some two years ago the minister informed us in this house that the surveys had been completed and were being placed before a competent engineer for investigation; and that then, if the report was satisfactory, the government would be ready to go ahead with construction. I remember that at that time he stated that he did not know whether it would be possible to let a contract for construction that year, and that it might have to wait until next year. That was two years ago; and now, two years later, we seem to be farther off than ever. Now it is not a question of the contract being let this year. It is a question if we get the scheme through in maybe three or four years from now. Now we seem to be running into trouble with the water board. The three provinces apparently cannot agree among themselves. I do not want for one minute to give the impression that we in Alberta want to hog the water from these rivers. The waters we would be using would be flood waters, and I understand that the mean flow of the rivers would not be changed. It would not be a question of taking the water away from any other province. We would be merely conserving the water that would be otherwise lost.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is right.


Victor Quelch: I understand from the minister now that Alberta and Saskatchewan have pretty well reached accord with the federal government.


James Garfield Gardiner: In Manitoba too. They are not in agreement with what we wanted to do, but we have compromised with them. We have agreed, and are trying to get along.


Victor Quelch: Can I now say that the situation, in so far as the Red Deer diversion is concerned, is that just as soon as St. Mary river project has been carried out and the additional dams on the Bow river project are completed, there is every good reason to believe that the federal government will be able to go ahead with the Red Deer diversion scheme? Is that a fair statement?

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it would be better to answer questions in committee. I may say that we have gone a little farther than the hon. member is suggesting. This year we are putting in a dam which will serve about
7,000	acres in that area.


Victor Quelch: Yes. But that has nothing to do with the Red Deer diversion.


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be part of it.


Victor Quelch: ' It is merely surface run-off water, is it not? It has nothing to do with damming that river.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is part of the same project.


Victor Quelch: A very small part.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


John Alpheus Charlton: On division.


James Horace King: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Officers and employees.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to ask the minister a question. I imagine there is only the one section to the whole business. It has to do with this controversy that has been going on especially between the hon. member for Brant and the minister about the appointment of other officials than the one mentioned, namely the director. Suppose, shall we say, laymen-that is, officials-are appointed in the future who are not under the civil service at the present time. Does that mean that a pension is provided for them, that they are superannuated apart from the civil service? I am not just clear on that section.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no other official affected by this at all, except the one official that is now in and one new one. That is, the director has been Mr. Spence; and we are replacing him by Mr. Thomson, who is already a civil servant. The amendment affects only that appointment and one other appointment which we have not had in the past; we have not had the position of associate in the past. That will be the associate director who will be located at Ottawa. The position taken by the hon. member for Brant who spoke a moment ago was, I think, that if at some future date we appointed some other person who was not a civil servant, he would by that appointment become a civil servant. I think, strictly speaking, maybe that would be correct. But he would not be entitled to any super-5849- 248*
annuation for any past service at all. If he became a civil servant he might become entitled to superannuation to the extent that he earned it. That is, if he were there for five years, he would be entitled to whatever five years gives him; and if he were there for ten years, he would be entitled to whatever ten years gives him. But he would have no past service counted on coming into the position.


James Arthur Ross: The section reads:
The minister may appoint a director of rehabilitation and an associate director of rehabilitation1, and such temporary technical and other officers and employees as he may deem necessary and expedient for carrying out the provisions of this act . . .


James Garfield Gardiner: What that means is that the two first ones are permanent and the others are only temporary; and no temporary comes under superannuation.


James Arthur Ross: That is the point I wanted to get at. I thought the whole staff might be brought under it.


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


John Alpheus Charlton: How many other permanent employees are there?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Six o'clock.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are no other permanent employees under P.F.R.A.	*


John Alpheus Charlton: They are all temporary except the director and associate?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are all temporary until now. This will make it possible to make those two permanent; that is all.


John Alpheus Charlton: And all future appointments to director and associate director which may be made by the minister outside of the civil service will come under superannuation?


James Garfield Gardiner: Just those two positions, yes. They will be civil servants. This one is a civil servant.


John Alpheus Charlton: He is a civil servant now. The minister admits he can appoint someone outside the civil service to the job, and he admits also that that person will get pension from the time he starts in that job as a civil servant. He admitted that a moment ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


John Alpheus Charlton: So that any future appointments in the two positions could be made outside the civil service and by the minister himself, and they would receive a pension, the same as a civil servant.
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act


James Garfield Gardiner: Provided that the governor in council agrees.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It does not say that.


John Alpheus Charlton: It is the minister who makes the appointment; the government fixes the salaries.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is an important part of it.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph William Burton: Would the minister be in a position to say what salaries will be connected with (he appointments to be made under this bill?


James Garfield Gardiner: They have not been set. As will be noted, the treasury board and the governor in council have something to say about that. When this bill goes through, the appointments will have to be made and sent to the treasury board and the governor in council. Mr. Spence was employed years ago at 16,000 and he never asked for an increase and was never given one. I am sorry for that because I was partly responsible. Those who hold similar positions in the department at the present time are drawing $8,000.


Joseph William Burton: Do I understand the minister to say that the treasury board would have some say as to what salary would be paid, or do they deal only with superannuation?


James Garfield Gardiner: What usually happens when an appointment is 'made is that the matter of salary is referred to two bodies, the civil service commission and the treasury board. Appointments made under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act go to the civil service commission in order that they may compare the salaries proposed with the salaries paid in other branches of the service. Then they go to the treasury board to be checked. Salaries are not allowed to pass the treasury board unless they bear a proper relationship to salaries elsewhere.


Joseph William Burton: What was Mr. Thomson's salary? The minister gave that paid to Mr. Spence.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Thomson's salary has been lower because he is in a classification similar to that of superintendents of experimental farms. I think it is under $5,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How are the engineers and others associated with the work of P.F.R.A. appointed?


James Garfield Gardiner: Under the act the minister may make all appointments, but as I have suggested those appointments miust go before the civil service and the treasury board. Then the recommendations of both bodies are submitted to the governor in council and the salary is set by order in council.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The bill states:
. . . and such temporary technical and other officers and employees as he may deem necessary . . .
Would that include the engineers on dams that are to be erected in future?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. Up to the present every employee of P.F.R.A. has been rated as a temporary, although some have been with us ever since the plan was set up. This means that they are not members of the civil service and do not come under superannuation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I remember travelling across Alberta and Saskatchewan in company with some engineers and I asked them casually what salaries they were getting. They seemed to be quite low for men of their qualifications. I do not know whether I asked them if they were university graduate engineers, but from my conversation with them I decided that they were pretty good men.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just before the hon. member for Davenport came in, I stated that salaries are suggested by the P.F.R.A. organization in the first instance, and we suggest them on a little higher level than other similar salaries because the persons appointed do not have the benefits of superannuation. In other words, they are not permanent civil servants. When we make that proposal it goes to the civil service commission where it is checked to see that the salary proposed is in line with that paid in other positions. Then it goes to the treasury board where it is checked again. If there is any doubt the minister of the department, in this case the Minister of Agriculture, has to explain to the treasury board why the salary should be what he is proposing. Then it must go to council to be passed by order in council. So far as I am aware, these men are all graduate engineers and some of them are among the best engineers in this particular work in Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Have some been lost from P.F.R.A. to the Alberta government?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. Mr. Russell, who was chief engineer from the beginning of P.F.R.A., was previously connected with the old interior department here in Ottawa. When the resources were transferred to the western

Supply-Agriculture
provinces he was without a position. He then took employment with P.F.R.A. As a matter of fact, many of the men who came into the organization when it was first set up had been with the old interior department.


John Alpheus Charlton: This word "temporary" appears to be a little misleading. As we all know, there are many temporary employees in the civil service who are getting annual salaries. Can the minister tell us how many temporary employees there are under P.F.R.A. who receive annual salaries? Will he tell us also if those temporary employees who are receiving annual salaries may undertake any other work as a sideline?


James Garfield Gardiner: The whole staff of P.F.R.A. is temporary, but they are temporary in the sense of the language of the bill. "Temporary" simply means that they are not civil servants and do not have the benefits of superannuation. It is not our term; it is the term used by the Department of Justice in order to express what is desired.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister has not said how many receive annual salaries?


James Garfield Gardiner: I could not say offhand. I assume that when we get into my estimates the figures will be in front of me and I shall be glad to give them. The number would be between 200 and 300.


John Alpheus Charlton: Can those employees take other work?


James Garfield Gardiner: Full-time employees
cannot take other work, but there are temporary employees who come on only in the summertime. Then there are student engineers who go out with engineering parties in the summertime and then attend university in the winter. Practically all the survey parties are made up of engineering students.


Mr. McLURE:: The authority of the minister exceeds that of the civil service commission, because they have nothing to do with appointments. The minister appoints all the officers in this organization and then says to the civil service commission, "Here, make them civil servants". Is that not the sum and substance of it?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is pretty much the sum and substance of it. I may say that the act was first drafted by the government of Mr. Bennett and it has been adopted pretty much as it was then.


John Alpheus Charlton: There is a difference. The minister admitted this afternoon that these two are to be permanent employees. Officers of other departments have to be
appointed by the civil service commission, but the minister has the right to appoint anyone he pleases, and they come under the Civil Service Superannuation Act. Is that not true?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is true of these two men. They will become permanent employees, and my hope is that I shall never have to appoint another one. They are both much younger than myself.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Not after this year anyway.


John Alpheus Charlton: Until the act is further amended, the minister can appoint anyone he pleases to these two positions.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed, on division.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $234,297.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I have always been so much impressed with the importance of agriculture, that is, the growing of foodstuffs, that I am always concerned when I see the estimates of this department being reduced. When I find, by looking at the estimates for this year, that we have the sum of $13,000,000 of appropriations marked "not required for this year", it does seem a pity that that $13,000,000 could not be applied on various other items for the improvement of agriculture.
I wish to say, however, that I feel the minister has done an excellent job in his department. It is always interesting to me as an agriculturist to listen to what he has to say. I am not admitting that I am particularly enamoured of some of his policies, but when he has once made up his mind to pursue a certain path I think he does an excellent job and does what he believes to be the right thing.
James Garfield Gardiner: I did not bring in any oleomargarine anyway.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Leave that to the
senators.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: It should not be necessary in a country like this to emphasize the supreme importance of agriculture, but I feel that in Canada we treat the whole question too lightly and thoughtlessly. We have so much of the essential foodstuffs that we do not

Supply-Agriculture
give the matter very much thought. We take it for granted that we shall always have plenty, and I hope we always shall, but I should like to see every opportunity seized to lay before the members of this house and the people of this country the supreme importance of foodstuffs in this world.
The fact is that our potential population is outgrowing our potential production of foodstuffs. Agriculture is said to be the backbone of the country. As a rule, if the backbone of an organism is injured, the whole complex structure is in danger of deterioration. A careful reading of history discloses the fact that when the old civilizations were at their zenith, their agriculture, primitive though it was, was of the utmost importance and was both zealously guarded and encouraged. The realization was never lost sight of that disaster would be uncomfortably close if anything should happen to the growing of their foodstuffs and if their farmers were not completely protected both in the military and in the economic sense.
The value of foodstuffs was recognized as paramount in all these ancient civilizations; and, with the possible exception of Rome, the greatest care was exercised for many years to help their agriculture, to guard it against aggression by their warlike neighbours, and, what was equally important, to keep it economically stable and to give it that pride of performance without which no industry seems to be able to survive.
In every case, however, we find a gradual carelessness becoming apparent; a tendency to relegate agriculture or farming into a lower strata of human endeavour; to make of it a peasantry occupation; and it was at that point, we read, that the might of the nation began to wane. All these great and mighty empires long since have perished, and have been buried in the dust of humiliation and defeat. It is no coincidence that they followed their agriculture into oblivion. It is true that our own immediate situation is different, in that our own needs are in no great danger of being depleted to the point where we ourselves may have to go hungry; but unless we are willing to learn by the mistakes of others, we may find history repeating itself.
No nation seems to have been able to endure without a prosperous agriculture. For a short time it might, but eventually the position of agriculture in the economy of the nation appears to have established the stability of the economy itself.
I find that Doctor Walter Wilcox, of the University of Wisconsin, has called attention to the impact of world war II on pre-war food

production patterns of the world. He tells us that before the war, from 1935 to 1939, Asia, continental Europe and North Africa between them produced 68 per cent of the world's foodstuffs. North America is quoted as having produced 12 per cent of the world's food. That situation, of course, during and since the war has completely changed, and we find ourselves in the position of being responsible for a much greater percentage of the necessary food for the world in which we live. I was quoting history a few moments ago. An old Greek philosopher Xenophon who, incidentally, was not a farmer and not an agriculturist, but a philosopher and a general, a soldier, a disciple of Socrates, and who lived probably 400 years B.C., had this to say. I think the committee will find it interesting. Talking about farming, he said:
Yet tho it offers blessings in the greatest plenty, it does not permit us to take them in idleness, but requires us to accustom ourselves to endure the colds of winter and the heat of summer; to those whom it exercises in manual labour, it gives an increase of strength; and in such as only oversee the cultivation of it, it produces a manly vigour by requiring them to rise early in the morning and forcing them to move about with activity, for in the country as in the city, the most important matters are always done at a stated season.
I should be surprised for my own part if any man of liberal feelings has met with any possession more pleasing than a farm or discovered any pursuit more attractive, or more conducive to the means of life than agriculture.
The earth also kindly teaches men justice, at least such as are able to learn: for it is those who treat her best that she recompenses with the most numerous benefits.
He also said well, who pronounced agriculture to be the mother and nurse of other arts; for when agriculture flourishes, all other pursuits are in full vigour; but when the ground is forced to lie barren, other occupations are almost stopped, as -well by land as by sea. Agriculture is an art that renders those who understand it Tich, and leaves those who do not understand it, however much they labour ,in it, to live in poverty.
Since we have been allowed to live in a land which produces enormous quantities of foodstuffs, it does seem to me that we have a definite responsibility toward the rest of the world in growing as much as we can possibly grow and in as good quality as we can possibly secure. It is a duty as well as a responsibility, and I think an appeal should be made to the hearts of all the people who are concerned, and indeed to those people who are not closely concerned, to try to realize as a tremendous fact that, since we have the land and are able to grow this food, it is our business to do it to the best of our ability. If, however, it is not possible to appeal to the

Supply-Agriculture
hearts it might be possible to appeal to the heads, because, if I may quote Xenophon again:
When agriculture flourishes all other pursuits are in full vigour.
I wonder whether we have noticed that in this country. If we have noticed it, why have we not taken advantage of it? If we do admit that to be the fact, then surely there is something that we can do about it that we are not doing because, from my own experience of a good many years, agriculture has rarely been in a flourishing condition. I have also noted that when agriculture is not in a flourishing condition other industries of the country follow it along the same track.
I should also like to point out that if the farmers of our country have sufficient money to enable them to buy necessary things they will keep practically every industry in this country busy for a long, long time. There are so many things that they have not got, that they require, want and would be willing to buy, if they had the wherewithal, that they would keep industry going for a long time The other day the minister spoke about electric wind chargers. I venture to say that a very small percentage of Canadian farmers have electric wind chargers, but I also venture to say that they would all like to have one and undoubtedly would all buy one if they could get in the position where they had the money to spend on it. The same principle applies to other things. The home market, the guaranteed market, not the one we have to compete with other nations or other countries to hold or to secure, is there waiting for us if we could only do something for these people to put them into that position, to put them into w'hat Xenophon calls a flourishing position.
That there is a decline in our own agriculture is shown in the Livestock Market Review of April 29. In that review we find that the sows, which are the breeding stock of the hog industry, killed from January 1 to May 6, numbered 56,138. In that short period of time thousands and thousands of other young sows were also killed. These sows would be classed among our A's and B's in the hog classification, sows which could have been and probably would have been used as breeding stock if conditions were favourable for them to be so used.
From January 1 to April 30 the quantity of hogs had decreased from 1,836,618 to
1,335,000,	which represents a decrease of 27-4 per cent. Obviously something is slipping. I should also like to refer to the creamery butter output in my own province of Saskatchewan. This report is a year old. Probably the situation is even worse today. There was a decrease in the production of 1946 from 1945 of slightly more than 20 per cent.
I should like to talk about one other thing for a few minutes, namely the work of our scientists. When I first came to this country a good many years ago the limit of the wheat-growing land in Canada was very much farther south than it is at the present time. The farmer is said to be the last outpost of rugged individualism. I think that is the way it was put. I do not know of any other man who has depended so much upon the work of the scientist as has the farmer. When I first came to this country I could not grow wheat on my farm; it took too long. The old Red Fyfe wheat which was 'being used in those days had not sufficient time in that part of the country to mature. The scientists went to work and very soon had a variety which was much earlier, and now it can be grown not only on my own place but 100 miles north of where I live, which is a long way north. It means 100 miles north of Prince Albert. It is entirely as a result of the work of the scientists that this has come to pass.
I have glanced through a bulletin called "Scientific Agriculture," and I find in it a little item about a disease which is familiar to western men. Hon. members from the west will readily recognize it when I say I am referring to rust. I wonder if hon. members realize that in one year, 1916, the losses from rust amounted to 100,000,000 bushels in western Canada. The cash value of those losses in that year was $234 million.
I said that in 1916 we lost 100,000,000 bushels. In 1927 we lost 90,000,000 bushels and in 1935, over 87,000,000 bushels through this disease alone. I also pointed out that the value of the wheat in one year, 1916, was $234 million. The agricultural estimates for this year are $41,822,000. That is being set aside to take care of a loss that might happen again and might easily be $230 million. That does not seem very much to set aside. The loss in the year I have mentioned was almost six times the estimates of this year.
Other things are happening too. It is extraordinary that when we find a way to combat either a disease in plants or an insect pest or something of that kind, the plant disease or the insect pest finds a way of evading the cure. The bacteria find a way to outwit or to overcome the treatment imposed upon them, and it is an everlasting job. These
Supply-Agriculture

men must stay on the job all the time; their activities must never cease.
We had rust resistance long ago; nature provided it. We were never without rust resistant wheat, but the wheat that was rust resistant was no good for flour or bread, and again we had to go to the scientists to crossbreed a good quality variety with these rust-resistant varieties, which would provide us with something that would keep us in the wheat market so that we would not go absolutely broke when we tried to grow wheat.
There is trouble with other things besides grains. There are diseases in animals; it will take a long time for scientists to cure such diseases, and the fewer the scientists we have, the longer that time will be.
At this point I might be permitted to make a few comments on veterinary surgeons. When I was home at Easter I discovered in one part of the province a severe attack of Bang's disease and almost all the herds in that particular corner of the province had to be slaughtered. I have complained every year since coming here that the number of "vets" has been entirely too limited. More should be supplied or some method found to train more men for this particular service.
I am happy to say that in my own province the government has provided for scholarships to send men who are interested in veterinary work to the Ontario Agricultural College at Guelph where they specialize in this particular science.
I would ask the minister to consider doing something in the way of scholarships, or offering a remuneration of some kind, or some financial assistance to enable men, who cannot afford to pay their way, to attend these universities where they can pick up this particular science.
In conclusion, I should like to pay my respects to a man who has recently been superannuated from the central experimental farm, a man who has been responsible for a great deal of this plant work. I refer to Doctor Newman, dominion cerealist, who has been engaged in these activities for many years. I should like him to know that I, as a farmer and an old-timer in the west, appreciate the work he has done, and further, as an earnest of this appreciation which we should all show, I should like to see more funds allotted to take care of the training of men and the provision of research opportunities for our scientists.
I know that a good deal of money is spent on it, but I think it is insufficient. That applies not only to the resources at their disposal but also to the salaries which they 
receive. The loss of men is still going on and the principal reason is that they are going to better jobs, jobs which are better paid. Only in the last week one of the best men, in fact the only man they have ever had in the university at Saskatoon who has been making a special study into root systems, left the university, having gone to a job with an industrial firm. Now, as far as I know, that leaves the whole agricultural set-up without a man who has made studies in that direction.
These studies have been valuable, that being one angle of agriculture which no one ever thought of before, namely, exactly what a root system looked like and what it was responsible for. We knew that by putting in barley it smothered weeds; but why? We did not know except in a general way. It was sufficient for us to know that it did. We have found out that the principal reason for its doing so is the fact that it has a special root system. It has helped us because, knowing how the roots behave, we can govern ourselves accordingly.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Mr. Chairman, I had desired to devote some time to a discussion of the general topic which has occupied the hon. member who has taken his seat, namely the over-all importance of agriculture in the world in which we live. In the course of my discussion on that matter I was desirous of drawing the attention of hon. members to the possibility of rehabilitating some of the soils that have tended to become depleted and of preventing further depletion of our soils. May I direct the attention of the committee therefore, for a short time, to the question of the beet sugar industry as considered from that standpoint?
The beet sugar industry is an exceedingly important industry to Canada at the present time, far more important than it seems possible to get the average individual in the country to appreciate. It will ensure to Canada a sugar supply in peacetime and in wartime, and will ensure that supply at moderate prices. It will help to safeguard the economy against inflation. The beet sugar industry will stabilize agriculture as few industries in the country can. It will provide much employment for Canadians, and it will provide the cleaning cash crop that is essential to long-range successful irrigation projects, especially those on the prairies. The beet sugar industry will greatly augment Canada's real wealth and will conserve and improve Canadian soils.
May I discuss particularly this evening that aspect of the beet sugar industry in virtue of which it will conserve and improve Canadian soils. Before doing so, may I talk briefly regarding the general need in the world for

Supply-Agriculture
conserving soils and for rebuilding or rehabilitating the soils of the world. Until recently I had not had any kind of realization of how serious is the world's position with respect to its soils. May I pass on to the members of the house some of the considerations which have alarmed me to some extent. There is a rapidly growing shortage, as the previous speaker pointed out, of acres of land for the two billion-odd people in the world and that number of people is now rapidly increasing.
A book which will repay reading on the part of. any member of the house and any person in the country is one that has just been published by Mr. Fairfield Osborn. It is entitled "Our Plundered Planet." It was published in Toronto by McClelland and Stewart Limited in March, 1948. According to this writer, there are only about 16 billion acres of land in the world that could be thought of as originally favourable to the habitation of man. There are not more than four billion acres of arable land left, or less than two acres per capita. According to a United States department of state study, there were less than two and a half billion acres under cultivation before world war II. According to the best informed men, it takes two and a half acres of land of average productivity to support even a minimum adequate diet for each person in the world. Many countries have less than one acre per person.
These figures are sufficient to show how serious is the situation which confronts us as a world right now. The wastage of land has been and is alarming in Africa, as is developed in chapter VII of the book; in Australia and New Zealand, as is developed in chapter IX; in South America-which one eminent authority has characterized as being a "vanishing continent"-as is developed in one portion of the book; in Mexico and other world areas. These come near to home. I had not realized before I read it in this book that it takes between 300 and 1,P00 years for nature, under the best circumstances, to build one inch of topsoil. The one inch that we see carried away in a windstorm therefore represents nature's work of 1,000 years. Soil is not an easy thing to replace.
Proper agricultural methods, which are now well understood, are capable of preventing this destruction of soil. Until recently I had had the idea that science could play a much greater part in the production of foods for man than the writer of this book is inclined to think. He tells us that science cannot replace nature in providing food or in guaranteeing health. Both food and health can come only from a healthy soil. He discusses this matter in chapter V of his book under the heading, "The
Flattery of Science." May I quote from pages 75 and 76 of his book:
The issue might as well be clearly drawn. The- problem is how to conserve the remaining good natural soils that exist on the earth, together with the complementary resources of forests, water sources and the myriads of beneficial forms of animal life. There is no other problem. If that is not solved the threat to human life will grow in intensity and the present conditions of starvation that are already apparent in the various parts of the earth will seem as nothing in the years that lie ahead.
He closes his book with this solemn passage:
The tide of the earth's population is rising, the reservoir of the earth's living resources is falling. Technologists may outdo themselves in the creation of artificial substitutes for natural subsistence, and new areas, such as those in tropical or subtropical regions, may be adapted to human use, but even such recourses or developments cannot be expected to offset the present terrific attack upon the natural lifegiving elements of the earth.
There is only one solution. Man must recognize the necessity of co-operating with nature. He must temper his demands and use and conserve the natural living resources of this earth in a manner that alone can provide for the continuation of his civilization. The final answer is to be found only through comprehension of the enduring processes of nature. The time for defiance is at an end.
What is the general importance of all this to Canada? I believe every member of the house, after he examines these facts, will realize yet more that it is very serious. What have we done with our soils? All one needs to do is to look over the farms in Ontario in many parts, the farms in the maritime provinces in many parts, and the farms in certain western areas and to note the great number of them now deserted, in order to be impressed to some extent with what we have done.
What are we doing? I submit that, considering the wastage now going on in Canadian agricultural areas, what we are doing is meagre indeed. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) who, more than any other minister who has ever had responsibility in Canada, has done much for the arresting of the decay or deterioration of the soil, will be the first to acknowledge that our efforts are far short of what is necessary to keep our soils from deteriorating further.
The question then is: What shall we do? That problem is not easy to answer in full. However I should like to make one or two observations which might be of some value in connection with the general answer to the problem. Are there crops which will rebuild the soil and at the same time pay returns? That is the question which would be asked first and foremost. And the answer must be that there are such crops.
Supply-Agriculture

One of these crops which will give very satisfactory returns, and at the same time rebuild the soil-in fact make it better than it ever was-is the sugar beet. May I for a time discuss the facts which will support the statement I have just made. Germany between 1870 and 1903 so improved her soils through sugar beet culture, and the crop rotation necessary in that culture, that she increased the production of her soils in respect even of cereals from 14 bushels to the acre, when she commenced the culture of sugar beets, to 34-9 bushels per acre at the end of the period I have indicated.
That was a genuine achievement. Over the period between 1879 and 1909 Germany became the greatest grower of sugar beets in the world. She increased her average yield of cereals by 80 per cent during that period. Over the five-year period of 1919 to 1923 Germany's average yield of wheat was 26 bushels per acre, while Canada's average during the same period was 16-04 bushels. Considering the fact that Germany is a very old; country, having been the scene of civilization in the long ago, while Canada is a brand new country, I believe those figures ought to bear considerable significance.
Here are some statements which have some weight in this connection. In a statement issued by a conference of continental experts on beet cultivation, convened by the economic committee of the league of nations, the French expert stated:
As beet growers we are concerned less with the production of sugar in itself than with the capital importance of the production of beet in our national economic lives.
Again in a report presented to the conference by Messrs. F. O. Licht, the well-known international sugar statisticians, it was observed that:
The reason why all governments cling so stubbornly to beet culture is not to be found mainly in consideration of financial policy but in agricultural and social considerations. Beet culture in itself, without reference to sugar production, is for many reasons a vital condition of all intensive agriculture.
During the period of 1870 to 1903 Germany subsidized her sugar beet industry to the extent of $340 million. May I for just a moment comment upon what, on the contrary, is being contemplated today in Canada. We have been told in the house by our selfassured Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that he will not support subsidies for the beet sugar industry. When we contrast his wisdom with the wisdom of the men whose words I have just read, we must wonder whether or not our brilliant young Minister of Finance has not been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

How does the beet sugar industry conserve and improve the soil to produce the results which I have indicated? There are several means. There is nothing mysterious about it; there is nothing accidental. The cultivation required in order to produce good crops of sugar beets pulverizes the soil, deepens the tilth and aerates the soil, and consequently warms it, thereby making a fine and congenial environment in which soil bacteria may thrive.
All hon. members are familiar with the importance of bacteria in the soil. Mr. Osborn points out that the bacteria are the things which make the soil living; and he implies, if not definitely states, that anything but a living soil is not a healthy soil.
The beet itself definitely improves the soil, physically and chemically. A healthy sugar beet sends out a mass of tap roots through six cubic feet of soil. The decomposition of these tap roots enriches the soil. It leaves tiny channels all through the soil, through which water and air may penetrate. When one remembers that on an acre of a good stand of sugar beets there will be between 16,000 and 26,000 individual roots or beets, and when he reflects that each of these 16,000 to 26,000 penetrates six cubic feet of earth he begins to have some understanding of and some means of computing the possible net effect on the soil of all the tap roots sent out into the soil by that number of beets. And of course when the beets are taken up all the roots are left in the soil.
An important element in successful beet culture is crop rotation, something with which every member of the house is thoroughly familiar. The crop rotation which is in use in the preparation of land for sugar beets includes legumes, usually either alfalfa or sweet clover. All hon. members know that on the roots of a legume are found little nodules. In those nodules live bacteria which have the power to take from the air free nitrogen and fix it in the form of nitrates, thereby rendering it available to plants for use in the production of proteins.
Therefore the legume which comes regularly in the rotation every three, five, seven or ten years, according to the particular kind of rotation employed, adds nitrogen to the soil through the nodules. A legume also adds fibre to the soil through the roots, long and tough, which are thrust deep into the soil in every direction. A legume aerates the soil, thereby encouraging bacterial growth.
The importance of bacteria in creating healthy soil and in nourishing a healthy crop may be indicated by the following facts. Bacteria change organic matter to ammonia;

Supply-Agriculture
other bacteria change. ammonia to nitrites while other bacteria change nitrites to nitrates. Consequently bacteria are responsible for the changing of organic materials such as manure and plant remains in the soil into forms available to plants. Consequently, if the soil is not congenial to the development of healthy growing bacteria it will be impossible for the soil to be thoroughly enriched by the application of manure. Bacteria pick up iron and render it available to the plant. Bacteria pick up phosphorus and render it available to plants. We realize, therefore, that there is a vast importance to be attached to bacteria in cultural preparations for crops. And so anything which stimulates the development of bacteria is of great value in the rebuilding, reconditioning and rehabilitating of the soil.
In all successful beet culture manure is spread. Manure constitutes a congenial environment for bacteria.
Almost all people who raise beets for sugar production carry on stock feeding as part of their operations, particularly the raising of beef and sheep. These two kinds of animals consume the beet tops which in southern Alberta, for example, are usually left on the ground and pastured by the stock from the ground after topping. It is quite obvious that if the stock are turned in on the beet tops and range over the field considerable fertilization results.
The tops from an average ton of beets will replace 150 pounds of alfalfa hay and 46 pounds of grain. The tops at the time of topping have a high feeding value for stock. Another by-product of sugar beet raising is beet pulp. A ton of siloed beet pulp is equivalent to 139-9 pounds of ground barley, 636 pounds of alfalfa hay and 44-2 pounds of beet molasses. Nearly every milk and butterfat producing record made in Europe and the United States has been made by cows fed beet pulp. The meat producing value of beet pulp is also very great. Then we have the beet molasses, which is the liquid that remains after all the sugar that can economically 'be taken from the beet juice has been extracted. In meat production the various by-products from an average acre of sugar beets, quite apart from the sugar produced, are equal in feeding value to that of the production of corn from an average acre.
In any good crop rotation used for the preparation of land for beets there will be, as I have indicated, alfalfa or a legume which produces a great deal of hay. There is always a great deal of straw produced when grain is raised upon land following beets.
Consequently in any beet producing area there will be an abundance of hay and straw. From what I have said it can readily be seen by all hon. members that the beet producing industry is conducive to the raising and supporting of livestock.
May I spend just a moment to emphasize the importance of animals in the development of soil. When our forefathers came to this country there ranged over the plains tens of millions of buffalo, scores of millions of deer, wild animals of the widest variety and vast flocks of game birds. Now the wild life is largely gone and with it have gone the good soil effects that came from it. In the days that we all can remember we used livestock for power on the farm and for transportation. We used horses and our forefathers used oxen. Those animals enriched the soil, but they have now been replaced through mechanization. This is going to have a bad result upon our soil. There must be something consciously done in the conduct of our agricultural practice to make up for the loss which we sustain through the displacement of animals; otherwise we shall have no healthy soil, because healthy soil depends upon animal life. Animals raised in connection with the beet sugar industry will help.
To what extent would Canadian soil benefit from the beet sugar industry? If we were producing all our sugar requirements from sugar beets we would be improving regularly every year at least one million acres of our soil. It takes about 15,000 acres of beets to produce one-twentieth of Canada's annual sugar requirements. To produce our total yearly needs would require 300,000 acres. The ordinary crop rotation employed in the preparing of soil for the production of beets averages four years, although some rotations run as long as ten years. This means that there would be in process of rebuilding and reconditioning incident to the production of sugar beets at least 1,000,000 acres of our soil. What effect that would have on the future of Canada over the period of a hundred years is a consideration which we should not lightly disregard. I recommend that thought to the minister's most careful attention.
We could have beet sugar for export. The proposal is thoroughly feasible. But there has been such a determined propaganda, cunningly and in many cases lyingly concocted, and deliberately distributed throughout this country to disparage beet production that people have never come to realize that Canada is one of the greatest potential sugar-producing areas in the world.
Supply-Agriculture


George Hugh Castleden: Can she compete with tropical countries?


John Horne Blackmore: I think so, with complete success. I shall deal with that aspect at some future time, as I do not wish to weary the house unduly now.
This matter of beet sugar culture and its importance, Mr. Chairman, is one which requires much study. It is impossible to deal with it all fully in one talk in this house. I say it is perfectly reasonable for Canada to contemplate the production of sugar for export. It is not generally known that Canada has been a considerable exporter of sugar in the years from 1916 to 1939. I have the figures here, which with the consent of the house I shall be glad to place on Hansard, but which I fear I shall not have time to read. They indicate that Canada has imported a great deal of cane, raw, refined it, and then exported it. That sugar might just as well have come from Canadian-produced1 sugar beets, going into the making of Canadian jams and other products.
The next question I may be asked is: Does the sugar beet thrive in Canada? The sugar beet thrives astonishingly well, especially in southern Alberta. I do not feel competent to speak for other areas, but I know what takes place in my own constituency. For example, I select one man, Ivan Harris, in the Taber area in my constituency. This man has produced 19-45 tons average per acre for eight years. That is a surprising yield. The sugar content in southern Alberta is extremely high. In the year 1939, for example, it was 17-688. There will hardly be an area on the American continent, except possibly California, where the sugar content would be so high. The extraction is always good. The production of beets is a thoroughly economic and profitable occupation.
What should we do to make sure that Canada will expand her beet sugar production? There are three things, Mr. Chairman, and I suggest to the minister most earnestly that he use his influence to the extreme to have these three things done right away this year. We are in danger of having one of our sugar factories in Ontario lie idle this year.
The main thing that should be done is to pay the beet sugar producers in Canada this year a price equal to the price which we are paying Santo Domingo cane producers for their cane sugar. Certainly it is the barest kind of justice to give your own producers the same price you are giving to foreign producers. That price would mean S8.64 per hundredweight at the refining centre.
I close by reading a statement from the submission of the beet producers in January, 1948,

to the Hon. D. C. Abbott, a submission which I fear has been completely disregarded by that exceedingly wise young man. Here are three of the recommendations:
1.	Guarantee the Canadian producer a fixed price for his 1948 crop made up as follows- Sugar (at San Domingo guaranteed price) $5 per hundred pounds, freight 40 cents per hundred pounds, duty $1.29 per hundred pounds and refiners spread $1.95 per hundred pounds, a total of $8.64 per hundred pounds at Canadian refining centres. This price to be adjusted at outside points to conform with the seasonal winter or summer freight rates.
2.	Restore the fixed valuation and at a price of $5.65 per hundred pounds.
4. Announce approval of the above at the earliest possible date.
Up to the present time, Mr. Chairman, not one of those things has been done. In other words, the treatment that Canada has accorded her beet sugar producers has been shabby. It has been unbecoming on the part of any intelligent government in any progressive country in the world today. May I urge that the minister take steps immediately to see that this situation is rectified so that the production of beet sugar in Canada will expand?


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lethbridge has spoken about the problems in his part of the country and he has shown some persistence in his advocacy of the improvement of the sugar beet industry. Good for him! But, sir, I want to say a few words about a problem that is most interesting to the farmers and the population of my part of the country, a problem with which the minister is thoroughly familiar, and that is the question of tuberculin tests in an area which has recently been established by the minister. For some time there has been a gap, and it still exists, between the counties of L'Islet and Rimouski. It was impossible for the farmers of the provincial counties of Riviere du Loup and Kamouraska to have tuberculin tests for their cattle. For many years we did not have any, and on that account it was impossible to buy stock from the farmers. Tuberculin tests are required by the farmers for their cattle and they are necessary also for the consumers of milk.
I had a lot of difficulty on account of the stupidity of an agronomist who has his office at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere and did not return all the petitions that were signed by the farmers of the three constituencies.
It is my duty to pay a special tribute to the provincial agronomists of the counties of Temiscouata and Riviere du Loup. They have taken a lot of trouble to try to secure an area for cheap tuberculin tests for the immunization of herds.

Supply-Agriculture
I had some correspondence with the minister, and he told me that a veterinary surgeon from my county would be appointed for our district, but at the same time there was a man in the department in Montreal who had assigned the very same doctor to the district of Rimouski. This was unsatisfactory, and I reviewed the case with the minister. He understood that there were many good reasons for granting my request. Now the area has been established, and I thank the minister for that. I ask him now when the tests will be made for the first time and be continued in Temiscouata county. I hope it will be soon.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I reply to the last question? The matter was before me just this morning in a letter which was received in reply to a previous letter, and I have asked the officials to do everything possible to bring that area under inspection at an early day.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to ask the hon. member for Temiscouata a question. I should like to know whether the farmers in his area are still being required to purchase flour at the present time when they purchase feed, as he complained they used to have to do a year or so ago.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, I cannot tell my hon. friend what is going on now, because I have not been in contact with them as I was before the session. When I go home for a day or two I do not inquire about it, but I know that the facts I have stated are perfectly true. I regret very much that I am not in a position to tell him what the situation is now, and I know very well that, as soon as the session is over, I will meet my people who will tell me if there has been some improvement. I shall tell the hon. member now something that may surprise him very much. It is that large numbers of the farmers of my county, instead of buying feed from La Co-operative Federee, are buying feed from grain merchants in Montreal and Quebec, and they are better satisfied in buying there than in buying anywhere else.


Mr. McCUAIG:: I think I should say something at this time about the dissatisfaction among the farmers with regard to marketing and some other matters. For some time farm organizations have been petitioning and asking the government to bring in a marketing act, to establish floor prices for agricultural products, prices that will have some relationship to and be on a parity with the things farmers have to buy.
We have heard a lot about wheat prices. Dollar wheat is just as good to me as $2 wheat if one dollar will buy as much as $2. It is not
the price; it is the things that wheat will buy. For a long time farm organizations have been asking for an agricultural marketing act with adequate farmer representation to market our farm products. If we had had that kind of act we would not have had the mess that we have been in this year in connection with coarse grains and hog prices.
I should like to read some letters which have been forwarded to me in connection with the hog business. I have a letter from a man who says, "I killed thirty-eight small pigs." Another says, "I killed a dozen pigs last fall as a result of higher grain prices." I have another letter which says, "I killed about thirty-four weaner pigs when the grain went up." I have a further letter which says:
I had twenty-five brood1 sows and hundreds of small pigs of different size. I killed over a hundred weaner pigs and new-born pigs and sold all my sows but eight. Most of those sold were heavy in pig.
Another letter says:
I did not kill any weaner pigs, when prices went up, but I did kill some when they were born and shipped sows that were ready to farrow.
It looks to me, Mr. Chairman, that in the coming year we shall not have enough pigs to supply pork for Canadians, to say nothing about exporting. These things seem to be pretty general in the part of the country from which I come and from the Alberta country around Edmonton where they have raised a lot of pigs. I believe the same thing is happening there. If we had a marketing board with farmers' representation on it, it would have been in touch with the government and would have taken a lot of responsibility off the government's hands. That would have been a very fine arrangement; but we were left absolutely in the dark in connection with all these matters. The same thing applies to wheat. There is great dissatisfaction among the farmers with respect to the sale of wheat over the past number of years, particularly domestically consumed wheat.
I calculated that we have sold 335 million bushels of wheat at thirty cents a bushel below the $1.55 export price. What farmers want to know is why they have to sell this wheat at thirty cents a bushel below the export price. I have been asked to find out why they were put in that position. No other business was put in that position. There was a ceiling price on domestically consumed wheat, although some time ago the Minister of Agriculture said there was never a ceiling price put on wheat. As I understand it, there was absolutely and definitely a ceiling price put on domestically consumed wheat,
Supply-Agriculture

because we receive no further payment on it. If a board had been set up with farm representation on it I am sure that we would not have suffered that loss.
I hold in my hand sessional paper 115A, dated February 4, 1948. This shows that in August, 1944, domestically consumed wheat sold at $125. There was a ceiling price of $1.25 to mutual aid countries till March, 1945. To non-mutual aid countries it ran from $1.35 to $1.52. From March, 1945, to January, 1946, the export price was $1.46 to $1.55 for mutual aid countries, but we were still supplying Canada with wheat at $125. In addition, Mr. Chairman, in December, 1947, class 2 wheat was selling on the world market at $3.29. It was only in February, 1947, that the price was raised from $1.25 to $1.55 on domestically consumed wheat. Can the minister explain why this amount of wheat that I have calculated at 335 million bushels was sold at that price?
I am very glad that the Minister of Agriculture is taking an interest in the dry parts of Saskatchewan from the standpoint of tillage. The hon. member for Lethbridge had something to say about beet growing and its advantages to the land. In our part of the country, carrying on dry farming, beet growing is entirely out of the picture. It is not practical in that part of the country where irrigation is not carried on. We have a strictly 50 per cent summer-fallow country which grows ten crops in twenty years. With the new method of tillage, using the combine and the one-way disc, I would say that we build up the soil instead of depleting it. If you have a crop of wheat it will take three pounds of twine to the acre to bind it. We do not get that every year. You only take the wheat; all the straw that is left, the chaff, you mix with the soil, and in the course of one year's summer-fallow and the following year, it is pretty well absorbed.
I should like to speak for a minute or so of a chemical weed killer that has been developed. It takes care of practically every weed we have in that part of the country. It saves stirring up of the soil. You have to work land to kill weeds and if the soil does not have the necessary amount of moisture and is worked when the land is dry, the bacteria are destroyed and dead land is left.
I am glad that the Department of Agriculture is experimenting in connection with the matter. The department has done a fine job so far in the experiments it has carried out. Would the minister care to give an explanation in regard to the ceiling price on domestic wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not in my department.	-


Duncan John McCuaig: It has to do with agriculture and I thought that perhaps the minister would like to say something about it.


Mr. COTE (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take a few minutes to express the pleasure it gives me, the greatest pleasure since I have been a member of the house, in congratulating the Minister of Agriculture on two counts. First of all, I congratulate him because I know he is a thoroughbred Liberal, which is something in these days of reorientation in politics, and, second, I congratulate him on behalf of my constituents, the farmers of Matapedia, who have at last succeeded in receiving from the minister the assurance of a substation as an experimental farm in my riding.
As many members possibly know, in that part of the Gaspe peninsula, which region was the first to be discovered and the last to be reckoned with, it is a source of satisfaction to see at last a member of the cabinet and a good Liberal who is liberal enough, even if he does come from the west, to develop agriculture in that eastern remote area of the country.
The minister may rest assured that from everybody concerned he will receive the best wishes. He will remain in their hearts and minds longer than he may live, and let us hope that God gives him a long time yet in the service of the country.
I would also mention to the minister that the farmers of my riding have understood in these difficult times the problems that have arisen in connection with coarse grains. Of course they supported the policy of subsidies. They realize that the problem of whoever may be the minister in the House of Commons having to deal with nine other ministers of agriculture in Canada, is one of the most difficult so far as the relations between the provinces and the federal government are concerned. They also realize with the greatest pleasure that the minister has done the best he possibly can, to enable the farmers to carry on since the subsidies were taken off. He succeeded in having the freight paid on coarse grains coming from the west to the eastern provinces. Every one in my district appreciates immensely what has been done during this very session to help the farmers under the circumstances.
Once more I thank the minister for having given that station, which I am sure will help more than anything that has been done so far by the provincial legislature to promote agriculture by the best means, namely education.

Supply-A griculture
I have no doubt the station will do more for the farmers of that region than they have yet experienced.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: A few days ago the Minister of Agriculture made reference to parsons who were not practising the profession in which they had been trained. I should like this evening to practise what I preach by returning good for evil and extending to the minister my best wishes when his party selects a leader this coming summer. If I were a Liberal I would consider the chances of electing a government as bright with the Minister of Agriculture leading the party as they would be with anyone else who appears on the horizon. However I wish to make it clearly understood that, should he be selected as leader and become Prime Minister, I shall do all I can to see that he does not retain the office for too long a period.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is indeed good for evil.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: May I crave the indulgence of the house in order to raise a question which I do not think has been raised before in connection with agriculture? I refer to rural housing. I think I am in order, because the Minister of Agriculture has published two interesting studies, one in 1945, an "Economic Study of Land Settlement in Representative Pioneer Areas of Northern Saskatchewan", by R. A. Stutt and H. Van Vliet of the economic division, and the Economic Annalist of 1943, which contains an interesting section on rural housing. The department, under the experimental farms branch, has supplied quite a number of interesting plans for rural housing.
Unfortunately, in the estimates, we have not an item providing for any worthwhile assistance in dealing with this national problem, and therefore I should like to take a little time tonight to discuss the subject in the hope that in the next year the minister will find it possible to make provision for adequate subsidies to people in the rural parts of Canada who have the misfortune to live in houses that do not meet with modern standards in Canada and in other countries of the world, and who for a variety of reasons have not seen fit or have not been able to provide modern-type housing.
I commend to hon. members the study of Professor Van Vliet and Mr. Stutt who travelled extensively in Saskatchewan studying housing conditions in representative areas. Mr. Stutt expresses the opinion that improvements in the conditions of farm homes in
Saskatchewan are badly needed and that some thought should be given toward rural housing in a broad reconstruction program.
There were three representative areas taken: the prairie area, the park belt and the pioneer area in the north. In the well-established municipalities in the prairies around Wilcox, Wey-burn and Lacadena, it was found that 23-5 per cent of the farm houses were in poor condition. In the prairie belt, the area represented by the Minister of Agriculture, up around Melfort and Lashburn where the hon. member for North Battleford lives, 31-6 per cent of the houses were described to be in poor condition. Away up to the north, in the frontier areas, 56-5 per cent were in poor condition. According to this study, only six per cent of the farm houses in Saskatchewan were described to be in good condition. The farm houses in poor condition were valued at an average of $421 in the prairie district, $362 in the park belt and $202 in the pioneer district.
Those who are interested in the construction industry will agree readily that, with such a low investment in farm houses, we have a wonderful potential market for lumber, cement and plumbing supplies and potential employment for carpenters, plumbers and tinsmiths for many years to come.
While this study is confined to Saskatchewan, I understand that in Alberta and Manitoba similar conditions prevail. The 1941 census discloses that only 20 per cent of the farm homes in Canada had electric lights. The percentage in Ontario and in British Columbia is relatively high: it is 37 per cent in Ontario, 36 per cent in British Columbia, with 5-5 per cent in Prince Edward Island and Alberta and 4-8 per cent in Saskatchewan.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the percentage in New Brunswick?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am sorry I have not that available. Unfortunately we in Saskatchewan are at the bottom of the list. I may mention that those statistics were for 1941, so that the C.C.F. government cannot receive any credit or blame for the conditions.
In all of Canada only 7-3 per cent of the farmers are able to use anything but the old washbasin or washtub on Saturday night for the traditional bath; only eight farmers out of 100 have flush toilets; and again the conditions in the prairie provinces are much worse. The conditions in the constituency represented by the Minister of Agriculture and myself are well below the average. In Mackenzie constituency only 2-4 per cent of the farmers have furnaces, whereas in Melville eleven per cent
Supply-Agriculture

have furnaces. In my constituency one farmer out of 1,000 lias running water in his house, compared with eleven out of 1,000 in Melville. Seventeen farmers out of 1,000 have electric light in my constituency, compared with thirty-eight out of 1,000 in Melville.
I know that in the pioneer days the people in Canada got along very well with candles and coal-oil lamps; but I am not one of those who subscribe to the theory that what was good enough for dad is good enough for me. We are now living in an age where there are unlimited electric slaves available to do our work. I think that the farm women in Canada should have first claim on these electric slaves to wash the clothes, to separate the cream and to do many of the jobs that are not being done by hired help. It was not so long ago that girls were available on farms for $5, $6 and 87 a month. They were not worried about the 40, 50, or 60-hour week. They worked from dawn until dark, seven days a week, and they did not expect holidays. But fortunately girls do not have to work for $5 a month nowadays; and farm women in every province are finding it difficult to get domestic help on the farm. Therefore, when the labour problem is so acute, it becomes a matter of national concern to have electricity made available on the farms.
I think members from every province have at one time or another said something about the migration from the country to the city. The Minister of Agriculture must take this into consideration and make some plans now to see if life on the farm cannot be made more attractive. The hon. member for Springfield will probably accuse me of running down my constituency, my province and the dominion. But I do not think you are running down your country when you face up to the facts and ask yourself the reasonable question: Can we not do something better? During the war I travelled up to the northern part of this dominion where we had large establishments of United States soldiers. It is difficult for me to explain to my people why they have to live in an area where only a few people can have electricity, running water and flush toilets; whereas when you go to Flin Flon, to The Pas or to Churchill, where long and severe winters are experienced, these facilities are available.


James Arthur Ross: That is because they are in Manitoba.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes. But they did not have those conveniences at Churchill or Southampton island until the war. Up at

Flin Flon in Manitoba the people enjoy running water, telephones and modern conveniences.


James Garfield Gardiner: The power is developed in Saskatchewan. We give it to them.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes, I was going to mention that. The power comes from Island Falls on the Churchill river. I am sorry that Island Falls is not built to accommodate tourists. But some day the life at Island Falls should be told to the people of the country. Possibly the people who work for the company there have the highest standard of living, on the average, that I have found anywhere in Canada. Every home has running water; every house is heated by electricity. All city conveniences are available up on the Churchill river in the far north. Therefore, if it is possible to provide those modern conveniences for those who supply electricity to produce minerals, the people who supply food to feed ourselves and the hungry people all over the world should have a return for what they produce so that they, too, can enjoy these modern conveniences.
This brings me now to a concrete proposal which I should like to make to the minister. It is that the next time his estimates come down he should make provision for subsidies for rural houses. I realize that he is in an awk-. ward position. Unfortunately the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a statement in Montreal last year which, in my opinion, will rule him out of the race for leadership. He was asked a question at the Liberal club at McGill; and as reported in the Montreal Gazette of October 8, in reply to the question:
How soon will subsidized housing make its appearance in Canada?
He said:
No government of which I am a part will pass such legislation.
He raised the old constitutional question that subsidized housing would be a threat to democracy and said:
Creating a bureaucratic body to allot such houses would be too easy a means for a vast Tammany Hall body and its ensuing corrup'-tion. . . We do not want to do favours for votes.
I think that was an unfortunate speech. I can realize that there is a difference of opinion in the cabinet regarding a matter of this kind. But I believe that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if he had as much experience as the Minister of Agriculture has had, would have said that the government's policy will be announced in due course. And I

Supply-A gricul ture
am not surprised that the Minister of Agriculture is not able to get up now and announce that his department is prepared to provide subsidies to encourage farmers to improve their living quarters.
I would mention to the committee that we have a tradition or a precedent here. We have had before us today a measure respecting the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, and it is significant that from no section of the house was there any criticism of this legislation. As a matter of fact, it is the most popular agricultural legislation that has been introduced, so far as western Canada is concerned, for many years.
I would point out that 33,823 farmers in the prairie provinces have been subsidized to the extent of $100 each. What for? To dig a dug-out on a farm. It could be argued that the government has no business giving a man money to improve his own property. But if the government had not provided these subsidies, Canada simply could not have filled her commitments in supplying food to a hungry world during the war. It would not have been possible during those years for the farmers to haul water four or five or six miles for their hogs and cattle. I submit that the subsidizing of 33,823 farmers to the tune of an average of $100 each was an excellent investment. And I am sure the Minister of Agriculture has won many friends by it.
It can be argued that legislation of this kind enables a minister to reward some of his friends by making them inspectors. But no one would ever accuse the Minister of Agriculture of doing anything of that sort. And whether or not one can reward his friends by making them inspectors, I do not recall a single member of any party ever saying, during a discussion of the estimates, that one cannot get a dug-out unless he is a Liberal.


An hon. MEMBER:: If you are a Liberal
you need one.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I know there have been inspectors appointed who have probably made mistakes; but there are certainly a great many C.C.F. people in my constituency who have dug-outs and, so far as I know, there are not any whose applications for dug-outs have been turned down for political reasons. I believe I must say that in fairness to the minister. There might be the odd case, but I do not know of any; and usually such complaints are brought to the attention of members of parliament. Perhaps I shall get some letters from people whose applications have been refused. However, by and large, the inspectors go out and, if they strike a place where it is sandy,
they will decide that it would not be fair to use public funds in a place where a dug-out would not hold water. It would be of no use to the applicant or to the country.
So I am simply asking the Minister of Agriculture to go a step further in what will be an even more popular field, in deciding that something will be done to improve the housing on Canadian farms. The Curtis report emphasizes the fact that a major program will be required to bring up the housing standard of the farming population to a reasonable level. They divided our farmers into two groups, those who will be able to build new houses of their own, and farmers whose incomes are insufficient for them to undertake to build, without some measure of assistance.
We have had housing legislation in Canada since 1935, but it was not until three years ago that the rural housing section of the National Housing Act was declared. Thus far not a single farm house has been built in this country under the National Housing Act.
So I am suggesting that, if the minister wishes to get action, he should make provision in his department, as has been done in the United States, for a special housing branch to make plans and to provide subsidies.
The report also recommended that more work should be done in the field of design. The experimental farm service has, in connection with it, an architects branch. Unfortunately this branch is under-staffed and overworked; and it is necessary for it to prepare plans for buildings on the various experimental farms across Canada. Thus far they have not been able to design as many types of farm houses as might be desired.
When one considers the wide range of climatic conditions in Canada he must realize that we should have a staff working to prepare plans which would be of use, for instance, in Prince Edward Island, where they want to store large quantities of potatoes in the basement. And those of us who wish to build houses in northern Saskatchewan, where 40 degrees below zero weather is not unusual, will have to have other plans and other types of houses, while the fruit growers of British Columbia would require to build quite a different type.
The Curtis report suggests that a great deal more work should be done in the designing and planning of rural houses.
It also proposes that at least 100,000 farm houses should be accepted as a reasonable target to replace the obsolete and run-down farm houses. This would be only about fourteen per cent of the total number of farm dwell-
Supply-Agriculture

mgs, and just a little over a third of all the dwellings recorded in the last census as being in need of external repair.
To finance rural housing, this suggestion is made and if the minister acts along this line he will not be accused of adopting the C.C.F. policy; he will merely be following out the proposal made by a responsible committee appointed by his own government. The Curtis report suggests that a subsidy would be necessary either on a capital or on an interest basis. It was proposed that, instead of payments being calculated on a monthly basis, they should be related to the crop seasons with annual or semi-annual payments. I might mention again that this formula has been worked out satisfactorily in the United States.
The Curtis report also says that consideration should be given to granting physical needs such as electrical appliances, plumbing, heating and refrigeration equipment.
Then there is a whole section on farm housing of farm labourers. The Curtis report quite correctly points out that there is a problem in keeping farm help on our farms, and that many of the farmers have not additional rooms in their houses, with the result that the hired man must go to the attic or to the bam loft for his sleeping quarters. I have worked as a farm labourer, and I can say I would rather work as a farm labourer and live with the farmer than be a low-paid worker living in a slum area of a city. But if something could be done with a view to providing houses for farm help, many who are unable to buy farms of their own might look forward to marrying and settling down and enjoying life in rural communities.
So I suggest that something should be done with respect to giving further study to this problem. In asking that direct subsidies for housing in rural Canada be given, I am not suggesting something which has not been done. The government provided a production bonus of $400,000 to Crane Limited to induce them to turn out bathtubs last year. I submit that, politically and economically it would have been much better to spend $400,000 to help farmers in Canada to secure bathtubs. They should have some encouragement to purchase these commodities.
I do not deny that farm income at the present time is at a higher level than it has been for some time, and that more farmers are paying income tax than ever before. But the only times during my lifetime when the farmers had anything like a fair share of the national income were during world wTar I and world war II. Before world war I and in between the two wars, farmers in all parts

of Canada saw what happened to farm prices. As a result, many farmers who could now modernize their homes are building in the towns and cities. They realize that farm prices may go to pieces and that if they have their living quarters in a town or city they will be in a better position to get through the depression than if they continue to live on the farm.


James Arthur Ross: How is the farmer going to live in town?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: A great many in our province are operating farms five, eight or ten miles away.


James Arthur Ross: But you said if there was a depression.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If there is a depression they will take a chance of getting relief in town. They would have a roof over their head and they know that during the hungry thirties people on relief in the town were able to get better medical care and had a higher standard of living than the people in the country. Some of them have profited by past experience and are going to take a chance on living in the town in the event of a depression.
Coming back to the subsidizing of Crane Limited, I submit that it is not in the public interest to spend $400,000 of the taxpayers' money to turn out bathtubs without asking some questions as to where those bathtubs are to be used. A hotel at Ste. Marguerite was burned this winter. It was a new hotel costing about $600,000, and in it were a large number of bathtubs made by Crane, I suppose, which had been subsidized by the Canadian people. Is it good policy to subsidize bathtubs for a luxury hotel when only seven farmers out of one hundred in Canada are able to have a bathtub for their Saturday night bath?


Mr. HARKNESS:: What kind of training were they doing in those bathtubs?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If the hon. member for Calgary East is no more interested in the housing problem than he appears to be, it is too bad for him.
To come back to this subsidy of $400,000, if it was government policy to see that more bathtubs were produced the same result could have been achieved by offering a subsidy to the farmer. You could grant a subsidy to every farmer who installed1 a bathtub in his home. That would be one way of guaranteeing production and of guaranteeing a market. So I submit that the minister should give consideration to doing for the farm population what the minister of reconstruction has been

Supply-Agriculture
doing for the people who live in high-priced hotels in tourist resorts in the mountains of Quebec and all across the country.
We had some experience in subsidized housing in Canada during the thirties. The federal, provincial andi municipal1 authorities subsidized houses for people in the cities who were unfortunate enough to be on relief, but it was a pretty pitiful performance. I have mentioned before the $50 which was paid to build a house of logs in the north country. There were a great many of them built. When the Liberal government took over, the subsidy was raised: to $75. During that period I travelled down to Montana, to Fort Peck, to see what President Roosevelt was doing as part of his resettlement program under the new deal. A huge dam was built, and along the Milk river farmers were re-established on small holdings where they were able to take advantage of the irrigation. They were able to live in modern bungalows with hardwood floors, furnaces, electric lights and running water, houses which cost a great deal more than $50.
I submit that, as part of a national policy, it was much better to build modern $4,000 houses which would give some comfort and satisfaction to people than to build $50 and $75 houses. It would have been quite simple for the federal government in those thirties to decide that no one should have to live in a $50 house, that we should not deny our people the right to have lumber for partitions when one could have lumber cut for $5 per thousand. A great many of these settlers were unable to get the $5 with which to cut their lumber. I saw settlers in the northern areas cutting lumber right out of the log with whipsaws. It was a costly process in terms of hours, but for people living on $8 or $9 a month it was the only way they could get lumber with which to build a school. I submit that we should profit by the experience of the United States where they provided houses during the depression that are still a pride to the people.
When the Labour government took over in New Zealand in 1935 they had as one of their main objectives the providing of decent housing for people on the farms, but probably one of the most outstanding examples in all the world in the field of rural housing is Sweden. Back in 1904, more than forty years ago, Sweden decided that it would be part of their public policy to encourage people to live on the farm. This policy was introduced when a great many people were leaving Sweden to come to the United States and Canada, while others were moving to the cities. A great many of them came here and became good citizens of this country.
The policy introduced in Sweden in 1904 has been well received. By 1945, 80,000 low-rental units had been built, of which 48,000, or well over 50 per cent, were agricultural holdings. In 1923 legislation was passed in Sweden to bonus home ownership improvements to a maximum amount of 1,500 kroner, or approximately $360. To qualify for the grant, an owner had to complete improvements to at least double the amount of the bonus. This is the same policy the minister carries out. He does not go on to a prairie farmer's farm and pay the entire cost of a dug-out. He says to the farmer, "If you pay part the government will pay part." In Sweden they say, "You spend at least $360 in improving your farm buildings and the government will spend $360."
Since 1933 loans have been available on favourable terms to provide workers in lumbering, agriculture and road making with a dwelling and a little land in order to make life somewhat easier when they are out of work. The amount which a borrower may obtain was fixed >at first at about $1,430; but since 1930, as a result of building costs, the maximum has been increased to $1,670. These amounts are not very high when one takes into account present-day costs, but I am speaking of conditions in Sweden in 1938 where building costs have always been a great deal lower than here.
The loans are free of interest and are nonredeemable during the first five years. At the end of this period, two-thirds of the capital sum are repayable by annual instalments of one-thirtieth. No interest is paid for thirty-five years and then only on the unredeemed balance of the capital.
In 1935 the Riksdag voted special credits to be allocated in the form of mortgage loans to farmers wishing to build or to adapt dwellings for their workers. The aim was to encourage the erection or reconditioning of farm workers' dwellings of a good type and suitable for their purpose from a social and hygienic point of view. There is no means test in connection with these applications. We do not have a means test on the prairies in connection with dug-outs.
The loans on farm workers' dwellings amount to not more than $715 for each separate dwelling and may not exceed 80 per cent of the estimated cost of the whole building. Originally it was provided that the loan was subject to 3-6 per cent interest, and amortization is at the rate of one-twentieth annually. In 1939 the Riksdag voted that these loans should be free of interest for the first half of the 20-year period of redemption.
Supply-Agriculture

I may mention that I am quoting direct from "Housing Progress Abroad", published by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation of the department of reconstruction. Therefore the minister need not worry about embarking upon a policy which will be open to criticism as being a C.C.F. policy.
I hope that before the minister's estimates come before us next year he will have authorized a study to be made by his department of the material which I have brought to his attention tonight, and that he will do his best to get the cabinet to take a step in the direction of providing subsidies for rural housing. I cannot think of anything that is more important to Canada than making life on Canadian farms more attractive, whether the farms be in Prince Edward Island, on the prairies or in British Columbia.


Mr. WARREN:: They are building their own in Ontario.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Some of them do.


Ralph Melville Warren: They all do.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Some have built good homes in Ontario, as my hon. friend has, but if the people of Ontario have not been able to get the electricity-


Ralph Melville Warren: Get a windmill.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think the people in Ontario should not be too proud of the fact that over sixty per cent of the farm homes were without electricity in 1941.


Ralph Melville Warren: We do not miss electricity much.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I grew up in a home where we did not have electricity.


Ralph Melville Warren: We got along all right.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I know that a great many people lived in log cabins and did their work with oxen.


Ralph Melville Warren: What is wrong with them?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The young people of Canada who fought for democracy have not come back to use oxen. After having had modern conveniences in India, at Churchill and elsewhere, they will not be satisfied with an agricultural economy where it is assumed that the farmers are poor and should continue to live in substandard houses.


Mr. McIVOR:: Mr. Chairman, I have a matter to bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture which created, a good deal of interest to those of us who live at the lake-head. When our exhibition was in full swing and everybody seemed to be enjoying it, a

team of horses that was hitched to a heavy truck became frightened and bolted, and they were heading for a group of men, women and children, many of whom no doubt would have been injured had not a young lady, Miss Ruth Black, who was distinguished for her horsemanship, jumped out and, after a tussle, grabbed the lines and in a short time brought the team under control. She received loud cheers from the spectators and got headlines in the local newspapers and was honoured locally. She is a daughter of our local veterinary surgeon and distinguished for her ladylike athletic endeavours, a girl who stands out permanently in the life of our city.
When a soldier distinguishes himself beyond his comrades we know that he receives honours and deserves them well. We are proud of our Victoria Cross men in this house. In peacetime when a man distinguishes himself by running great risks to save life we honour him. Much more should we honour a girl who so distinguished herself, and, at the risk of being knocked down and trampled by a team of horses, saves the lives of many women and children as this girl did. I think the Minister of Agriculture should honour this girl in a fitting way and I would ask him if he has any suggestion to make in this respect.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, after the flood of erudition, learning, fancy, imagination and I know not what else to which the committee has been treated tonight in this discussion of these estimates, I fear my remarks will seem dull.


Ralph Melville Warren: We are used to them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I shall attempt to
demonstrate if it is possible, and I think it is, that some incorrect conclusions can be drawn from figures that are in themselves correct. On Friday last I put on the record a letter from the president of an association of beef producers of western Canada, who lives near Calgary. The Minister of Agriculture saw fit to make this remark about that letter, and it is to be found at page 3738 of Hansard:
There are a number of other matters dealt with in the letter upon which I am going to touch as shortly as possible, just to indicate that the letter itself is not based upon facts, and not being based upon facts there is very-little reason for anyone giving any further consideration to it.
I want to throw that remark right back in the minister's teeth and to say that the remarks he made upon that letter are described exactly by the sentence which I have

Supply-Agriculture
just quoted. The minister took as his text a sentence from Mr. McKinnon's letter and said:
The statement is made that, with the removal of ceilings on barley and oats "at the commencement of the 1947 feeding season," prices of these grains rose by approximately SO1 per cent. The facts are that prices of barley and oats rose at less than half the rate indicated in Mr. McKinnon's letter. Here are the actual figures-
Then he put on Hansard, at page 3738, a small table showing the average price of oats and barley from October 1 to October 16, the average for December, 1947, the percentage increase over October, and so forth, and the table shows that in no case was the percentage increase over October any greater than 38-1 per cent. The minister went on to say, following the presentation of that table:
It will be seen that the percentage increase in December 1947 over October was 26-9 per cent, not 80 per cent, and that the percentage increase in October over the average January, 1948, price was 31T per cent, not 80 per cent.
Those figures were put on Hansard in my opinion with the direct purpose of misleading the house on the point at issue.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Order. It is unparliamentary to accuse a member of deliberately deceiving the house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If I said anything unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman, I shall be pleased to withdraw it. Let me put it in this way. These figures do not present anything like a true picture of the situation of the Alberta feeder of hogs and cattle. The Alberta feeder of hogs and cattle does not buy oats and barley at Fort William. He buys them at Calgary, Lethbridge, Red Deer, Ponoka, or some other place in Alberta; and for the minister to put on Hansard a table of figures of this sort as an example of how much the costs of a feeder have risen is absolutely ridiculous. It bears no relation to the facts whatsoever.
I have accepted the minister's figures; I have not even bothered to check them by the quotations to see whether they are correct or not. But if we take the Fort William price, this is the exact situation. The minister in the table gives the average October 1-16, 1947, price of oats at Fort William as 65 cents a bushel. But the feeder in Alberta does not pay that price. In October he paid that price, less freight Fort William, less the subsidy. The price he paid was this: freight from Calgary to Fort William 8-84 cents a bushel; subsidy, 10 cents a bushel; subtract that from 65 cents and you will find that he paid 46-16 cents a bushel at that period.
For January, 1948, the minister gives the Fort William price for oats as 85J cents. The price paid by the feeder at Calgary was not that; it was 76-41 cents. In other words, the increase in price between October and January, as far as the feeder at Calgary was concerned-and the same applies throughout Alberta-was 30i cents a bushel, or a percentage increase of 65| per cent, not as the minister puts it down here, 26 per cent.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not 80 per cent either, even on your own figures.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Just a minute. I am glad that the minister interjected that because I am coming to barley. The cost of barley is a much better example as far as these figures are concerned. The Fort William price for barley, October 1 to October 16, according to the minister was 93 cents a bushel. From that, as far as the Alberta feeder is concerned, we must subtract the freight, 12-48 cents a bushel, and the subsidy of 25 cents a bushel, leaving the price paid by the feeder in Alberta at 55-52 cents a bushel. In January, 1948, the Fort William price given by the minister was S1.28i a bushel. Take the freight off that and the feeder in Alberta paid SI.16-02 a bushel. In other words, the increase in price to the feeder in Alberta between these two dates was 61|- cents, which is a percentage increase of 110-8 per cent.


Ralph Melville Warren: Will the hon. member permit a question?


James Arthur Ross: Wait until he is through.


Ralph Melville Warren: I should like to ask the question now because it fits in at about this time.


William Henry Golding: Order. The hon. member must not interrupt.


Ralph Melville Warren: I think he will be willing to answer this one.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As soon as I finish with these figures, I shall be only too delighted for the hon. member for Renfrew North to ask all the questions he wishes.


Ralph Melville Warren: I should like to ask this one now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to put these figures on the record.


Ralph Melville Warren: I should like to know something about the price of oats at Calgary in the early thirties. Give us an idea of the price of grain in the early thirties.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Ralph Melville Warren: I think that would be interesting.
Supply-A griculture


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I was saying, the increase in price so far as barley was concerned was 110-8 per cent, not 38-1 per cent as the minister has said. I contend that the figure given in this letter, which was approximately an 80 per cent increase in the price of the grains that feeders had to feed to their livestock, was correct, and that the minister's attempt on Friday last to show that in no case was the percentage half that was absolutely incorrect.
I was called to order at the beginning, Mr. Chairman, for making an unparliamentary statement. All I can say is that the figures the minister put on the record in attempting to show that the approximately 80 per cent increase in the price of feed grains, which was indicated in the letter which I read, was incorrect, was exactly described by this sentence which the minister made in his speech at page 3738 of Hansard:
. . . the letter itself is not based upon facts, and not being based upon facts there is very little reason for anyone giving any further consideration to it.
I think that exactly describes the minister's figures and his attempt to discredit the approximate figure given in this letter. As a matter of fact, from the example that I have given and worked out here I would say the increase in price was probably greater than 80 per cent. The increase in oats was 65h per cent; the increase in barley was 110-8 per cent. When you average these two, particularly in regard to the amount of oats and barley fed, you will find that the increase in cost to the feeder was probably greater than 80 per cent rather than less. I do not think the Minister of Agriculture is doing any service to agriculture, to the beef industry, by putting upon the record statements which discredit men who are concerned with that industry, and particularly by presenting a false picture of the costs to the producers in that industry.
I have always thought the Minister of Agriculture was concerned with improving agriculture and with looking after the interests of agriculture. I think by and large he is, but I am afraid that when it comes to trying to prove a point in this house the Minister of Agriculture will use figures in any way that he thinks will prove his point, often without consideration for how accurate they are, how close they are to the facts or how much they will help or hinder the general cause of agriculture in this country.


Ralph Melville Warren: The hon. member said he would answer my question when he got through. The hon. member must be old enough to recall the price of oats and barley

in the early thirties when his party was in power. Can he give us a comparison of the prices of those days with the prices of today?


James Arthur Ross: Why live so far back in the dark past?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am afraid I do not understand the point of the hon. member's question. The price of oats and barley in western Canada, and particularly throughout Canada, was far too low in the thirties, far too low for the farmer possibly to make a reasonable living by raising them-


Ralph Melville Warren: What were they?


Douglas Scott Harkness: -no matter what part of the country he lived in. I really cannot see the point the hon. member is getting at.


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister has a great gift for getting off his chest a lot of words that serve to becloud the issue but do not mean a great deal. He starts in to reprove me for using personalities at one time or another, and so forth, and attempts to becloud the issue in that manner. That has absolutely nothing to do with the case in point. The minister never mentioned, in anything he said, as far as the figures he put on the record are concerned, that they did not include subsidies, let alone freight. This letter was written by a man who, as he knows, is a western beef producer and is president of a western beef producers' association. He was not writing for Canada as a whole.


James Garfield Gardiner: Don't stretch it too far.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not stretching anything too far. The Minister of Agriculture is so used to stretching things that he suspects everybody of stretching everything all the time. However, as I say, let him becloud the issue as he may, there is no question about the fact that the figures he put on the record do not present the true picture.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I call attention once more to the first sentence, which denies what the hon. member has just stated. Mr. McKinnon himself says:
I have been instructed by the board of directors of this association to write directly to you.
This is a letter prepared by the association and signed by the president.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Certainly; these are
western beef producers. I do not see what the minister is talking about. The letter was addressed to the Prime Minister. The point I make is that the Minister of Agriculture put on the record of this house Fort William prices, in an attempt to show that this letter, as he says in his own words, is not based upon facts and, not being based upon facts, there is little use for anyone to give further consideration to it. The figures he put on take no consideration of freight and no consideration of subsidies. The percentages, therefore, which he produced and went on afterwards to say were the percentages-26-9, 31T per cent and so forth-are completely misleading. The thing I object to is the Minister of Agriculture of the Dominion of Canada standing up in this house and putting on the record figures which are completely misleading, as far as this particular case is concerned, and by means of those figures trying to prove that some other man was not telling the truth. That is not in keeping with his position and with the dignity of this house, and I object most strongly to it. When he was on his feet a minute ago he said absolutely nothing to disprove what I said.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to say a word in support of the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness).


An hon. MEMBER:: Sure.


James Arthur Ross: "Sure", and I will tell you that you cannot dispute the figures I will give. I know something about this western matter. I want to say, in all fairness, Mr. McKinnon is president of the western beef producers' association, and that association is on the prairies alone, as I understand it. I think the minister went a little far in saying that he was speaking for all Canada, because during his estimates a year ago I put a set of figures on Hansard-I am sorry I have not them here-which did prove that for some years past-and I am sure the same will be true of this year-the greater amount of the beef produced in Canada came from the three prairie provinces. There are more head of beef cattle produced and sold annually from the three prairie provinces than from all the rest of Canada. If anyone wants to dispute that statement I will go to my office and get the figures in a few minutes.
I think, therefore, there is a lot of truth in this letter written by Mr. McKinnon and, as the Minister of Agriculture says, on behalf of the western beef cattle producers; and the statements made by the hon. member for Calgary East are true in every respect. Those
392G
Supply-Agriculture

people buy feed in the west. They were paid a subsidy if they were feeders and they did not have to pay the freight. That letter was written on behalf of the western beef producers of Canada, and they have been fighting a battle year after year on behalf of the breeders in the three prairie provinces.
On some other item I can put on the record the exact figures for the past few years and the latest obtainable from the Department of Trade and Commerce as to the number of beef cattle produced and marketed throughout Canada, from which it will be seen that the percentage is quite a bit higher from the three prairie provinces than from all other parts of Canada put together.


Mr. MOORE:: The estimates of the Department of Agriculture are always taken as the signal for a full-dress debate on Canada's agricultural industry. In past debates when agriculture has been brought up, those members who did not have the privilege of representing agricultural constituencies have very often expressed the opinion that they were bored at the length of time taken up in the discussion of these estimates. However, a careful consideration of the case for agriculture will soon show that agriculture is Canada's leading industry.
It is true, of course, that during the past ten or fifteen years mining and manufacturing have also become leading industries in Canada, but it remains a basic fact that today agriculture is the greatest industry we have in the dominion. An attempt has often been made to compare existing agricultural conditions and agricultural returns with the conditions which existed before the war.
I do not think this is a fair basis upon which to make a comparison. It is a well known fact that before the war the returns of agriculturists were so small that in many cases agriculture failed to give the producers the actual costs of production. At the present time it is quite true that agriculture is a good going industry, but the returns which agriculturists get today are still below what they ought to be if they were on a fair comparison with other industries in the country.
At the present moment, we are told, approximately 33 per cent of Canada's people are either directly or indirectly dependent upon agriculture for their livelihood. It would naturally follow, one would think, that 33 per cent of the national income would go to agriculture, but that is found not to be the case. In round figures, approximately 11 per cent of the national income is collected by agriculture during the course of a year.

The reason I decided to speak on the estimates of agriculture this year is not that I am
a practical farmer; I have done so because of the importance of the industry to Canada as a whole. I believe it is about time the government began to take steps to put agriculture on a sounder basis than it is at the present time.
During the war years the income of agriculture increased enormously. According to the Economic Annalist, published in February, 1948, the net value per farm was estimated at $3,018 and the per capita value at $811. The net farm income for the same period was $2,319 per farm and per capita income of $623. With incomes in that range of figures, the farmers of western Canada have been able to pay off a large amount of mortgage indebtedness on western agriculture.
At the present time the indebtedness of western Canada stands reduced some 68 per cent compared with the figures before the war broke out. During the period of the war western Canada developed technically as well and a very large amount of farm machinery was purchased by agriculturists. From 1941 to 1946, according to the Economic Annalist, some $200 million was spent on agricultural machinery. In the census figures for 1946 it was shown that western farmers possessed 159,000 tractors. During this same period of time the increase in the amount of tractors used on western farms was some 36 per cent. While this increase in farm machinery being used by western farmers was taking place, we find that the horse population of western farms decreased by some 28 per cent or, in round numbers, by 970,000.
In the past, western Canada has found it rather difficult to find a market for coarse grains; I mean in the period before the second great war. I myself have heard many farmers, and also many farm organizations, making requests that something be done to build an industry in Canada which could make use of our coarse grains. Of course the livestock industry was one of the most-promising fields for the use of coarse grains.
I submit that at the present time the need for the development of such an industry is even greater than it was in the period before the war. Because of the reduction in the number of animals used for agricultural production, it will not be necessary in the future to feed as much coarse grains as was formerly used. The result will be that, unless our present markets for food contracts can be. held, the farmers again will find themselves in a difficult position with respect to

Supply-Agriculture
procuring markets for those coarse grains. I believe the government ought to take immediate steps to build up a long-term policy of livestock production. That would not only involve the holding of our markets in Great Britain and other countries as well, but also greatly increasing livestock production with a view to supplying a steady market.
I submit that could be done in two ways. In western Canada coarse grain is always a part of the production of our farming industry. That is due to the fact that the production of coarse grain is part of the system of crop rotation, so that once in four years or once in three years there is an even production of coarse grains. For example, during one cycle, the first year wheat is produced; the second year it is coarse grain, then summer-fallow, and then back to wheat. If we are to provide a market for the coarse grains, the most reasonable method of doing so would be to maintain the present livestock industry. It would be necessary not only to maintain such an industry in western Canada but to develop the livestock industry which now exists in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes as well.
I want particularly to deal with the possibility of developing the livestock industry in western Canada and in the maritimes. I believe that we can kill two birds with one stone, so to speak, if such a policy is put into effect. It might be necessary for the government to finance the policy during the first stages of its operation, but after it was established I maintain that it could be developed on profitable lines. I maintain that it would not only bring profit to the farmers in both east and west, but give Canada a thriving industry as well. In order to develop such a coarse grain-livestock industry, western Canada would be the principal part of the dominion for the production of these coarse grains. But I believe that eastern Canada, particularly Ontario and the maritime provinces, would be the place where livestock would largely have to be produced. Then by using the northern sea route from Churchill to the maritime provinces, we could transport grain cheaply from the western plains to the maritime provinces, and thus provide them with fairly cheap feed for the maintenance of the livestock industry.
It is true that such a procedure might involve the building of a number of elevators in Nova Scotia, possibly in Prince Edward Island, and along the St. Lawrence river, possibly in Montreal. After grain was delivered to those elevators in season, it could be sent out to where it was required by the farmers. If this were done, I have no doubt that we could build up in both the east and the west an 5849-249
industry that would be a credit to Canada. Not only would it be a credit to Canada, but it would mean money in the pockets of the farmers in western and eastern Canada, and it would mean that we could bargain each year for the British market. With greatly increased production it would be possible for us to retain in the future markets in Britain which we might possibly lose if we are not able to increase our production some time in the near future.
That is all I have to say with respect to coarse grains. I think I should deal for a few minutes with the meat packing industry, because it has something to do with the success of our farmers in the operation of the livestock industry. I refer particularly to the statement that was recently made by the president of Canada Packers when giving evidence before the prices committee. I submit that the president of that company took a stand which is most inimical to the welfare of the farmers of western Canada and those of eastern Canada as well. For the benefit of those farmers who are interested in what is going on in our agricultural industry, I shall put his statement on record. This statement by the president of Canada Packers appeared in the Winnipeg Citizen of Friday, May 7, 1948. This paragraph of the article is entitled "Frank Statement", and reads as follows:
"We buy cattle as cheaply as we can and we sell beef for as much as we can," Mr. McLean declared.
He later added: "I don't mind telling you that one of the main objectives in conducting a business is to make a profit."
Mr. McLean said: "I have been in the packing business most of my life and I have more confidence today in the soundness of the competitive system than ever I had before. Nothing but competition keeps individuals and businesses sound. The real danger we face is the elimination of competition. The safeguard of the whole thing is free, open, unrestricted competition."


William Henry Golding: Order. I do not think it would be in order for the hon. member to deal with a matter which is now before the committee until that committee has made its report.


Mr. HANSELL:: Mr. Chairman; I rise to a point of order right there. In the debate we had some weeks ago on the setting up of the committee, the Prime Minister was specifically asked if that committee would hinder us in any way in discussing prices in the house, and he definitely said, "No".


William Henry Golding: In answer to the hon. member, I may say that is perfectly true; discussion of prices was to be left free for the members of the house. But what the
Supply-A griculture

hon. member was doing just now was quoting evidence before that committee, and that committee has not made a report.


George Hugh Castleden: Just a newspaper
report.


William Henry Golding: It does not matter. It is quoting evidence before the committee. If the hon. member wishes to discuss prices, he is quite in order to do so. But it would not be in order to discuss what is going on in that committee until the committee has made its report.


James Arthur Ross: Just on that point, Mr. Chairman, let me repeat what the hon. member for Macleod has said. The Prime Minister has made that point clear in this house. Whether he had any right to do so or not is beside the question. I among others asked that question pointedly, and the Prime Minister made it plain to this house that anything that happened to be before the committee could be discussed in this house at any time, if it were in order on that particular subject. The Prime Minister is on record in Hansard as having made that statement.


William Henry Golding: I do not think the hon. member is fair in that statement. I thought the Prime Minister made it clear that members of the house could discuss increases in prices in any way they wished to do so; but I do not think he ever said they could discuss the evidence being taken in a committee, or what was going on in that committee, until its report was made. That would be entirely out of order-to discuss at the present time a question which is before the committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: In order that we might have exactly what he did say on the record, at page 543 of Hansard, although I read it on Tuesday night, I shall read it again:
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (Prime Minister):	Mr. Speaker, I have anticipated
in a reply I made to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), -what my hon .friend has just inquired into. I think I said that the committee would be a committee to let in light where information is needed, certainly not a committee to prevent light from coming in. If the wording of the resolution were such that it named a specific matter to be sent to a committee in concrete terms, it might be necessary, as is frequently done, to interpret its terms very strictly. But it is certainly not the intention of the government to seek to prevent anyone from discussing the general question of prices in any way he may wish because of such a motion being on the order paper or carried.
It is a question of prices, but not what is going on in the committee.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


William Henry Golding: It is not in order to discuss what is before a special committee set up for a special purpose. It is not in order to discuss what is before that committee, and the evidence taken before it, until the committee reports. Hon. members may discuss increases in prices, but should not quote the evidence.


Ronald Stewart Moore: I was waiting for an opportunity to bow to your decision, Mr. Chairman. However, one did not present itself.
I should like to draw the attention of the committee to the striking similarity between the attitude taken by Mr. McLean in the prices committee and the attitude he took in respect of this same problem in 1934, when he gave evidence before the price spreads and mass buying commission of that year.
Mr. McLean was on the witness stand and was questioned with respect to the importation of beef from other countries. No doubt hon. members will recall that at that time the price of beef in Canada was very low. In fact, in many instances it failed to return to the farmer the actual cost of production and freight. The evidence before the price spreads and mass buying commission is as follows:
By the Chairman:
Q. As a friend of the farmer, do you think that is good practice?
That is, bringing in beef from other countries to Canada.
A. I do not think it a fair question to ask me.
Q. I think it is a very pertinent question, myself.
A. I do not think it is; I do not think it is fair.
Q. You have said, Mr. McLean-
A. I said we do it.
Q. -that you are just as much interested in the farmer's welfare as he is?
A. Yes.
Q. You said that several times?
A. Yes.
Q. You know that there is a surplus of beef in this country; you know the farmer is getting a very low price for his beef; I am asking you, if you think it is sound Canadian business to encourage the bringing in of frozen beef from other countries who happen for the moment to be able to sell it cheaper than we can, into this country, and deny the 'Canadian farmer the chance to supply the market?
A. I do not think it is my duty to protect the Canadian farmer; if he needs the protection, it is yours.
That is the very point I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and the government. It was the duty of the government in 1934, which was of the political colour of hon. members to my right-now the Progressive Conservative party-to have protected the interests of the farmers at that time. It is now the duty of the government, which is

Supply-Agriculture
Liberal, to protect the interests of the farmers of today; because Mr. McLean admits the same attitude toward agriculture today as he took in 1934; and I submit that we are rapidly getting back to the conditions which existed at that time.


Mr. MANROSS:: Getting back to a Tory government, too.


Ronald Stewart Moore: That is the sad part of it.


Park Manross: It will be tough for you.


Ronald Stewart Moore: We want to get together on it. If there is any difference between the two older parties it would be a very trifling difference that the ordinary worker would have difficulty in recognizing.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: A difference in heart.


William Scottie Bryce: Who has a heart?


Ronald Stewart Moore: Today in the Ottawa Journal there appeared the following article under the heading, "Milk No Gold Mine for the Farmer," which states in part:
It becomes evident that price is not the answer to this riddle, for in normal practice good prices should bring out production. Farmers are the first to admit they consider retail prices for dairy products as high as they should go, but claim their mounting costs have so outdistanced what they receive for their product that it no longer pays to expand or even produce all the milk their farms may be capable of producing. As a result many are producing only what they can with home labour and are selling surplus animals. There is a splendid market across the border for Canadian dairy cattle and they are crossing in numbers. The urge to produce for the home market simply is not there, despite what consumers consider too high prices.
I submit that the government today, particularly the Department of Agriculture, should see that something is done to increase returns to the farmers, without increasing costs to
the producers; because unusually high profits are going to those people who process farmers' production and then market it.
May I call it eleven o'clock?


James Garfield Gardiner: Before you do, I think it would be the wish of the committee that I should, on behalf of the committee, express to the young lady who was referred to by the hon. member for Fort William a moment ago-


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Ruth Black.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, Miss Ruth Black- the appreciation we all feel for the very fine effort she put forth at the time of the exhibition in Fort William. I believe I, as minister, should write to her to that effect indicating the appreciation we feel.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



' BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the business for tomorrow?


Alphonse Fournier: First we shall take up the second reading of Bill No. 221, for the winding up of the Penny Bank of Ontario and the repeal of the Penny Bank Act; next will be the second reading of Bill No. 248, to provide for carrying into effect the treaties of peace between Canada and Italy, Roumania, Hungary and Finland; next the resolution in the name of the Postmaster General concerning supplementary payments. Then, from eight to nine o'clock in the evening we shall consider private bills, following which we shall go into committee of supply, taking the estimates of the departments of transport, post office and labour.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
5849-249J
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 14, 1948