1949-10-14

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This morning's issue of the Montreal Gazette contains the following:
A total of 1,106 federal civil servants or their widows are receiving pensions of less than $200 a month, it was shown today in a Commons return tabled for Stanley Knowles (C.C.F.-Winnipeg North Centre).
I hold in my hand the return in question, sessional paper No. 100A, tabled yesterday, which shows that 1,106 federal civil servants or their widows are receiving pensions of less than-please note-$20 a month.


An hon. Member:: Shame.



ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act to provide changes in the limitation of value determined by the minister in respect to compensation that may be paid owners of slaughtered cattle; to provide additional compensation in respect to certain cattle slaughtered before the commencement of the amending act but after March 31, 1947, and for the repeal of the basis of compensation provisions.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, notice of which I sent him yesterday. It relates to the devaluation of the pound as it affects Canadians who served 45781-50
in the imperial forces. The minister wrote me a note yesterday which reads as follows:
I take it from your note that you will ask a question tomorrow under orders of the day. Perhaps you will send me a copy of your question, and I shall try to give a clear-cut reply.
I sent the minister a copy of my question.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice yesterday of his intention to ask this question today.
First of all I wish to express regret that earlier discussions of this matter have been misinterpreted across the country, and I should like to make this statement as clear as I possibly can. The question which the hon. member sent me reads as follows:
I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It is in relation to the devaluation of the pound regarding those imperial veterans who reside in Canada, as there has been considerable misunderstanding about the effect of this regarding those who live in Canada.
Would the minister clarify it, as it is said that those who have resided in Canada for some time would not lose any money by the same? I sent him some letters on this subject, and he wrote me yesterday as follows:
"Dear Mr. Church:
I am sorry if the matter has been misunderstood.
I take it from your note that you will ask a question tomorrow under orders of the day. Perhaps you will send me a copy of your question, and I shall try to give a clear-cut reply.
Sincerely,
Milton Gregg."
In reply I would say that a supplementary award from the Canadian pension commission is accorded to those Canadians who were domiciled in Canada prior to enlistment and who served in the imperial forces, and have been awarded a disability pension from the British ministry of pensions. To these Canadians our pension commission make a supplementary award bringing their pension up to the rate which they would have received had they served with Canadian forces. I should like to make it clear that this is a very special group who, naturally, are not worried. I now come to others who are worried, and about whom all of us are much concerned. No action is contemplated for those without prewar domicile in Canada whose disability pension from British sources is not being augmented or supplemented by the Canadian pension commission. Likewise no action is being taken with respect to those in receipt of long-service pensions, as distinct from disability pensions, from the British armed
778	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry services. The extra assistance applies only to Canadians who are already receiving a Canadian supplement to their British disability pension.


Thomas Langton Church: It applies only to those who resided in Canada for some time before the war.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, an Associated Press dispatch from San Francisco, published this morning, indicates that the Hon. T. C. Davis, Canadian ambassador to China, had stated upon arrival there that he believed it possible to do business with communist China. The heading states, "Can do business with China Reds: Canadian envoy." I presume the Hon. Mr. Davis will be -here over the week end, and I wish to ask whether the government will make a statement early in the week as to Canadian policy with respect to China.


Hon. Brooke Claxfon (Minister of National Defence):: The government will be glad indeed to do that.



BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. What is the government's attitude toward the Bell Telephone Company's application to the board of transport commissioners for a substantial increase in rates?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: That is not a question which should be asked on the orders of the day, and I think no one knows it better than my hon. friend. In any event-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister should not try to evade my question.


Lionel Chevrier: I am going to answer it. As the hon. member knows, or should know, the government is not directly concerned with the application of the Bell Telephone Company. That is a matter which is properly before the board of transport commissioners, and it is for them to adjudicate upon. If any parties feel themselves aggrieved by the board's decision, they have the right to appeal, as my hon. friend knows.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Including himself.


Mr. Fullon:: I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the government operates telephone services in various parts of this country, is not the government in fact concerned in this application?


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend were familiar with the circumstances he would not have asked that question. This is an application by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada for an increase in their tariffs in respect of their telephone lines in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. It does not concern telephone lines of the dominion government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The company has broken its promise to this house of a year and a half ago.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act by increasing the amount of refund payable to members of the force in respect to prior service in a provincial police force where they were retained in the force beyond the maximum period of service that may be counted for the purpose of computing a pension.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, this resolution will lead to the introduction of a bill to provide a new basis for making the refund to certain members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. There are members of that force who formerly served in the provincial forces and who, when they were taken into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to the end of securing for them pension rights with respect to service they had performed for the provincial forces, were called upon to make contributions to the pension fund in respect of the terms they had served with the provincial forces.
Several of this same group of R.C.M.P. members during the war rendered some excess service, beyond their ordinary terms, for a variety of reasons,-usually because they could not be replaced under wartime conditions. Heretofore they have been entitled to refunds arrived at by taking into account the period of their excess service, on the one hand, as related to their provincial service, on the other. But until the present time the calculation has been made on the basis of the total amount of the contribution

to the R.C.M.P. pension fund by both themselves and the province concerned. The amendment will provide that in arriving at this amount there shall be taken into account only that period of service in which they themselves have individually made contributions to the pension fund. This will have the effect of almost doubling the amount of refunds they secure.	,


Mr. Adamson:: How many men will it affect?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I could not answer that right now, but not a very large number.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I did not hear the answer as to the numbers affected. When the minister is answering that question perhaps he will direct his attention to one or two other matters which I might be allowed to bring up at this time.
In view of the fact that this change is being made-incidentally it has been asked for by various members of the force, and requested on previous occasions from this side of the house-may I ask the minister whether, when amendments are being made to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, he will give consideration to making further amendments which have been requested by the R.C.M.P. veterans association.
I am sure that anything that can be done or any changes which can be made in the mounted police act which will improve the morale of the force would receive the support of all hon. members. Anomalous conditions such as the one now before us certainly ought to be removed in order to ensure the maintenance of the highest possible morale.
While giving my support to this measure- and I am sure support will be general throughout the house-I would ask the minister a question which has to do with veterans of the mounted police. Has consideration been given to providing former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with hospitalization, medical treatment, and so on, that is enjoyed by members of the armed forces? This matter, which has been brought up before in this house, is deserving of consideration.
I live in Prince Albert, which has been one of the principal centres of mounted police activity for years. In that city are a number of veterans who joined the force prior to 1900. Their numbers are not large. I am thinking particularly of two former members of the force who are now seventy-eight and eighty-two years of age respectively. These men find it impossible to live on the pension they receive. One of them served in the Riel rebellion of 1885, and the other joined in 1891. They feel that some assistance should be given to them.
14, 1949
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
These older veterans served in the force in the early days when the rate of pay was fifty cents a day. The minister will remember that increases in pay have been of comparatively recent origin. I have in mind other veteran police officers, two of whom served in the rebellion of 1885, and who were paid fifty cents per day for many years. The pension they receive today is small, being based on the amount they were paid at the time they were discharged. These men feel that they are entitled to an increase in pension in order that their standard of living may be at least equal to that of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who were discharged in recent years.
The mounted police today is a specialized, highly trained and efficient body, and anything we can do to raise its standards or to indicate our appreciation of its work should be done. I suggest that, in the interests of improving morale in the R.C.M.P., these older veterans should be given a greater opportunity to enjoy life than they have under the present regulations.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. members for York West and Lake Centre have asked how many members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would be affected by the proposed amendment. I think the exact number is either six or seven.
The bill which will be founded on this resolution deals with a rather small point in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. The matter which the hon. member for Lake Centre has brought up has to do with a large issue upon which I have a bulky file. I may inform him that the department has been giving careful consideration to it over a long period of time; but I suggest to him that it is not relevant to the resolution before the committee. I am glad to have the useful observations of the hon. member for Lake Centre, and I shall accept them as notice and deal with them when the Justice estimates are under consideration.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, I doubt if there will be any opposition in the committee to the purpose of this resolution, which does at least partial justice to men who have given faithful service to this country over a long period of years, and who, because of circumstances which prevailed at the time of their service, now find themselves in a difficult economic position.
I am glad to see that this step is being taken, even though it affects but a few. I hope in the near future the government will try to even up the position of those who have accumulated pension rights which are found to be totally inadequate to meet the economic situation that prevails today. I think we can

Judges Act
all accept this resolution, and the government should have no difficulty in having it agreed to by the committee.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Garson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 64, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



JUDGES ACT


Stuart Sinclair Garson: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Judges Act, 1946, to increase the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada and to provide salaries for an increased number of judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario; also to amend the present provision respecting travelling allowances to a judge of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I think this resolution is explained by its own terms, but perhaps I should refer to the third part, which reads:
-also to amend the present provision respecting travelling allowances to a judge of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick.
Formerly there was only one judge in the city of Moncton, New Brunswick, but a recent provincial statute provides for two, and this is a consequential enactment to take care of that change.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think there are one or two comments which should be made on this proposal. I do not believe anyone should take it on himself to say at this stage that the resolution should not carry and that the legislation to be founded on it should not pass. But I think it is about time that we scrutinized more carefully these proposed increases in the salaries of judges. As an hon. member to my left has just remarked- I am sure he will not mind if I repeat his words-they are almost becoming an annual affair. No one is going to object to our judges being paid salaries commensurate with the dignity and responsibility of their positions. I know, as other hon. members do, that most top-ranking lawyers can earn more in private practice than they can on the bench, even with the increases in judges' salaries which have so far been granted. But it is important to bear in mind that by recent amendments to the Judges Act, judges are now entitled, and properly so, to generous retirement allowances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Noncontributory, too.


Edmund Davie Fulton: These privileges do not pertain to private practice. No longer can it be said of judges that the emoluments of office are unattractive. It is my view that the time has come for us to serve notice that increases in judges' salaries will not be accepted in the future without the closest scrutiny.
There is a most important principle to be borne in mind. The administration of justice must be such as to have the confidence of the people of Canada. Our courts and our judges must have the confidence of the people. If we go on year after year increasing the salaries of our judges, the people of Canada are going to object. It will arouse in the minds of the people a feeling of resentment against the bench, because they will believe that all that judges have to do is to request increases in salary and they get them, while the average person has to work and struggle for his increases. I certainly believe that before we go further in increasing salaries in the top brackets we should see whether we cannot increase the salaries of men in the lower brackets who have families to support.
I repeat that the time has come when the tendency to grant increases in salaries to top government executives and to the judiciary must come to an end. We serve notice that, in the future, proposals for increases in salary will not be accepted without the closest scrutiny.


Angus MacInnis: Will the minister inform the committee as to the amounts of the salary increases proposed in the bill?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I think it is contrary to the rules of the house to disclose the contents of a bill at the committee stage. That is one reason why I made my explanatory remarks so brief. I thought we could discuss much more intelligently the justification for the increases if we had the amounts before us in the form of a bill. If we fall into the habit of attempting to discuss the contents of bills that are not before us at the resolution stage, it is a practice that can only lead to confusion, and will not really give us the best results for the time we spend in considering the legislation.
As to the remarks made by the hon. member for Kamloops, I might direct his attention to the fact that this is a proposal to increase the salaries of the judges of the supreme court only. It arises out of the fact that, by the bill which was passed by the house a few days ago, we have greatly increased the responsibilities of that court. Since it is to be the court of last resort for Canada, we must take every necessary step to make sure that we obtain the services

of men of the highest ability for the membership of that court. As I say, I am quite prepared, when the bill is before the house on second reading and the amount of the increase is known, to justify the increase which the government seeks.
I am sure the hon. member for Kamloops will agree that, although he may have had some reservations as to the propriety of abolishing appeals to the privy council, once we create a court of last resort in Canada it is of the greatest importance that we secure as members of that court men of the highest talents. The membership of the supreme court is drawn from all parts of Canada. When we make an appointment to the court- I think this is true in all cases-we select a man who is a leader of the bar in his own province, who is of reasonably mature age, and who in most cases has family ties and a home in the province in which he lives. We ask him to pull up the roots which he has been spending a lifetime putting down, and to move his family and his home into an entirely new sphere. To such men in relation to what in most cases has been the very much larger income that he had been earning up until that time, we have to offer some fairly substantial financial inducement to bring him to the supreme court bench.
I am sure the hon. members for Kamloops and Vancouver East will also agree that any moneys we lay out in a wise provision of this sort, provided that we administer it properly, will pay substantial dividends to the Canadian nation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to support the views that have been expressed by the hon. member for Kamloops, and by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East, but the main reason I rise at this moment is that frankly I was disturbed by the position the minister took when he went so far as to say that it was not proper to include in the resolution preceding the bill the amounts of money involved. On the contrary the minister is not maintaining the traditions of the house when he fails to put in those amounts.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a question of privilege, I did not say that it was not proper to put the amounts in. I said it was not proper at the resolution stage of the bill to discuss the contents of the bill. Whether it was right or wrong not to include the amounts of the salaries in the resolution, the fact is that the resolution that is before us does not state the amounts of the salaries, and we shall not have that until the bill comes down. Under these circumstances I submit it is not proper to discuss that now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to protest strenuously against this practice being followed
Judges Act
so often, particularly during this session- and it happened a few times during the last session as well. I am glad to note that the Speaker is in the chamber, although I am not asking him to participate in the discussion, either on my side or against it. But he will remember quite well being in your place, Mr. Chairman, when this whole issue was fought out in respect to an old age pension bill back in 1947. As we were able to point out at that time, it had been the practice of the government down through the years, in a resolution preceding a bill which had the recommendation of the governor general, to indicate in the resolution the amount of money which would be involved if that bill passed. I refer to the incident of June 26, 1947, because on that occasion a minister introduced a resolution preceding a bill without stating the amount, and some of us were able to argue, from many precedents and citations in the books, that this gave the committee, when it dealt with the bill in the committee stage, the right to move amendments asking for higher amounts. I could demonstrate my point by saying that that is the position in which the minister finds himself now. I can assure him that when he brings in his bill with the increased salaries I shall not take advantage of the opportunity to move that the salaries be made higher still.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Then why is the hon. member raising the question? What is the purpose?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because I want the Minister of Justice to follow the rules of this house. Citation 436 of Beauchesne reads:
The governor general's recommendation to any resolution involving a payment out of the public treasury must be formally given by a privy councillor in his place ... as soon as the motion has been proposed for the house to go into committee on the resolution.
Then citation 439:
The object of the resolution recommended by the crown is to give the house a first opportunity to discuss the advisability of making a certain expenditure. The details of the projected measure are not then disclosed and debate is confined to the resolution which should not be lengthy . . .
Note this:
. . . although care must be taken that the terms used are sufficiently wide to cover the whole of the bill which will be subsequently introduced.
Then citation 440:
The fundamental terms of a money resolution submitted to the house with the governor general's recommendation upon which a committee of the whole is set up cannot be amended.
And citation 445:
It may happen that the resolution sanctions some expenditure without fixing the maximum amount to be spent. If, for instance, the resolution recom-

Judges Act
mends that adequate salaries be paid a newly constituted body and the amounts of the salaries are fixed in the bill based on that resolution, the committee on the bill has the right to increase those amounts, because, in doing so, it does not go beyond the scope of the royal recommendation.
From all these citations, and from the practice that has been followed by this house down through the years, as well as that followed in the United Kingdom, it is clear that the principle of governmental responsibility in respect to expenditures makes it necessary, or at least highly desirable, that when the government indicates the recommendation of the governor general it should indicate to the house to what extent that expenditure is to go.
As I have said already, I do not intend to take advantage of this opportunity to move that the amounts be increased; but I might draw to the attention of the minister citation 486, which applies particularly because of the way in which this resolution has been worded:
Reductions can be made in committee on the bill . . .
And later:
The committee is not bound by the terms of the provisions which the ministers have inserted in the bill; and, when no amount has been mentioned in the resolution-
That is the pitfall into which the minister has fallen here.
-any member may propose to increase the grants specified in the bill or to extend the application of the provisions of the bill, whatever may be the cost resulting therefrom, so long as the power conferred by the royal recommendation is not exceeded.
I ask the minister to take time to look back over our recent history. If he will look up the resolution which preceded the family allowance measure introduced in 1944, he will find that it contained full details as to the amount to be paid each child and the amount to be paid in respect of successive children in the family. If he will look at the resolution which preceded the old age pension measure and all the amendments thereto, except the one in June, 1947, when this whole issue came up, he will find that they contain all the details. I could go on and refer also to veterans legislation, housing bills, and so on. It has been the practice down through the years, and I submit that it is consistent with the whole concept of governmental responsibility in money matters for the government to indicate in the resolution preceding a money bill the total amount of money involved. If it is true, as the books say time and again, that only with the royal recommendation can money measures be laid before the house, that carries with it a responsibility to tell us, when the measure is laid before us, how much money is involved. Otherwise

we would have the government going to the governor general and seeking approval for a blank cheque, keeping the details a secret until a later stage, as the minister is doing today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not doubt that the Minister of Labour knows.


Mr. Mitchell:: I bow to Solomon's wisdom.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister may know, but it is being kept secret from the rest of us, and this is not consistent with the whole concept of responsible government. The Minister of Justice says it is not desirable to discuss details at the resolution stage, that we must abide by the rules. He is one of the past masters in this house at discussing the details of a bill on second reading. That is out of order, but often he gets away with it. I hope that from now on the Minister of Justice and other ministers will take greater care to do what Beauchesne says should be done, and have the resolutions preceding the bill make clear what is involved in the legislation.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think the committee owes me a vote of thanks for having provided the occasion for a fine statement on the rules of the house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am sure we were all greatly edified by it; I know I was. I would point out to the hon. member, however, that within a very short time the bill will be brought down. If at that time there are in the house enough hon. members opposed to the amount of money involved, I presume the bill will be defeated and the purpose discussed by my hon. friend will be served. But having heard the statement of the hon. gentleman I think we might very well get on with the business and bring in the bill. Then we can see whether or not the amounts mentioned are excessive.


Angus MacInnis: The situation that has
developed today is becoming a regular practice in the house. We had it a few evenings ago in connection with the overseas telecommunications resolution. The minister in charge on that occasion either did not have or would not give the information required. We had it yesterday on the fisheries bill, and today we have it on this resolution. I should like someone on the government side to tell us the purpose of bringing a resolution before this house and this committee if we are not to be given any information as to the purpose it is to fulfil. How are we to know whether or not we are in favour of this resolution- because the resolution has to be voted upon-

if we do not know what it contains? I quite agree with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said. What was placed before the governor general? What did he agree to? Surely this house is making a farce of parliamentary procedure by acting in this way. I warn this government that in the country today many people are greatly disturbed because of the composition of this house, with the top-heavy government majority. Further, I would warn the government not to use that majority for the purpose of departing from the accepted procedure in dealing with matters of this kind.
I want to oppose the resolution, and the bill, no matter what is in it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No matter what amount of money is in it.


Angus MacInnis: That is what I mean-no matter what is the amount of the salary increase. Evidently that is so important that the minister has to keep it a secret. I am going to oppose this measure for precisely the reasons given by the member for Kamloops. I am going to oppose it for the reasons that I opposed the principle in similar bills.
At the convention of the bar association at Banff, the statement was made by the chief justice of the province of British Columbia that the salaries of judges are entirely inadequate and not in keeping with the dignity of superior courts. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that a court that cannot be dignified when the judge is receiving a salary of $20,000 will not be dignified when the judge is receiving a salary of $25,000. If it is impossible for a judge to maintain his dignity or the dignity of the court on $20,000 per year, what about the dignity of hundreds of thousands of people who do not get a thousand dollars a year, and who are raising families.


Mr. Fraser:: With dignity.


Angus MacInnis: And with dignity, too. If we are to build a society in this country in which there is respect for law and authority, I suggest there cannot be so great a difference between the standard of living of those who administer the law and that of those who may have to appear before the courts. On other occasions I have heard it stated in this house that judges should be paid high salaries-perhaps the person who made the statement would say, a reasonable salary -because they should be put beyond temptation. If that is a correct statement, then judges should be lenient with people who receive low salaries who come before them, because their economic circumstances may be responsible for their fall.
Judges Act
The other evening I brought a case to the attention of this house. Since doing so I have found out that the case has moved a step further. It concerned a recipient of war veterans allowance who failed to report certain income. The war veterans allowance was stopped, and this man and his wife were trying to live on a $31.25 a month disability pension. There is quite a difference between that and $20,000 a year. My information is that the war veterans allowance board has received authority to prosecute this person for concealing a certain amount of his income.
I suggest to the minister, and I suggest to the government, that until the standard of living of all the people is put on a more equitable basis we should not begin increasing the salaries of those who are already receiving sufficient to provide a high standard of living, and whose future is provided for by good noncontributory pensions. These pensions are beyond anything the ordinary person can provide for himself or can receive through government social legislation. Surely we are beginning at the wrong end to improve the standard of living of our people.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Chairman, there was just one thought I wished to express about the dignity of the supreme court judges, mentioned by the minister. He said they had to leave their home ties and come to Ottawa, and there should be some recognition of that. Looking through the estimates one finds that the Prime Minister receives only $17,000. He occupies the office with dignity. If the salaries of the supreme court judges are to be raised to $24,500, then I believe the Prime Minister of this country should receive more than these judges.
The president of the United States receives more than the supreme court judges of that country. It is necessary for him to maintain his dignity. I feel that there should not be anyone receiving a salary or an indemnity from this government which amounts to more than the Prime Minister receives. It lowers the dignity of that office; I do not think it is right.


Howard Charles Green: The resolution is divided into three parts. The first deals with the increase in salaries for the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. The next deals with the salaries for the increased number of judges in the Supreme Court of Ontario, and the third part with provision for travelling allowances to a judge of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick. Will the minister tell us how much each of those changes will cost the taxpayers of Canada?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, all of those amounts will be disclosed when the bill is

Judges Act
brought down. So far as the Ontario changes are concerned, I believe the hon. member is capable of making that computation. There will be two appeal court judges and two trial judges. It is just a matter of multiplying that number by the amount of the annual allowance received, which, if my memory serves me correctly, is $12,000 per year.


Howard Charles Green: That would be $48,000?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes; that is right. These are new appointments which have been certified to us by the Attorney General of Ontario. An act was passed by the Ontario legislature creating these vacancies for us to fill in order to meet the heavy accumulation of court cases in that province.
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that all these matters can be discussed more intelligently when the clauses of the bill are before the members of the house. We shall be delighted to justify the amount of the proposed expenditures. In the ease of the Ontario changes we have no choice. The Ontario legislature passed an act, and very properly, in my opinion, creating certain vacancies. This government asked the government of Ontario for their reasons for doing so, and received a satisfactory statement of those reasons. In the opinion of the attorney general of that province, there was a need for two additional judges in each of the divisions. Those vacancies have been created, and we will fill them if this bill is passed.
The third item concerns a minor matter. It is simply that there is a provision in the Judges Act to the effect that the judges in Fredericton and Saint John cannot charge travelling allowances unless they go from the city in which they are living to one or the other of these two cities. Heretofore, that has applied to the city of Moncton, where there was one judge. The provincial legislature made provision for two judges in Moncton, and it is their desire to have the same privilege applied to the two judges that formerly applied to the one.


Howard Charles Green: How much is it expected to cost?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think it would be possible to estimate, since it depends on how many cases they would have to try. I would imagine it would be well under $500.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has told us what this measure is going to cost for the appointment of four more judges in the Ontario court, and the travelling expenses of a judge in New Brunswick. He has not yet told us what the increase in the salaries of the supreme court judges is going to cost. I do suggest that we should be given that information. That question is perfectly proper. The main 
concern about a resolution of this kind should be what is it going to cost, and the minister is on very weak ground when he refuses to give this information. I ask him to tell us how much this increase in the salaries of the supreme court judges is going to cost Canada. He must know, and the committee is entitled to have the information.
I cannot understand why the minister- who, after all, should be the minister most careful to observe the rules of this house, because he is the chief law officer of Canada -will not give us the information. If we cannot expect to have the rules of the house followed by the Minister of Justice, what hope is there of having the business of the house carried on in a proper manner? The rules are there. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has cited them. If they are not right, let us change them; but as long as we have the present rules, then the Minister of Justice, of all the ministers, should follow them. I ask him to give us the information. What is it going to cost to increase the salaries of these supreme court judges?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I understand the point of order that was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, it is that the resolution itself should disclose these figures. The resolution has not disclosed the figures. It is only a matter of minutes since we passed another resolution having to do with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in which no figures were disclosed. Resolutions of this kind are frequently introduced in the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the Minister of Justice came to the house, but not before.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, not only since the Minister of Justice came here. As a matter of fact I think it was either the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra or one of his colleagues from the front benches who, on a previous occasion, called me to order on the committee stage of a resolution for discussing the terms of a bill. I was reminded that there was no bill before the house. I frankly confess that I do not understand what purpose these tactics can serve.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We want to know how much expenditure is involved. That is why we are asking the question.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In this House of Commons week in and week out we deal with large sums of money. Every hon. member opposite must know that the sum we are discussing today cannot possibly be more than a figure which in relation to the total expenditures of the government is a very small item indeed. We should follow the rule of not discussing the provisions of the bill at the

committee stage of the resolution. When the bill is brought down, we shall be delighted to discuss the adequacy of these amounts.


John George Diefenbaker: Why does the minister take this attitude? I want to join with him in assuming a rate of salary for the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada to enable them to maintain the dignity of their position. What is the idea? Is it because he has behind him an overwhelming majority? Why not give the information? What manner of excuse can he advance, except to endeavour to be facetious to the committee? I ask him to give us the opportunity of seeing that he intends to carry out what the resolution sets forth.
We in parliament have a right to information. We have always had the right to information about any money resolution and the extent of the expenditure involved. Certainly the attitude he has taken-and I am sure he will reconsider it-was not the attitude taken by any of his predecessors such as Mr. Ernest Lapointe, Mr. Ilsley, or the present Prime Minister. I do not want to hold up the business of the house, but surely a simple question such as this, if the figure has been decided upon, can be answered. When it is answered, we will be in a position to discuss the question of the necessity of the supreme court judges receiving additional salary to meet their added dignities and responsibilities.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: Are we to
have a ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre? He said that in resolutions of this kind involving the expenditure of money the amount should be disclosed, either in the resolution itself or by the minister in charge of it. I say it should be in the resolution.
The other day when we were discussing the resolution having to do with the telecommunications system, no information was given by the minister. I think the minister was rather offended by the criticism that came from this side of the house because hon. members were looking for information of that kind. Has not the House of Commons the right to expect such information from the ministers who introduce these resolutions?


Mr. Low:: I have listened to the discussion with a great deal of interest. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Minister of Justice is not prepared to give us the information asked for. If this resolution comes to a vote, my group will have to vote against it, purely on the ground that the minister is not observing the rules of the house. Unless we get the information we are not in a position to say whether there is any merit in the proposal. Until that information is provided, and the rules of this house observed-they
Judges Act
were well explained by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-I must say that this group will have to vote against the resolution.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister to consider the words of the citation of Beauchesne to which reference has already been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre? I am certain that if he does so he will see the logic of our asking him to give us this information. Citation 439 says:
The object of the resolution recommended by the crown-
That is, the resolution we are discussing.
-is to give the house a first opportunity to discuss the advisability of making a certain expenditure.
We do not know what the certain expenditure is unless the resolution contains it, or the minister gives us the information. Further on the citation states that once the resolution is carried there can be no amendment of its terms. This being so, normally we shall not have any opportunity of amending the proposal as to expenditure, either upwards or downwards. On reflection I do not think the minister will consider it fair to ask the House of Commons to accept blindly an expenditure the amount of which hon. members do not know. If the minister will consider the matter he will see the justice of the position we take when we ask him for this information.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not going to get into any-


Howard Charles Green: The minister had better keep out of this.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is all right. The hon. member for Kamloops said something about voting blindly. Hon. members are not voting blindly. The bill has to get second reading and then be considered in committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: According to Beauchesne, once we have committed ourselves by accepting the resolution, we cannot amend the details of the bill based on the resolution. That is why we say that before we accept the resolution we should know what is the amount involved.


Mr. Coldwell:: It seems to me that the procedure we are following is a clear violation of the age-old practice of parliament. In effect the House of Commons has only one control over the ministry, and that is in the appropriation of public money. As the rule states, at the resolution stage we should know what the certain sum of money is with which we are dealing. This House of Commons cannot pass a resolution in these terms, foreshadowing the expenditure of moneys, without knowing what the amount of money is. I rise merely to say that in my opinion this is a violation of the age-old rights, privileges and authority of parliament.

Judges Act


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Chairman, we have passed many resolutions without giving exact amounts, when we have been dealing with increases in salaries. If hon. members will look at citation 433 they will see that in that citation we can even bring in a bill without having it preceded by a resolution. When it involves increases in salaries as part of the bin-and this has been going on for over half an hour-


John George Diefenbaker: Why have we not had the information, then?


Howard Charles Green: Give us the facts.


Alphonse Fournier: Surely that would be a victory for the opposition. They are trying to start off with a principle, and then they say, "Give us the information." Well, I am ready to argue the point at length, even discussing the citation which was mentioned here this afternoon. First turning to citation 439-


Mr. Carroll:: Does the minister think that the word "certain" has been properly applied by the hon. member for Kamloops?


Alphonse Fournier: It does not mean what the hon. member has said-and that is the point I wish to make. The reference to making certain expenditures is not definite. It is not definite in the sense that it has to be this or that amount. If one continues to read the citation he will see it states that the details of a projected measure are not then disclosed. Well, one of the details of a measure would be the amount mentioned in the bill. The bill is preceded by the resolution.
I am not stubborn. Hon. members have known me for quite some time, and I would not unnecessarily take up the time of the house in a matter of this kind. But it seems that on some minor point some hon. members try to develop it into a great principle of procedure, and want to hold up a resolution.
The rule of procedure in the house is to give an opportunity to discuss the advisability of making a certain expenditure. That is what this is-making an expenditure.


Edmund Davie Fulton: "A certain expenditure".


Howard Charles Green: Yes, a "certain" expenditure.


Alphonse Fournier: But that does not compel the government to give the exact amount, especially in respect of increases in salaries. If we read it we find that it says "are not then disclosed and debate is confined to the resolution." It will be noted that it is "confined to the terms of the resolution". If the resolution is not according to the rules, then on a point of order an hon. member may try to have it ruled out. He may do that. But, according to the rules, he cannot

try to discuss something outside the context of the resolution. That is one point.
Then, going back to citation 433-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read the rest of that sentence.


Alphonse Fournier: It says-
-although care must be taken that the terms used are sufficiently wide to cover the whole of the bill which will be subsequently introduced.
Well, it certainly is wide enough. But the resolution is not the bill. The resolution says that it is advisable that we increase the salaries of the judges of the supreme court, secondly provide for salaries for an increased number of judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario, and to pay expenses. That is all it says. It is in general terms, and the bill will give the details.
All this debate-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read on.


Alphonse Fournier: You wish me to read this part of citation 439:
No amendment affecting the purposes for which the grant is recommended by the crown can be allowed. The constitutional principle which vests in the crown the sole responsibility of incurring national expenditure forbids an increase by the Commons of a sum demanded on behalf of the crown for the service of the state.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is the point, right there.


Howard Charles Green: That is clear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It says that the Commons cannot increase a sum asked for by the crown. What is that sum? The responsibility rests upon the government to say what that sum is.


Alphonse Fournier: The sum will be stated in the bill. Have you ever seen an opposition try to increase salaries without having it recommended by the government?


Major James William Coldwell: We cannot.


Alphonse Fournier: According to your argument, if we put the amount in the resolution you could ask us to increase it.


Major James William Coldwell: We can reduce it. May I suggest to the minister that the relevant citation which he should read is citation 433. Citation 433 states-and perhaps I had better read it:
All bills providing for the payment of salaries or for any expenditure whatever out of the public funds of the dominion must be first considered as resolutions in committee of the whole. And all such resolutions necessary to the introduction of a bill must first obtain the recommendation of the governor general. It often happens that bills are introduced with certain clauses providing for salaries or other charges on the public revenue, and in that case the bill may be introduced directly on motion, while the clauses in question (which should be distinguished by italics or brackets), are considered in the shape of resolutions in committee on the bill.

And here is the point that is important:
But this can only be done when the money clauses are merely a part of the bill. Whenever the main object of a bill is the payment of public money, it must directly originate in committee of the whole.
Here is the committee of the whole. It must directly originate in this committee of the whole.


Alphonse Fournier: That citation is one which I myself have been reading for some time.


Major James William Coldwell: You did not read the right part of it.


Alphonse Fournier: But it does not mean that we have to precede a bill concerning an increase in salaries by a resolution. That is not the interpretation I give it.
Just to try to shorten debate-and this is only a matter of procedure-I suggest that if the minister has the amounts I would have no objection to his stating them. But I wish to say to the house that an opposition of about five members can keep a debate open for a long time-and I know the hon. member for Lake Centre can keep it up. My experience has been that we have had longer debates on resolutions than on the bills.


William Joseph Browne: Is the
minister casting a reflection upon the integrity of men on this side of the house?


Humphrey Mitchell: He did not.


William Joseph Browne: We have been raising an important constitutional point, as to whether the minister should disclose the amount of money to be expended. I do not think that is wasting the time of the house in debate.


Alphonse Fournier: If I cast any reflection upon the integrity of any member, then I am very sorry. I apologize and withdraw what I said. I have never done it before in the house in my life, and I will not start at this stage. But I have noticed in the House of Commons that we have spent more time on resolutions than we have on bills. Perhaps there is something wrong with the rules, but I never thought that resolutions were to promote debate on anything other than that which they contained. Bills can be discussed in detail-but not resolutions. That is against all parliamentary practice. We have taken up great amounts of time in the discussion of resolutions, in discussing things which hon. members did not know would or would not be in the bills.
This afternoon hon. members gave different amounts-and I do not know personally if they are correct. However, if it would carry the resolution, I would suggest that the Minister of Justice give that information. But that would be the only reason for doing it.
Judges Act


Mr. Mclvor:: Carried.


Howard Charles Green: No, it is not carried. From what has been said by the Minister of Public Works I take it the Minister of Justice would have no further objection to naming the amount.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think this is becoming slightly ridiculous. There has been no disposition personally on my part to refuse to disclose the amounts of these increases. I am most anxious to follow the rules of the house which, as I understand them, require that on a discussion of a resolution we should not discuss the contents of a bill.
However I have no objection in the world to indicating that when the bill is brought down it will provide that puisne judges of the supreme court shall receive salaries of $20,000, and the chief justice $25,000.


Howard Charles Green: Raised from what figures?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: From $16,000 and $20,000 respectively.
Resolution reported.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Resolution read the first time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: that the said resolution be now read the second time and concurred in.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). Had I voted I certainly would have voted for the resolution.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was paired with the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). Had I voted I would have voted for the resolution.
Resolution read the second time and concurred it. Mr. Garson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 65, to amend the Judges Act, 1946.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXCHEQUER COURT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, September 30, consideration in committee of Bill No. 8, to amend the Exchequer Court Act-Mr. Garson-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 2-Appeals to Supreme Court of Canada.
John George Diefenbaker: Would it be permissible, Mr. Chairman, to ask a general question even though section 1 has been passed? I have brought up this matter on previous occasions. I refer to the continuance of the anomalous requirement that a fiat of the crown is necessary before an action can be commenced against the crown.
I read what the minister said in this regard some days ago. He did not deny that it was
TMr. Garson.]
an anomalous state of affairs that a fiat should be required, but undertook to answer it by way of evasion and avoidance, as I read his argument. He said fiats were never refused. Well, if that were correct the obvious question would be, then why continue a formula that has no efficacy under modern practice? Today the crown is engaged in business, yet a fiat is required before an action can be commenced, as far as emanations of the crown are concerned. In the United Kingdom this state of affairs was done away with as of January 1, 1948. The doctrine that the king can do no wrong was admitted to be no longer applicable in so far as actions against the crown are concerned. This fiction of the law, no longer having any application to the complexities of modern conditions, was abrogated.
I should like to challenge the statement of the minister that a fiat is never refused. Fiats are refused, and have been refused in this country in the last thirteen or fourteen years under this government. I shall be specific in my statements. I have reference to the administration of the Indian department. Conditions existing on many of the reserves of this country require to be rectified, yet Indians residing on reserves find it impossible to commence an action against the crown, however justifiable that action might be, owing to the refusal of the crown to issue fiats. I recall one very good case. Some of the Indians on one of the reserves in Saskatchewan commenced an action against the Department of the Interior. In that action, which was heard by the late Mr. Justice MacLean, substantial damages were awarded -speaking from recollection I believe they ran to $25,000 or $30,000-for malfeasance or certainly nonfeasance on the part of officials of the department. Following that, Indians on another reserve requested the right to take action with respect to matters concerning them, but a fiat was refused.
An action by Indians is one case in which a fiat should not be refused. The Indian operates under a handicap by reason of the fact that he is subject to control by and a ward of the state; and whenever Indians feel there is an injustice, they should have a right of action against the crown. I ask the minister the reason for continuing this anomaly of requiring a fiat from the crown when a subject of His Majesty feels that he has been aggrieved. I hold no brief directly or indirectly for the Indians, nor did I act in the case to which I referred. Injustices that may exist on Indian reserves should not be permitted to continue simply because the state refuses to grant to the aboriginal and the first subjects of the king the right to take action to have those injustices remedied. I

should like the minister to give us the assurance that when applications are made for the right to take action against the crown in respect of injustices on Indian reserves there will be no hold up of their right to commence action, and that there will be no refusal of any fiat by the minister, as representing His Majesty the King, in any action that Indians may desire to take against any representative of His Majesty the King.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Before the hon. member
resumes his seat, could he tell me the approximate time of the refusal of the fiat, the person to whom it was refused and the person by whom it was refused?


John George Diefenbaker: 1936 or 1937.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: About thirteen years ago.


John George Diefenbaker: That is correct.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Does my hon. friend know whether there have been any further requests from the person to whom that refusal was given?


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot say that, but the curtness with which the request for a fiat was refused would certainly discourage anyone but the most courageous. The minister will find also a case in the province of Manitoba within the same period.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: About 1936?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, during that period. I know of a refusal being made to the Indians who asked for the right to take action-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Was the refusal made by the Department of Justice?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the refusal was made by the officers of the crown. The Indians have only one right, and that is an appeal to the officers of the department administering Indian Affairs. Certainly, there were solicitors acting in the matters to which I referred and they would know the proper place to make application. I would think an application made to the Indian department would have been sufficient and that, since the king is one and indivisible, a request made to that department for leave to take action against the department would have been transmitted to the proper law officers of the crown.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In my friend's absence the other day, this matter was discussed rather fully at the instance of the member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith).


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I read that in Hansard.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend says he has read the report of that debate. I do not
Exchequer Court Act
think I have very much to add to the rather full statement which was made on that occasion. In so far as the matter which he has raised today is concerned, the application to the Indian department and a request that they transmit to the attorney general a request for the issuance of a fiat, I would be glad to look into the circumstances of the case. I suppose by now thirteen years later the rights and wrongs of it may have ceased to exist.


John George Diefenbaker: They still exist on a reserve near Prince Albert.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I shall be glad to look up that case; but, as I indicated in my remarks in reply to the points raised by the member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), in recent years the department has followed a practice of investigating all claims against the crown. In most cases these are claims for damages and they are investigated in the same way as they would be in the case of any private citizen who was charged with having committed a tort. If, in the opinion of the officers of the department, there is a good foundation for legal liability on the part of the crown a settlement is made. The claimant secures redress without any legal expenses for court action. In those cases in which the department conscientiously believes there is a good defence to the claim which is being made, we nevertheless-I say this in spite of what my friend has said today about those Indians-issue a flat as a matter of course.
My hon. friend says, what is the purpose of preserving this anachronism? What purpose does it serve? Administratively, I believe it serves a useful purpose in a country as far-flung geographically as Canada. It assures all those cases coming under the supervision of the Department of Justice and makes certain that the same principles of law are applied to all claims against the crown. In a great many cases our investigation, which is made by our officers, is of some service to the claimant. If settlement can be obtained without any legal action at all, that is certainly true.
In those cases where we believe we have a defence, if we are asked to state the reasons we are very glad to state them, and that also is a help to the claimant or his solicitor if he proceeds with the action. With cases arising in such distant points as Newfoundland or the Queen Charlotte islands, we are assured that the same crown attitude and the same principles are applied at every stage of the claim, even before litigation actually commences. Perhaps that statement will suffice as a supplement to the full discussion which took place the other night.

Exchequer Court Act


John George Diefenbaker: Just one question: Will the minister give the committee assurance that if any of these Indian bands now apply for a fiat to take any action in the maladministration of their affairs, a fiat will be granted?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I think my hon. friend, with a tactical sense I can only admire, is rather anxious to have me make a commitment as to the disposition of a certain matter to which he has referred, and the facts concerning which I have no knowledge at all. I can give him this assurance, that if he will be kind enough to bring the facts in this case either to me directly or to the Indian department and the Department of Justice at the same time, we will be delighted to look into the matter to ascertain whether it is an occasion for the granting of a fiat. I believe that is as far as one can go in respect of a matter which is thirteen years old and of which I never heard until about three minutes ago.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister quite frankly admits, does he not, that granting to a subject the right to take action against His Majesty the King is not an automatic matter at all? The fiat is not granted as of right, but depends on the results of an investigation by crown officers.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I thought I had made it clear-


John George Diefenbaker: Not very clear.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -both today and at great length the other day that no opinion was formed on these matters as a result of telepathy or anything of that sort. We like to investigate the case in respect of which we are being asked for a fiat. Then, as I told my hon. friend, after having investigated it, we dispose of it in the manner I have indicated. I have no doubt that we are prepared to dispose of the case of which he speaks on the same basis. But on the strength of the hon. member's statement-which of course I accept, but even he would not claim that it was completely comprehensive in any sense-to commit the government and the department to any course of action until we have seen what the case is would, I think, be regarded by the hon. member himself upon reflection as a bit unreasonable.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to argue further, but on reflection I am sure he will admit that his answer amounts to this: that the issue of a fiat to a subject for the privilege of taking action against His Majesty the King is not automatic. The other day the minister took the stand that a fiat is granted without any question, and that therefore there is no reason to abolish the necessity for a fiat being granted. Now by his very
[Mr. Garson.l	|
argument he admits that the crown does not grant to the subject in every case the right of action for wrongdoing as against any subject representative of His Majesty the King. That being so he has advanced a strong argument in support of the removal of the anomaly or anachronism of requiring a fiat before action can be taken. Anachronism was the word he used. 1 think it is pertinent and descriptive. In my opinion there is no excuse for the continuance of a provision that can no longer be justified, however applicable it was 150 or 200 years ago. I say no more about the matter now except that the very fact the minister refuses to say that if any of the Indians on any of the reserves, in respect of matters that have arisen within the last few years, would ask for the right to take action as against His Majesty the King, that fiat would be granted, indicates the reason but not a justification for the continuance of the anachronism.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The time of appeal is being extended from thirty to sixty days. I am not going to go so far as to move a formal amendment, but I would urge strongly that even at this stage the minister consider the advisability of extending the time to ninety days. From his earlier answer we know that the judgments of the court are still considerably in arrears. I make no comment on that other than to say that it is indicative of the considerable volume of work coming before the court. It may well be that, between the time that the case is prepared and argued and the time that the judgment is given, changes have occurred in the personnel of the counsel who took the case. Witnesses may have died and there may be a loss of relevant facts. It is very easy to imagine, and probably within the experience of lawyers similar things have happened, that it would take considerable time to reassemble the file and form an opinion as to whether or not an appeal should be taken. In view of the difficulty of correspondence, and the delays that necessarily occur, careful consideration should be given to extending the time of appeal to as long as ninety days.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: For the reasons that my hon. friend has mentioned we thought it wise to extend the time of appeal from thirty to sixty days in order properly to consider whether it was wise to have an appeal at all. To what court was my hon. friend referring when he spoke of the accumulation of business?


Edmund Davie Fulton: To the exchequer court, and the length of time between the argument of cases and the delivery of judgment.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Between the argument of the case and the delivery of judgment it is quite possible that the lawyer who argued the case may have died.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In most cases I think the judgment itself would be held up until the reasons and everything else had been brought down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I have not made myself clear.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not trying to cast any reflection on the court with respect to the arrears of judgment; that is to say, the length of time lapsing between the case coming on for hearing and the delivery of judgment.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Between trial and judgment?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. The facts given by the minister in the earlier discussion of this bill indicate that there is still a substantial backlog of judgments.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I simply say that that indicates there is a considerable volume of work and that there is a big time lag. That is why I say there may be changes in the staff of the office from which the case originally came. The counsel who took the case may have died in the meantime, or the witnesses may have died. As one who has been a practising lawyer the minister knows the difficulties which occur in that regard. In view of the length of time between the trial and judgment, and the difficulties which may be experienced in reaching a conclusion as to whether an appeal should be brought, I say that it would not be too long to make the time for appeal ninety days instead of sixty days.


Mr. Siewart (Yorkfon):: I think the provision is rather liberal.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is the Liberal government. Perhaps it would be.


Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):: It gives you sixty days. If you read the section you will find that in addition you have the right to apply for an extension.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And incur more costs.


Alan Carl Stewart: If any of the
extreme circumstances which the hon. member has mentioned occur, if some lawyer died or if something else happened, you naturally apply to the court for an extension which would be granted. This act is different from our court of appeal. They even provide that during the period of long vacation you do not need to serve notice of appeal. Under the Saskatchewan king's bench act we have
Exchequer Court Act
to serve notice of appeal even during long vacation. It is different here. The provision is quite liberal. There has to be a finality to litigation. Two months after the judgment is delivered is quite a long time. If the lawyer dies or if the file is lost or a witness dies it is a simple matter to apply to the judge for an extension which in most cases is always granted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to know that my hon. friend has always been able to deal with his cases as expeditiously as he appears to indicate, but he is not the only one who has read the section. These considerations had occurred to me. He has said that if a lawyer wants an extension of time he can apply for it and it is generally granted. May I suggest to him that that process involves the litigants in extra costs.


Alan Carl Stewart: Why not make it a year?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That interjection is not worthy of my hon. friend. It is quite customary to allow ninety days. After all, the difference between ninety days and sixty days is only thirty days. For the reasons that I have given I think that the matter might well be taken under consideration.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Careful consideration was given to the length of time. We thought we were going quite a long distance in making it as much as sixty days, which is considerably longer than the usual period allowed in cases of this kind. I do not think we would want to change it. If the experience of the next year or two appears to show that there have been any hardships we might consider extending it to ninety days. I think we should let the sixty days stand now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 9 to amend the Department of Justice Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Justice I am, ex officio, Attorney General of Canada. As deputy minister of justice my deputy is not ex officio deputy attorney general, and there is not any deputy attorney general. This means that, in connection with all those matters coming before me as Attorney General of Canada, I am in the position of having no official deputy.	; Vg

Department of Justice Act


Howard Charles Green: How have you been getting along?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I sign all the papers. They come directly to me. I have some objection to having no deputy in the rather onerous position of attorney general, and the purpose of the bill is, with no increase upon the public expenditures, to make my deputy the deputy attorney general as well as deputy minister of justice.


Howard Charles Green: To cut down the number of signatures.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: To cut down the number of my signatures, among other things.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Deputy attorney general.
William Joseph Browne: May I ask
the minister whether in addition to the work which he has said will be taken off his shoulders and passed on to the deputy minister, the deputy attorney general will have equal rights with him in advising the government and the governor general? I understand that is one of his duties.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Does the hon. member refer to points of law?


William Joseph Browne: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I believe my hon. friend will find that as minister of the department, according to the rules of the house, I am debarred from giving out any legal opinions to the house. Legal opinions made available to the house are prepared by the deputy minister of justice, who, in addition to having that designation, will now be known also as deputy attorney general. The only rights of advising shared by the deputy minister and myself are those of advising the governor general in council and my colleagues.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any purpose other than the one the minister mentioned earlier? Is the deputy minister of justice being given any new functions, or is it merely a matter of office routine?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, he is not being given new functions. There are certain acts and documents which I have to sign in my capacity as Minister of Justice. There are other acts, such as authorizations for suits in the name of the crown, which I must sign in my capacity as attorney general. Without the authority which this bill seeks to convey, everything pertaining to the functions of the attorney general must come to me for my personal authorization; whereas in connection

with my office as Minister of Justice there are a number of matters which can be disposed of at the level of deputy minister.
As my hon. friend knows, in each instance these matters are certified along to the deputy minister, who in turn certifies them, and I ultimately sign them. The only practical effect of not having legislation of this sort in the past has been that there has been a large volume of purely formal matters to which it has been necessary to attach my signature. This bill will obviate the necessity of my doing so, and the delays which therefore took place if I were absent. I do not think it will make any substantial difference in the administration of the department, except in that respect.


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

[Stage Direction]
Special-
31. Major irrigation and water conservation projects in the prairie provinces, $7,500,000.
Mr. Thatcher:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say another word on this item. Last night the minister flabbergasted the whole house and particularly the people of western Canada, when he suggested that major irrigation works might be partly the responsibility of provincial governments. He surprised us particularly because in the past he has never made such a contention either on the hustings or in the House of Commons.
Last night the Minister of Agriculture, replying to the hon. member for Medicine Hat, said:
As long as any government, whether it be that of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba or any other province, approaches the problem by trying to convince everyone that this is a federal job, all I can say is that they are approaching it from an entirely wrong point of view.
When I spoke a moment later I said, as reported at page 771 of Hansard:
He has enunciated tonightreferring to the minister.
-an entirely new irrigation policy for the Dominion of Canada, when he suggests that the province should pay a portion of the cost of irrigation projects.
And then in answer, as reported at page 772, the minister said:
This is not a new policy being enunciated tonight; it has been enunciated every time I have spoken on the question in the House of Commons.

I took the trouble to look up some of the speeches the minister has made in the House of Commons with respect to irrigation projects, and I shall now place on record some of the statements he has made in past years. They prove, I think, that the minister always accepted federal responsibility for major projects. As reported in Hansard for 1948, page 4540, the hon. member for Lake Centre asked-


John George Diefenbaker: Is it not the intention of the
dominion government to expend some 65 or 67 million dollars, provided that this dam proves feasible?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not sure it will spend $66
million. It will spend whatever part of $66 million is necessary, if it is once determined to go ahead with the program, and if we have the consent of all the provinces to go ahead with it.
And again, speaking of the river, the minister stated:
We should not allow it to rush away to Hudson bay in the spring, but should provide storages all back along the route wherever they can be usefully placed . . .
-it is assumed that the federal government will provide the money for the storages. We do not undertake to provide the money to put in irrigation or to put in power developments, but we undertake to provide money for storages.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is exactly what I said last night.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: That is not what the minister said last night.


James Garfield Gardiner: Sure it is.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: No, it is not. The minister said last night that the provinces would have to pay a portion of the cost of these major irrigation developments such as the south Saskatchewan irrigation dam. If that is not the case, all the minister has to say now is that the federal government will bear the entire cost and I will be quite happy.
Then I quote from page 4271 of Hansard of June 17, 1947, as follows:


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Can the minister say whether
actual construction work will be commenced on that project this year?
I was referring to the south Saskatchewan irrigation project.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not in a position to say at
the moment whether or not it will be started this year. Once we get that report, I shall have to approach Reconstruction for funds from the amount which will be voted under Reconstruction, the $5,000,000.
On page 4598 of Hansard of May 31, 1948, the minister stated as follows:


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend is missing altogether an obvious thing. As the hon. member for Davenport has just said, somebody will have at least $100 million; the only authority that can have that $100 million is the federal government, and I cannot conceive of the three provinces sitting down and saying: We are not going to allow the federal government to spend that money.
S upp ly-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: That was not for the south Saskatchewan alone.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Here is another one I should like to refer to.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would point out that that was not just for the south Saskatchewan; that was for all the projects.


An hon. Member:: Including the south Saskatchewan.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Of course, that is quite right, including the south Saskatchewan. Then on May 30, 1946, the minister was asked some questions by the hon. member for Acadia, and I quote from page 2025 of Hansard of May 30, 1946, where the minister is reported as follows:
It is understood, of course, by the hon. member for Acadia that ever since about 1938, we have been doing a certain amount of engineering work on the project. The engineering work which is now being done is the checking of that work by an expert.
If he finds that the engineering is satisfactory and the results which have been recommended are also satisfactory of course we shall proceed from there on the basis of the engineering work which has been done.


Mr. Quelch:: That is, with the construction?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes . . .


Victor Quelch: There is a good chance of going
ahead next year, then?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think so.
I could give further quotations of what has been said repeatedly in this house and out of it. Time and again the Minister of Agriculture has intimated to the Canadian people and to parliament that the federal government would assume the full cost of these major projects.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of the dams.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The minister did not suggest that last night, or if he did 1 did not understand it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member did not understand it.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: That is the point I am trying to get clear. Will the minister say specifically this afternoon that the federal government will undertake the building of the dam, which he said would cost $66 million? Is the federal government going to assume that responsibility? The minister certainly did not say so last evening. At that time the minister suggested that the dam was a provincial responsibility. I want to say to the minister as humbly as I can that as he knows the revenues of most of the prairie provinces are such that if we have to wait for them to finance part of irrigation costs, we may have to wait indefinitely for major projects, or at least for 25 to 50 years. Under the drought conditions which are so prevalent today, such a wait would be disastrous.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. Ferrie:: The hon. member had better swallow that book and forget it. The hon. member opened his mouth and put his foot in.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: My hon friend can be facetious if he likes, he can joke about this if he wants to, but irrigation is pretty important in our province. Perhaps they get a little bit more rain in the north than we do in the south.


James Garfield Gardiner: Would my hon. friend like an answer to his question now?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: The answer is to be found in one of the quotations the hon. member just read, I think the second one. I have forgotten the exact date of it. It was definitely stated there that the federal government is undertaking to build dams and create storage. There has never been any question about that. In connection with the expenditures which would have to be made on irrigation works other than the building of dams, our contention has always been that the provincial government is responsible for a very considerable part of those expenditures. That is exactly the position we have always taken. It is recited there and it is still our position.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am pleased to hear the minister make that statement. I did not take that meaning from what he told us last night, and I read Hansard very closely.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member should read it again because it is quite clear.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: If that is the case I wish the government would get on with the work, and let us get this much-needed dam built.


Mr. McCusker:: I have heard the hon. minister and other people discuss these irrigation matters in western Canada for a number of years. I heard the hon. minister discuss it during the last election, and I also went out and discussed it. It was always our understanding that the main projects, such as the dam at Elbow, would be purely federal projects-the hon. minister never tried to create any other impression-


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The minister certainly did last night.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Only in the hon. member's mind. The hon. member is a little confused about it. We were getting along quite well last night until he put his foot into it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Address the Chair.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: The minister has been quite clear in stating that when the dam is completed it is the responsibility of the provincial government to provide for the distribution of water. I have looked into this matter
very thoroughly because the constituency which I represent is seriously concerned about water. I want to repeat what I said last night. We in Regina have to go to Buffalo Pound lake to obtain water. In order to obtain sufficient water there, we have to rob the great area that lies below that lake in the Qu'Appelle valley, of the runoff water in the spring which is now used to irrigate hay lands, and market gardens as well as considerable cattle land which is situated in the valley all the way down to Brandon.
When the hon. member was trying to assist me last night I think he confused the two projects. The project of getting water into Buffalo Pound lake is one which I think could well be undertaken by the federal government because it would be for irrigation of hay lands, stock-raising lands and market gardens. But the other project-of bringing water from Buffalo Pound lake to Regina and to Moose Jaw-would be the responsibility of Regina. We always have to look after Moose Jaw anyway and if my hon. friend continues to make irresponsible statements such as he has been making recently we will have to look after them politically as well as obtaining water for them; he has done us an injustice because he has confused the two issues. Regina has squared up to the issue and said that they will accept the responsibility as far as they are able to pay.
However, being unable to pay for the whole project they appealed to the Saskatchewan government. Hon. Mr. Fines and Hon. Mr. Nollet of that government came down to Ottawa and had an interview with members of the federal government, but they said that they wished only to act as intermediaries and did not want to accept any responsibility. The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply expressed some surprise that the provincial government was not willing to accept this responsibility, which was theirs if the city of Regina was unable to carry it out. He said that if they were willing to accept their share of the responsibility and make it a three-way split in the cost he felt the government in Ottawa might give it favourable consideration. I think my hon. friend, in his desire to help me, confused the two issues and I just wanted to set him right. I am a new member and perhaps I do not understand the way business is conducted in parliament.
As far as I can see, I think the government is doing a lot for irrigation in western Canada by installing these dams. I believe that we should be grateful and not dig up what the minister said here at one time and there at another time: "how many bushels of barley it takes to feed a pig", "how many cents that

barley costs", and other trivial items of that kind, in an effort to impede the business of the house and to try to place the minister in an embarrassing position over some quibbling little point. If we do not interrupt the business of government too much I think we will get something done, but this afternoon was a pretty sad exhibition of conducting the business of government.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to clear up a point raised a few moments ago. I have in my hand yesterday's Hansard, and in the last paragraph, at the bottom righthand corner of page 768, I find the following words:
Therefore somebody ought to do something about establishing the capital works. We said that we were prepared to put in the main dam.
I do not know how I could have made it any clearer than that. It goes on:
In other words we were prepared to establish the storage in the St. Mary's river and thus start to utilize waters which otherwise might have been taken into the United States.
That is just as clear as I made it a few moments ago, that we are prepared to build the dam on this project. There was never any question about that. After the words I have quoted we began to discuss the question of how we are going to share the cost below the dam.


Mr. Sluder:: Yesterday and today emphasis has been placed on dams in their larger aspects and on large-scale methods of irrigation in the west. I think the success of any particular venture in connection with the operation of P.F.R.A., the operation of government, the operation of social services or anything else, must be judged on balance so that we have a true perspective of the whole picture and will not give consideration only to one thing thereby encouraging it and developing it to the detriment of something else. Valuable and necessary as these larger projects are, we should not adopt the attitude in connection with P.F.R.A. that they are the only ones that will happen in the future. I think no one is qualified to speak on P.F.R.A. unless he has had in his hands and has studied the thirteenth annual report of the P.F.R.A. administration with the record of achievement of P.F.R.A. over a seven-year period. If you study that document you will reach a balance in regard to what P.F.R.A. is trying to do not only on a large scale, but also, and what is perhaps more necessary, in a smaller way during the interval of time necessary to maintain certain people in drought areas of western Canada until these larger projects are in operation so that they may avail themselves of them. To give an idea of what is happening under P.F.R.A. let me read the introduction to the thirteenth annual report.
Supply-Agriculture


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order-and I rise in a friendly spirit-I think we should abide by the rules. The hon. member seems to be launching into a discussion of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. That was item 30.


The Chairman:: Item 32.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Chairman, but you are to be forgiven for being confused. Item 30 was the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. Item 32 is the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. We are now on item 31, major irrigation and water conservation projects in the prairie provinces.


Mr. Blackmore:: In the first place I think it is only coming to the minister that he should be highly commended for the work he has done through P.F.R.A. I believe everyone recognizes that the work the minister has done in water conservation in western Canada is commendable in the highest degree. I doubt very much that any other Canadian statesman has made anything like as great a record in preserving the natural resources of Canada and developing the country. I think the minister is entitled to those words of praise and I do not believe they are overstatements in any sense of the word.
I should like to say a word or two on the general situation confronting the country in respect to the Lethbridge southeast water conservation project. May I say that I recognize there is no man in the Dominion of Canada who has the interests of the Lethbridge southeast water conservation project more at heart than the Minister of Agriculture. For that he is also to be highly commended.
I think a word or two will be in order for the sake of new members of the house so as to bring them up to date about the development of that most important project.
On February 17, 1941, there was appointed by order in council a committee called the Meek committee. It consisted of three members. The first was Victor Meek, who was controller of the dominion water and power bureau at Ottawa. He was the selection of the Minister of Mines and Resources. Then there was George Spence, director of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act activities. He was the selection of the Minister of Agriculture. Both of those men were excellent selections. Then there was William E. Hunter, of the accounts branch, Ottawa, the selection of the Minister of Finance. I presume Mr. Hunter possesses just as fine qualities as the other two gentlemen, but I do not have personal acquaintance with him on which to base a judgment. These men were chosen to examine into the St. Mary and Milk rivers water development and to make a report. Their

Supply-Agriculture
report was issued in February, 1942. Hon. members who have just entered the house will be interested to know that they can obtain it in the House of Commons by approaching the right man who has charge of reports and papers. If they want to study the whole question they will find plenty of reading matter and entertainment for several days.
The report is an excellent one, scientific, objective, exhaustive and full of good things from cover to cover. I think the Meek committee deserve the highest commendation for the work they did.
The Meek committee said a number of things which have an important bearing on the situation before us at the present time. In the first place they said that an agreement should be worked out and signed by the federal government and the provincial government before work begins. I fear such an agreement has not been worked out and signed even up to the present time. Who is to blame? I do not know. Probably it is just "one of those things", and nobody is to blame, but the simple fact that stares us in the face is that the agreement apparently has not been worked out and has not been signed.
The result is that neither side knows enough to say exactly enough where it is going, to be happy about the situation. We have to take that as a part of the circumstances surrounding the matter. I should like to read certain words which form the basis of the statement I have made, and which are to be found at page 8 of the report. They are:
The construction of the main reservoirs and connecting canals would provide the necessary facilities to store in Canada Canada's share of these international waters and would thereby be an insurance against the loss of a valuable resource.
Here I interject a few words for the benefit of those who are new members of this parliament. These are international waters. Consequently, according to international usage, they should be divided between Canada and the United States. Meetings were held in 1909, 1915 and 1921, as a result of which there was a division which was highly satisfactory to Canada.
It is understood among nations that when a country has a share of international waters and does not make beneficial use of its share, the other nation with a claim to those waters is perfectly in order in moving to reopen the question and in asking for a reallocation. That is the position that has confronted Canada. Unfortunately we did not make the progress after 1921 that we should have made in providing for the beneficial use of our share of the waters. It is better not to lay the blame on anyone, but the fact is that we did not do it. As a
result, by 1935 the situation had become serious; by 1940 it had become very serious, and now it is even worse. Thus we can realize the meaning of the passage I just read. Now I go on to the next sentence:
The construction of the main reservoirs and connecting canals is, however, not enough and unless provision is made, by extension of irrigation works to provide for beneficial and productive use, the expenditure involved by the dominion would not of course be justified.
Then I read the next paragraph, which is also relevant to the present debate:
For this reason the committee considers that before any construction is undertaken there should be an agreement between the province and the dominion that the province will undertake to construct the remaining irrigation works required to put the water to beneficial use and assume responsibility for maintenance and operation of all works. This agreement, we believe, should be conclusive and should set out, without any ground for doubt or misinterpretation, a distinct division as between provincial and dominion responsibility. It should be ratified by legislative action.
If I may interject a word again, unfortunately that wise suggestion has not been complied with. That is partly why we had a little unhappiness in this chamber last evening. We should not permit ourselves to feel so strongly toward each other however that we cannot get on with the job. Somehow or other we must devise ways and means of making up for the oversight which has occurred, remembering that the war intervened and that following the war there were reconstruction problems which commanded the attention of men both in Edmonton and in Ottawa.
Now I go on with the next paragraph:
The committee therefore suggests as a first step, that such an agreement be entered into between the dominion and the province. This agreement should provide for a co-operative development of the proposed project as broadly outlined in the foregoing paragraph.
That is all I desire to read from that section of the report. Hon. members will realize that we have really fallen into some difficulty because we have not heeded the counsel of this group of wise men. Now I am going forward with the next paragraph of their report:
The committee further suggests that a reasonable basis for division of costs may be as follows-
Before I proceed with that may I comment on the fact that the minister just now read his statement from yesterday's Hansard, in which he set forth that the dominion agreed to build the main dam. Well, when the estimates were first drawn up the main dam would account for an expenditure of about $4 million out of an estimated total of $13 million for the whole project. It is a fine thing for the dominion to agree to build that dam, and all credit is due them; but it must
[Mr. Blackmore.l

be borne in mind that the cost of the project including the dam, the canals, the distributing ditches, the reservoirs and so on is very substantial. The minister indicated complete willingness on the part of the dominion to share the cost of those subsidiary canals and reservoirs. Right there, in connection with the division of those costs, as to where the line of demarcation shall be drawn, is the point at which disagreement will arise. We must face this situation like the statesmen I am sure the members of this house intend to be and are, and like the statesmen I am sure the members of the Alberta house intend to be and are. We must iron out whatever difficulties there may be, make the very best of it and get on with the job. The committee suggested that the dominion should construct, as a one hundred per cent responsibility, the necessary facilities to store Canada's share of these international waters. We must give careful thought to the actual meaning of that expression. If we do so we see that a great deal of responsibility is placed by the committee upon the dominion government. These facilities to store the water should include all the reservoirs, of which there are at least seven, and the canals connecting those reservoirs so the water may be stored in them and the total quantity of water belonging to Canada preserved. That would be one interpretation. There may be others, but that is what the committee said. Now I read the committee's own words from the bottom of page 8:
That the dominion undertake and assume as a one hundred per cent responsibility the construction of the main reservoirs-
Notice that the word is in the plural.
*-and connecting canals to provide storage facilities for Canada's share of the waters of the St. Mary and Milk rivers as apportioned under the order of the international joint commission of October 4, 1921.
There is a considerable amount of accuracy and definiteness in that expression, perhaps not enough but it was the best they could do. Those words formed a good basis for the agreement. Then the committee went on to suggest that the province of Alberta construct and carry out as a one hundred per cent responsibility the balance of the program outlined in section 9 of part 2 of this report. Section 9 contains sufficient reading for about five days, and I shall not endeavour to even give a synopsis of it, but that is what the committee said. Now I read their own words from page 9:
That the province of Alberta construct and carry out as a one hundred per cent provincial responsibility, the balance of the proposed construction program as outlined in section 9 of part 2 of this report, or such changes of this program as may be found necessary and agreed to by the provincial and dominion governments.
Supply-Agriculture
I believe all hon. members will agree that statement is fairly specific.
Still reading from page 9, I quote:
That the province of Alberta be wholly responsible for maintenance and operation as well as replacements after the construction of main reservoirsnotice the word "reservoirs" is in the plural again.
-and connecting canals-
"canals" in the plural.
-has been completed by the dominion.
Again that is fairly specific, is it not? That would constitute the basis upon which both the province and dominion would proceed and naturally the thinking of both governments will be coloured by that background. If there is disagreement between the two, let us recognize that it is an honest disagreement. Each side believes it is right and there are no ulterior motives or delinquency on the part of either group.
There is a further recommendation that the amount of administration and the amount payable by the farmer, as well as the rate of repayment by the farmer, shall all be under provincial jurisdiction. I have not read the remarks the minister made last night, but I thought I gathered from what he said that he felt a little less happy because the province would have the handling of that.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I am not. As a matter of fact, my position is that they ought to do it and that they ought to pay their share.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not want to say very much about it because I have not read the minister's words, but here are the words used by the commission. It was stipulated that there should be an agreement between the two governing bodies on the matter of ultimate settlement and colonization. As everyone who has had anything to do with an irrigation project knows, that is a major consideration. After the project is completed, provision must be made to make sure there are good people on the project who are able to make a living.
May I read from the report in this connection? I read from page 9:
That the province of Alberta have full jurisdiction with respect to arrangements it may make with its municipalities, irrigation districts or others, as regards repayment of capital or for service charges necessary to the maintenance, operation and replacement of works.
That the suggested agreement should provide, among other things, for ultimate settlement and colonization.
Now, that is what the two governments started with and, really, they have not got beyond that yet. Perhaps the members of

Private Bills-Divorce
the committee would be interested in knowing something about the reservoirs which are involved. On page 181 of the Meek report, there is a list of reservoirs involved in building the whole project. First, there is the St. Mary reservoir capable of storing 270,000 acre-feet of water. Then, there is the Chin reservoir enlargement capable of storing 150,000 acre-feet; the Verdigris reservoir, 140,500 acre-feet; the Milk river reservoir, 80,700 acre-feet; Raymond reservoir, 16,900 acre-feet; east Pothole reservoir, 14,000 acre-feet; and the Horsefly lake reservoir, 6,000 acre-feet.
Hon. members who have not been near a reservoir capable of storing thousands of acre-feet of water will have some difficulty in conceiving how large a project a reservoir of that size is. I can tell you that a reservoir such as the Pothole is not a duck pond; it is no puddle in the prairie. These are large reservoirs requiring huge dams. Even a reservoir capable of holding 6,000 acre-feet is quite large. Just where are you going to draw the line? Are you going to say that all these reservoirs down to the Raymond reservoir with 16,900 acre-feet are main reservoirs and the others are not? Really, all those matters should have been ironed out, and would have been if it had not been for the anxiety incident to the war.
There is one more reservoir that is of considerable importance. It is the Water ton river reservoir capable of storing 28,000 acre-feet. This one is not mentioned on page 181 of the Meek report, but it is mentioned by Walter Foss who was the engineer who designed the St. Mary dam. You will be able to find verification of that.
I shall continue my remarks when we reconvene.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. T. Applewhaite, Skeena (for Mr. Winkler) moved that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 15, for the relief of John Henniker Torrance.
Bill No. 16, for the relief of Edith Harriet Black Hambly.
Bill No. 17, for the relief of Margaret Reid O'Connell.
Bill No. 18, for the relief of Alton Charles Bray.
Bill No. 19, for the relief of Kathleen Gertrude Macartney Dorken.
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Louise de Forest MacAlpine.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Jessie Fraser Blaiklock Stewart.
Bill No. 22, for the relief of Alice Lafond Burnham.
Bill No. 23, for the relief of Muriel Annie Elizabeth Hicks Kurtzman.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Robert Walsham Herring.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Leta Helen Butler Waller.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Violet Blodwyn Young Murdoch.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Joseph Tannenbaum.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Isabel Christine MacLean Robinson.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Marie Annette Vallieres Handheld.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Nicholas Kouri.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Viateur Fortier.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Lois Elizabeth Rolph.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Madeleine Dunn Landry.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Arthur Joseph D'Avignon.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Jessie Gwendolyn Paul Giroux.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Celia Maria Gabrielle de Costa Baxter.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Dorothy Amelia Beattie Harrison.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Rosaline Laham Anber.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Anna Starzyn-ski Sztafirny.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Marjorie Claire Dickison LeMieux.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Dorothy Ruth Brown Bailey.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Lome Bradbury Ashton.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Harry James Seaban.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Julia Seram Odenick.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Myrtle Elizabeth Howat Brammall.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Francis Gilmer Tempest Dawson.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Imelda Poirier Tremblay.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Joseph Charles Paul Emile Chales.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Robert Mason Watson.
﻿OCTOBER 14, 1949
Bill No. 50, lor the relief of Catherine Alexandra Mackenzie Mitchell.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Irene Filion Primeau.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Mary Jean Strachan Taylor.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Edna Kate Folley Dickenson.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Gerald Geoffrey Racine.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Yvonne Marshall Balfry Corbin.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Colleen Ethel Thornhill Clark.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Leith Albert Anderson Baldwin.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Marie Jeanne Martin.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Irene Emily Katerelos Stones.
Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, once again I should like to say a few words to show that I am opposed to these bills.
(Translation):
I wish, once again, Mr. Speaker, to protest against these divorce bills. It is a shame and a disgrace for representatives of the people who should protect the higher interests of their constituents, to act contrary to God's authority and contribute to the destruction of the family, that social entity upon which depends the life of nations.
Tonight, we are asked to approve these anti-Christian and anti-social measures, although we have not even looked into the false evidence submitted to the courts during the inquiries that preceded these decisions.
Marriage being indissoluble and of divine origin cannot be dissolved by man.
St. Matthew, chapter 19, from verse 3 on.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
In favouring divorce not only do we usurp a right which does not belong to us, but we bring down upon our country the wrath of Him who rules our destiny. Divorce is more than a calamity, it is national suicide. Its subversive character is a menace to society.
The more divorces we have in this country, the more children will roam the streets and the more inmates will there be in our prisons and penitentiaries.
The first victim of divorce is the child. He, more than any other, deserves our pity, for he is completely blameless of the evils that attend upon him and his misfortune leads to consequences less readily remedied than in the case of his parents. Parents can make a new start, as they say; not so the child. His home has been destroyed, and he is forevermore out of place.
Private Bills-Divorce
Divorce is, by its very nature, so inimical to childhood that it suppresses the child even before its birth.
In fact, the birth rate is lowest in countries where divorce is most prevalent. It is because of its socially disastrous effect that divorce must be condemned, since the advantage of any husband or wife cannot take precedence over the welfare of the community:
Disregarding the social repercussions of divorce would lead to a policy of compromise extremely detrimental to the maintenance of public order. Alleged termination, the Church notwithstanding, of a legal status assumed under its authority and auspices involves a dangerous responsibility.
In the general instructions which it issued to the Catholics of Canada in 1900, the first plenary council of Quebec stressed abstention:
In the above-mentioned divorce court, let the faithful abstain from behaviour which would be conducive to breaking the bond of matrimony.
That is why, as a Catholic and a true Canadian, I wish to do my duty by opposing such evil laws. I therefore beg the house to turn down these petitions.
(Text):


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to endorse the sentiments just expressed by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon). I rise as a Protestant because I have the same feeling of revulsion as the hon. member has given voice to in passing these various divorce bills without due consideration. I feel humiliated that I should have sat here during the whole of the last parliament of Canada and on various occasions have seen twenty, thirty, forty or fifty bills asking for the relief of various individuals presented before this House of Commons. I wondered why these bills were presented to the House of Commons. I did not have the wisdom nor the courage to stand up on my feet and to ask why it is necessary that this type of bill should be passed through the House of Commons without any questions being asked. I say, and I am proud of the fact, that I am a member of the Church of England. I have always believed in the sanctity of the family. From my earliest boyhood I have felt that the British empire, now called the commonwealth, with Canada, has had all its history based upon the fact that the backbone of the nation was the unity and family life of the very humblest of her citizens, and therefore it has been extremely repugnant to me that I should be called upon to pass these bills for the relief of various individuals without a proper examination of the causes and reasons as to why the various individuals concerned are entitled to relief.

Private Bills-Divorce
I may be to blame. It may be that I should have examined more carefully the bills which had been passed in the other place. It may be that I should have attended some of the discussions of the committee which was investigating these matters. I plead guilty. I have not. It has been distasteful to me even to read the contents of the bills. It is seldom that I have done so. I have never attended any of the discussions in the committee; and while I plead guilty of having neglected perhaps my duty in that respect I know that the same negligence is true of practically every other hon. member. Very few of them have taken the time or have the time to sit in and hear the discussions of the various cases. I do not know whether it is possible for one to apply to some official of the house and have in printed form supplied to him the details with respect to the investigation carried out by that other body. Today there are about 100 new members sitting in the house, each and every one of whom will be asking himself the same question: What is this all about? Why am I called upon to sit on these chairs, like a bump on a log, and just say yea to a series of bills which, in my heart of hearts, I believe is striking at the very roots of our Canadian life, the sanctity of the home, the very thing upon which the backbone of this country has been built?
On this occasion, when within the last few weeks we have heard discussions with respect to crime comics, these matters are closer to our minds. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has introduced a bill in which he has regretted the prevalence of the crime comics being distributed throughout this land. That has focused attention from the Atlantic to the Pacific on this very question of the sanctity of the home.
Here is another invasion upon that great prerogative of British and Canadian peoples. Are we just going to accept these motions? Are we just going to pass them through? I would ask either the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) or the hon. member who is introducing these bills, just why we should tender relief to John Henniker Torrance, or to Edith Harriet Black Hambly, or to Margaret Reid O'Connell, or to Alton Charles Bray.
Perhaps I should have found out these things, but with the exception of the hon. member who is sponsoring these bills, and possibly his seconder, I do not believe there is one member who is able to stand up and explain to us why we should grant relief to these particular individuals.
This whole matter is most repugnant to me. Perhaps someone will say: Why raise this question now? I have given one reason -because the country is being disturbed by attacks which have been made upon home

life through these crime comics, which have been brought to the attention of the whole country by such clubs as the Kiwanis clubs throughout Canada, and such organizations as the parent-teacher organizations, from one end of the country to the other.
This is one of the healthiest signs of today. There seems to be a determination from the Atlantic to the Pacific to preserve the Canadian home. It is therefore for that reason that I feel this is an opportune occasion to speak. Perhaps a minor reason which has come to my attention is that over this very week end, within a few miles of this city, services are being held to commemorate the visitation of that first great Protestant bishop, Jacob Mountain, who carried out his journeys throughout upper Canada almost two hundred years ago. In a small town between here and the St. Lawrence river people are gathering together to pay homage to that great missionary. If I have read correctly the biography of his life, no man in the history of Canada placed a higher valuation upon the home life of those early Canadian pioneers who settled, not only in upper Canada, but also in lower Canada, what is now known as the province of Quebec.
He was the great champion of the early life of the pioneers who settled here in Canada, people who came here perhaps as United Empire Loyalists after they had been driven out of what is now the United States. He was also the great champion of the French Canadians who were living in this land after the occupation. As a Protestant bishop he stood out and defended the rights of those people to worship in the way in which they had always been brought up to worship. He did not adopt a narrow point of view. The one thing which stands out all through his great life was that he was a champion of the sanctity of the home.
I feel therefore that today is an occasion upon which we may query the wisdom of passing carte blanche these numerous divorce bills. Then I was disturbed just the other day in this chamber-a week ago today to be exact-when, during a discussion of veterans affairs, some remarks were made regarding the possibility of veterans and their wives going to the United States and obtaining divorces there which would not be recognized in this country.
The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart) made these remarks in reply to the hon. member for Cape Breton South:
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) mentioned the matter of divorce. I do not know-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should not refer to another debate in the same session.


George Randolph Pearkes: This took place during a discussion of the estimates a week ago. While perhaps I should not quote the actual words, the hon. member for Cape Breton South made it quite clear that there were difficulties experienced, so far as the veterans were concerned, where their wives might go over to the United States and there obtain divorces. In asking for a further explanation the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart) asked if he -that is, the hon. member for Cape Breton South-really meant that he was advocating that veterans should be allowed to take common-law wives, and that such common-law wives would receive the allowances, if divorces were obtained?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should not refer to that debate at the present time.


George Randolph Pearkes: Well, I am extremely sorry, Your Honour; but if I am not permitted to refer to it may I conclude by saying that I ivas perturbed by the levity with which the non. member for Yorkton said: "Well, if that is so, we would all get rid of our wives".


Alan Carl Stewart: On a question of privilege, the member for Yorkton did not treat it with levity. He treated as serious the question asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and assumed that if what he advocated did happen, that would be the effect. He considered as humorous that if that was the case some of us would get rid of our wives. The hon. member for Yorkton is just as good a family man, and probably better than the hon. member for Nanaimo.


Mr. Speaker:: I think probably this discussion will indicate to all hon. members that they should observe the rules.


George Randolph Pearkes: I certainly am not going to enter into any discussion as to our relative family associations. I think I am capable of drawing the line between levity and humour. May I ask this question:	Is it indicative of
the general feeling which may be prevalent that perhaps the sanctity of the home is not regarded quite as highly as it used to be?
There is one other reason why I believe this question should be raised at the present time. We have welcomed into the brotherhood of Canada a tenth province, the province of Newfoundland. I am not learned in the law and I do not know anything about the divorce laws of that province, but I should like to know briefly what they are. Are we going to have a large number of bills presented for the relief of residents of our new province of Newfoundland?
I am in deadly earnest about this matter. I feel that this is a challenge to the times of today. As I said earlier, I plead guilty to the
Private Bills-Divorce
charge of having failed to inform myself more fully about this matter, instead of passing these bills, in so casual and haphazard a manner throughout these years. I think the time has come when we might well ask why it is necessary that this House of Commons should have to deal with these bills, and also what will be the effect of this practice now that the tenth province of Newfoundland has been brought into this Dominion of Canada.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take part in a debate on the bill; I merely want to have the record straight. In view of the exchange between the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) and the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart), I feel that I must say something at this time. If I did not, Hansard would look as though I had advocated the practice of having common-law wives. I certainly do not want to leave it that way. When the discussion took place I considered that the hon. member for Yorkton was joking and I paid no attention because I thought anyone reading the debate would see it in that light.
I was not advocating divorce as such, nor the practice of having common-law wives; I was simply pointing out the difficulties facing certain service personnel in this country. While some of these men were overseas their wives divorced them in the United States.


An hon. Member:: And in England too.


Clarence Gillis: Some of these men remarried and they thought everything was all right until they came to apply for pension. They had gone through a legal ceremony, sometimes with the sanction of the church, but nevertheless the pension authorities did not consider them as being married. I was merely pointing out to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) that something should be done to straighten out the status of these men and women for pension purposes. They had got into this position through not understanding the laws of the country.
In so far as the bills themselves are concerned, may I say that I served on the committee for a couple of terms. I have always been opposed to the way this is done and have always suggested that some other means should be found of handling this matter. I think perhaps the exchequer court might be used, as I do not think it is too busy. But as long as the other place and the House of Commons want to do it this way, then I think it is entirely up to hon. members.


Mr. J. W. Noseworlhy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to register my objection to these bills, not because I object to divorce

Private Bills-Divorce
as such but because I object to the way they are presented here. First of all, I would point out that we have spent several days, as much as three hours on some days, discussing other private bills but so far this session these are the only private bills to my knowledge to which the government has not objected. Some of the other private bills which in my opinion were worthy of consideration were washed out because the government registered opposition.
We are being presented with a batch of forty-five private bills all sponsored by one member. Every one of these forty-five bills is couched in exactly the same language, the only difference being the name and the place of residence of the party concerned. There is no way in which I can have any knowledge of the merits of any one of these bills.


Mr. Weir:: The hon. member gets the evidence.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Hon. members are being asked to pass en bloc forty-five bills about which they have no knowledge whatever, and to do that is simply to make a farce of this House of Commons.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) is in the chamber because this matter is serious enough to be worthy of consideration, not only by the minister but by all members of the house. We have forty-five bills being presented under one motion for second reading, which of course has always been the practice. However, before the motion for second reading is passed I think we should have some assurance from the minister that consideration is being given to this problem. Each session hon. members have objected to the method in which these bills are handled, in fact have objected to parliament having to deal with divorce at all. I am confident that every hon. member here this evening who served in the last parliament is thoroughly disgusted with the whole procedure and is convinced that some new way should be found to deal with this question of divorce.
Protests have been made and agreement has been expressed on all sides of the house. It is not a party matter; it is a matter that concerns all of us as private members of the house. While there has been dissatisfaction nothing has been done about it. We are now in the first session of a new parliament, and I think it would be a great mistake to allow these bills to go through after a short discussion and a few complaints, and thereby establish a precedent which will be followed for the next four or five years of the life of this parliament.
IMr. Noseworthy.]
Therefore I hope that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has given consideration to a way to meet the problem, and that he can give us some definite assurance tonight that steps will be taken at an early date to get the whole problem out of the hands of parliament. It is most unfair in so many ways. First of all it is unfair to the unfortunate people concerned in the divorce actions. They have to pay far more to get a divorce in this way than they would pay to get a divorce before the courts. There is a great deal of delay. They can only get a divorce while parliament is in session. There is a great deal of publicity given to individual cases which would not be so before the courts. The transcript of the evidence taken before the committee of the other house is printed and distributed to every member of the House of Commons. I do not doubt that those transcripts become available to many people in Ottawa, and perhaps in other parts of Canada as well. The tragedies of the lives of these people are broadcast, which is a very objectionable feature, and a feature that is not allowed in some of the provinces. I know in the province of British Columbia the laws are very severe about what stories may be printed in the press arising out of divorce actions. From the point of view of the unfortunate individuals concerned, this method of obtaining a divorce is most objectionable, and I think entirely out of date.
From the point of view of the House of Commons the proceedings in connection with divorce bills are not judicial in any sense of the word. The House of Commons is not a court. We are not set up, and our committees are not set up, to try these cases as they should be tried. The procedure is wholly inefficient. It means a great waste of the time and energy of the members of the house. I believe the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) described it as a farce. He was quite correct in calling the whole procedure a farce. It is just one grand farce.
Worst of all, it is beneath the dignity of the House of Commons to have to deal with hundreds of divorce actions. I do not doubt that at this session several hundred of them will go through the mill at Ottawa. We were not elected to come down here to pass divorce bills. It is not our responsibility as members of the House of Commons. Therefore I hope that this new parliament will insist that some method be devised to deal with applications for divorce. Different solutions have been advanced-for example, the setting up of a new dominion court, or having the exchequer court expanded. Various other solutions have been suggested. I am not in a position to know which of them is the most workable,

but surely there is some way in which this problem can be met. I hope that the Minister of Justice, or one of the other ministers of the crown will explain to the house whether any legislation or plan is in contemplation that will meet the difficulty.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, for at least the last fifteen years I have heard general debates on divorce in the House of Commons the first time that the bills were called for second reading. Sometimes I have participated in the debates. Tonight I thought I would remain quiet, but I have listened to the same speeches over and over again.


Howard Charles Green: Not from me; this is the first time I have spoken.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, and I respect every word the hon. member uttered. I cannot agree with every word but I respect his opinion. I am the second member from the province of Quebec to speak on this question tonight. The hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) told the house and the country that for religious reasons and because of his convictions he was opposed to divorce. I agree with him; I am opposed to divorce. I should like the house not to forget that in everything I say in the few remarks I shall make that I am opposed and will always be opposed to, and will always vote against bills of divorce.
One hon. member rose and asked why it was that the government has allowed the house to discuss private bills for hours and hours since the beginning of the session and yet does not object to these divorce bills. If the hon. member will look over the orders since the beginning of the session he will see that so far we have not discussed one private bill. We have had public bills but we have not had private bills. I think he will see the difference between a public bill and a private bill.
Then there is the responsibility of members of parliament. The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) said that we were not elected to deal with divorce bills. I take issue with him on that point. If he will look up subsection 26 of section 91 of the British North America Act he will find that we have exclusive jurisdiction to legislate on divorce. No other body in the land has that jurisdiction.


Howard Charles Green: If the minister will permit me, what I really meant to say was that our constituents did not believe when they elected us that they were electing us to come here to deal with applications for divorce.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member knows that his electors are all conversant with the British North America Act; they 45781-514
Private Bills-Divorce
know that this section is there, that it is the responsibility of this parliament. As to the history of divorce, Quebec is the only province where there are no divorce courts.


An hon. Member:: And Newfoundland.


Alphonse Fournier: Exactly; I inquired a moment ago about Newfoundland because I did not know.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is why I asked the question.


Alphonse Fournier: Eight of the provinces have courts of divorce. Cases are heard, some are contested, but the majority are probably heard ex parte. I have read some of the evidence given before the courts and you will find that it is about the same evidence that is presented to the committee of the Senate charged with the duty of hearing it. There is not much difference. I have attended some of the sittings. The evidence is about the same, and the conclusions are the same. The only difference is that the house relies on what is done in the Senate. Our committee on private bills could call witnesses, and in the past we have called witnesses to have them repeat their evidence or enlarge upon it.
Eight of the provinces accepted courts of divorce. I think I know the sentiment of the province of Quebec, and I know that parliament would never try to impose divorce courts on that province. The great majority of the people do not believe in divorce or in courts of divorce. They do not even believe in this section of our constitution.
What is the position of parliament? We cannot hinder a person who desires to present a petition to parliament under this section of the British North America Act for the passing of a statute; and it must be remembered that each of these bills is a special statute passed just as we pass other statutes. We cannot deprive the citizens of this country of the right to petition parliament to have a bill passed. Then it is up to the houses of parliament to accept or reject these bills. Every time there has been a vote on these divorce bills they have been carried. In the ordinary course of our deliberations I have never seen them refused.


An hon. Member:: You have such a
majority.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not think my hon. friend is fair in making that remark, because he knows that included in that large majority are about sixty-three coming from the province of Quebec, among whom there would not be very many who would vote for these bills.

Private Bills-Divorce
To answer the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, as to whether the government has been thinking of other means to replace this system, I can only say that in the last parliament consideration certainly was given to the question. Speaking from memory I believe a committee was even set up, composed of senators and members of parliament, to see if any new means could be devised to deal with these matters. When they began to study the question they realized the difficulties that confronted them, and they did not recommend any change in the present procedure. It was suggested that we might have a special court, a dominion court for divorces; that we might refer them to the exchequer court, and so on. Some even thought that we might accept the evidence given in Quebec as to separation of bed and board and permit that evidence to be used in divorce cases. Then we would become real rubber stamps, taking that evidence and passing bills based upon it. But that committee did not recommend any change in the present system, and no one who has spoken this evening has suggested any workable system that could be applied to the province of Quebec.
In my province we are satisfied with the way these bills are dealt with here. Oh, they do not like it, but they would rather have this system than have divorce courts in Quebec. So why should members elected from the other eight provinces try at every session to impose upon our province their way of dealing with marital cases? Some hon. members do not even know that Quebec is the only province in which divorce is not recognized.


An hon. Member:: And Newfoundland.


Alphonse Fournier: That is true. In other days when I discussed this matter there was only Quebec; now there is also Newfoundland. If the people of those two provinces do not wish to have divorce courts, why should members from the other provinces try to impose that system upon them? I will vote against these bills; I am against them. Many people who favour divorce do not like this system. Well, let me tell you that none of the systems they have devised to separate man and wife are very good. I do not know of one that is worth very much. That is my personal opinion, not speaking as a member of the government.
These people have petitioned parliament; they have brought their evidence; the bills have been passed by the Senate and are here to be discussed. If they get second reading the principle is adopted, and then they go to a committee. That committee can get all the evidence it wishes before recommending that the bills be brought back to committee of the whole here, where they may be refused or

accepted. That is the system; and certainly if any of these bills are defeated it will not affect the government. We from Quebec probably would be pleased, because we do not like these divorce cases coming here or elsewhere.
I am not speaking for the government except when I reply to the hon. member who said the government did not oppose these private bills, but did oppose other private bills. Well, there were none until tonight; and the government does not interfere in these cases.


Angus MacInnis: have been here about the same length of time as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), and each session during that period I think we have had a debate somewhat similar to the one we are having tonight. I believe we are dealing with this question in the wrong way. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) that we should not be condemning divorce as such, since divorce is recognized in every province of Canada with the exception of two, but rather we should be trying to devise some method of dealing with divorce cases from those provinces so that these people would not have to come to parliament and a statute be passed to deal with each separate divorce. That is the whole issue. I do not agree with those who say that the way divorce cases are dealt with in this parliament is a farce. I believe they are dealt with with just as much care, just as regularly and just as much in accord with the rules of evidence and procedure as they would be if heard in a court of law.


Howard Charles Green: In the Senate; not in the House of Commons.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, in the Senate. That brings up another point. Last year I discussed this question with some of the gentlemen in the other place and learned who were the members of the divorce committee. I found they were prominent lawyers, among others, all of them men of principles and judgment, men who believe in the institution of marriage. So these cases are dealt with according to established procedure. They come here as all other bills that originate in the other place; but we have reached the conclusion, and I think rightly-this was done many years before I came here-that there was no particular merit in discussing in this house what had been discussed thoroughly already in the other place where witnesses are sworn and evidence heard.
For some years I was on the miscellaneous private bills committee. I think all new members are put on that committee, though all new members could not go on it this time

because there are so many. As far as I can remember, during the four or five years I was on that committee there were only two cases in which the evidence was heard. The reason was that the committee was satisfied with the evidence as it came from the other place.
The Minister of Public Works says the people of his province are opposed to divorce. Evidently that does not apply to all the people of Quebec; otherwise we would have no divorce cases here. There is a minority in that province who believe in divorce; that is, they believe in divorce when there is no other solution to their family problems but the dissolving of the marriage contract. We speak about minority rights. I think there is here a definite minority right which should be recognized. Remember, no one has to present a petition for divorce, either to this house or to any court, if he or she does not want a divorce. There is no compulsion about it. Surely, people who believe that it is proper, in a legal manner, to dissolve the marriage and begin life over again are entitled to have some place to which they can appeal to that end.
The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), for whom I have the very highest respect, has referred to the sanctity of the home. He has left the impression that it is the divorce that is destroying the sanctity of the home. Surely, that is all nonsense. The sanctity of the home is destroyed first, and the divorce is a result. The sanctity of the home is not going to be restored by refusing to grant a divorce. Let us be reasonable in this matter. Let us recognize that the people of Quebec and Newfoundland who want divorce are entitled to come to this parliament until such time as those provinces establish courts. If these provinces do not establish divorce courts there should be some dominion court to which they can come, not to destroy their homes, but to try to begin their lives over again. I think that is what most of the members of this house want.
In the province of Quebec, there is a way of dissolving a marriage. It is not called a divorce, but an annulment. In any event, there is a separation and the result is the same.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Angus MacInnis: The marriage is dissolved and the couple separate; that is the important thing. In common with many of the members here, I hope I will never need to appeal either to this parliament or to any other institution anywhere for a divorce. There are people, however, who will have to and it would, in many cases, perhaps be very difficult to place the blame on one party or the other. When the stage is reached when they cannot live
Private Bills-Divorce
together, the decent thing-I use the word "decent" in its proper meaning-is for them to separate. Nothing could be more indecent than that two people should have to live together after the love that brought them together had disappeared.


Irvin William Studer: Many of us who are faced with this situation for the first time are certainly in a quandary in attempting to decide what we should do. I should like to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I also find these divorce bills very distasteful in more ways than one. I have all the trouble I want right at home without getting into any more. I should like, however, along with some of the others to express my opinion about some different form of making provision for these divorces that originate in provinces in which no divorce courts exist. If that were done, I would be relieved of the responsibility of passing judgment on something I do not know anything about.
This evening, Mr. Speaker, I am in a position where I just cannot vote. If I vote for the measure, I have to vote by taking someone else's word for it. It is not a proper procedure to follow. Perhaps all these bills should be passed, I do not know. Until I am in a position to say whether or not these bills should be passed, I am not in a position to say anything. With all deference to those who have spoken this evening, I have not heard sufficient reason yet for passing these bills. I should welcome some additional information, as I have no doubt the other new members would, as to how this procedure we follow came about.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, this is a subject upon which this house would be very strongly divided if it were a matter that was being introduced by the government. At the present time, I do not wish to go into the merits of the question of divorce. Some hon. members have made reference to the position in the province of Newfoundland, and it has now been made clear that we have no divorce law in Newfoundland. There are no divorce courts there. If anyone in Newfoundland wanted a divorce, he or she would have to come to parliament.
When one looks over this long list of persons, one thinks of the tragedies that must be wrapped up in these bills. I believe we should give some thought to this question of how these people came to be in that position. How could their lives be made happier, in the first place, and perhaps kept from going on the rocks? It seems to me that by providing an easy remedy such as divorce, we are not improving things for most of these people but making them worse. We all have sympathy with most of them, although we

Supply-Agriculture
know very little about the matter, as the previous speaker has said. It is difficult to form an opinion on the subject. I am happy to say that, up to now, we have no divorce in Newfoundland. I hope we will not have it.
I have had a good deal of experience in connection with domestic matters, as have some of the other members who come from Newfoundland. Both the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) and the member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Kent) have been magistrates and they know something about domestic cases in Newfoundland. I have taken a great interest in that subject. I have tried to talk to people and tried to get them to come to an agreement so that they would live happily together. It pleases me to be able to say that it worked. I believe if divorce were made easy, many of those families would have been broken up. I have seen men and women sitting in my office who seemed to hate one another. After talking it over with them, perhaps having them back again, I found that their differences disappeared. They went back together and lived happily, I hope, ever afterwards. In any event, they did not come back to me.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume consideration of the matter under discussion at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Special-
31. Major irrigation and water conservation projects in the prairie provinces, $7,500,000.
John Horne Blackmore: Before the house took recess, I was discussing the recent story of the Lethbridge southeast water conservation project, also called the St. Mary and Milk river conservation project. I told of the Meek committee formed in January, 1941, which submitted its report in February, 1942. They recommended an agreement between the Dominion of Canada and the province of Alberta before work began on this project. It was recommended by them that the dominion construct all works necessary to store Canada's share of the water. This committee recommended that Alberta should construct works to provide for the beneficial use of the water. I named the eight major reservoirs which constitute the project.
At this stage, I should like to name the six main canals which form part of the project. Those canals are listed on page 181 of the Meek report. The first one is the enlargement of the Taber canal; second, the canal

to the Medicine Hat district; third, the High Line canal across Chin coulee; fourth, the main canal to New Dayton district; fifth, the main canal to east Verdigris district; sixth, the main canal to Milk river district. There will be a good many other canals, some of which it will be difficult to classify as main or subsidiary.
Remembering what the committee said about the responsibility which it believed should be assumed by the federal government and the provincial government respectively, once more I say there will be room for considerable variance of opinion as between the federal authorities and the provincial authorities. I think it is fitting to observe that if any group of the hon. members who constitute this house found themselves responsible for the well-being of any one of the ten provinces in this dominion they would take their responsibilities very seriously and they would be careful not to assume any more financial commitments than were necessary under any given set of circumstances. I am sure that that would be true of the Minister of Agriculture himself, at one time premier of Saskatchewan. He must of course recognize that if a provincial government is worth anything to the province it will defend the interests of the province. The same is equally true of any group of gentlemen in this house who might be called upon to form a federal administration. They would be just as careful of the interests of the federal government, and it is just as natural that they would be. Bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, that the thing that I would resent, if I were to lend myself to resenting anything in connection with this very human situation, is this, that any one side should look upon the other as being culpable. That is not necessary. These groups of men are simply looking after the interests of the divisions of Canada for which they have the responsibility.
During the discussion of the disagreement which naturally will result from the situation which has developed, the main thing to be borne in mind by us and by the gentlemen who are charged with responsibility in each case is this: First there is water sufficient to iri'igate 345,000 acres of the finest land on the American continent. I speak as a member for the district and I know. That water is at stake. That water must be saved for generations yet unborn down through thousands of years if it is at all possible.
Let us not permit any subsidiary or minor or secondary consideration to dull our minds with respect to that point. The second major consideration which we must keep an eye on is this. If we are to save that water, if we are to prevent the United States from reclaiming it, for they are all ready to do so, we

must construct the various factors of that project with the utmost promptitude. There must be no delay whatsoever either on our part or on the part of any of the people charged with that responsibility.
The third thing to bear in mind is that the national value of the Lethbridge southeast water conservation project is such that it will justify the expenditure of all the money which is necessary to build the project by the federal government. Consequently no matter how much it entails-it may go over $25 million-every portion of this dominion should be fully aware that the money would be well spent and would be more than repaid, perhaps within twenty-five years, by the added wealth and production.
There are a good many people in the Dominion of Canada, especially those from Manitoba east, who are not in a position to be able to judge satisfactorily the value of this project as we are who come from the west and who know the conditions, especially those which obtain in what is known as the Palliser triangle. I think it would be doing a service for those hon. members if I were to put on Hansard, if I can have time to do so, the report of a committee which was appointed by the Engineering Institute of Canada. The document is called "Report of the Committee on Western Water Problems". The gentlemen who constituted that committee would all be Montreal men or easterners who would certainly look upon that project with critical and appraising eyes. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I shall read into the record from the report of this committee, which I think hon. members will be glad to be able to read. It gives a fine scientific summary of the whole case of the St. Mary and Milk river project as to facts, and suggestions based upon those facts, by a committee of men admirably fitted for the task they undertook.
Introductory to the report is this:
In 1935 the council of the institute appointed a committee under the chairmanship of G. A. Gaherty-
Whose name is familiar to, and much admired by, all hon. members.
-to study the problem of water distribution in the drought area of the western provinces. Subsequently a subcommittee was appointed and between these two bodies a great volume of work has been accomplished. At the annual meeting in Ottawa in 1939 eight papers were presented on this subject as part of the work of the committee. Herewith is the complete report which was presented to council on January 18, 1941.
I am not going to read the complete report, Mr. Chairman; I am going to read merely those parts which will be of particular interest to hon. members, and anyone who desires to have the original report may come and get
Supply-Agriculture
it from me. I shall gladly let him read it. I read from the report of the subcommittee:
Your committee submits:
1.	That the St. Mary and Milk rivers are international, that their waters are now partially used and can be fully used, beneficially, mainly for irrigation, but also, to some extent, for domestic and other purposes, by Canada and the United States together.
2.	That the division of the waters between the two countries is governed by a treaty between Great Britain and the United States, dated January 11, 1909, and under the supervision of a permanent authority, the international joint commission.
3.	That the international joint commission, after holding hearings over a period of about six years, made rulings under date of October 4, 1921, as to the methods of determining the allotment to each country, and on October 6, 1921, made certain recommendations regarding provision of storage reservoirs.
4.	That either country may, for good and sufficient cause, ask for a reopening of the matter and request modification of the regulations in its interest.
5.	That since October 4, 1921, the waters have been divided between the two countries in accordance with the rulings, but that there has been no joint action with regard to storage.
6.	That Canada's share of the waters of the two rivers allotted to her under the terms of the treaty as interpreted by the regulations of the commission has averaged since 1922 about 393,000 acre-feet annually.
7.	That Canada has been diverting and putting to beneficial use since 1935 an average of about 172,000 acre-feet annually, from the natural unregulated flow of the St. Mary river and not more than 2,000 acre-feet annually from Milk river.
8.	That Canada's share, still unused, amounts to an average of about 220,000 acre-feet annually.
9.	That the government of the United States has been and is proceeding diligently to use its share of the water of the two rivers. That works now constructed, in progress or contemplated are adequate to put to beneficial use all of its share and more.
10.	That the general principle governing the right to the use of water for irrigation and other uses, in arid and semi-arid areas, is its application to beneficial use.
11.	That, as a consequence, Canada, if she fails to exercise due diligence in putting her share to beneficial use, stands in danger of losing, in perpetuity, valuable rights allotted to her under the terms of the treaty.
12.	That there is an economically sound method of beneficially utilizing Canada's share of these international waters.
13.	That this utilization will create taxable wealth and a flow of trade far in excess of the cost.
14.	That the utilization of this water in irrigating available lands will bring about an extension of intensive agriculture into one of the worst drought areas, a very desirable contribution to full national and provincial development, and a very substantial contribution to the solution of the perennial problems of drought, crop failure and relief costs.
With respect to the specific problems of water utilization, your committee finds:
1.	That it is economically desirable to associate the full development of the St. Mary river and the Milk river with plans for their common development with the waters of the Belly and Waterto rivers.
2.	That it is quite feasible and relative!, simple to carry the available waters of the Belly and Water-ton rivers into the St. Mary river at a point between Cardston and Spring Coulee.

Supply-Agriculture
That is right where the St. Mary dam now is.
3.	That it is feasible to create a storage reservoir of approximately 270,000 acre-feet capacity on the main channel of St. Mary river near Spring Coulee and below the point of inflow of the water diverted from the Belly and Waterton rivers.
4.	That the proposed reservoir is ideally situated in that it will control the entire annual flow of St. Mary river below any important tributary, and that, together with the diverting works, canals and auxiliary reservoirs, it can conserve for beneficial use all of the available water of these three rivers, an estimated average of 760,000 acre-feet annually.
5.	That after allowing for 210,000 acre-feet for lands already having irrigation rights, this amount of water will be sufficient to serve an additional area of 345,000 acres.
6.	That there is an area of tributary land suitable for irrigation and intensive agricultural development very substantially in excess of the above area, which has been designated as the Lethbridge South East Project.
7.	That the proposed development is economically feasible and is definitely related to national provincial and local growth and self-sufficiency.
8.	That climatic and soil conditions of the areas available for irrigation development are similar to those of the Lethbridge area. That crops that it is known can be grown to advantage under irrigation include alfalfa and other forage crops, sugar beets, potatoes, vegetables, and some fruits and coarse grains (as well as wheat), all of which lend themselves to building up intensive agricultural production and are important adjuncts to the livestock industry on adjacent grazing lands, as is so well exemplified in the present irrigated areas around Lethbridge and in other irrigated areas of the semiarid region.
9.	That there will be some important structures of large-but by no means unprecedented-size, and that the very considerable investigations already made indicate that there will be no serious foundation or other construction problems.
10.	That the completed project will cost about

Of course hon. members realize that that was a 1939 figure. It would probably be twice that much, or probably more, today- -or not more than $40 per acre of irrigable land. That it lends itself to an orderly step-by-step development over a period of years. That its construction, in considerable measure, will lessen relief costs during the construction period and will thereafter result in the transfer of many farmers in the drought area from relief rolls to self-supporting, wealth-producing agriculturists.
Your committee recommends that the Council of Engineering Institute of Canada should, through the proper channels, suggest:
1.	That the dominion and provincial governments, in co-operation, approve the development of the Lethbridge South East Project and constitute an agency for carrying out such development. That funds be made available for an early start on construction in accordance with a plan for orderly progress over a suitable period.
2.	That an agency charged with development should, before final decisions are made with respect to important engineering structures and system layout, appoint an advisory board of engineers and at least one geologist to report on sites, foundations and designs.
3.	That the same or another advisory board of engineers and economists be appointed to report on the joint engineering and economic aspects of the project.

4.	That in the interest of allocating unused water to the best advantage, the province of Alberta set up an advisory board to study this matter and advise the government. That pending the results of such procedure, action on applications for allotment of unappropriated water be deferred as far as possible.
I think that is sufficient to give hon. members from eastern Canada a chance to appraise this project satisfactorily. I thought it would be a good thing to put these quotations on the record, as support for the Minister of Agriculture. I fancy that the minister's lot constitutes no bed of roses, when he endeavours to get financial support for these irrigation schemes. He will require all the support he can get. I can think of no document I have come across which will give that support more effectively than this one I have just read.
To hon. members I wish to express appreciation of the committee for listening so courteously to me while I have given this outline. May I once more urge that throughout all the, what one might call, human bickerings which might go on between the Alberta and the federal governments, while they are struggling to protect the interests of the bodies to whom they are responsible, we shall all keep our eyes on the ball; and the ball is, first of all, that there is enough water to irrigate 345,000 acres of the finest land to be found on the continent of America. That water will keep on for hundreds of years, for the benefit of Canadians yet unborn. If we lose that water we lose a priceless heritage for those same generations yet unborn.
We must also keep in mind, while we struggle, that we have no time to waste, and that this project must be proceeded with, with the utmost promptitude. No matter what this project may cost to build- and it will not be unduly unreasonable-we shall find, I am sure, within twenty-five years, that the added wealth which will come to Canada through the building up of this project will more than repay us in revenue over and above the expenditures we shall have to lay out to build the project.


James Garfield Gardiner: First of all, I wish to express my appreciation of the manner in which this question has been discussed by the hon. member for Lethbridge, in whose constituency the St. Mary dam is situated, as well as much of the area concerned with irrigation.
Along with that statement I wish to say that I have met members of the Alberta government, both in Ottawa and in Edmonton, on at least half a dozen occasions when we discussed the different projects we have been discussing here for the last two sittings. There never was a disagreeable word passed between the group that I headed at the time we met and the group that was usually

headed either by the premier of Alberta- whether it was Mr. Aberhart or Mr. Manning -or by Mr. Tanner or one of the other ministers.
Our discussions were always in the same spirit as that in which this report was written. As was indicated by the hon. member for Lethbridge, this report was compiled by three men, one of whom, Mr. Meek, was named by the Minister of Mines and Resources; another, Mr. Spence, who was named by the Minister of Agriculture with the consent of the government; and a third, Mr. Hunter, who was named by the Minister of Finance. Those three men were appointed in 1941 when the war was on and they reported in 1942.
That report has been reviewed in full by the hon. member for Lethbridge and I am not going to again put on Hansard the findings which he has already placed there. However, I should like to emphasize one or two of the things that were said. It was stated clearly in the preamble to their recommendations that the responsibility was and always has been considered to be a provincial responsibility.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Is the minister saying that?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have always said that, and that is what is said in this report.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Is that what the minister said last night?


James Garfield Gardiner: I said that last night. My hon. friend is demonstrating that he has not really read my speech of last night. I do not want to have to read it over to him again in order that he may understand. I read part of it this afternoon which I think convinced him that he was wrong in his interpretation of it.
Anyone who has been dealing with this question has taken for granted that the responsibility for irrigation rests with the provinces. The report goes on to say that some of that responsibility has been passed on by the province to the municipalities and that some of the obligations will probably be a municipal responsibility. Then they go on to say that if it is a municipal responsibility, as between the dominion and the province it is a provincial responsibility. They make that very clear.
After having gone into that, or while going into that, they state that there must be some division of the cost as between the dominion and the province if this plan of conserving water in the prairie provinces-particularly in southern Alberta in so far as this is concerned-is to be carried out. They say that it can be done only if the dominion assumes 45781-52
Supply-Agriculture
that it has some obligation because of the benefits to be received from the project. Then they go on to say:
The committee further suggests that a reasonable basis for division of costs may be as follows:
Then they enumerate (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and Cf), which were read out this afternoon by the hon. member for Lethbridge. Then follows a note:
Based on the foregoing, the following tabulation gives a division of the estimated costs for the total development extending over a period of fourteen years:
Then they enumerate under "capital account", main reservoirs, connecting canals, supplementary reservoirs, main irrigation canals, distribution systems and power plants. Then to that total construction cost is added the cost of land preparation of $3 per acre. The total capital cost is given as $13,749,000, the division of that being $7,192,000 for the dominion and $6,556,000 for the province. In setting up a table of that kind that is about as near as you could get to a fifty-fifty division between the two.
Then under "revenue account" they show estimated operation and maintenance deficit during development period, colonization and agricultural services. Those are considered to be a provincial responsibility. I do not know whether we would agree that those are all a provincial responsibility, but that is what the views of this committee were at that time. When you add those up the dominion's share is still $7,192,000 but the province's share is $7,985,000.
They show the cost per acre to the dominion as $20.85 and the cost to the province as $23.14. In other words the cost to the province is a little higher per acre under the table as set out. The total cost per acre is shown as $43.99.
The next statement is most important, and it reads:
The total estimated cost of $15,178,435 is based on pre-war conditions as mentioned elsewhere in the report. These estimates should be reviewed as related to the unit costs prevailing when construction may be undertaken.
The division of cost is set out on a fifty-fifty basis in order to indicate the division of responsibility that might be assumed, but they said that the construction was not going to take place because we were at war but that at the end of the war or some time after the end of the war the construction would be started. They indicate that before construction is started some review ought to be made of the conditions that then exist, and they go on to say:
The proportion of costs to be repaid by the farmer is, as previously indicated, a provincial matter, and no further comment by the committee would seem necessary, except to point out that the

Supply-Agriculture
province may recover a considerable portion of its share of the costs. Without attempting to apportion the amount to be repaid by the farmer, a division by percentage is as follows:
per
cent
Dominion share (non-reimbursable) $7,192,449 47-4 Provincial share (subject to such reimbursements as the province may collect from the farmer)....	7,985,986 52 * 6


John George Diefenbaker: What is the date of that report?


James Garfield Gardiner: The date is 1942. I do not believe that the committee assumed that anyone was going to be held to the absolute percentages that were indicated. But I happen to know, from discussions which I had with the committee at the time, that what they were attempting to do was to allot the costs fifty-fifty between the province and the dominion, and then to say to the province that if their revenues would not permit them to pay the full amount some arrangement should be made to collect some of it from the farmers who are going to get the direct benefit.
That was the intention of the report. It is the report. When I was dealing with those figures I should have said that none of the engineering costs are included in them. The federal government has paid the engineering costs. They are over $2 million. You can add a figure of over $2 million, which has already been expended in connection with these projects, to the total cost at the end, and you will find that the dominion's share would then be something over 50 per cent even if you follow these tables.
All that has been suggested by the federal government is that we should follow the recommendation of the Meek report and that, on the basis of present conditions, we should revalue the requirements necessary to carry out the project, which is a much bigger thing than just the development of the St. Mary dam and the waters that will be available from the St. Mary dam. What I maintained last night was that in discussions since the report was made it had been agreed between ourselves and the Alberta government that at some time or other-and the agreement was made while we were still under conditions where it was impossible to have construction because of war-we were going to sit down and agree on a division which would be based in principle upon what has been said in the report. We have had a table made up which shows that if you were to follow exactly what is indicated in the report, that is, if you were to follow the exact reservoirs which they say are federal or which they suggest might be federal, under present conditions, and divided up the same way, the cost to the dominion would be 
$15,143,000, and the provincial cost would be $9,254,000. Then in addition to that we would have $2 million for engineering costs on top of our share.
All we have said is, in view of the fact a table was set up which suggested a certain division on the ground that division at the time might result in about a fifty-fifty apportionment of the cost, and in view of the changes that have taken place as a result of the fact that we had four years of war since the report was made and we have had new conditions resulting from the war, that when we sit down to reconsider the position this is a basis from which we might start. Our objective would be to get it as close as possible to a fifty-fifty basis with the same conditions placed upon it as the commission recommended, namely, that some of the money could be collected from the farmers, but that none of that money so collected would accrue to the federal government. Anything that might be collected would accrue to the provincial government.
All we say about that is that we want to know what that collection is going to be in order that we may be satisfied, before we put $15 million into a project, that the farmers are going to be able to live on the land and finance themselves after that collection is made. No other suggestion has been made. Some people think that we have been a long time getting together. The present position is that we have been discussing proposals made by the province and they have been considering proposals made by us. We think we are pretty close to the time when we can reach an agreement. I have been a little concerned, as well as the hon. member for Lethbridge, that in our discussions we should not get into a position where misunderstandings might be created where there are none now, and where there have not been any.
As a matter of fact the government of Alberta have always acknowledged, in any discussions I have had with them, that irrigation is a provincial responsibility. They have never questioned it, but they have said that no matter how much it is a provincial responsibility there is no way they can raise all the money that is necessary in order to take care of the cost, which at the time the Meek report was made was $43 an acre for land, and which today at present rates is $70 an acre for land. The province naturally says that even if it were their responsibility, and if the federal government were to say that they would not assume any obligation in connection with it, they just could not go on with the project at all.
We understand that, and all that has been suggested up to the moment is that we follow the same principle that was recommended in

the Meek report and try to find some division of responsibility which will result in a fifty-fifty apportionment of cost, part of the provincial share of which can be collected from the farmers. I do not think we will have any insurmountable obstacles to overcome, and for the benefit of the hon. member for Moose Jaw may I say that I do not think we will have any insurmountable obstacles to overcome when the same principles are applied to Saskatchewan, or to any of the projects that might be developed in western Canada. I hope that the discussion will at least have thrown some light on the matter.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: On that point, the minister said that he did not anticipate any difficulties when he got to Saskatchewan. He said this afternoon and just now that the federal government assumes the cost of the dam, but the point I cannot get clear-and I am sorry if I am dense about it-is what he meant last night when he said at page 772 of Hansard:
... I think there is a good argument for saying that they-
The provincial government of Saskatchewan.
-can pay $3 million or $4 million a year in order to have this irrigation project carried out in that period of time.
In the preceding paragraph he said that the project would take ten years. Therefore that would mean that the Saskatchewan government would have to pay $30 million or $40 million as their share. If the minister did not mean that was their share of the dam, does he mean to say that the provincial government would have to pay $30 million or $40 million for subsidiary pipe lines and things of that kind? I wish he would clarify that point. I would feel very much better if I could have it clarified.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the minister one other question, and he can answer both at the same time. I thought the matter had all been cleared up and that there was no doubt about it. Now I read what the minister said yesterday, and I heard what he said today. I should like to ask a very simple question which will clear up the whole matter as far as I am concerned. Will the construction of the dam at Elbow, or whatever place is determined upon on the south Saskatchewan, be gone ahead with irrespective of whether the province of Saskatchewan agrees to pay 50 per cent, or whatever percentage may be determined, of the anticipated irrigation costs?


James Garfield Gardiner: As has been explained to the committee on many occasions, the position is that on the St. Mary river the dominion government undertook to build the dam.
45781-52J
Supp ly-A gricu Iture
There was only one real reason why we gave that undertaking at the time. We were in the middle of a war; and we had been notified that unless we started to utilize the water of the St. Mary river it would be taken by the Americans as a matter of right.


John George Diefenbaker: For power?


James Garfield Gardiner: Power, irrigation or anything they wanted to use it for. We said we were not in a position to sit down and discuss the recommendations contained in this report or any other recommendations and decide upon an agreement of the kind suggested there. They said they would not be going ahead with their project in wartime, so we felt that some time after the war we should sit down with the provincial authorities and decide when to go ahead with it, and that when we did so the whole matter should be considered in the light of the conditions then existing. This is only a suggestion made by the committee in regard to a division of the cost. We had said already that we were going to build the St. Mary dam, war or no war; that we were going to get on with the job as fast as we could. It so happened that the contracts were not let until 1946. There was a good deal of engineering work to be done, but we got at it as soon as possible after the war, and we then announced as government policy that in any of the larger irrigation projects in which we took part we would at least build the dams necessary for the storage of water in order to make irrigation a possibility. But we also said that anything beyond that was a provincial responsibility.


John George Diefenbaker: Where was that said?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been said a thousand times. It was said here tonight when another hon. gentleman was trying to suggest that back in 1947, I think it was, I had said something different to what I said last night.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: If I may interrupt, would the minister clarify what he said last night to the effect that the provincial government would have three or four million dollars-


James Garfield Gardiner: Don't hurry me; I am coming to that. I am answering my hon. friend across the way first, but I will get around to you soon. The position taken then was that there would be no question about the main storage dam to provide water so that irrigation could be carried on. Whenever it was determined that a project was to be proceeded with, we would build the dam. As applied to the south Saskatchewan, this means that once the government undertakes to proceed with that project the dam in the south Saskatchewan river, whatever it costs, will be built and paid for

Supply-Agriculture
toy the dominion government. In the order in council which was passed-and which was read to this house after it was passed-and which has been accepted by all three prairie provinces as the basis of their policy, it is clearly stated that before the dominion government will proceed with the building of any dam the province must first give us assurances that they are going to use the water and then must tell us how they are going to use it. I am quite sure the hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member for Moose Jaw will recall that last spring the government of Saskatchewan not only signed the agreement under the order in council but made a lengthy announcement to the public to the effect that they would be prepared to utilize the water.
Well, that is the basis of the whole thing. When we come to decide what the province is to pay and what the federal government is to pay, no doubt we will figure the cost of constructing the dam on any of these projects, and then we will discuss with the province the amount of money it can put up in order to assist in completing the whole project. That is the way we are discussing with the city of Regina and the provincial government at the present time the amount of money that each body ought to put up in order to bring water to Regina. The suggestion has been made that the city might put up one-third and the province one-third, and that the dominion might consider putting up an amount which would work out at not more than one-third. That may be the position we will be in when we construct the dam on the south Saskatchewan. I do not know whether the dam is going to cost $66 million. That was not the estimate at the time negotiations were commenced. At that time the estimate was that the whole project would cost $66 million.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am sure the minister would like to answer my question.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am just coming to it now. If you will contain yourself in patience you may get on the record something you will understand when you read it.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Well, I hope so.


James Garfield Gardiner: The estimate of the cost of the whole project at the time it was first discussed was some $66 million.


John George Diefenbaker: Was that just for power?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; that included the dam and other works that would be necessary to put the water in a position where it could be utilized. Later it was estimated that the cost would be much greater. As a matter of fact I would not be at all surprised if by the

time we are through with it the whole project cost more than $100 million. When we speak about the dam costing a certain amount, we are speaking of what the dominion government is prepared to do; but we must have some assurance that the province is going to at least assist in paying the additional cost, before putting in the dam and making provision for power facilities and irrigation possibilities which may never be utilized. I can say to this committee, what will be obvious, that if we built the St. Mary dam and the water was not utilized, there would not be a vote put through this house for a long time to build another dam. This house is not going to pass a vote running up to five, six, seven or eight million dollars to put in a dam and then find that the authorities which should utilize the water for power and irrigation have not done so. That would be even more true if we started with the Saskatchewan river dam, which would be the most expensive of all, and put fifty or sixty million dollars into the project and then found it merely standing there providing a lake 145 miles long and 200 feet deep at the dam. It would be a nice thing to look at, and perhaps we could sail our boats on it occasionally, but it would not serve the purpose for which the people of this country put up the money. So we must have assurances from somebody that the organization will be set up to utilize the water, and that they are going to contribute a share of the cost sufficient to ensure that they will take some responsibility for seeing that the work is carried on.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw asked how I figured that the province might pay the amount he mentioned. Well, I still say that the province of Saskatchewan as I know it-and I think I know it as well as any person does-can raise three or four or five million dollars a year to put into a project which, if it is carried through to a successful conclusion, will bring in more revenue than any other project that could be undertaken in that province. I did not say that they could raise $50 million or $60 million in a year, but they could raise $50 million or $60 million to complete that work over a considerable period. I noticed in some of the estimates for highway undertakings the government is prepared to spend some $17 million in order to see that people can move about in the province of Saskatchewan. I have no doubt that any government in Saskatchewan would take the responsibility for seeing to it that a project which promised to give industry and agriculture greater possibilities for production, as the south Saskatchewan project would do, would not hesitate to obligate themselves for a considerable part

of the cost of putting in this plant. This is particularly true when that government would be able to charge back approximately 25 per cent of the total cost to the farmer, or whatever it works out to be when the whole project is finally concluded. I hope I have answered the question that was in my friend's mind.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The minister has been very general in his remarks. I still would like a specific answer.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am going to give you a specific answer in so far as the south Saskatchewan project is concerned. We will expect the government of Saskatchewan, plus the farmers who are going to be interested in it, to pay about half the cost.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: You calculate this $30 million or $40 million would be the subsidiary cost, not the cost of the dam?


James Garfield Gardiner: No one knows just what that is. As a matter of fact, the $2 million the government is spending now is to find that out.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Last night the minister stated it would take ten years to complete the project and the province's share would possibly be $3 million or $4 million per year which would be a total of $30 million or $40 million. If the federal government has to pay a certain amount, I am taking it from your suggestion that the subsidiary amount would be $60 million or $70 million in addition to the cost of the dam. I should like to know on what you base those figures.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the plan is carried out to the extent it is being advocated, it will cost well over $100 million.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: For the dam or the subsidiary costs?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, the whole program of putting water on the land and putting in power facilities. The whole thing will cost well over $100 million.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: But how much will the subsidiary costs be?


James Garfield Gardiner: The government's position in the discussions is that we start from the point that we think the provinces, plus those who are going to benefit by the project, should pay about fifty per cent of the cost. I am not saying the discussions will finish on that note. The government will try to do the reasonable thing. All the time we are trying to do that, we will not have in mind the government of the province of Saskatchewan as such, nor the government of the Dominion of Canada as such. We will have concluded that the Dominion of Canada
Supply-Agriculture
believes this is a worth-while national project and is, therefore, prepared to put some money into it. We will have concluded that the provincial government believes it is a worthwhile provincial project and will be prepared to put some money into it. The chief concern in all our negotiations is that the farmer does not have to pay any more than it is possible for him to pay and still live in ordinary comfort upon the land he is going to occupy.
In other words, those considering irrigation projects, either in the United States or this country, know that farm land cannot carry the cost of putting in irrigation. The same is true of farm land in the maritime provinces. It cannot pay the cost of putting dikes around marshlands. The land just will not bear that cost, so it has to be a proposition that is large enough and important enough to the nation. It is important because thousands of people can live where nobody can live now-at least, if they do try to live there, they live under conditions under which no government would want to see its people living. It is our belief that the national expenditure and the provincial expenditure should be such that, when the job is complete, these farmers can live there under the conditions that most people who are talking about social services and other things are hoping all people will be able to live under.
I have stated our objective. I do not know of any way in which I could be nailed down. Even if I were, it would not make any difference because I shall not be here long enough to carry out the whole project. I am simply laying down the principle that is in the mind of the government, and in my own mind as minister. It is our desire to make it possible for thousands of people to live on lands that today are not occupied. Those lands are some of the best in the Dominion of Canada; all they need is water. We believe we can put water on them. In helping to do that, we expect to spend sufficient money to make it possible for the provincial government to continue to give the services to the people that should be given and for the farmer to be able to live on the land under conditions that we dll wish to see him living under.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The minister still has not answered my question. Perhaps I have not been clear enough.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask the hon. member a question? At what price are you going to sell boots and shoes five years from now?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I do not sell them.


James Garfield Gardiner: At what price are you going to sell stoves five years from now?

Supply-Agriculture


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I think I am being reasonable in this request. I am only asking for some information for the people of Saskatchewan. Last night the minister said this, as reported at page 772 of Hansard-


James Garfield Gardiner: All you have to do is look at the last election returns and you will know that the people of Saskatchewan understand me very well.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: At page 772 of Hansard the minister said:
But it would be absolutely impossible to construct the south Saskatchewan river project in less than ten years.
I agree with him. At another point on that page he says:
If the government of Saskatchewan can raise $20 million more, I think there is a good argument for saying that they can pay $3 million or $4 million a year in order to have this irrigation project carried out in that period of time.
If I can take the minister's words literally, that means the province of Saskatchewan may have to pay $30 million or $40 million towards this project, but not for the main dam. All I want the minister to tell me is what the subsidiary expenses are that would amount to $60 million or $80 million including the two shares.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is six hundred thousand acres of land to which you have to distribute water, and some of that water has to be pumped. Some of this land has to be levelled; not all of it, but some of it. There is a dam on the Qu'Appelle river which will be 75 feet high, and that will be in addition to the one we are talking about on the south Saskatchewan river. There are works that would have to be put in order to make it possible to develop power from the dam. There are many other works as well. It is well understood that when you have built the dam you have only started to carry out an irrigation project.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The minister would not say he was guessing last night?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would say this: neither my hon. friend nor anyone else knows exactly what the costs are going to be, so there has to be a certain amount of guessing. I was not guessing when I said any government in the province of Saskatchewan could pay $3 million or $4 million a year towards the project.


John George Diefenbaker: I believe every member from the province of Saskatchewan as well as Alberta will have listened with interest to the statement the Minister of Agriculture has just made. He said, "I do not know any way in which I can be nailed down." When he said that, I was reminded of-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Of the 27th of June.


John George Diefenbaker: -a statement made some years ago in the British House of Commons by Lloyd George in regard to de Valera. He said trying to pin him down was like "trying to pick up mercury with a fork." After listening to the cross-examination of the member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) and how well the minister kept away from answering the simple questions that were asked, Lloyd George's remarks appear applicable.
The people of Saskatchewan will be most deeply disappointed by the statement made this evening by the minister. I say that because over the years-it goes back to 1946-the minister has consistently brought before the people of Saskatchewan the promise of a new hope for them through the development of power on the south Saskatchewan power project. The resultant industrialization of Saskatchewan would assure the maintenance of the population of that province. His promise caused him to receive large and generous support for his party during the last federal election.
As I listened to him, I could not conceive that the minister who was speaking in this house was the minister upon whom the people of Saskatchewan have placed such reliance. I am not going to quote the promises-I have them here-but I am going to quote the reaction of the Saskatchewan press to them. It is not the C.C.F. press to which he referred yesterday in answer to the hon. member for Moose Jaw. The press that supported the government in Saskatchewan cannot but be disappointed by his statement this evening.


Mr. Warren:: They did not elect many Tories.


John George Diefenbaker: I was not discussing the matter in that light. I am quoting from the Liberal press now, and I can refer to chapter and verse. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister this question. In Saskatchewan, when speaking to the organization set up in the province to provide irrigation and water supply for the city of Moose Jaw and the city of Regina, did he ever say that only if the provincial government were prepared to provide 50 per cent, or a proportion close to 50 per cent of the cost of irrigation, the dam would be proceeded with? When did he ever say that unless that were done the dam would not be proceeded with?


James Garfield Gardiner: Would the hon. member like that answered now?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for Regina City, and any others who are here who have

been following the discussion of this question, will recall that a meeting was called in the city of Regina in either 1946 or 1947-I have not the exact date in mind-in order to form the association which is promoting the irrigation of land in Saskatchewan, particularly as related to the dam in the south Saskatchewan river. On that occasion I was asked to be the main speaker. They set up their organization. They appointed their president and their committee, and they asked me to speak to them.


John George Diefenbaker: Where was that speech made?


James Garfield Gardiner: In Regina, in the Saskatchewan hotel, at a banquet which was attended by two or three hundred of the promoters of the scheme. On that occasion I called their attention to the fact that we had built two dams south of Swift Current, and that the water in those dams was not being utilized to the extent that had been suggested by those who were going to be served by it. I pointed out that it was the responsibility of the provincial government and of the local authorities to utilize that water, and indicated to them that unless they did there was not much possibility of their ever persuading the federal government to build other larger works which would cost much more money. I used this term in describing it. I said: "These dams will be pointed to in a very short time as white elephants created at the expense of all the people of Canada; they are not being utilized, and I think you should get busy and utilize them." As a result of that there was very considerable activity and the water is being utilized, and the provincial government has taken its share of the responsibility in seeing that it was done, and so have the municipalities.


John George Diefenbaker: That answer again deals with these two small dams.


James Garfield Gardiner: It dealt with the big one, too. That is what we were talking about.


John George Diefenbaker: It does not deal with the south Saskatchewan dam project. That is what I am dealing with. No doubt the minister did say that certain small dams-


James Garfield Gardiner: That meeting was held for the purpose of discussing the south Saskatchewan dam. I told them that, before they started asking us to put in another dam, they had better start utilizing the water in the dams they had.


John George Diefenbaker: I hold in my hand
several speeches delivered by my hon. friend. I say that when he spoke in the city of Regina he spoke of the necessity for the utilization of the waters of two small dams.
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: When?


John George Diefenbaker: In Saskatchewan, at no time has he ever publicly said that this dam would be held up. When I say "this dam" I refer to the south Saskatchewan river dam. At no time did he ever publicly say that this dam would be held up unless the provincial government would contribute to the irrigation.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is exactly what I was talking about. That is exactly what I was invited to talk about. What I was talking about was the south Saskatchewan dam.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a strange thing, Mr. Chairman, that no newspaper in Saskatchewan took that meaning from anything that the minister said.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can get the newspaper tomorrow morning.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I was present at that meeting, and I can verify every word that the minister has said.


John George Diefenbaker: All I have to say is this-
[Inaudible interruption.]


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the hon.
member who has just interrupted to rise in his place. I cannot understand these interruptions that come from wherever the hon. member hides himself. I am trying to discuss a matter that is of interest to every person in Saskatchewan. The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix is a supporter of the government. On July 15, 1947, after the Minister of Agriculture had spoken, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix pointed out the situation with regard to this project in these words:
It will be two years before construction work can begin on the south Saskatchewan river dam. But it is not too early to begin exploring the problem of how costs can be met. The prairie farm rehabilitation report has estimated the cost of the dam and "appurtenant works" at $66,360,000. In the whole range of possible reconstruction works in Canada, the only undertaking that may exceed this in national importance would be the St. Lawrence seaway. The south Saskatchewan development will yield national benefits and it must be carried out as a national undertaking. It is not, of course, a relief project or anything of the kind. It is a project to bring a mighty river under control, to divert to fruitful use its swift volume of water (of which almost no use has been made in the 70 years that settlers have lived along its banks), to stabilize the livelihood of a million people on the plains and to make economic living space for as many more, and finally to expand the commerce that flows between the west and the east in Canada. A hundred million dollars expended in this project would return itself many times over in a few years.
That the south Saskatchewan project will be carried out, let no one doubt. Mr. Gardiner has committed the present government to the undertaking, according to a report of his speech at Lethbridge the other day. The funds for the project

Supply-Agriculture
must come from the nation's credit. The main problem is to get the parliament of Canada to approve the expenditure of $66,360,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a $100 million project.


John George Diefenbaker: It said that it must be a national project. I come to the speeches my right hon. friend made just a year ago,- the first on October 16, 1948, during the by-election in Rosthern.
I asked the minister a few moments ago whether, in the event that the province would not supply the necessary money for this irrigation project, the dam would be gone ahead with as a power project-in other words, to provide for industrialization.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are asking a hypothetical question which will not happen. But Saskatchewan will have a government which will assist.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, but that was not the view last year, as I shall read.


James Garfield Gardiner: It might even be a government under your new leader you have just come back from choosing.


John George Diefenbaker: It is all very well for the minister to say that. If promises had been made by us they would have been carried out; and when the minister makes a promise the people take him at his word.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is because for thirty-five years I have always carried out any promises I made.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I am asking the minister now to continue what he says has been his practice for thirty-five years. That is the very reason I am bringing this to his attention-and by his interruptions he is not diverting me from reading his promises.
I take this from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix:
Great Industrial Development Seen if Big Dam Built
Unexpected industrial development would follow construction of the proposed Outlook dam, Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner told the annual meeting of the Saskatoon Liberal Association, Thursday night. The federal agricultural minister predicted that the dam would furnish electric power for a wide farming area as well as providing irrigation for many acres. It would mean a changing economy for this sector of the province, he said.
Under the heading "His Main Job" the article continues:
Mr. Gardiner said his main task in the commons- as well as that of W. A. Boucher, if elected, in the Rosthern by-election-would be to "push the building of the dam as much as possible." . . . "The time has come when we must put great emphasis on the development of this country," Mr. Gardiner declared.

And then a little later, on October 22, 1948, we find this in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix:
The fact that two federal cabinet ministers have expressed a favourable attitude toward the south Saskatchewan river irrigation and power project in the Rosthern by-election campaign has contributed to make this one of the main campaign issues, Walter Tucker, Saskatchewan Liberal leader, declared at a public meeting here Thursday night.
Mr. Tucker said that it is "now up to the people of Rosthern to give their endorsement by electing William A. Boucher, Liberal candidate-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Cruickshank: A good man. They elected him, too.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, they did. It continues:
-if they want the project proceeded with."
You may applaud that.
He added, "You certainly won't get anywhere by sending C.C.F.'ers to Ottawa:	the election of
Makaroff would be tantamount to repudiation of the great scheme."
"We have now reached the stage where public opinion will have to be mobilized behind the project to help obtain the passage through parliament of the necessary funds." Mr. Tucker continued, "it is imperative for the people of Rosthern to send Mr. Boucher to Ottawa to help Mr. Gardiner in his fight for it."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Wrighf:: You have a cheering section now.


James Garfield Gardiner: You ought to read one of your own speeches.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate the help from all quarters of the house.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And you need it, too.


John George Diefenbaker: It continues:
The fact that the Hon. Paul Martin, Minister of National Health and Welfare, had shown a favourable attitude toward the project while he participated in the by-election campaign, was construed by Mr. Tucker as evidence that advocates of the project were making headway in winning converts in the east.
Then on October 21, 1948, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix carries the headline "Outlook Dam Would Mean Development of Heavy Industry in West Canada", and states.:
Development of irrigation and power on the south Saskatchewan river by means of the Outlook dam would mean industrial and agricultural development of western Canada similar to the Essen country of Germany.
In another report appearing in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of October 23, 1948, under the heading "Immense Benefits from Dam," it is stated that:
In a speech Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner said, "If this part of the country could be turned into an industrial as well as an agricultural area, it would be possible for it to support twice the population that it does now."


James Garfield Gardiner: Did you not say all that, and a lot more, in your speeches?


John George Diefenbaker: Surely, I said it. And I am asking for the construction of the dam so that we can industrialize Saskatchewan. That is the reason I am asking for it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You will never be in power to do it; we will be.


Mr. Cleaver:: Would the hon. member
permit a question from an Ontario member?


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. member sit down?


Hughes Cleaver: Then I shall ask it when he has finished.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the interruption?


An hon. Member:: Will he ever get through?


Hughes Cleaver: I had a question to ask, but the hon. member would not answer it. I shall ask it later on.


John George Diefenbaker: The article continues:
Cheap power is the open sesame to industrial growth. With a dam at its back door almost assured, and with the resultant cheap water power available in the not too distant future, Saskatoon stands at the gateway to new and unprecedented development.
I could go on and read further references from the speeches made by my right hon. friend, all of which point out the necessity for power development in our province, with incidental irrigation development. I say to him this, that if we in that province now are to find ourselves in the position where the dam is not to be proceeded with unless the provincial government says that it will spend several million dollars a year to take up 50 per cent or thereabouts of the irrigation costs then, sir-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Why shouldn't you?


Howard Charles Green: Stick to the Fraser valley.


John George Diefenbaker: We supported the hon. member last year when he was advocating assistance for the Fraser valley at the time of a national disaster. Saskatchewan is losing population. We have 70,000 less in that province now than we had in 1936. This project represents the hope of the people of that province, and it is for that reason that I defend it in this House of Commons.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is a good friend of mine- a personal friend. He will admit this, that British Columbia paid 25 per cent of the cost of that expenditure.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not argue that point at all. But I am arguing this, that so far as
Supp ly-A griculture
a dam is concerned to produce the necessary power to be made available for industrialization, we in the province of Saskatchewan have the right to expect that this project will be proceeded with nationally.
When the minister was answering the hon. member for Moose Jaw I could not believe that he was placing before this committee his considered view that this project, which represents so much to hundreds of thousands of people in our province, is to be placed in a position where its construction, instead of being a national undertaking, is to be an undertaking in part national and in part provincial.
The minister distributed a map when he spoke in Saskatoon, showing the benefits of this project. When he spoke, he raised no question at any time that this project was going to be dependent upon whether or not the water would be actually utilized for irrigation purposes. He placed before the people of Saskatoon, in that address before the board of trade, the benefits which would follow in keeping in Saskatchewan the thousands who are leaving that province.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend should
attend some of my meetings because-


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: May I ask the hon. member a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend should attend some of my meetings because I have never made an address on this subject without calling attention to the fact that the province has some obligation.


John George Diefenbaker: The press did not report it?


James Garfield Gardiner: They reported it once. Anything that has been said half a dozen times is not news any longer.


John George Diefenbaker: They did not report it once.


James Garfield Gardiner: They reported it when it was necessary to report it. It was always understood.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: May I ask the hon. member for Lake Centre if at any time in the history of Saskatchewan he went around and said that the minister had let Saskatchewan down?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: I should like that question answered.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend asks a question that has nothing whatever to do with this matter. It is not pertinent, and the kind of question one would expect the hon. gentleman to ask.

Supply-Agriculture


An hon. Member:: Very smart.


John George Diefenbaker: Having said that, may I say that I am surprised at the attitude taken by the Saskatchewan members in opposing my endeavour to get this for Saskatchewan. I am surprised at the attitude they take when I bring this matter before the committee. Each of them said during the campaign that he was in favour of it. Now when I endeavour to impress upon the minister the necessity of something being done if the morale of the people is to be maintained, they oppose my efforts. The people have been looking forward to this. Two years ago the minister said that within two years the government would decide on the location of the dam and the work would proceed at the earliest possible moment. The last time the matter came before the house the minister said that they were going to continue the investigation. There was never a word when the matter came up that this great project was going to be placed in jeopardy because part of the responsibility in regard to irrigation was going to be imposed upon the provincial government. What I am saying this evening, and I shall say no more-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the best contribution my hon. friend has ever made. I have requested the minister to join with those hon. members from Saskatchewan who have been interrupting me when I have been making this argument and impressing upon this committee and the country, as it no longer needs to be impressed, that this is a national project, necessary for our province if its population is to be maintained. I shall not enter into an argument as to whether there should be a division of responsibility between the dominion and the province, because then each will endeavour to pass the buck to the other. The people of the province do not want any of that. They are asking that this national work be proceeded with.
During the days of the war hundreds of millions of dollars were spent in other provinces to lay an industrial foundation. We in Saskatchewan got none of that. I thought we were all united in this regardless of party considerations. I thought we all wanted to rebuild our economy to the end that the exodus of our people would be restrained by the industrialization which was pictured in two or three of the minister's addresses when he pointed out that there were great possibilities in the way of power to industrialize the province and change its economy to such an extent that a livelihood would be pro-

vided for the many thousands of people who today find it necessary to leave because of drought and climatic conditions.
It is in that spirit that I make this appeal. I am not entering any arguments as to whether it is a provincial or dominion obligation. All I know is that all our people believed that the minister had the authority to make the promise he did when he said that this would be proceeded with without delay. This is not a political matter in the province. All are united in this. The Liberal members to my right were elected in its support. The C.C.F. candidates spoke in favour of it. No one in the province has dared within the last two years to stand up and say that he did not fully support going ahead with this project.
I think hon. members of this committee are willing to give our province assistance in this regard, assistance which will spell an improvement in our economy and above all stop that exodus which is reducing Saskatchewan year by year to a lower and lower position in the population category of the provinces of this dominion. It is in that spirit that I approach this matter. Our people as a whole are going to be intensely disappointed-


James Garfield Gardiner: Nobody has said that there is going to be any stoppage.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask a question from a non-partisan point of view?


John George Diefenbaker: That is why I know the question will be non-political.


George Alexander Cruickshank: How many people in Saskatchewan thought on June 27 that the official opposition represented the people of Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: On October 27, 1948-


George Alexander Cruickshank: June, I said.


John George Diefenbaker: On October 27, 1948, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix contained this editorial:
The Liberal campaign was based in large part on the promotion of the south Saskatchewan river development, the project that offers the quickest bargain in national dividends anywhere in the country and which needs only the approval of the Canadian parliament. . . The Liberal victory represents a decisive endorsation of the south Saskatchewan river development.
Another excerpt from an editorial in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of October 26, 1948, reads:
The election was fought on a number of issues; the Liberals seeking endorsement of their agriculture and social security policies and asking support for a large irrigation project on the south Saskatchewan river.

That was the issue a year ago in that by-election. During the federal election no issue was made of that because we all believed that the project was to be proceeded with. I say once more that there is going to be the greatest disappointment in Saskatchewan over the minister's announcement. I have nothing more to say because the government with its majority can determine whether or not this work will be proceeded with.


Hughes Cleaver: Will the hon. member permit a question from an Ontario member? I think the hon. member will concede that there are members in this house other than those from Saskatchewan like himself who are interested in the welfare of Saskatchewan. I listened with a great deal of interest to the plan outlined by the minister whereby the federal government would assume roughly fifty per cent of the total cost of this tremendous project that means so much to Saskatchewan. I learned also that the remaining portion of the cost would be borne by the province and those who would directly benefit, such as the farmers and those who would be using the electric current which would be developed. I suggest to the hon. member for Lake Centre that if he wants to advance the project he will get a lot further with the other members of the house in doing so if he will argue to the point, tell the members of the house what he does not like about the program, and make his own suggestions as to what would be a fair and equitable distribution of the cost. He will get a lot further than by making -and I say this in all sincerity-smart-aleck answers to questions from members who are honestly seeking to get his views.


An hon. Member:: What is your question?


Hughes Cleaver: In what way does the hon. member for Lake Centre object to the broad proposals outlined by the minister?


John George Diefenbaker: First may I say that I have always noticed in this house a fine spirit of co-operation among members in appreciating the difficulties of other parts of the country. My experience has never been that there is in this country an east working against a west. I often hear that in the west, but I have never found it to exist. There is that spirit that was displayed a moment ago by the hon. member in his very studied, careful and objective remarks. I want to say that I have set forth what the promises were and what the people are asking.


Hughes Cleaver: If I may be permitted, I have listened carefully to the entire speech of the hon. member.
Supply-Agriculture


Howard Charles Green: He does not like it.


Hughes Cleaver: He read some excerpts, but he did not give me any idea of what he thought was unfair about the broad outline given by the minister as to how the cost of this tremendous project is to be borne.


Howard Charles Green: You had better read it in Hansard.


Mr. Laing:: I am not going to make any prepared observations. I should like the hon. member for Lake Centre to tell us if it is his view, and the view of the people resident in his province, that the whole cost of the project should come from the consolidated revenues of the Dominion of Canada. I have in mind that some of this type of work is being done in the province of British Columbia. Water is being provided to a certain point, but that water is being collected with one end in view, and that is land use. The water is no good unless you use it and it is being used on land. Certainly our provincial government is going to co-operate with the federal authorities in the distribution of that water at Westbank, and again on the west bench at Penticton in particular. They are certainly going to co-operate with the federal government, and are co-operating right now in respect of the work at Pemberton. I can visualize there is only one source from which the money comes, and that is revenues collected from all parts of Canada. If the people of Saskatchewan are going to take the stand that the people of all parts of Canada must bear 100 per cent of the cost of the project in Saskatchewan, I am afraid you are going to have a difficult time selling that idea to the people of British Columbia.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Hear, hear.


Arthur Laing: I will deal with my friend in a moment. He is an authority on hardware.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Not even on that.


Arthur Laing: And the Regina manifesto, but he is not an authority on soil fertility. I remember that last year $167 million was collected from the province of British Columbia by the federal government. I wonder how much came out of Saskatchewan. If we are going to take these projects on a national basis, as we certainly must, and along the lines outlined by the minister and by the hon. member for Lethbridge, then there is justification for them on the basis that they will keep more people in Canada and produce more wealth which will be distributed all over Canada. That is the only justification for them. It seems to me if the people of a certain province are going to take the stand that they will contribute nothing and that

Supp ly-A griculture
they want everything from Ottawa, it is in the interests of the Dominion of Canada to know that right now.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the discussions that have taken place regarding the St. Mary river and south Saskatchewan projects. I realize how important it is that a satisfactory understanding be reached as to the St. Mary river project because the minister has stated that the agreement that is signed for that project will be the pattern for all future contracts. Therefore if we get off on the wrong foot on the first project we will have a problem with the rest.
I want to ask a few questions about the Red Deer irrigation project because that is included in this item. Two reservoirs have been created on Berry creek, and I understand that two more are under construction this year, one further south on Berry creek and one on Sounding creek. I should like to say that the farmers in those areas appreciate very much the fact that the government has constructed those dams. On the other hand, they also realize the fact that these reservoirs are absolutely dependent upon surface runoff of water for their supply. Consequently in years when there is no runoff there will be no water available for irrigation. For example, take the dam that was constructed last year in that reservoir. There is not enough water there now to drown a mouse, for the simple reason that there is no runoff. Therefore the people of that area feel that they will never have the assurance of irrigation until such time as the main project is constructed under which water will be diverted from the Red Deer river into Hamilton lake, and from there down through the drainage creeks into various parts of that land.
The first dam that was built was the Bartman dam which was built several years ago on Berry creek. That project provides for irrigation by gravity and many hundreds of acres have been irrigated from that reservoir. Good use has been made of it. The other three dams that have either been built or are being built are for the purpose of creating reservoirs to provide water for irrigation by means of a sprinkler system.
The question I should like to ask the minister is what the policy of the federal government is with regard to providing grants to farmers for the purchase of aluminum pipe in connection with the sprinkler system. I sat down with the chairman of the special areas board and discussed the matter with Mr. Larry Helmer, who is the P.F.R.A. agent at Hanna. He told us that a grant of $350 per farmer would be provided for the purpose of buying aluminum pipe for

irrigation projects provided that no money had been given to those farmers for the purpose of digging dug-outs or erecting dams. I am especially interested in finding out whether or not that is correct. I do not doubt it because the minister knows the man to whom I refer. I know him well and I know he is not the type of man who runs around making irresponsible statements. Therefore I take it that it is correct.
The reason I am interested is that if irrigation is going to be provided by a sprinkler system it will mean a great saving in cost to both the federal and the provincial governments in not having to dig ditches. If the federal government is making a grant I think there is every reason why the provincial government would also make a contribution towards a sprinkler system because such a system would also save them the cost of digging ditches for the purpose of getting water on the land. Another reason why we favour a sprinkler system in that area is that it is rolling land and it will not be easy to irrigate by means of ditches. Secondly there is a certain amount of alkali, and with a sprinkler system we will not have so much trouble. I know many people will say that a sprinkler system is far more expensive than a gravity system. I listened to Dr. Palmer from the Lethbridge experimental farm, however, who showed clearly that while the initial cost may be greater, nevertheless over a period of time it would be even cheaper than a gravity system because there would be such tremendous savings in labour. So I wonder if the minister could briefly outline the policy in regard to the purchase of aluminum pipe.


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe the hon. gentleman asked me this question earlier in the session, and I was unable to answer it until I communicated with the western organization. They tell me no such suggestion has ever been made. They say some of the agents selling aluminum pipe promoted the sale of the pipe on the basis that the government ought to do this. Anyone who is familiar with suggestions of that kind realizes that you do not have to go very far-as a matter of fact you need not go outside this house, if you look at the newspaper reports-to have a suggestion by an agent selling something become a suggestion that the government ought to do something, and finally have someone saying the government is going to do it. The government have never said they are going to do it. As a matter of fact we had six men out this summer investigating the position with respect to that kind of irrigation, and we have not sufficient information to advise farmers to adopt it as against some other methods. It does not settle all those

problems having to do with alkali, and so on; we know that. Those matters are associated with the amount of water and the manner in which it is put on the land. An individual might put water on his land by means of pipes and cause damage through alkali, just as he might cause the damage in some other way.
Most of the reservoirs that have been constructed in the vicinity of Hanna are of a type and in a position which will make it possible to utilize them in connection with the Red Deer project when it is brought into being. They were built as the result of representations made by a delegation that came from Hanna to Lethbridge when I was there in 1947, I think, or the early part of 1948. Their representations were to the effect that if those reservoirs were proceeded with while the other larger project was under consideration, in the meantime it would be possible for them to irrigate some six or seven thousand acres of land. I brought those representations back here and recommended to the government that we proceed with those reservoirs, and following that recommendation the work was carried on.
The unfortunate thing about it, and what makes it possible for the hon. member to say there was not enough water in some of these reservoirs this year to drown a mouse, is that there was no rain. That is the reason we have irrigation systems out west. I may tell my hon. friend that I built a very large cistern on my own farm, which is in a district that usually has much more moisture than most of the constituency my hon. friend represents. While I have a barn roof 100 feet long and 40 feet wide from which to get water for the cistern, which is only 10 feet wide and 60 feet long, I have not had more than 20 inches of water in it at any time this year. The fact is that we did not have three inches of rain from one July to the next. That is why we talk about irrigation out west. It does not rain enough every year to put water into the reservoirs. But we are hopeful that in the years to come we will have runoffs some time, and when we get those reservoirs filled they will take care of the needs over considerable periods of drought. Then when we get the larger scheme in operation these reservoirs will be filled from time to time from the larger dams.
After having said this, I do not want anyone to say that I made the promise tonight that we are going to build the dam at some particular time. I am only saying that when that dam is constructed-and I assume it will be constructed-the reservoirs which have been put in this year will form part of the whole system and it will not be necessary
Supply-Agriculture
to have them supplied by runoffs every year. The water will be brought in from the larger reservoir that will be put in for the purpose of replenishing these smaller ones from time to time.


Victor Quelch: I think the minister misunderstood me. I did not say a salesman for a particular system had said anything.


James Garfield Gardiner: I know my hon. friend did not say that; he referred to somebody I knew very well. I do not really know whom he is talking about, but likely I do know the man very well; I know a great many people in Alberta very well. I am saying that we investigated that rumour, it led us back to the salesmen who were selling pipe. They were going around that district saying these things, and I have no doubt somebody believed what was being said, and it was not long until someone said the government was going to do it. Well, we are not doing it.


Victor Quelch: I can give the minister the name of the person responsible for the rumour. He is the district representative of P.F.R.A., Mr. Larry Helmer. He gave that information to the chairman of the special areas board, and I was there when it was given. That information was also given to the east central irrigation association; and keen enthusiasm in the sprinkler system has been created throughout the district by the minister's own representative.


James Garfield Gardiner: The director, who is sitting in front of me, tells me Mr. Helmer is the very man he investigated out there, and that was where he got the information that these statements were being made by the agents. When they told him that he took it for granted the information was correct, and repeated it.


Victor Quelch: Then I would suggest that the minister immediately contact Mr. Helmer, because the sooner that rumour is denied the better it will be. Otherwise it may cause a great deal of trouble.


James Garfield Gardiner: I took it up with the director right after my hon. friend mentioned it to me, and he tells me that he contacted Mr. Helmer and that what my hon. friend suggests has been done. I am quite sure he is not circulating that report now.


Victor Quelch: I am glad to hear that. I am not saying this was done during the election campaign. As a matter of fact that information was given to us six weeks after the election, so I am not making any charge of political propaganda. I should like to ask the minister one or two other questions. Could he say whether or not consideration has been given by the prairie provinces water board to the construction of the Red Deer diversion project?

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: I am informed that up to the present the Alberta government has not applied to that board for a diversion of water for the Red Deer project. I am not saying this to be critical of that government. The understanding we have with the government of Alberta is that the Bow river project, which was under way, would be proceeded with by the federal government with as little as possible in the way of further discussions with the province. They assumed that we had undertaken the obligation and would go along with it until we reached the point of working the land they owned, and that then the matter would be discussed and we would come to some arrangement about it; and we intend to come to that arrangement. Then they agreed that after this the St. Mary project should be proceeded with and developed as rapidly as possible, and that the Red Deer project should follow after that. So we have been devoting the greater part of our time and effort to the first two projects. With respect to the other one, in the meantime we have been making these temporary arrangements and putting in small dams that do take care of some of the farmers.


Victor Quelch: Did I understand the minister to say the St. Mary river project would be completed first, and then the Bow river project?


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps I should not say it will be completed. We intend to get it far enough under way so that it is a going concern, and then turn our attention to the other project.


Victor Quelch: I am glad to hear that, because it means we will not have to wait another fourteen years.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am fortunate in representing a constituency in Saskatchewan where we do not need irrigation, but I have been interested in this discussion. In that province we are all interested in the irrigation project, and particularly in industrialization. When the minister stated, as I think he did, that the government would be responsible for the major work, that is the dam for storing the water, and that the province would come into the picture in the distribution of the water and the irrigation of the land, so far as the province of Saskatchewan is concerned I believe that has been understood. Last year a department of the provincial government was set up to make a study of irrigation and to be prepared, if and when the dominion government completed the dam, to do something with the water. We hope they (Mr. Quelch.]
will not have to wait ten years to get some water to us. I think they will be prepared to use it before that.
I am interested in this point: If the dominion government is going to build the major dams, then will the dominion government own the power which will result from that dam? It seems to me that is an important point. Who is going to own the power that will be produced at the major dams? Will it be under the control of the province or under the control of the dominion? If the dominion is building the dam and will own the power, then it will be able to get large returns from the power. I should like to hear the minister's explanation of that situation.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am pleased to hear the hon. member who comes from the northern part of Saskatchewan, an area that is not concerned really with this particular development, say that the province was assuming an obligation in connection with this project and has set up an organization to take care of this obligation. That is right. There is another development which has never been discussed in this house to any great extent and which I am not going to start discussing at this time of night, which does not happen to be within the bounds of either Alberta or Saskatchewan, but which will serve the northern part of the province. Even though the hon. member comes from a section of the province which is some distance from where these discussions have taken place, I was pleased to hear what he said.
This government has been assuming that the water which is put there for the purpose of irrigation and the purpose of power will be utilized by the province or some agency set up under provincial law. Irrigation law is provincial law. As my hon. friend knows, I had the privilege of setting up the power commission in the province of Saskatchewan. It is still operating. It is the expectation of this government that the power commission will utilize the power. It is not the intention of the government to charge rates for water, either for power purposes or for irrigation purposes, which will return part of the capital cost. If anything is charged it will only be enough to pay for the maintenance of the dam and the reservoir that holds the water. This subject has been discussed here and it was agreed by all that there should only be a charge of that kind.


Mr. Knight:: If the discussion is to be continued until eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I shall carry on, but if it is the desire of the committee to call it eleven o'clock now, I am agreeable.


Some hon. Members:: Carry the item.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I had hoped, sir, that I was merely going to speak on the smaller project which, in some ways, is subsidiary to this larger project in the Saskatchewan river. I say this is subsidiary because the minister has acknowledged it to be so by the issuance of a map. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) referred to it tonight. This map has certain black spots on it showing subsidiary dams all the way up into the Rosthern constituency and my constituency. I did not want to speak in a political tone tonight, but I do want to say in all seriousness and earnestness that I have been more bitterly disappointed tonight than at any time since I came here in 1945.
I had hoped that yesterday the minister merely made a slip of the tongue and, in that persistent way he has, was refusing to acknowledge himself in the wrong. I thought after this debate was over everything would be sweetness and light, and we would be back to where we were before with regard to this whole project. I am now convinced in my mind that the government has abandoned the Saskatchewan project. 1 cannot come to any other conclusion.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is our child; why should we abandon it?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The minister told me on an occasion when I went out to make a speech, which he has referred to as "that speech", that it would lose me the election in the Hanley territory. It did not. Although I want to be modest, I can say that my majority was trebled over that of the 1945 election. That is not what I came to tell you about, however. The minister was rather annoyed at me when I suggested on several occasions he was pussyfooting about this particular project and making a political football out of it. I have now come to the reluctant conclusion that I was right.
The election was won by the Liberal party, and they made a fine showing in Saskatchewan. May I give the minister all the credit for that, much more credit than I would give the Liberal leader in that particular province.
Supply-Agriculture
There are two things to which I give credit for the Liberal victory. The first is the astuteness of the Minister of Agriculture and the second is the promises which were made in regard to this particular water project. The Minister of Agriculture has returned to this house with what I call his cheering section, the fourteen Liberal members gained at the expense of this party in the province of Saskatchewan. I should like to ask them tonight if they will get up during this debate-


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Langlois, Gaspe):: It being eleven o'clock, shall I report progress?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: On Monday next we will proceed with the notice of motion concerning an act to amend the British North America Act, which is in the name of the Prime Minister. We will then take up the second reading of Bill No. 12, to establish the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation. If we can reach the next item, it will be the second reading of Bill No. 62, an act respecting forest conservation. If those bills are completed, we will move to go into supply, calling two new departments and completing the Agriculture estimates.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. minister a question? I understood him to say that two new departments will be called if there is a motion to go into supply. About thirteen departments have been put in so far, so there are only three remaining; is that correct?


Alphonse Fournier: No. I hesitate to say there are six, but I am sure of five departments that are to come.


Howard Charles Green: I would suggest the government be satisfied with putting in one department on this occasion.


Alphonse Fournier: We are always ready to accept a suggestion from my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, October 17, 1949