1950-05-01

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Ethel Bell Lifshitz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of Martin Matthew Waagemans.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 138, for the relief of Elaine Ruby Cooper Pierre.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Gertrude Toulch Standard.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Thomas Gordon Williams.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Ethel Lerner Baker.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Robert Earl Skinner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Chasia Berger Wolf.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Henry William Askew.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of Leman Makinson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Rose Anna Levesque Kirkland.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Douglas Barrymore Stone.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of Nancy Doria Evan-Wong Meade.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Louise Elizabeth Garner Mitchell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Vivian Pearl McCrea Gunning.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of George Bruce Lancaster.-Mr. Winkler.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Juiras:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Provencher.


René Jutras: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the disastrous floods-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This motion is moved under standing order 31, which reads as follows:
Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house (when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business (standing order 15) has been concluded and before notices of motions or orders of the day are entered upon.
The request for leave appears to have been made at the proper time.
The second paragraph of standing order 31 reads as follows:
The member desiring to make such a motion rises in his place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and states the matter.
The hon. member may proceed.


René Jutras: I wish to discuss the disastrous flood conditions in the province of Manitoba, covering the major part of the province and affecting the lives and livelihood of thousands and thousands of people.


Mr. Speaker:: The procedure is that the hon. member then hands a written statement of the matter he proposes to discuss to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house. I have read the written statement, and it appears to me to be in order and of urgent public importance. Accordingly, I shall read it out:
Mr. Jutras moves, seconded by Mr Viau, for leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the disastrous flood conditions in the province of Manitoba, covering a major part of the province and affecting the lives and livelihood of thousands and thousands of people.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


René Jutras: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the house for giving me this opportunity of discussing a matter of great importance, and of bringing it to the attention of this parliament. Within the last three days it has become a matter of grave personal concern, because this flood affects the major part of my constituency. At the moment the greater part of my constituency is under water, and as reports continue to be received the situation grows worse. As a matter of fact my own property is now in the midst of the dirty waters of the Red river, and the last word

Manitoba Flood
I had indicated that a canoe could be floated in my living room. Compared with the damage to surrounding properties, however, that is of little consequence. The people are helpless; there is nothing to stop the rolling flood water.
A few days ago a man whom I knew well, and who was well regarded in the community of St. Elizabeth, lost his life as a result of the flood. He was just in the prime of life, and leaves a family of seven children, ranging in age from fourteen years to a few weeks. I do want to express my deepest sympathy to Mrs. Sicotte, of St. Elizabeth, and the members of the family. We have every reason to be grateful that so far only one life has been lost. As the flood grows worse from hour to hour, the threat to life becomes greater and greater.
When the flood commenced my first impulse was to go immediately to my constituency to investigate the situation, and at the same time to protect my own property. After due consideration, however, I concluded that it was my duty to remain at my post, at least until such time as the likelihood of a major catastrophe requiring my services in Ottawa had passed. I have kept in close touch by telephone and telegraph with parties in that area ever since the beginning of the flood, and according to the latest report things seem to be fairly well under control. Yesterday I called the mayor of Emerson which was the first town to be inundated, and he told me that the conditions were grim and desolate, but that the people had food, shelter and some heat. It was evident that everything humanly possible had been done for the community, and they were fairly well taken care of. As I have said, every hour the picture changes.
This morning I had been led to believe that the condition has grown worse in Emerson than it was last night. Apparently rail communication has been cut, and the telephone switchboard has been abandoned because of the high water level. I believe the Royal Canadian Mounted Police radio station in the town is keeping in touch with the outside world. I have been told that Morris is facing the same difficulty. I do not know the situation in the town of Letellier, the second town going north, but concern was expressed over the 200-foot sandbag dike which had been erected to hold back the small tributary, the Marais river. The water was lapping over the dike, and I fear that this morning it must be well over it, if indeed the dike has not collapsed under the strain.
When I went home at Easter, there was no flood, but upon investigation there seemed to be every likelihood of one. The authorities

at Bismarck and Grand Forks in the United States advised us that there was a likelihood of a flood in the district; therefore some preparations were made. I know that I prepared my house for the flood, and I believe a good many people acted in a similar manner. We moved our stock and feed to the high ground which had remained dry during the 1948 flood. A good many people moved their personal belongings to these high spots. Unfortunately the Red river and its tributaries did not follow the 1948 pattern; consequently all those places that were left dry in the 1948 flood are now under two feet of water. This has made conditions worse than if the people had not moved their personal belongings at all.
Hon. members will no doubt recall from reading newspaper reports that there was a heavy snowfall in that area at Easter. This made it all the more difficult for the people to move feed and stock to higher ground. As a matter of fact, during the weeks that I was there it was utterly impossible to enter any yard of any farm; consequently they could not move anything out before getting a bulldozer, a tractor or a snowplow to clear a roadway into the farm land. Of course there was a terrific demand on all the equipment, and that caused some delay. It kept snowing and drifting all through, and this added to the difficulty of moving out to higher ground.
When I returned here, immediately after the reopening of the session after Easter, I checked with all the federal agencies concerned to see if they were alerted to the situation and were prepared for it. I found all that could be expected had been done, and that all precautions had been taken that could be taken at the time. I also notified the government, all other members for the province, and others, of the impending disaster. The government now, of course, has promised to look into the situation. As I said, it was not entirely unforeseen. We were prepared, but we were prepared for the 1948 level, not for this disastrous flood.
To establish any comparison with what has taken place at the present time in Manitoba one would have to go back at least a hundred and twenty-five years. In those days, of course, there were no records to show exactly how many inches of water there were. But from old records we know that there was a flood about that time somewhat similar to what we are having today.
From the start of the flood the Red Cross organization was put in charge of everything connected with relief; and I think it is proper at this time that I should pay a tribute to the Red Cross for the wonderful work they are doing in that area. I think it was helpful

-and it was possibly as a result of lessons that we learned in the flood of 1948-that everything in the way of demands and requests, and everything going out, was put into the hands of the Red Cross organization. They are now functioning most efficiently. All demands and everything connected with the work have been concentrated in their hands. The provincial government, the municipal government and governments at all levels co-operate with the Red Cross and send everything that can be sent to be helpful to the people through that organization. There has been a centralization of power that has contributed greatly to getting whatever was needed out to the people who needed it. Everybody has been careful not to interfere with the chain of command. Matters have been working smoothly. I hope that this effort will be kept up-and I am sure it will-until the danger is past and the water has started to recede.
I also want to say that the army has contributed greatly, particularly at Emerson, where there were two, three and four feet of water in the streets. Some people were left stranded out in the water. The army proved invaluable in getting those people back to higher ground. The army also provided water purifiers, something which is also of great importance at any time of flood. These purifiers could draw water from the wells, even in the flooded areas, and purify it for drinking purposes. This enabled the town to keep, until a further emergency, the drinking water which had been supplied by the health department of the province.
Another thing that was done by the health department was this: they spotted a tank car of drinking water on the railway, sealed up under the authority of the Red Cross officials at the spot, so that drinking water would be available when it was really required.
Speaking of the railways, I would say that they provided box cars for the storage of personal belongings. Many people are now living in tourist coaches. There are cook cars and various cars where people can at least have food and water. Furthermore mounted police at Emerson and Morris have been well prepared from the start. They have protected property and they have installed radio communications to meet this emergency, keeping contact with the outside world through their radio station. I was glad to hear on Sunday afternoon the R.C.M.P. operator, speaking from Emerson over the radio, saying that they had all that was required to take care of the situation at that time, and that they had no particular requests to make then.
This picture of the situation in Emerson will give you a picture of the disaster in the
Manitoba Flood
Red river valley. When you consider that at the present time there is water well over the windows of the houses, and that most of the people had to be evacuated from the town, you can well imagine the desolate picture now presented by the town, and the great loss that will be incurred in this town alone. As you move out to the United States boundary from Winnipeg, you go through the towns of Morris, St. Jean Baptiste, Ste. Agathe, and the same story repeats itself. Mr. L. Brown reported over the radio on Saturday afternoon, speaking in the streets at Emerson, and he reported again on his way driving back from Emerson to Winnipeg in an amphibious vehicle. The way he put it was this. All he could see was water on both sides of what was supposed to be the highway which he was following, and toppling buildings and desolate isolation. This is the picture of the entire Red river valley, which is practically the entire area from the city of Winnipeg to the border and practically to Bismarck, and in Manitoba extending west right up to the Pembina hills and to the sand hill to the east.
To make matters worse-that is, worse for the people in the district-the weather has been terribly cold. Since the flood I understand the highest temperature recorded has been 45 degrees above zero. Every'now and then they have had snow. They had snow in the early part of the week; they had snow in the middle of the week, and last night I understand they had snow again, or at least last night it was a little bit further south, in the United States. One can well imagine the misery of trying to hold up dikes, working in two or three feet of water, with the snow falling most of the time. Then we must remember that in most of the homes the basement and sometimes the first storey has been flooded; consequently their means of getting heat is restricted and in some cases completely cut off. It is very difficult to live without heat in such weather at the present time. In spite of the fact that this cold weather has probably helped the situation so far as Winnipeg is concerned, and may prevent that city from getting as high a flood as would be expected from all that water further south, it has made the conditions that much more difficult for the people in the district.
When this water recedes-I hope it will be before too long, although it will be some time yet, because it is still climbing, and if any snow falls again in the south or anywhere around, it will go up again-you can well imagine the tremendous loss that these raging waters will leave in their wake in that part of the province. Most of the public works

Manitoba Flood
of course will be washed away. There will be tremendous damage to real estate. As I explained previously, although we were prepared for the 1948 level, we were not prepared for this one. I know of one farmer who had moved his cattle, his grain and his feed to a high spot, or at least one that was a high spot and a dry spot in 1948. Shortly after moving his stock, his grain and his feed, the water came over it and he had to move a second time to higher ground. By that time of course he was worse off than if he had left his feed and livestock at home, because where he was there was very little accommodation, not nearly the accommodation he had had at home; he was completely surrounded by water by that time, and could not get out very easily. I have no doubt that that experience has been repeated in many parts of the district. We can expect that the losses in grain and feed, apart from livestock, will be very great indeed because of that fact.
I want to say here that this is not just another flood. I know that in a country the size of Canada there are floods every year in some parts of it; but this is a flood that has a peculiar aspect to it. As I said before, it covers practically all of the best farm lands of the province, extending even north of Winnipeg, and from Winnipeg right down to the boundary east and west. The most densely populated area of rural Manitoba is flooded.
What I suggest for consideration is that this area did have a serious flood in 1948; but now after a lapse of two years we are faced with a much worse flood than the one we had then. Everybody will realize, of course, what this means to the local residents of these farms. They had not completely recovered from their losses of 1948, and now they are faced with even greater losses financially and otherwise, which will work a terrific hardship on them.
There is another factor that enters into it. This is an international flood. It is not a flood that is confined to Canada. It originated further south in North Dakota and Minnesota, and came into Canada, with the result that this vast expanse of water is astride the international boundary. This is a recurrence of the flood of 1948. It is true there is quite a lapse of time between floods, but still this is a recurring problem; it is happening every now and again. As a matter of fact, I went back and checked up when floods of major importance had taken place in the Red river valley, and I found that they date back to 1776. Apparently there was a flood in 1776; there was another in 1790; the next one was in 1826; then there were floods in 1849, 1852, 1861, 1885, 1897,

1916, 1948 and 1950. Therefore the lapse of time between the various floods runs 24, 36, 23, 3, 9, 24, 12, 19, 32, and 2 years, making an average of 18 years.
It has to be noted that the source of the recurring floods is outside of our own country, and south of the border, and as a matter of fact we can do very little about it. In all fairness I want to say that our United States friends to the south have made some efforts to try to prevent those floods from occurring in their country and in ours. Actually they have impressive plans now before them. They have spent $1,500,000 to prevent floods, and there is now being spent $3,300,000. There is an authorization of $12,250,000, and there is up for review an amount of $353,000. That amounts to a total of $17 million. That is the amount they expect to spend to try to control floods in the Red river.
In spite of that, according to the best experts and engineers, there is every likelihood that, even with all these major projects and all this work being done to try to hold the water back, it will not be enough to control the floods. It might control them to a certain extent, but that is not a solution of the problem of these floods in the area. I ask the government to press the international joint commission to speed up its engineering report on the control of floods in the area, to try to get some action, and to explore further to see whether, if they cannot be wholly controlled, they may be partly controlled.
I take this opportunity to draw the attention of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act officials to this problem. For some time I have thought that an irrigation project could be set up at the foot of the Pembina hills. As a matter of fact I have consulted a competent engineer. I have a map which shows that there is a possibility-it has not been studied in detail -of holding at least the water coming from Pembina hills into the valley of the Red river, this eliminating some of the difficulty. I do not mean that this would prevent the floods, but it might alleviate the difficulty to some extent. The main thing to remember now is that even if it does not prevent the floods in the district, it might prevent them from rising the extra two or three feet, and if it did that it would pay for itself on the occasion of one flood. As we know, as the water rises higher and higher the damages mount in very much greater proportion. I would go so far as to say even that the last four or five feet of the flood will probably do more damage than the initial forty-foot rise. So, even if it is only a slight measure of control, it would be well worth while investigating.

I wish at this stage to draw the attention of the Canadian wheat board to a problem that will probably arise as soon as the waters recede. We must envisage now the possibility -perhaps even more than a possibility; it amounts almost to an assurance-that the entire southern part of the province will be unable to produce any wheat this year. We are now in the month of May, and the waters are still rising. By the time they recede and the land dries enough to permit cultivation, there is every likelihood that the time will have passed when the planting of wheat would be possible. We may envisage a situation in which no farmers in the district will be able to plant wheat.
This condition will naturally make a much greater demand on coarse grains seed for seeding purposes. I would expect that there would be some degree of scarcity of those grains at the present time, since much of the seed grain stored for planting purposes is probably under water today. As soon as the land dries out, undoubtedly all the farmers will rush to the wheat board or to the market to secure seed grains, and the board would be wise to prepare for that condition now. Naturally the demand will be most urgent. As soon as the land is ready, the people will want to get on it.
At this stage, of course, it is too early to assess damages. We know that in 1948 the damage ran into millions of dollars, and this time it will be well over that amount. I think it is only fair to say, therefore, that these people will need assistance. As I have indicated, everything for their immediate assistance has been channelled through the Red Cross. As the peak is passed, everything will be channelled back to the provincial government. No doubt some assistance will be given. Indeed, we have the assurance from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and I am grateful to him for it, that the matter will be looked into, in conjunction with the province, to see what can be done.
At this time, therefore, I would request the government to send someone in authority out there to look over the situation, and to learn exactly what the story is in that part of the province.


Mr. Garson:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I might say that before coming to the house the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras), the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) all informed me that they proposed to make the motion that has been made this afternoon.
I intimated that in all probability I would see first the hon. member for Provencher,
Manitoba Flood
because he had intimated to me earlier than the other two members that he would make his motion. I had to find some reason for recognizing one of the hon. members.
In view of these circumstances I believe that perhaps I should call upon those hon. members in the order in which they had seen me prior to entering the chamber. Following that procedure, I would recognize next the hon. member for Souris, and then the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with the reasons you have just stated for calling on these hon. members in the order indicated. However, in view of the fact that there would seem to be a number of members wishing to take part in the debate, I am wondering if perhaps the house would be prepared to hear a statement from me concerning the communications I have had-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -with the premier of Manitoba, which might shed some light upon the matter, and perhaps dispose of matters which would otherwise take a good deal of time in debate.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, in view of my experience with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) when he was premier of Manitoba, and with the present premier of that province, I should like to speak at this time, if it is agreeable.
I had intended to ask leave, under standing order 31, to move the adjournment of the house to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, the flood conditions in southern Manitoba, which are causing loss of life, damage to property, and untold suffering.
I have followed closely the remarks of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras), and I agree that most serious concern and damage is within his riding, while it does affect citizens in many other ridings in the thickly populated portion of Manitoba. There is one statement he made, however, with which I do not agree, and that is that at the present time the flood is fairly well under control.


René Jutras: I did not say that.


James Arthur Ross: I stand corrected.


René Jutras: I am sure the hon. member wishes to be accurate. I did not say it was under control. As a matter of fact, I said it is worse than it was before.


James Arthur Ross: I apologize to the hon. member, because I must say I could not understand his making that statement. I am sure I must have misunderstood, because
2030	HOUSE OF
Manitoba Flood
the report I received this morning is to the effect that it is worse than it was. The floods have not yet reached the peak. Therefore I am glad the hon. member and I agree upon that point.
I agree with him also in expressing my compliments and congratulations to those splendid citizens and officials who are doing such a magnificent job under very great difficulties out there at this time. I believe there is a real engineering problem in that area, and one which, if faced immediately, would lessen future costs. The best engineers in this country should be flown in there right away, and there should be immediate financial aid for those who are suffering undue hardship.
I cannot understand public officials adopting a wait-and-see attitude under circumstances of such great difficulty, because in the long run it will mean a heavy expenditure in dollars and cents. The greatest concern right now, however, is to relieve human suffering, and I know that in circumstances such as these there is much of it. I join sincerely with the hon. member in complimenting those people upon the splendid job they are doing under such great difficulties.
Dealing with this motion to adjourn, according to a Canadian Press dispatch of April 28, last Friday, provincial public works minister Hon. E. F. Willis has said that the Red river flood this year is far worse than the flood in 1948, when damage amounted to millions of dollars. The hon. member ftor Provencher has substantiated the fact that the damage is much greater today. Mr. Willis, who is acting premier in the absence of Hon. D. L. Campbell, said the deluge is in every sense a national emergency and should receive the immediate attention of the federal government. The floods are as national in character as those in British Columbia in 1948, and national assistance should be made available in the same way. On the same date a telegram was sent to the Prime Minister by Mr. Harry Shewman, member of the legislative assembly and mayor of Morris. The citizens of Morris are certainly undergoing great hardship-those of them who have not already been evacuated. His telegram reads:
I would like to ask your government to give aid to the flooded area of the Red river valley as this is a national emergency. This area flooded badly in 1948 and 1950. Many people have suffered great financial loss.
Would suggest that a royal commission be set up to investigate flood control, also income tax exemptions of the repairing of homes this year.
The Prime Minister stated that he had received this telegram and the matter would


be looked into, but not at the moment by a royal commission. He said:
We shall endeavour to ascertain what the situation is, and then determine what action, if any, should be taken.
On that same date the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) made a statement to the house. He said, as reported at page 1980 of Hansard:
As hon. members will recall, in a statement to the house on May 3, 1948, the then secretary of state for external affairs replied to a somewhat similar question asked by the hon. member. At that time the minister stated:
"Our information is that the present flood . . . did come principally from international waterways which flow from the state of North Dakota into the province of Manitoba. While to some extent it is a recurrent flood, it had caused no disaster of this magnitude since 1916."
That was in 1948.
"The reference to the international joint commission, dated January 12, 1948, covering waters from the eastern boundary of the Milk river drainage basin up to and including the drainage basin of the Red river, does allow the commission"- That is, the international joint commission.
-"to make recommendations with a view to preventing the recurrence of such floods."
I skip a portion and continue:
The United States government has made, and is making, large contributions to flood control in the Red river basin in that country. Storage dams have been built, channel enlargement has been made and confining dikes have been built. The dams tend to hold waters back from Manitoba, while the other two methods tend to send it down stream faster. Studies indicate, however, that the net effect of these measures on flood peaks in Manitoba is negligible.
Approximately ten miles down stream from Emerson, the Roseau river enters the Red with waters gathered in Manitoba and Minnesota, while at the city of Winnipeg, the Assiniboine river joins the Red, bringing with it the waters of the Souris river, which are also under investigation by the commission looking to complete utilization and control.
The various studies necessary to the comprehensive planning of all the phases of these investigations are involved and difficult. The engineers have, however, already gathered a great deal of data on which to base conclusions. These data are being analysed, and it is hoped that on completion of the studies the two nations will have plans which will include measures for the alleviation of flooding such as is being experienced at present.
I then asked the minister whether that report was up to date and he answered:
This report ... is up to date. The report of the engineers has not yet been submitted to the international joint commission, but that will be done shortly.
To people closely associated with southern Manitoba flooding problems past and present the report by the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not very satisfactory. May I say that so far as Canadian appointments to the international joint commission on water rights are concerned, many people consider this a lucrative pension scheme to certain people for past faithful service.

Personal friends of mine, who rendered spendid service for three score years and ten and were then in ill health, have been appointed to the commission. In the past they rendered splendid service to their communities and the country in general. There is great dissatisfaction in this regard among people well acquainted with these flood problems. In fact the engineers' association has publicly protested this method of appointment.
On the Red river watershed in the state of Minnesota, construction work on reservoirs and dams has recently been completed at a cost of $1,500,000, and further construction of projects of this kind has been authorized to commence at an early day in the state of Minnesota, the estimated cost of which is $4,376,000. On the Red and Souris river watersheds in the state of North Dakota, construction is now under way. amounting to $3,343,000, and further authorization to commence at an early day has been granted in the amount of $7,851,000, a total of over $17 million. Therefore it is obvious that the people of the United States are trying to do something about this recurring situation.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to the 1948 flooding of both the Red and Souris rivers, may I say that I have considerable knowledge of the flooding problems of the Souris river. In three successive years, 1947, 1948 and 1949, as a result of flooding, the use of many thousands of acres of the most productive and valuable land in that river area was entirely lost, and the various farm owners received no recompense whatever from either the provincial or the federal government. During the late thirties, following the drought period, I drove federal government officials up the bed of the Souris river in an automobile. It was entirely dry in many stretches. Following that, a series of dams were constructed in the river, and, while requesting these dams, I argued strenuously with the then responsible engirw eers against the proposed type of dams which they insisted upon constructing. I pointed out to the engineers what in my opinion might easily happen in the future. Many concrete pillars a few feet apart and higher than much of the level farm lands were constructed with stop logs rather than proper type of control gates. During the spring of 1948 particularly, much debris, et cetera, jammed from the bed of the river to the top of these pillars, piling up around them until the flood waters upstream were several feet higher than just below the dams. People have photographs of this condition and other genuine proof that many thousands of acres of land became flooded and could not be
Manitoba Flood
drained in 1948 for cropping, directly as a result of this type of construction. The proper authorities then realized the situation, and have since disposed of many of these pillars and have altered in some degree the construction of these dams.
Several of the farm owners of this flood area have been asking in vain both provincial and federal authorities that they be reimbursed to some extent for this very great loss. A number of these farmers have now gone together and placed their case in the hands of an able and prominent lawyer, but it is necessary to obtain a fiat or permission from both the provincial and the federal government in order to sue them. Surely that should not be necessary in such a case.
During the time of the 1948 floods in southern Manitoba I flew over a great part of the Red and Assiniboine flood areas, and following that devastation, later in the same summer, I motored through these same areas. I have lived most of my life along the banks of the Souris river. The southern Manitoba floods of 1948 caused a loss of millions of dollars. In my opinion, with respect to the 1948 flood problem or the present national emergency as a result of southern Manitoba flooding, while the Manitoba department of public works has done a very good job in either construction or repairing roads, bridges, et cetera, or in assisting municipalities to do so, as yet neither the provincial nor the federal authorities have faced their rightful responsibilities in this matter.
The 1950 Manitoba flood, which has became a national emergency, affects many citizens in at least eight federal constituencies, or one-half of the federal constituencies of the province of Manitoba. I am asking that the federal authorities, together with those of Manitoba, handle this situation on the same basis as in the case of the citizens of Fraser valley, British Columbia, in 1948. I am asking that a thorough study be conducted of Manitoba flood conditions during the past three or four years, and that a settlement be made on the same basis. In this respect I should like to quote what Mr. Mackenzie King, then prime minister, had to say on June 9, 1948, as reported at page 4937 of Hansard:
I should like to give the house the latest information as to the arrangements made between the government of British Columbia and our own government with respect to flood conditions in the Fraser valley.
Since his arrival in Ottawa, Hon. Byron I. Johnson. premier of British Columbia, has been conferring with the Minister of Finance and other members of the government, as well as myself, regarding arrangements for co-operation between the two governments in meeting the appalling situation in the Fraser valley, which the government has


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members are glad that you had no hesitation in permitting the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) to put his motion for the adjournment of the house to discuss this question as a definite matter of urgent public importance. I suppose if there had been any doubt in your mind as to the urgency of the matter, that doubt was dispelled by the fact that you received notices from three of us from Manitoba as to our intention to move similar motions.
Since the member for Souris (Mr. Ross) has indicated what would have been the terms of his motion had he been permitted to make it, I might also be granted that privilege. The motion I sought to move reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 31, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the disastrous flood situation in the Red river valley of Manitoba, and the need for an immediate statement by the federal government as to its readiness to provide financial assistance to aid those who have suffered serious losses as a result of this national disaster.
One of the reasons I wanted to read the terms of that motion at this point, Mr. Speaker, was that I felt I should like to emphasize the aspect of the problem referred to by the member for Souris in his concluding remarks. We all recognize that the government-like Canute-cannot push back the waves of water that are now flooding the province of Manitoba. I am going to say more about that later, especially with
Manitoba Flood
respect to what the international joint commission might be doing. At the moment, the flood is there. Even a debate in this house will not drive it back. But it would mean a great deal to the morale of the flood victims if a statement could be made today to the effect that financial assistance will be forthcoming. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the reasons that some of us were not willing to give way to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). If his statement does not include that assurance, we are now giving him time to make that alteration before he speaks in this debate.
I suppose one of the arguments the government will use for not making a definite statement at this time may be that it takes time to survey the extent of the damage; that it takes time to determine how much money would have to be appropriated; and that it might even take time to determine whether there is any federal responsibility in this matter. I do not think there can be any doubt about the federal responsibility. The situation is clearly a national disaster. The precedent established two years ago in British Columbia is well known, and has been spelled out by the member for Souris. It seems to me that even if it is not possible at this moment to state what amount of money will be made available, it is possible to give an assurance that an appropriation will be asked from parliament to assist those people who have suffered serious loss. I certainly hope that statement will be forthcoming from the Minister of Justice when he speaks. As I say, it will give a much needed boost to the morale of those people who are suffering these grievous losses.
It has already been pointed out that the mayor of one of the towns most seriously hit in the area between Winnipeg and the border, Major Harry Shewman, M.L.A., of Morris, has made representations to the Prime Minister. It is also known that the suburban municipalities around Winnipeg are requesting federal assistance. I understand that the Hon. Errick Willis, minister of public works in Manitoba and deputy premier in the coalition government, has declared that in his view the responsibility for aiding those people does rest on Ottawa. The only reference I have seen thus far to the premier of the province, the Hon. Douglas Campbell, is that he is waiting to see whether or not it is a national disaster, and whether or not the federal government should be called upon for assistance. The premier may be waiting to ascertain that fact, but the thousands of people to whom the member for

Manitoba Flood
Provencher (Mr. Jutras) has referred in his apt description of this situation do not need to wait; they know from hitter experience that it is a serious disaster. I certainly hope there will be the assurance of federal assistance without further delay.
The member for Souris has indicated the amount of money made available two years ago in votes Nos. 932 and 933 of the appropriations for the year 1948-49. Those votes amounted to $4,500,000 to assist in certain construction and diking work on the Fraser river, plus $5 million for what might be called direct relief. I am sure those who were in the house on that occasion will recall that the house voted that money gladly. There was a feeling on the part of the representatives from all over Canada that these were our fellow Canadians who were in distress, and that they certainly deserved the assistance voted to them. I am satisfied that the members for British Columbia will today support us in our request that similar assistance be given to the flood victims in the province of Manitoba.
I fully agree with the two previous speakers as to the urgency for more speedy action on the part of the international joint commission. I am sure that all of us who make this plea at this time feel that it is most unfortunate that we should be forced to discuss ways and means of preventing floods when the floods are upon us. I feel the government should have been embarrassed the other day when I put my question, which the member for Provencher also had in mind, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) as to what had been done since the matter of that commission doing something was raised in the house by the member for Provencher two years ago. When that question was asked the minister said that the member for Provencher had been speaking to him about it, but he had to look it up to see what had been done in those two years. Since it had been stated in the house two years ago that this question does come within the terms of reference of the international joint commission, it does seem to me that that commission should be made to realize that the time to act on the flood question is not when the floods come but before they come in an effort to prevent their recurrence.
It does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that the ingenuity of the engineers of our day is sufficient to find some way in which to cope with this problem. The suggestion made by the member for Provencher seems to have considerable merit. I imagine that the difficulty is not one of engineering ingenuity, but the old problem of finding the money for necessary public works. If we were not

discussing the flood situation in Manitoba at this time, I believe the order paper is so laid out that we would have been discussing pipe lines. Incidentally, there seems to be plenty of money available for those pipe lines. If a small portion of the money that is being spent to pipe gas and oil out of Canada could be spent to pipe some of this water away from places where we have too much of it, I believe that would solve the problem quite easily.
I shall not make the mistake of going over the material that has been presented. The member for Provencher has given a complete description of the seriousness of the situation in a large area of Manitoba from Winnipeg right down to the border fanning out over a wide section of that part of the province. As some hon. members no doubt have heard, there is one point where the Red river is now fourteen miles wide. This means a great deal of devastation in that area. A great many of the constituencies covered by the flood waters are agricultural constituencies, but damage is being done to many residences in the suburbs of Winnipeg as well, such as St. Boniface, Norwood, St. Vital and in the Kildonans. The fact that three of us from Manitoba have sought to move motions with respect to the matter makes it clear that it is a serious situation, indeed that it is a national disaster.
If the Minister of Justice is now following me, I hope he will not make a long statement about dominion-provincial relationships, constitutional niceties or the difficulty in finding ways and means of voting the money. I hope he will make a clear-cut statement that the federal government does recognize its responsibility and is prepared to ask parliament to vote money to provide financial assistance to aid the victims of this serious flood.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The quality of the speeches we have heard, Mr. Speaker, is quite in accord with the seriousness of the subject with which we are dealing. I particularly want to congratulate the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) on having introduced this motion this afternoon. Apart from any other purpose it may serve, it permits me, as a minister of the government, to make a somewhat more lengthy statement-and on that account, in some respects more satisfactory-than the short statement I might be able to make on the orders of the day.
Before I enter upon the body of my own remarks, which I shall try to keep as brief as possible, I should like to deal with some of the points which have been raised by the last two speakers. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) suggested that one of the

first steps we should take at the present time is to fly the best engineers in and look the situation over. As one who has great admiration for engineers, I suggest in all seriousness that there is little indeed that their examination of the present situation could do to solve the immediate problem. I suggest that what we have at the present time is not in any sense an engineering problem at all, but rather one of relief and of minimizing the loss of life and the loss of property.
Then the hon. member went on to imply that the government of Canada have been remiss in comparison with that of the United States, in that whereas the former had spent a small amount of money in, presumably, the alleviation of this flood-I presume that is what he meant-the United States government had spent large amounts of money south of the border; and therefore we were to be criticized.
I should like to tell him-and perhaps he knows it already-that this morning, upon coming back to Ottawa, we found a personal letter awaiting us in which there was quoted a report from a person some thirty-five miles or forty miles south of the border in the United States. In it this gentleman said that in his area, in spite of these works to which the hon. member for Souris has referred, the Red river at that point was sixteen miles wide and when the wind blew it had white-caps on it just like the ocean; and that the Tamarac river, a rather small tributary of the Red river coming in at or about that point, was about seven miles wide. I therefore think that what we are confronted with here, and what one ought in some intellectual honesty and political fairness to take into account-and which is also supported by the brief statement that was read by my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson)-is that we are, by the nature of the topography of this whole area, confronted with a flooding problem which engineering skill can alleviate but perhaps not entirely cure.
That was indicated, as a matter of fact, by one of the selections from the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs which the hon. member for Souris was careful not to read. It reads in this way:
Control of these waters through construction of storage reservoirs in the United States has been the subject of study in that country-
-not by the international joint commission but by these engineers of the United States government, which is willing to spend these large amounts of money that my hon. friend wants us to spend in this country, and for 55946-130
Manitoba Flood
the protection of its own subjects. And what was their conclusion? It was this:
-"but it has been stated with authority that complete control by that method is not feasible."
I admit at once that if complete control is not feasible, that does not in any way detract from the validity of my hon. friend's argument. If complete control is not feasible, that is perhaps all the more reason why such control as is feasible should be provided.
In that connection I should like to say that this matter has been the subject of study, as we all know, for the past two years at least by the international joint commission, to whose practice I think I should perhaps make a reference or two in order that we may understand better the present engineering problem with which we are confronted.
When a reference is made by the United States and Canadian governments to the international joint commission of the type of this Red river problem, the commission usually establishes its own engineering board for the purpose of dealing with that reference. Having regard to the fact that it is an international joint commission, that engineering board is also international in character and is made up of the best top-grade engineers that it is possible to secure for that purpose on both sides of the boundary. This board, when it is made up, is a creature of the international joint commission, which international joint commission is responsible not to one government but to two governments. This board, as I understand, has already made some four interim reports to the international joint commission, but, without securing the approval of the commission itself and also that of the two governments involved, I think we could not make use of these interim reports for the purpose of the present discussion.
Two things, however, are clear from the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The first of them is the one I have already mentioned, namely, that complete control of the type of flood problem that is encountered in the Red river valley is perhaps not feasible. The second is the point which I think the hon. member for Souris read in his own statement. That was to the effect that these works that have already been done in the United States, and to which he made reference, have a negligible effect upon the flood peaks effect of any waters that come over the international boundary into Canada. That was the part of the statement that my hon. friend read.
From this fact I think it will be seen that while the flying in of engineers to look over the situation at the present time might

Manitoba Flood
be a picturesque gesture, it might win some votes from people who were not too well informed; but as for making any real progress towards the real solution to their immediate problem, it would be of no avail.


James Arthur Ross: Never mind votes at this stage. Look after the people.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think that, in all fairness, at this stage I should make a few brief references to the gentlemen who my friend the hon. member for Souris said was a particularly close friend of his but whose friendship did not prevent the hon. member from making an allusion to him in this house which was most unfair and, shall I say, most unworthy of a friend, when the hon. member sought to attribute to one of the members of the board some blame for any delay that there might be in the making of reports of this engineering board. This board is a separate group set up and composed of a different type of professional persons. It happens to be the group which in the present case has the responsibility for any lapse of time that could properly be called delay. I do not think that they have been guilty of any delay, but if there has been any improper delay, it has been the fault-if anyone was at fault-of the engineering board that was seized of the matter.
The last two preceding speakers were anxious that I should not deal with any constitutional quibbling in replying to their suggestions that the government's position with regard to the sharing of costs and the like should be clearly stated; and I-


James Arthur Ross: I know the minister wants to be fair. I never mentioned that point in my remarks at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend from Souris is not the only one who speaks in this house. I am referring at the present time-


James Arthur Ross: You said, the last two speakers.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, I stand corrected. The hon. member for Souris did not refer to that; maybe he only thought it. I presume it was mental telepathy.


James Arthur Ross: I won't give him high marks as a mind-reader, either, Mr. Speaker.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Be that as it may, I think that both of my hon. friends-I think I can include the hon. member for Souris in this remark-have overlooked the important statement that was made by no less a member of this house than the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in reply to a question of the hon. member for Winnipeg 
North Centre himself. On April 28 last, the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 1981 of Hansard:
Hon. members can be assured that it is the desire of the government to treat every part of the country in the same way. Should there ever be in any part of the country the sort of disaster there was in the Fraser river district, the people of that section would be entitled to expect that they would be treated in the same way as the residents of the Fraser river valley were treated.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in general terms before we even know what the extent of the flood will eventually be, because this is a fluid- that is not a pun-situation-


Mr. Argue:: Too fluid.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We have not by any means reached the last extent of the inundation, and we have not at the moment the faintest idea as to what the property damages ultimately will be. Therefore it seems to me that no honest public man could give an undertaking except in the general terms in which the Prime Minister has already stated it. I do suggest, sir, that these terms are as explicit as it is possible for any honest man to be at the present time.
So much for that point. I should like to say, sir, that from the very first time that this matter began to appear as a flood situation, which was much more than a spring flood of merely unusual proportions, I have been in communication with my former colleague, the premier of Manitoba, the Hon. D. L. Campbell. I suppose that from a political standpoint I would have been much better off perhaps if I had made a great commotion about this-if I had flown out and got under the feet of the people who are trying to deal with this matter, and if when they were trying to bring people out who were marooned, I had insisted upon an airplane to go around to inspect the flood and had made a commotion of that sort; but I think that in the long run the people of Canada are intelligent enough to see through that sort of political tactic, and therefore I avoided it. But I have been in constant communication with the premier of Manitoba, and I should like now to relate to the house what he has told me concerning this situation. I suggest with the very greatest respect and deference to the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that the premier of Manitoba, who has been actively and personally engaged, and absent from his office for great lengths of time giving personal attention to these matters, is perhaps at least as well fitted to express an opinion concerning this matter as either of them.


James Arthur Ross: I said that he had been absent.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. My hon. friend is always right.


James Arthur Ross: No, he is not always right; but he is not always as wrong as the minister would like to paint him, either.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is what the premier of Manitoba has told me. He said that the Manitoba department of mines and natural resources, which is represented on this international joint commission-I would not say directly represented, but it has close contact with it-knew for some few weeks before, as one would expect it to know, that the precipitation in the United States part of the Red river valley had been such throughout the winter that if continued cold weather retarded the spring break-up there was an excellent chance of a serious flood condition arising. Premier Campbell told me that, armed with this information, which it was their duty to have, and which duty they carefully discharged, representatives of the Manitoba government were sent out through this flood area to acquaint the farmers and the municipal councils there individually with the prospect which they faced. He tells me that in that regard they experienced no difficulties whatever in convincing those who were affected of the sort of danger in which they were at that time. He said that in 1948 there had previously been such a lapse of time without floods that it was difficult to convince the farmers that there really was going to be a flood; with the memories of 1948 vividly in their minds on this occasion there was no difficulty whatever. Before I finish I should like to read the report of one of the men who went on that mission from the department of agriculture of Manitoba.
The result was, as Mr. Campbell pointed out, that a complete and extensive preparation against the dangers of this flood had been carefully arranged in advance. It had embraced first of all the local municipal councils and the local voluntary relief committee, then the local Red Cross unit, the provincial Red Cross organization, the railways, the army, the navy and the air force, and as one hon. gentleman has already said, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and then the provincial government itself, four of whose departments were particularly interested, namely, the one that I have already mentioned, the mines and resources department, through its water resources branch, the public works department, the health department and the agriculture department.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a frank and eloquent exponent of the great virtues of government planning; and I must say that certainly in relation
55946-130J
Manitoba Flood
to a situation such as this a considerable measure of planning in advance pays maximum dividends, because a flood is peculiarly a disaster, preparations for which will tend to minimize loss and effect great property saving apart from any question of the saving of human life. Mr. Campbell tells me that the co-operation which the government of Manitoba has had from every one of these organizations I have mentioned leaves absolutely nothing to be desired. He said that largely, he thought, arising not only out of the excellence of the Manitoba citizens and these Manitoba organizations, but because they had a serious flood of this kind only two years ago, and knew what they were up against, they were able to deal with this matter in a manner in which, in relation to the heavy and serious circumstances with which they were faced, has been most efficient.
It is in that sense, I think, that the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) left with us the impression, not that the situation was in hand-because you cannot face a flood of those proportions and ever pretend to have it under control, or ever have it contained or in hand-but that at least everything humanly possible was being done to meet the situation.
I said I should like to read, in support of what I have been saying, the report of the man who went out to warn the farmers and citizens in this area. His name is John Connor, and he is director of the livestock branch. This is what he says-


James Arthur Ross: He is a good one, too.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Of course he is a good one; that is another point on which I agree with my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The coalition still survives.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: You would not think so if you had listened to the hon. member for Souris a moment ago.


James Arthur Ross: He is not a politician, that man.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Perhaps my hon. friend will listen to this, then, if he thinks Mr. Connor is such a good chap. In his report Mr. Connor states:
On April 20, Mr. W. S. Fraser, assistant director, extension service and the writer inspected the Red river area from Winnipeg to Emerson in an effort to secure firsthand information regarding the expected flood.	'
Note the phrase "expected flood".
During the trip, several farmers were contacted as well as representatives of the R.C.M.P. elevator operators and the agricultural representative at Morris. Farmers generally appear to be actively protecting their livestock and seed and feed

Manitoba Flood
supplies. Many instances were observed where granaries and supplies of fodder were removed to higher ground.
Now, remember, this is not during the flood. This is on April 20, some days in advance of the flood.
Every farmer contacted was fully acquainted with the potential danger from flooding and had already taken preventive measures to avoid unnecessary losses.
That is, from having read the newspapers and from having formed their own opinions, in many of these cases, even when the expert from the government went to speak to them, the farmers had already taken steps, showing the judgment and foresight that the people in that area possess.
Particular attention was paid to the feed situation should the expected flood materialize. It is true that fodder supplies have been relatively short in the area, and up to the present, several carloads of baled hay have been imported by local dealers. At only one point was any hay available on track, and we were advised that it was selling slowly.
Not indicating any great need.
In general, however, we are of the opinion that unless the flood crest is considerably higher than was the case in 1948-
And remember, this report is now several days old-


James Arthur Ross: What date is it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -and consequently extends over a wider area, the farmers likely to be inundated have provided for the needs of their livestock.
At one point a number of box cars have been ordered and will be available to shelter animals should emergencies occur. This would appear to be a practical method of providing protection at relatively low cost. The Red river appeared to be moving much faster and' seemed relatively higher from Morris north. This condition was due to the discharge into the river of creeks and coulees draining the area west of the river. Jams were in evidence from St. Adolphe to Morris, but blasting operations were under way to keep this section of the river moving freely. From St. Jean south, the winter ice had left it with the rising water but had not yet started to break up.
Considerable snow and surface water was in evidence from St. Jean to Emerson and will undoubtedly increase the flood danger in that area. An elevator operator at one point advised that grain, both feed and seed, for some fifteen farmers had been stored.
That is to say, they had held it on their farms and taken it to the elevator where, as every hon. member who is familiar with farming knows, it is elevated to overhead bins where it will be kept free from water damage, even if the lower part of the elevator itself is flooded.
Due to road conditions, deliveries were in the main made at night when the frost improved the road conditions.
This case is cited to illustrate the fact that farmers are thoroughly alive to the situation and by taking preventive measures, may do much to reduce potential losses. In conclusion, we were impressed with
'Mr. Garson.]
the fact that throughout the area residents, both rural and urban, were grimly expecting a flood with a potential higher crest than in 1948. However, with the experience gained that year vividly recalled by all residents, every possible effort was being taken to meet the expected development. Rural and urban councils, Red Cross units and other organizations, in our opinion, deserve credit for the leadership displayed. Their efforts, aided by the co-operation of individual residents, should do much to reduce the hardship and loss in the area.


James Arthur Ross: Would the minister mind giving us the names of the engineers to whom he referred in mines and resources, and the dates they had pointed out that these floods were likely to take place.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid I have not that information with me. They would be the water resources engineers of the department of mines and resources.


James Arthur Ross: But there are several of them.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, not in that branch of the department.


James Arthur Ross: Mines and resources?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. If my hon. friend will listen, the engineers of water levels branch of the department of mines and resources would be the ones. Now, as my hon, friend knows, if he stops to think of it, the water resources branch of the department of mines and resources is a relatively small branch with only one or two engineers-and he probably knows both of them.


James Arthur Ross: Well, I did know three of them.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I will admit that, too.


James Arthur Ross: I am just trying to single them out.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Now, throughout the whole of this matter I have told Premier Campbell that we were most anxious to help in any way we could. He speaks in the highest possible terms of the assistance which the different representatives in Manitoba of this government have given to him, of the help that has been given by the army and by the navy and by the air force in flying people, observers, to take note of the extent of the inundation, and of the amphibian vehicles in getting people who are marooned out to safe places.
He says, "I want you to know that there is no request that we have made which we have thought unreasonable. We have tried not to make unreasonable requests. We have tried to confine our requests to those which are reasonable, but none of our requests has been refused." He said, "The performance

of people affected, including municipal councils, voluntary relief committees, the Red Cross, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the army, the navy, the air force"-^not to mention our own provincial government- "all the way through has been admirable, because they were ready and prepared." He said, "The people of Canada may rest assured, whatever losses they may have, whether of life, of limb or of property, are being, by these methods, kept to an absolute minimum."
Now, I made it very clear to Premier Campbell at all stages, as the minister in the government representing Manitoba, that I should be glad to get from him and convey to my colleagues for immediate consideration any representations or requests he might see fit to make under the circumstances.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Has the minister any
estimate of the damage to date?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend asks whether there is any estimate of the damage to date?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think there is. I should think it would be highly improbable that there could be because the damage can change from hour to hour, let alone from day to day.


John George Diefenbaker: But what is the latest
estimate?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The point here is that until the present phase of the situation is over- and it is one of rescue of property and people, and attempt to deal with the physical aspect of the flood-it would be an act of gross negligence, in my opinion, on the part of the provincial government to be wasting its time arguing as to how the division of the costs should be made. Mr. Campbell has too much common sense to be carried away by any such suggestion as that of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) that we should put some engineers in an aeroplane, fly them around to look at the situation, and by the effervescence of their inner consciousness conjure up something to do about the immediate situation.


James Arthur Ross: Again may I say that I did not make that statement. My proposal was to fly them in there and have them on the ground. I have had experience with engineers' reports.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I suggest to my hon. friend there is very little that the best of water level engineers can do at this particular moment to stop that flood.


James Arthur Ross: They would have
knowledge for the future.
Manitoba Flood


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Of course they would, but this is a very fine thing for some person to suggest from the comfort of his desk in the House of Commons to people out on the ground who are engaged in getting Mr. John Doe from a place where he is likely to be drowned to a place of safety. It seems to me that the wise, sensible and common-sense thing to do-and in this respect I am in complete agreement with the premier of Manitoba-is to concentrate, focus their full efforts on, and devote them to, the job in hand. The premier of that province knows enough about this government to realize that he does not need to adopt the attitude of a police court lawyer toward us by raising the question now as to what we are going to do or not going to do. He has the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and he knows that in any event we will do the fair thing.


James Arthur Ross: What about the flood
victims of 1948?


Mr, Garson:: We know enough about Mr. Campbell and his colleagues, and I will put it a little bit wider than the hon. member for Souris and include his Conservative colleagues in Manitoba in this statement, to know that they are men of good judgment, high principles and energy. We know that they will bring to us a statement, whatever it may be, that it is or is not a national emergency fortified, as I am sure it will be, with proper proof because the government of Manitoba does not say things unless it is prepared to prove them. I hope the hon. member for Souris does not want them ever to follow qny other course. When we receive that representation, we shall know it is one that comes from honourable people, and that we can depend upon it.


James Arthur Ross: I have never followed any other course in my twelve sessions here.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In the meantime-this in in reply to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras)-I have said to Premier Campbell: "If you want me at any time I am prepared to come, but I do not want to go out and get under your feet when you are trying to do a job unless you want me".


Stanley Howard Knowles: So you sent Les.


Mr. Bryce:: You did not want to get your feet wet so you sent Les Mutch.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We did not send him. He was sufficiently concerned with his own constituency, which is very much affected, that he went on his own initiative. I wonder if the hon. member who made that interjection is implying any criticism of him for having done so.


William Scottie Bryce: Not in the least.

Manitoba Flood


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am glad to hear that. I said to Premier Campbell that when he was ready to discuss the aspect of this matter upon which the hon. member for Souris and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have concentrated so much of their energy this afternoon, I would be glad to go out there and take along with me any federal officials that he might wish us to take.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In order to keep the record clear, may I ask if you are referring now to the matter of financial assistance?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Pardon?


Stanley Howard Knowles: In order to have the record clear, may I ask if you are now referring to the matter of financial assistance?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am referring to the whole situation, which of course includes the question raised by my hon. friend. That is the situation at the present time. In reply to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Provencher, may I say that we will certainly have any person necessary go there. I told the premier that I did not want to force myself on him but that if there was anything I could do to help I would be delighted to leave on a moment's notice. I am in daily contact with him, and if there is any necessity for that I am sure he will advise me. In the meantime I suggest with great deference that the government of Manitoba is doing a first-class job in dealing with the situation in its present phase. I suggest that, so far as is humanly possible, it is doing everything that can be done, and that there will be plenty of time for the two governments to consider the whole matter when we know what the complete facts are. Some of the facts of the situation will not develop until possibly a week from today. No person will know the extent of the disaster until it is completed. The disaster is only partly complete now.


John George Diefenbaker: The amount has nothing to do with the principle.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend says that the amount has nothing to do with the principle. I should have thought that, in judging whether or not a physical disaster was one of national scope, its extent would have to be one of the factors.


John George Diefenbaker: That has already been established.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have nothing more to say other than that, I think, with the useful discussion that has taken place, we could very well let the matter rest in the hands of the government of Manitoba with the knowledge that when the time comes that they can properly divert their attention from the emergent

matters at hand to discuss these other important questions we in the federal government will be more than happy to deal with them.	,


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join the minister in congratulating the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) on introducing this motion this afternoon. I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on having attempted to introduce similar motions this afternoon because I think the matter is one that should receive the attention of the government and the consideration of the house.
The minister has spoken of the floods of more recent times, but it seems to me this is a problem which has been before the country for many years. The hon. member for Provencher gave an outline of the disastrous floods that have occurred in the Red river valley for almost two centuries. Prior to 1812, when the Selkirk settlers went into the Red river valley, floods were not as disastrous as they have been subsequently. Those of us coming from other areas are very glad indeed to support the request of the province of Manitoba, if and when it is made, and of the members who have introduced the subject this afternoon, representing I believe the sentiments of the entire house, regardless of party, for the consideration of this matter as a national disaster.
When we look at the history of western Canada we find that there have been many occasions w'hen national emergencies have occurred owing to disastrous conditions, and not only floods but drought, not only fire but grasshoppers. These are indeed disasters that are national in scope. I am not necessarily talking of the grasshopper menace this year in one of the provinces of Canada, though it may reach disastrous proportions. When this motion was moved I slipped into the library for a couple of books, which I have on my desk. One is volume VII of the Oxford Historical and Literary Studies. It deals with Lord Selkirk's work in Canada, and on page 173 I find a reference to the flood of 1826 and to a series of disasters that preceded it. We are told:
The material development of the settlement during the closing years of the Selkirk regime was attended by a strange variety of calamities, both natural and artificial. In 1818, locusts-
We call them grasshoppers today.
-swarmed upon the fields to the depth of several inches, and formed for three years a "sickening and destructive plague."
And well I remember, though I do not have it before me, reading the report made by Mr. Hind, I believe in 1858, after he was sent

here by the government of the United Kingdom to look over the Hudson bay lands in western Canada. He reported that near my hon. friend's home of Souris, and I recollect the date very well, on July 2 of that year the horses refused to go forward because the grasshoppers were so thick in the air that even the horses would not face them as they were swept along by the wind. And all of us from the west, I am sure, can remember the disastrous years between 1930 and 1940, when we had to face the same conditions. I have seen the sky clouded with grasshoppers in the middle of the day. The sun was shining, but you seemed to see a mist, and when you looked up you could see countless billions of grasshoppers in the air. On the same page of this volume is this reference to the flood of 1826.
Natural reverses culminated in the disastrous flood of 1826. During the preceding winter a phenomenally heavy fall of snow drove the buffalo from the vicinity; more than thirty of the plain-rangers perished on the prairies from exposure or starvation. In the spring the river, swollen by the melting snow, rose nine feet in a single day. A few days later the stream swept over the river banks and buried the settlement beneath several feet of icy water. The flood of 1826 was considered "an extinguisher to the hope of Red River ever retaining the name of a settlement.'' When the water subsided there was a migration to the United States of the "de Meurons" and a party of Swiss who had been induced in 1821 to settle in Assiniboia. For the third time within eleven years the Scottish settlers resolved to begin anew at Red river.
During this whole century and a quarter since the great flood of 1826, and before that, there have been recurrent disasters in the Red river valley and, indeed, in some other river valleys also. Some of us can remember seeing the Assiniboine in flood at Brandon, and not many years ago the Saskatchewan overflowed its banks south of Saskatoon and did a great deal of damage, though not as much as we are witnessing at the present time. Of course I am not forgetting the great flood in the Fraser river valley, which we hope will not be repeated this year though conditions are ripe for such a disaster.
I have another volume in my hand, the story of the women of the Red river valley, which contains a very interesting letter written on May 27, 1852, by Reverend John Black, who was the first Presbyterian minister to build a church in the valley. Up to that time services had been conducted by the Anglican church. It is interesting to note that this Presbyterian minister baptized the late Archbishop Matheson into the Presbyterian communion, though later he became the Anglican Archbishop of Rupert's Land.
Manitoba Flood
I think this letter is worthy of being placed on record. Reverend John Black wrote.
On Sabbath May ninth I preached for the last time in our temporary church and had to go part of the way to it in a canoe. On Monday the tenth the flight from the Scotch part of the settlement was general. In trying to reach a place of safety, men and women were seen plunging through the water driving and carrying, while the aged and little children were conveyed in carts drawn by oxen or horses. Most of the Scotch settlers had from one hundred to three hundred bushels of wheat in lofts which they kept from year to year in case of failure, and now for this there was much anxiety. The first night we encamped on the plain without wood or shelter, saving what we erected, amid the lowing of cattle and the bleating of sheep, and the roaring of calves, and the squealing of pigs, and the greeting of bairns. After three days we arrived here, on a beautiful woody ridge thirteen miles from our houses. A few families are with me here, but my congregation is scattered, so that, from extreme to extreme is, I suppose, more than thirty miles. Thus the waters prevailed and spread themselves over the cultivated lands, sweeping away everything loose and much that was thought fast. Houses, barns, byres, stacks of wheat, etc., were floating down thick and fast. Not a bridge is left on the road in all the flooded district. Sometimes the wind blew very strong, and acting on the lake-like expanse of waters, agitated them like a sea, and this was very destructive to the houses of the settlers. The breadth flooded in our part of the settlement is eight or nine miles, while the ordinary width of the river is not more than one hundred and fifty yards. I have crossed this wide expanse twice to visit our people on the east side. I have now three preaching stations instead of one-all camp meetings. The water began to fall about the 21st. We hope to get home again in about two weeks.
What I am driving at is that for over a century and a quarter, ever since the Red river valley was settled, there have been these threats of flood and at times great floods, and it seems to me that long ere this the governments of the two countries should have done something about it. South of the line, from Emerson all the way down to Crookston and as far as Grand Forks, they have floods similar to those in Manitoba. Over those years it seems to me there should have been more of an attempt to prevent this kind of disaster than has been made. Indeed, I think the time has come when this country should consider conservation generally in a very big way. This particular area, of course, is not affected by the conditions that affect the Fraser valley, because the headwaters of the Fraser river come from mountainsides denuded of trees. Once trees delayed the melting of the snow, and the valleys and river courses were deep enough and wide enough to carry out the water as the snow melted in the spring. The same is true of southern Ontario, in connection with the Thames, the Grand and so on. Once upon a time this province was covered with dense forests. The melting

Manitoba Flood
of the snow was delayed, and the rivers were wide enough to carry off the waters as the snow melted.
I believe we have to tackle this problem of conservation, that we must tackle the problem of water. It is a strange thing that in some parts of our country floods at various times prevent cultivation, and also do irreparable damage to the land by carrying away the top soil, while in other parts of the country, such as the province of Saskatchewan, the great waters flowing down to the sea run wastefully through a part of the country often parched and desolate because of lack of water. The water is there to be utilized when we are prepared tc spend several hundred millions of dollars in order to conserve and use it for irrigation when that is necessary.
I remember when on February 21, 1938, I introduced into the house a resolution concerning the utilization of Saskatchewan river water for irrigation, it was stated that the cost was prohibitive. At that time an estimate had beefl given by an outstanding hydraulic engineer in this country of approximately $400 million to do a complete job right from the mountains. It would probably cost more now. When we are able to spend, because it is essential that we shall spend it, the sum of $420 million this year for defence -as I said, it is quite proper we should spend it-it seems strange that we should think an amount of $400 million to rehabilitate a whole countryside as prohibitive. So it is with this flood in the Red river valley. Whatever is necessary to protect the people of that fertile and productive region from such disasters in the future should be undertaken by our government. I also join with those who say that the people who have suffered from this very great disaster should receive compensation and assistance in order to rehabilitate their homes, their businesses and their farms. I would say the same thing about any part of the country in which a national disaster was caused by drought, by fire, by grasshoppers, by floods or by any other natural visitation of that description.
I rose to say that all of us would be glad to support the minister and the government in every step that can be undertaken to assist in this great disaster, hoping that as similar disasters arise through this or other causes the federal government will help the various provinces, as the federal parliament has often done from time to time in the past to relieve our distressed citizens from the impoverishment and difficulties subsequently experienced.


Mr. Fernand Viau (Si. Boniface):: I rise to take part in this debate because I intend to

second the motion presented by my colleague the member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras). I have followed the day by day reports on the flood situation which have appeared in the press. With a large portion of Manitoba threatened by this flood I feel that I should support the motion of my colleague, and in so doing I declare that the flood situation in Manitoba is a national emergency. I join with the other members who have spoken, the member for Souris (Mr. Ross), the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), as well as other Manitoba representatives who feel that the flood situation in Manitoba is a national emergency.
The other day the mayor of Morris, Mayor Shewman, made a statement. He happens to be the Progressive Conservative member representing that constitutency in the provincial government. The deputy premier, who happens to be a Progressive Conservative representative in the provincial cabinet, agreed with the mayor's statement. I must admit that I have no sympathy for this coalition government, but nevertheless the people of Manitoba are looking for a statement from responsible authorities that will assure them of financial assistance. The premier of Manitoba has to date refused to give any assurance that assistance will be forthcoming. His reply constitutes a policy of wait and see. According to the press reports, which presumably are correct, he said that although the situation is serious it may be too early to say that, from the financial point of view, it constitutes a condition to be declared a national emergency.
As I said a moment ago, surely if this house feels it should take time to discuss this matter it has already been characterized as one of national emergency. It is quite true that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) could not make a statement to this house this afternoon, because apparently he has not discussed the matter with his colleagues. Nevertheless, since the minister took part in this debate, that is proof that it is a national emergency. The situation as it is today is far worse than it was in 1948. I delayed my return after the Easter holiday not only to view the flood situation in Manitoba, because it had then reached the peak of 1948, but also to satisfy myself that arrangements had been made by the provincial government with the Department of National Defence to assure the transportation of sandbags or troops to areas in which they may be needed. I had experience in dealing with the problem in 1948, the first time I had had to deal with such a problem since I was elected as the federal representative. Arrangements had been made to co-ordinate the aid

given by the dominion, the provincial government and the Red Cross to the different municipalities. Provision was made to cope with the situation that had existed in 1948, but now the flood has gone beyond the 1948 boundaries. We find that today we have one of the largest rivers in the world in Manitoba, since the Red river is fourteen miles wide at some parts. It covers many fine agricultural areas, as well as many of our cities and towns such as Morris, Emerson and St. Jean, all situated in the constituency of Provencher.
If the river continues to rise it may overflow into the cities of St. Boniface and Winnipeg. I must admit that the fact it has not done so already in St. Boniface might be due to the wisdom of our city fathers in placing sewer gates along the river. These are the only sewer gates in the province at the moment, and they are stopping the overflow of the river into the lower part of the city. If the water level goes beyond the 1948 mark, it is admitted that the sewer gates will not be effective. Naturally when cities the size of St. Boniface and parts of Winnipeg are flooded, the demand for relief is great. I think arrangements should be made immediately, not only by the provincial authorities but also by the federal authorities, to provide immediate relief for those who may be affected in that area. I believe a statement from the responsible officials should go forward, even though the Minister of Justice has stated that he does not feel that a responsible or honest individual in public office should make a statement until he has received all the facts concerning the amount of money which will be needed to cover the damage in the province of Manitoba; but that is not a matter which need concern the house at the present time. It is the principle that is involved, and that was my stand when I made the statement to the press last Saturday that the situation in Manitoba was one of national emergency; and I feel that I am as responsible and as intelligent as any other member of this House of Commons.
As I have said, the situation is one of national emergency; and even though I am not able to assess immediately the damage which has been caused already or which will be caused in the coming week, the federal government, in my opinion, has a great responsibility with regard to floods in Manitoba. In my research I discovered that this is the first time that the flood situation in Manitoba has been debated in the House of Commons, although we have had other floods. The largest flood was in 1916 and there was one in 1897. It is quite true that the population in southern Manitoba then
Manitoba Flood
was not as thick as it is now; but this is the first time that this situation has been brought forward from the national viewpoint.
The public works that have been done in Manitoba and the attention given by the dominion government in the past have really been shameful, I would say as a result of my research into the amount of money which has been spent for public works in my own province of Manitoba; for example with respect to the damage done by the Red river or the Seine river which is another river that crosses the city of St. Boniface and as to which every year the provincial government of Manitoba receives a report, which is always shelved for future reference without any action being taken. The present Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), who was then premier of the province, should know something about that matter also. Those are true statements.
We ought to be able to spend some money in Manitoba if we can spend money in other parts of the country running into millions of dollars, using as an excuse, "Well, it is due to navigation," and so on, when it might have been just simply to build retaining walls in areas which have been flooded. It is true that other cities and towns might be built close to a larger river than the Red river in the province of Manitoba. Nevertheless we are a progressive province in western Canada and right now I will make this statement. I have sought in the past, and I will continue to seek from the federal authorities, greater consideration with respect to our province in western Canada, such as is given chiefly to the two great provinces of Ontario and Quebec. At times I would say that beyond the boundaries of those two provinces Canada does not exist.
The situation is grave at the present time. Without prolonging my remarks, I would say that I expect the federal government will not only assure the provincial authorities that they are willing to give financial assistance at the present time with regard to this important problem but also that they will seek from those responsible, such as the international joint commission, a permanent solution to the problem. As the minister said a little while ago, it is quite true that it is impossible to seek complete control of the waters. Nobody is asking for that. But if in Manitoba federal aid had been given for the purpose of studying the problem of the Red river, as was done on the other side by the United States authorities, who have spent over $17 million up to the present time, it is possible that the situation in Manitoba in the Red river area would not be as bad as it is today.

Manitoba Flood


William Scottie Bryce: I want to support the motion made by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) for federal aid, financial and otherwise. I also want to join with the other Manitoba members in their remarks pertaining to floods. I should also like to extend my congratulations to the Red Cross and the various organizations that have contributed help in the area that has been so badly hit by the flood; I refer to the constituency of the hon. member for Provencher. His constituency has been harder hit than any other so far.
In my own constituency I have the Red river to contend with and also the Assiniboine river. I should like to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that conditions there are bad. If the Red river keeps rising and the Assiniboine river backs up, the banks there will not hold the water and you will find that thousands and thousands of acres will be inundated while the Assiniboine river will be making its way to the La Salle river. I think the Manitoba members will understand that situation fairly well, and that is what will really take place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It will be one big lake.


William Scottie Bryce: I listened attentively to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). I am pleased to learn that the Manitoba government benefited by their experiences of 1948 and are in some ways prepared for the flood when it comes. According to today's news, it is quite evident that the flood has not yet reached its peak at Winnipeg.
Some Manitoba members are no doubt getting letters from their constituents. I am in the position of having a constituent sitting right in the gallery here. The basement of his house in the flood area is filled with water. You can see what my worries are in this connection. It is bad enough to have people writing to you; but when you have people who can call on you and tell you about it, it is much worse. The west Kildonan district is flooded now. Basements are flooded.
I get many letters these days asking that the flood gates at St. Andrews and Lock-port be opened. I have taken that matter up with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) and he has assured me that if it is necessary to open these flood gates they will be opened, and that his engineers are right on the job and looking after matters. In fact, when I was home at Easter I spoke to Mr. Anderson, the district engineer. He understands the situation thoroughly. From past experience I know that we can depend on the Winnipeg staff-that is, the federal staff-to do everything they can.
The hon. member for Provencher raised an important question, namely, that there will

be a great deal of wheat that will not be sown and the farmers will sow more oats and barley if the land ever gets dried up in time; and it is doubtful if it will. But assuming that it will, a great deal of oats and barley should be needed. The government should consider that matter and see to it that seed oats and barley are available so that these grains may be sown where wheat was intended to be sown.
There is no use my threshing old straw. The Manitoba members who have already spoken have covered the situation fairly well. I rose only to support them. This matter of floods affects my constituency greatly. I hope that effect will be given to what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said as reported at page 1981 of Hansard:
Hon. members can be assured that it is the desire of the goverment to treat every part of the country in the same way. Should there ever be in any part of the country the sort of disaster there was in the Fraser river district, the people of that section would be entitled to expect that they would be treated in the same way as the residents of the Fraser river valley were treated.
I would rather have had from some minister of the crown or from the Prime Minister himself the assurance that financial aid will be given there, because it is going to be needed. The flood is going to be much worse than it was in 1948. While the intentions of the Minister of Justice are good, having regard to what he said, I would still support the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau), who spoke prior to me, when he said that something definite should be done, because Winnipeg and the districts surrounding it are in serious condition.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: The
member who has just spoken happens to be my member of parliament. I have complained to him, but he is really inaccurate when he points out that my basement is flooded. If it were only my basement I should be very happy indeed. This is the second time in two years we have been ren. dered homeless owing to these floods.
I listened to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) with some attention. He gave an interesting speech. But he took over half an hour to say what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said the other day in a sentence, namely:
We shall endeavour to ascertain what the situation is, and then determine what action, if any, should be taken.
Action is very necessary; but not action now from an engineering standpoint. Obviously that is too late. As the Minister of Justice said, the problem now is not an engineering problem; it is a matter of relief.

Of course I am not asking for relief for myself, but for those who are in far greater need of it.
The Minister of Justice spent about half an hour telling us what the Premier of Manitoba was doing. We in this house are not particularly interested in that. What we want to know is, what is the government of Canada going to do in the face of a national emergency? The Minister of Justice may disagree with the contention that there is a national emergency, but up to the present all members of parliament from Manitoba are pretty well united in the belief that this is an emergency of national proportions.
Of course these floods are not new. They have been recurring periodically on an average every eighteen years since recorded history began, but this year they happen to be the highest we have known since the year 1826, causing untold damage and devastation. In 1916 there was a similar situation, and the engineering department of the United States department of agriculture made a survey and also presented a report which I have not been able to get my hands on; nor do I know what has happened to it. I think, however, nothing was done with the report. However, in 1948, after the then serious flooding conditions had taken place, the matter was referred to the international joint commission, and we have been told that for two years they have been analysing the information which has been given to them. We have oeen told by the Minister of Justice that they .rave received four interim reports and the international joint commission is still analysing the information. When I told my wife that on Friday, after hearing it, she suggested that through the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should extend an invitation to the international joint commission to carry on their deliberations in our home and then they might come to a decision very much quicker than they would otherwise. After all, when you get water lapping around your knees it does help you to make up your mind. I am quite sure that she was speaking not only for herself but for every other woman in that part of Manitoba who has been driven out of her home.
We know the reason for these floods. Perhaps at the present time we have found no way of checking them. We do know that given a certain type of winter weather a flood is almost inevitable, that type of winter which is cold, which is dry, a winter in which there is not very much snow, a winter in which the ice on the rivers becomes very thick, and which is followed by a cold spring, where there is no run-off. Then finally we
Manitoba Flood
get a sudden thaw, and in a few weeks most precipitately we have the sort of condition that exists now.
The dangers to the health of the people are obvious. Here again I should like to pay my measure of tribute to the Red Cross for the really excellent work that it is doing, not only the Canadian Red Cross, but also the United States Red Cross. The United States and Canadian Red Cross societies are working in the closest co-operation with each other to alleviate human suffering. The municipalities of course are also doing their share in so far as the prevention of the spread of virulent diseases such as typhoid is concerned.
There has been some loss of life, which is a tragedy. There has also been a loss of property, which is not nearly so tragic, though for those who have suffered, it is a matter of great importance. There are a substantial number of people who have not yet recovered their financial feet from the floods of 1948, and now once again they find their homes, and perhaps their furniture, destroyed. These are the people for whom I think all of us speak. These are the people who need some assistance to rehabilitate themselves. One should notice that it is not they who are asking for help, but others in another position who are suggesting that this is a national disaster, and that it is the responsibility of the nation to come to the aid of those who need help.
In his remarks the Minister of Justice pointed out that nothing very much could be done in Canada alone. That I think is debatable. Here I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), because according to Mr. W. D. Hurst, the city engineer of Winnipeg, there is something which might be done to alleviate the serious consequences of flooding. As one hon. member pointed out,-I think it was the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras)-it is not the first forty feet of the flood that does the damage, it is the last two or three feet. If we could find some way of getting an increased run-off, then we might reduce that last two or three feet of flood water. Here is a suggestion, as I said, which was given by Mr. Hurst, who is the head of the engineering department of the city of Winnipeg:
From approximately Middlechurch to St. Andrews there exists in the bottom of the river, a submerged dam which is known as Lister's rapids. The extent of this dam is approximately 7 to 8 miles in length. Studies were made a number of years ago by the Manitoba drainage commission and others for the cutting of a channel through this submerged dam to pass approximately 75,000 cubic feet per second. At that time it was estimated that a million, more or less, cubic yards of rock would have to be removed in connection with the execution of this

Manitoba Flood
project. To the best of my knowledge no recent estimates have been made but undoubtedly the cost would be very high.
The cost would be so high that it would be financially impossible for the city of Winnipeg to handle it by itself. Therefore, here is something which, after it is investigated and if it is found feasible, the Department of Public Works might perhaps undertake.
Mr. Hurst goes on to say:
According to the dominion government authorities, this submerged dam is the principal control feature of the river in this area.
That being so, I hope that when the estimates are before us the Minister of Public Works will be able to give us some information on it. Once again I should like to repeat that in my opinion this is a national disaster, and it is not good enough for the Minister of Justice to say: We have to wait and see what the situation is. Many people who are already seriously affected want to know now what is going to happen to them. After all, the fact that there may be some dissension in the government of Manitoba is no excuse for our doing nothing. It may be that the deputy premier of Manitoba thinks this is a national disaster and the federal parliament must assume some responsibility, but the premier of Manitoba is sitting on the fence still waiting and seeing. I do not think that the attitude of the premier of Manitoba has much to commend it, especially from the point of view of those who have suffered very much more than people like myself. I repeat, unquestionably the magnitude of the disaster is such that it is the responsibility of the parliament of Canada to come to the aid of those who are in such dire need of help.


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar):: Last Friday night the mayor of Morris was quoted over the national hook-up as having said that nine-tenths of the ground in the town of Morris, Manitoba, was under water and that the water was steadily rising. My purpose in saying a few words this afternoon is to draw attention to the fact that for the last two weeks water has been coursing over an area considerably west of Morris, as well as in other parts, and in my constituency, which comes within four miles of Morris, lies a village called Rosenfeld. Rosenfeld was photographed from the air approximately ten or twelve days ago, and the pictures were carried in the Montreal, Toronto, and I believe in the local papers, showing that Rosenfeld then was completely under water. The water did not stay there very long. It has been gradually subsiding, and was what is known as a flash flood. Still farther south from Rosenfeld is a fairly large town, one larger

than Emerson, which was also gripped in the flood. Everything was tied up there for several days.
Still farther south on the international border is the small village of Gretna, a name known to all of us as the point at which the pipe line will leave Canada and go into the United States, towards Superior. Gretna is right on the border. Then, immediately across the border in the United States, in the state of North Dakota, is the Pembina river, which runs in an almost easterly direction from the Pembina hills and flows into the Red river not far from Emerson.
At the same time that Rosenfeld was flooded, this river overflowed its banks. The waters came across the international border and into the village of Gretna which, as a result, was quite submerged. May I also add that an ancient riverbed of the Pembina river, which appears to have left the river about ten or twelve miles west of Gretna, was also filled with a great torrent of water. This forced down toward Altona and Rosenfeld and no doubt contributed greatly to the flood which occurred there.
The town of Morden, in which I live, was also visited by a flash flood. The fire whistle blew at eleven o'clock at night. Those who were able to do so had to wade waist deep into the river to rescue people whose homes were deep in water. Of course at that hour of the night, and in the darkness, they did not realize the extent of the flood or how long it would last. Fortunately it subsided on the following day.
The conditions prevailing in the constituency of Lisgar are those which are apt to prevail in almost any part of Manitoba before this is over. I will not go as far as the last speaker has gone by stating that at this stage it is a national disaster; but it may well be. I do not think that matter is of such great importance because whether it be a national disaster or not will not make much difference here today. We know that people who are in water, people in whose homes water flows in the front door and out the back, will consider it a national disaster. It is just as wet to the man who is up against it, whether he is the only one affected, or whether there are thousands.
I do not think that at this stage we need worry about the terminology used. I believe, however, that we should lose no time, and I am inclined to take the view that the international joint commission is not losing any time, to do those things which will correct the situation.
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) indicated that these floods have been

coming on at an average of one in eighteen years. Well, it just happens that the last two have come within two years of one another. This one is by far the worst, and I believe will no doubt spur on those who are interested in making plans which will cope with an adequate means to protect people in the future. I doubt whether dams and dikes will be able to protect the country from floods. In the west when we have the proper conditions of frost, when the land is frozen and on top of that we have, as we had this year, a very heavy and late snowfall, and then if in the late spring we have a succession of very warm days, there is bound to be flooding, no matter how many dams or dikes are built.
Nevertheless it is well known that there is ample room for dikes and dams. As an illustration, I think it would be a very simple matter to build a dam to cope with the Pembina river when on extreme occasions its waters flow over from the United States and wash into two or three of our small towns. So far as the Pembina river itself is concerned, with a deep valley running about half its length, while it might be extravagant it would be a comparatively simple matter for engineers to construct a dam which would be adequate to hold back a great deal of the early run-off.
I am sure these matters will be taken into consideration. While I believe it is necessary that this matter be stressed as greatly as possible, nevertheless I am confident that the authorities are taking the matter under consideration. I share the view of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau) in my disregard for the coalition government; at the same time I am confident that they are devoting themselves to the situation, and that the federal government will be called in as much and as extensively as is necessary.


Mr. J. S. Sinnott (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, in my view the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) was quite justified in bringing this national disaster to the attention of the house this afternoon. Going home during the Easter vacation by motorcar, and traversing much of the northern country, one could easily realize that something of this nature might develop. For a thousand miles we travelled through snowbanks anywhere up to ten or twelve feet in depth. With the breaking of spring one might expect a disaster of this kind.
I join with the hon. member for Provencher in expressing thanks to the Red Cross, municipal officials, the provincial government and to everyone who has taken a hand in helping those who have suffered from this disaster. I myself had something
Manitoba Flood
to do with floods in 1942. One morning when I walked out to my barn I found fifty head of cattle in about three feet of water, and the old sow with her head sticking out and with all the young pigs floating around.
I know something about disasters of this kind.
Farmers in that area have lost thousands of bushels of grain. Some of them thought they could save themselves by moving on to ground that was safe in 1948. They moved their seed and feed and cattle to these spots, only to find that the water surged up beyond the point of the 1948 flood. Therefore all their efforts were fruitless.
I suggest that the statement of the. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that the dominion government would consider this matter, and give it the attention which was given the disaster in British Columbia last year, should be sufficient assurance. I know the premier of Manitoba personally and, farmer that he is, I know this disaster will receive firsthand attention from his government.
I do not agree with some hon. members, however, when they say that the dominion government should put itself on the spot as to the amount to be made available, because immediately the dominion government indicates how much it is willing to give, or how much it will contribute, what will happen? Politics will enter into the question, and the very next day we will hear, "Not enough, not enough!"
In my view the dominion government has taken the right attitude in stating that when the damage is surveyed it will be in a position to say what amount of aid should be extended. Working in conjunction with the provincial government, I am sure these people who have suffered from the disaster will be looked after by both the provincial and dominion governments.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two references I intend to make to this matter arising out of the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). Everybody expected that he was going to make a pronouncement of importance conveying hope to the people affected by this flood that something tangible would be done. They will be disappointed with the statement he has made. After you remove from it the commendation he gave, and properly so, to the Red Cross and other relief agencies, to the rural municipalities, to the councils and to the government of Manitoba, and, with a little self-praise, to the government to which he belongs, when all these things were said and done and the constitutional issue touched on lightly by him, little in the nature of hope was held

Manitoba Flood
out to the people affected by these floods. Certainly he had his answer in the statement of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau), who followed him, as to whether or not this was indeed a national disaster. Without equivocation that hon. member said that it indeed was, that there was no question whatsoever of the people of the area affected by the floods finding themselves in a position of being subject to a national disaster, and that they were deserving of the promise of direct action on the part of parliament and the country.
I listened with interest to what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said concerning floods that have taken place in that area throughout the years. I know something of the history of 'the Selkirk settlement and of the great flood that took place in the year 1826. It was not the first flood on the Red river by any means. One of the greatest, if not the greatest, that has ever taken place was in 1776. There were two between that time and 1826. As to the latter date, the remnants of the Scottish settlement established in the Red river area in 1812 found themselves in a position where hope was gone, but they held on after the flood and in large measure by their contribution retained that great area of our western plains for the British crown.
I was looking over the records of that time as dealt with in Bryce's "Lord Selkirk's Colonists". It is very interesting reading not only from the historical standpoint but also by reason of the fact that it generally indicates the length of time floods continued on the Red river once they commenced. At page 178 I find the following: ... a worse flood than that seen by the Selkirk settlers took place fifty years before, and there were two other floods between these two. Each year, according to the tale of the old settlers, the rivers of the prairies have been becoming wider by denudation, so that each flood tends to be less.
He says that contributory conditions are:
... a very heavy snowfall during the prairie winter, a late spring in which the river ice retains its hold, and a sudden period in the springtime of very hot weather, these being modified as the years go on by the ever-widening river channel.
The winter of 1825-26 was one of the most terrific ever known in the history of the Selkirk settlement.
He goes on to set out the difficulties during the winter before, and then he says:
As the Red river flows northward, the first thaw of spring is usually south of the American international boundary line at the headwaters of the river which divides Minnesota and Dakota. In these states the floods are always, in consequence, greater than they are in Manitoba. In this year-
He is speaking of the year 1826.
-the ice held very firm up to the end of April. On the second of May, the waters from above rose
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
and lifted the ice which still held in a mass together some nine feet above the level of the day before. Indians and whites alike were alarmed. The water overflowed its banks, and still continued to rise at Fort Garry. The governor and his family were driven to the upper story of their residence in the fort, with the water ten feet deep below that.
The whole river bank for miles was a scene of confusion and terror. Every home was an alarming scene as the flood reached it.
One sees the picture today, an actual repetition of 1826.
The first thought was to save life. Amid the crying of the children, the lowing of cattle and the howling of dogs, parents sought out all their children to see them safely removed.
Then he goes on to say they moved the wheat and oats, what little furniture they possessed, and the necessary cooking utensils. Finally he proceeds to state that floods on the Red river historically from 1826 onward, and also in the three preceding ones, did not finally reach their maximum height until seventeen days after commencement. At one point on page 182 he says:
In seventeen days from the first rise, the water reached its height, . . .
He points out that after twenty further days the settlers were able with difficulty to reach their homes. I point out that historically in these floods, to which references are made in this monumental work by Dr. Bryce on the Selkirk settlement, in every case it took from seventeen to twenty days. If that be so, having regard to the terrific damage that has already taken place to which the minister made reference, surely there should be some clear expression to these people who today find themselves driven from their homes and fearful of the immediate prospect, in addition to the expression of commendation of the Red Cross and other relief agencies. The minister was careful to convey no word of hope that any compensation would be given to these people. He was careful to clothe his words of hope in language that can never be interpreted in the future as a promise of action on the part of the dominion as a whole. Coming from the province of Saskatchewan, where on more than one occasion the country as a whole has come to its assistance, I feel that something should be done.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
John George Diefenbaker: Before we adjourned for dinner I had mentioned that this problem along the Red river was not new, but that for a period of two hundred years there had been cases of flooding where Winnipeg now

stands. I had referred to the Selkirk settlement. Many of those affected by this flood today are the descendants of the Selkirk settlers who in 1812, driven out of northern Ireland by the Duchess of Sutherland, found their way to Hudson bay, where they spent the winter of 1812, and thence by lake Winnipeg to the Red river. This situation and its posssibilities were revealed in 1946; and I feel that after that experience, which was but a repetition of what had happened many times before, the international joint commission should have taken speedy action.
This afternoon the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) took it upon himself to deal in a rather cavalier manner with this matter. At one time he clothed himself in the garment of sanctimoniousness and managed to imply that those who had discussed this matter had votes in mind. I am sure he would not have given that implication as far as the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) was concerned, or as far as the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) was concerned, or in reference to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It is not a matter of votes; it is a matter of asking for action now, that when there is a national disaster this parliament should act. The minister says he does not know yet whether it is a national disaster. He did not advise the house just how great the damage must be before it becomes a national disaster. Where is the point of differentiation between a matter of local importance and a national disaster? When such a large area has been already threatened or flooded, when the people living in that area have requested help, whether or not those requests have come from the government of Manitoba, surely that is evidence that there is need for action to be taken now.
Can one conceive what will be the attitude of those people, driven from their homes, in many cases having lost everything, when tomorrow morning they get the message from the government of Canada, through the mouth of the Minister of Justice: "We gave you a warning; the farmers in that area were warned on April 20"? Does this mean that because they did not get out, they must suffer? The minister says they were warned. What is the meaning of those words? What is the difference whether or not they were warned; what bearing has that on whether it is a national disaster? I cannot understand the minister when he makes a statement like that. The answer coming from the mouth of the minister today is, "You were warned. I know not what your loss may be. It cannot be estimated at this time, and not being able to estimate it-"
Manitoba Flood


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that, as my hon. friend must know, I never said what he is attributing to me, nor did I say anything it would be possible to construe as the hon. member is construing my remarks.


James Arthur Ross: Hansard will tell the story tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: I accept the minister's denial of the meaning I had ascribed to his remarks. Hansard will tell the story, as my hon. friend says.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Certainly it will.


John George Diefenbaker: It will tell the story of a speech by the Minister of Justice which, instead of giving hope to the people of Manitoba in the inundated area, consisted of circumlocution and denial of responsibility on the part of the government of Canada by its member from the province of Manitoba. Who speaks of votes? Who brought up the question of votes but the minister? No other hon. member has implied that the question of votes was in his mind. There was no such suggestion in the remarks of the hon. member for Provencher, whose speech was measured in its consideration and complete in its revelation of conditions. There was no such suggestion in the speech of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). Surely the minister should forget about votes and realize the situation that exists today in Manitoba, and give those people at least some hope that for the loss they have suffered through no fault or action of their own, they may be reimbursed. Certainly it cannot be the responsibility only of the province of Manitoba. As the minister has said, the cause of the disaster arises in large part outside Canada, and that is the best argument I can advance as to why, whether the loss be great or small, it is the sort of disaster that demands compensation from the people of Canada as a whole rather than from the province of Manitoba or the local authorities.
I do not want to dwell longer on the subject, Mr. Speaker. It is in matters of great importance such as this that parliament really shows at its best. Regardless of party, regardless of the province from which members come, all of us, as Canadians, want to do our best when a situation such as this arises. We can only hope that even yet the minister, rising again on a question of privilege, will be able to give hope to those people, rather than to talk about the subject of votes. Why votes? Why not hope for those people today who are asking it of the parliament of Canada? They are asking it through the member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras); the member for Souris (Mr. Ross);

Manitoba Flood
the member tor Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); all of whom know the problem and all of whom are experienced; all of whom realize that the people in this part of Manitoba are asking not for evasion, not for circumlocution, but for a statement which will restore to them the hope that has been denied them as a result of this flood.
Coming from a neighbouring province, I know something of the situation in Manitoba. I know there is no one in my province who would not be happy to hear this evening that the government of Canada, through its responsible minister, the Minister of Justice, is going to do something to help those people out, rather than have that minister merely indulge in a speech of great length consisting of platitudes on the one hand and, on the other, praise for the social agencies that are entitled to praise. He spoke of everything but what the motion is requesting, namely, a promise of action from the parliament of Canada.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, the question under discussion, that of the Manitoba floods, is a subject of interest to all members in this house, and not merely those representing Manitoba constituencies. It is a matter of concern to the country at large. In the first place, I think it is a subject on which the members from all parties, and from every province, should inform the government that they are in favour of the support which has been requested for those who are suffering from these floods. I fail to see where the statement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) gives that assurance. The minister made a valiant effort to defend the do-nothing policy of the government so far as this matter is concerned. As a matter of fact, he found that so little had been done by this government, he had to spend nine-tenths of his time stating what the premier of Manitoba had or had not done, whichever way one sees it.
The only assurance the minister gave the house was contained in a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as reported in Hansard on page 1981. That statement does not bind the government to a single thing. The Prime Minister said:
Should there ever be in any part of the country the sort of disaster there was in the Fraser river district, the people of that section would be entitled to expect that they would be treated in the same way as the residents of the Fraser river valley were treated.
Anything the Prime Minister said with reference to this subject was qualified by that statement. Provided the people in the Red river district suffer a disaster as great as that suffered by the people in the Fraser valley, then they may expect government assistance.

Failing to suffer to the extent the people of the Fraser valley suffered, there is no assurance whatever of any support. The statement by the Prime Minister reminds me of one he made in Toronto during the election campaign on the subject of unemployment. While there, a local reporter tried to pin him down as to what the government would do in the event of unemployment developing in any part of the country. After one or two questions the reporter got up to the point where he said, "Suppose there are 500,000 unemployed in the country, will the government take any action?" The Prime Minister replied, "Oh yes, if we get 500,000, certainly the government will take some action." Of course, we did not get 500,000.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member should develop that subject during this debate.


Joseph William Noseworthy: You rule that I cannot finish that statement, then, Mr. Speaker? My point is that the statement by the Prime Minister as recorded in Hansard does not give any definite assurance that these people will receive any assistance. I think that is the point which the members of this house from every province, and from all parties, are attempting to impress upon the government. They believe that the Manitoba people should, under the circumstances, be given some definite assurance, here and now, that they will be assisted.
There is another reason why this question is important to those of us who live outside the province of Manitoba. This question of flood control is one that interests the people in all parts of Canada. There are few years in which some section of the country does not suffer a disaster. I believe the government should be required at this time to make some statement of policy regarding flood control. I go back to 1943, when there was a subcommittee of the committee on reconstruction appointed for the express purpose of studying this question of conservation, particularly the conservation of water and power resources. In its recommendations that committee states:
Canada, fortunately, is free of devastating floods such as occur on the great river systems of the United States, China, and other countries. Damaging floods, however, affect various parts of the country periodically and property losses from such floods could be prevented or mitigated by the construction of flood-control works in many localities.
That is the statement of a committee set up by the federal government, a committee that undertook to show that the federal government had some responsibility in the matter. The assertion is made that property losses could be avoided if work were undertaken to

mitigate floods. Certain schemes were recommended by that committee for implementation immediately following the war to create post-war employment. The report states:
That schemes be developed for the construction of flood control and flood prevention works on rivers and streams where damaging floods occur, with suitable provision being made for an equitable division of costs as between the dominion, the province, and the municipality concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I remind the house that there is before the house a motion to adjourn the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the disastrous flood conditions in the province of Manitoba. I do not think it is permissible to discuss questions with regard to flooding generally throughout Canada. The debate at this time must be directly relevant to the flood conditions that now exist in the province of Manitoba.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall abide by your ruling and I shall conclude by asking that the government give us some definite assurance here and now that some effort is being made to assist the people in Manitoba; and furthermore, as to what plans the government have for control of the floods in that particular district.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I should like to add a few words, Mr. Speaker, to the appeals that have been made by various members of the house for the government to declare that this flooding in Manitoba constitutes a national emergency.
The minister was not in the house two years ago when the serious flooding caused by the Fraser river took place. Two facts stood out in connection with that flooding. One was that a statement was made either by the then Prime Minister (Mr. King), or by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) early in the flooding to the effect that it was not a national emergency. Those statements may have been made because of failure to appreciate the actual situation. I happened to be on the coast at the time, and one could just sense the feeling that swept over the lower mainland of British Columbia that the government was failing to realize the menace that faced those people. They really experienced a terrific let-down just from the fact that a statement nad been made here in the house to the effect :hat the situation was not of a sufficiently lisastrous nature to be considered a national smergency.
The second fact which stood out throughout ;hat disaster was the feeling of appreciation that swept over that same lower mainland district when eastern Canada, and particularly the mayors of the two great cities
Manitoba Flood
of Montreal and Toronto, set up relief funds. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) knows, we in the west sometimes think we are not fully appreciated by the people in the east, and it does not take a great deal to build up a feeling of resentment. That has been so as long as I can remember. The very fact that the mayors of those two great eastern cities had opened subscription lists for the relief of the people on the west coast had a tremendous effect out in British Columbia. It created a feeling of good will which I have never seen equalled there. It was fine action taken by those mayors, and was fully appreciated.
The action of the members of the house here from all the other provinces was of the same kind. I think all members of the house from British Columbia at that time felt that the members from all other parts of Canada were with them. I suggest to the minister that that is the feeling here today with regard to Manitoba. Everyone in this house feels that our fellow Canadians in that old prairie province are having an extremely bad time; and I think it is the wish of everyone in this house that they should be given not only every encouragement but also all possible actual help.
If such action is taken by the government, it should be taken quickly. The more delay there is in acknowledging that this is a national emergency, the less the action will be appreciated by the people who are in trouble. I urge upon the minister that if he cannot make a statement tonight, he at least make one tomorrow to the effect that the government is recognizing this flooding as a national emergency, and that the dominion stands behind the provincial government and the people of the districts affected. If that is done, I am sure it will do a great deal to build up good feeling across this nation.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I do not wish to delay the house in dealing with this matter at all, Mr. Speaker, but I think we should join just briefly with those who have spoken in assuring the government that Albertans also sympathize with the people of Manitoba in their present emergency.
I think only three things will be in the minds of the Canadian people tonight with regard to the disaster in Manitoba. The first of these of course is an assurance to the people of Manitoba that they sympathize with them in their extremity, and will be ready to do anything possible to alleviate their suffering. The second thing is that the people of Canada will expect the government to come to the assistance of those who lose heavily through the flooding. I share that feeling with the Canadian people; and on behalf of

Manitoba Flood
those whom I represent in this house, I want to assure the government that we will support them in whatever they decide to do to assist the people of Manitoba who are affected.
I cannot share the feelings of some who have spoken, that this is a matter that should be finalized tonight. I think the government is taking a fairly level-headed view of the whole thing. They have said, "Let us see if this is a national emergency; and when the extent of the damage has been made known, we will take action". I have every confidence that they will take the same decent action they took in British Columbia two years ago. I just want to assure them, on behalf of this group, that we will support them in whatever they feel it is wise to do.
The third thing that I think would be in the minds of Canadians, as it is in mine, is this. We want to see the government speed preparations, just as fast as they possibly can, to prevent a repetition of this thing in the future, and to speed up negotiations with the friendly nation to the south of us. Let us get an agreement on diking, on making dams and diversions, and whatever is needed to see that the waters of the Red river are controlled. Having said these things, I shall not delay the house any further. [DOT]


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: I was
just going to ask a question. I thought the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) was quite clear in saying that he stands ready to co-operate with the premier of Manitoba, to take his direction from him and to do everything possible to help, as was done with regard to British Columbia. I thought that was quite clear.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: did not intend to take part in this debate; I know we have other business to get on with in the house; but since this debate has extended over the dinner recess I just want to make a few brief remarks. I trust I will be in order.
I rise to speak as a member representing a riding through which runs one of the greatest rivers in Canada, namely, the Columbia river. The residents along that river have suffered from floods on several occasions, and in 1948 severely-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, I am in order. I am saying that, because it [DOT]indicates my sympathy for the people who live along the Red river. I do not want to be ruled out of order by the amen chorus opposite. I rose, Mr. Speaker, because I know something about the problems that people suffer from flood damage.

As I said previously, many residents in my riding suffered extreme damage in 1948, and face very severe damage in the near future unless the weather changes in the basin of the Columbia in British Columbia. I am not going to repeat the arguments put forward by many hon. members today. I simply want to say that I support those hon. members who have made a plea for financial assistance and other assistance from the federal government to the people of Manitoba who need it.
Before resuming my seat I do want to say that in my opinion we are suffering these difficulties on these great rivers in Canada, such as the Fraser in 1948, the Columbia in 1948 and on the Red river today, because of the lack of an over-all conservation policy that includes flood control and erosion control.
When speaking this afternoon the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) gave a historical review of the situation on the Red river. It had severe floods in the eighteenth century, in the nineteenth century, and has had periodically until this day. Here we are in this age, with all the resources at our command, scientific, technical and human, and we allow these recurring floods and do very little about it so far as the development of an over-all plan is concerned.
I am of the opinion that this policy, which I would term a bits and bobs policy, is totally inadequate in this age. The program of assistance rendered by the federal government to the Fraser river people was well received and was excellent. If assistance is rendered to the people of the Red river it will be work well done. That, Mr. Speaker, is not a final solution to the question; it is just a bits and bobs approach to the question. So far as my own constituency is concerned -and I am going to stay in order; I am mentioning it because I am conversant with it-commencing in 1892 petitions and letters were sent to the federal government in connection with flood control and erosion control. Resolutions went forward from the legislative assembly of British Columbia and even letters from lieutenant governors, and today the problem is no closer to solution than-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have ruled that the only flood conditions we can consider at this time are the flood conditions in Manitoba.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I accept your ruling. I was just giving a parallel case to the Red river situation. I have gone into this question, Mr. Speaker, to some extent with the officials of the various departments, and it is one that seems to present constitutional difficulties.
When it comes to the question of flood control on a navigable river, I understand that

the situation is something like this. I should like the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) to correct me if my exposition of the constitutional position is not quite correct. This is as a stock rancher would put it anyway:	that
the water, in so far as its use is for navigation is concerned, is the property of the federal government. The water in so far as it is used for the production of power is the property of the provincial government. It is the kinetic energy in the water that produces the power; it is the kinetic energy in the water that produces the flood damage. Therefore I understand the federal government, from a constitutional point of view, is actually not responsible, because the kinetic energy in the water damages the property of the province, and the land is either provincially owned or belongs to the municipality which is the creature of the provincial government. I understand that is the constitutional position in regard to this situation. I am of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that we require some up-to-date legislation that makes it quite clear-cut what we can do with respect to flood control and erosion control on these Canadian rivers that give difficulty from year to year. Therefore I think we require an over-all conservation plan for Canada that includes legislation for flood control and erosion control on the navigable rivers of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member should develop that argument any further.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say, such as the Red river. I am just concluding, but I think that is necessary if we only read the history of previous civilizations such as on the Euphrates-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must observe the rules of debate and confine his remarks to a discussion of the flood conditions in Manitoba.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: If we here learn our lesson we will not have this condition on the Red river. We have got to learn from the history of the past and use our modern knowledge, our modern techniques and our modern sciences to develop an over-all conservation plan to prevent future disasters of this sort in Canada.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I just want to add a word. I agree, of course, with the things that have been said about the duty of the rest of the country to come to the assistance of Manitoba if this proves to be a disaster of the first magnitude, as it appears to be. The point I wish to make is just this. I wish to suggest there may be a very definite responsibility on the part of
Manitoba Flood
the dominion by reason of the fact that, so far as I can learn from a very fragmentary review, it is true, of the proceedings of the international waterways commission, it would look as if the Red river and the area have been greatly neglected. I have here the report of the first several years, and by going through the index I find that although many rivers in Canada that I know and a good many that I do not know are mentioned here and were evidently considered, I cannot find the name of the Red river in the index at all.
While I am not able to say that I have scrutinized all the reports since, I would suggest that there may be a very definite responsibility there by reason of what appears to have been the neglect to deal with this area which has been known to be a dangerous flood area for over a hundred years.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Before my hon. friend takes his seat, I wonder if he would give us the citation he is quoting from.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The report of the international waterways commission from 1905 to 1913.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: From 1905 to 1913?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Have you looked at any since?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I said that I have not. I have only the early years. I have not examined them all.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is important to know what my hon. friend is dealing with.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the Red
river has been dealt with properly, at any rate it got a late start.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Is it because it was not mentioned between 1905 and 1913 that the hon. member wants us to assume that nothing has taken place since 1913?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I did not say
that at all. I said, here was a prima facie case that at any rate they had been very late in coming to deal with the Red river situation, because during the first eight years it was not mentioned though, as I say, every river of any consequence as a river seems to be in this. I can mention some that I know and many that I do not know. The Red river is not even mentioned. I was not suggesting I had proved the point. I think I made it perfectly clear that there was merely a prima facie case, indicated in the index at any rate, that in the early years of the commission the Red river seemed to have been neglected.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend has not looked at it since.
2054	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I say that. Does the minister want me to repeat it three or four times?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the house completed its discussion of this subject?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


René Jutras: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in moving to adjourn the house was to bring this matter respecting flood conditions in Manitoba to the attention of the house. Before withdrawing my motion I wish to thank Your Honour and to express my sincere gratitude to the minister and all hon. members who have spoken today. I can assure the house I am very pleased to note the unanimity of opinion expressed, and I am sure my people back home will appreciate it. With permission of the house, I withdraw my motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.
Motion withdrawn.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called-indeed as a matter of privilege

may I put a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Prudham). My question relates to an answer given by the parliamentary assistant in response to a set of questions I placed on the order paper as recorded at page 1569 of Hansard.
My questions had to do with a certain survey of government projects. Among other questions, I asked these two: When was this survey made, and what was the date of the report? The answer indicates that the survey was made between April and September, 1949. Then the answer goes on to indicate that I can find a summary of the results of the survey in the annual report of the department of reconstruction and supply for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1949.
Perhaps the house does not get the significance of those dates. However, as it appears in Hansard it indicates that the report was made before the survey was undertaken. Perhaps the hon. member would straighten it out now or tomorrow.


Mr. George Prudham (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the hon. member's question as a notice and give a full answer as soon as possible.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice having to do with a report in this evening's issue of the Ottawa Journal to the effect that consideration is being given by the Department of Justice to introducing amendments which would permit of compulsory blood tests being taken in respect of persons accused of driving motor vehicles while intoxicated.
It further states that submission is being made to the various provinces in this regard to the effect that loopholes now existing which deny convictions in many clear cases will thereby be avoided and convictions more readily obtained. Is the minister in a position to say whether the report is correct, and whether it is expected that legislation to this effect will be introduced, provided the provinces have no objection, at the present session of parliament?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I did not have any leisure in which to read newspapers this evening because I was reading copy from Hansard and having my dinner right up until eight o'clock.
However, I shall be glad to look at the report in question and bring down a statement tomorrow as to whether or not it is correct. I think offhand that it is not correct. However, I shall look at the report and make a statement concerning it tomorrow.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Acting Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) asked for a statement as to what consideration would be given to the late filing of returns by those persons in the flooded area in Manitoba?
It would be impracticable for the Department of National Revenue to extend the filing time for returns due today. In accordance


with the established practice, however, the department will give full and sympathetic consideration to those individual cases where the taxpayer can establish that the late filing of his return is due to unfortunate circumstances entirely beyond his control.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: I notice that there are three private bills on the order paper, and that they have been reported by the same committee. Under standing order 110 one motion can be made referring these bills to the committee of the whole house. Shall we follow that procedure?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 88, respecting the purchase by Canadian Pacific Railway Company of shares of the capital stock of the Shawinigan Falls Terminal Railway Company-Mr. Pinard-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: The house is in committee on three bills, the first of which is Bill No. 88, respecting the purchase by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company of shares of the capital stock of the Shawinigan Falls Terminal Company. Although the sponsor of this bill is not in his seat, I understand the bill was studied carefully in committee. As there is only one section and the preamble, I suggest that we proceed to deal with that section.
On section 1-Purchase of capital stock.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to this bill for one moment. May I make it clear that I am in favour of the objective of the bill, but I would ask the Minister of Justice to clarify a point which bothers me.
In the house and in committee the sponsor of the bill told us that it was necessary because of a specific provision in the Railway Act forbidding the Canadian Pacific Railway to use its funds to make purchases of stock in other railway companies. He told us that the Canadian National Railways, which share equally in the purchase, had the right to do this.
I have not the bill in front of me, but when I did I made the suggestion to the sponsors of the bill that they should add just a word or two, and suggested the additional words should be, "notwithstanding anything
1. 1950
Shawinigan Falls Terminal Railway contained in the Railway Act", and then that they should follow the exact language in the bill itself.
I bring this matter to the minister's attention because of certain points which occurred to me. Here we have a general statute of Canada forbidding the purchase of shares by the Canadian Pacific Railway in another railway company. Then we pass a private act giving the C.P.R. the right to purchase these shares. Let me make it very clear that I am in favour of what the bill seeks to do, namely, to let the railway make this purchase, because we have been assured that the purchase money will be provided equally by the C.P.R. and the C.N.R.
I can readily see that it would be advantageous to both railway companies to own this switching railway-because that is all it is-in other words to transfer cars from a plant, which is there, to either road, and from one road to the other. I am entirely in accord with the objective sought to be attained. My difficulty arises because of the words that I suggested, namely, "notwithstanding anything contained in the general act", and then proceeding with exactly the same words used in the bill. I am very far from being a great constitutional lawyer, but I have some difficulty in concluding that a private act of this kind can upset the general law without some specific reference to the general law. That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman, and may I repeat that I am altogether in accord with the objective sought to be attained in the bill. I only raise the matter now so that I may be sure that we are attaining what the sponsors of the bill have in mind. I am quite familiar with the law concerning acts of parliament as to the time element and that sort of thing, but I still have some doubt whether, without those words or similar words, we will achieve the objective which the committee unanimously sought to attain.


Mr. St. Laurent:: The hon. member knows that for a great many years, probably ever since confederation, parliament has been adopting acts for the relief of Mr. or Mrs. So and So, and has never found it necessary to say that it was "notwithstanding the provisions of the general law", which in the province of Quebec are to the effect that a marriage can only be dissolved by the death of one of the consorts. That has been going on for eighty-two years without its ever having been found necessary to use "notwithstanding".


Arthur Leroy Smith: With great respect, I am only speaking from what I have heard the sponsor say. The distinction in what the Prime Minister has just said lies in
2056	HOUSE OF
Shawinigan Falls Terminal Railway the fact that we have a general act with a specific provision, section 170. If my memory serves me correctly, section 170 specifically forbids this sort of thing. I hope the Prime Minister will believe that I am in earnest. I am trying to be helpful. I can see no objection to adding the words I have suggested. In the committee we were in the position that there was no one there with authority to consent without communicating with other people. I merely raise the point, and I am not pressing it at all. I am merely raising it in order that we may be sure that some day someone will not come back to us and say: You dumb members of parliament on this committee passed something the legality of which is quite doubtful.
I also made the suggestion that at the end of clause 1 there should be this simple statement, "Not to exceed $125,000." We were told that was the amount which had been agreed upon. I did not press either of these points in the committee and I am not pressing them here. Nevertheless I feel that "not exceeding $125,000" might be a good five or six words to add because someone may come along years later and say: You members of the House of Commons on this committee passed this measure permitting the purchase without limiting the sum, and therefore you opened the door; even though you had an assurance, why did you not put it in the legislation? I shall not speak any further on the two points I raised in the committee.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: From memory I cannot give the hon. member the number of the section of the Quebec code. I am told that it is section 147 of the Railway Act, but the section of the Quebec code is in exactly the same position, unless and until parliament deals with it, as the section in the Railway Act. It is a pre-confederation statute which has never been interfered with, and the effect of which was continued by the British North America Act until competent legislative authority shall see fit to interfere with it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The Prime Minister will admit that it would be safer to use the words I have suggested?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not know that the drafters of the acts for the relief of all those who have come before parliament made such a serious mistake in omitting to put in "notwithstanding article so and so of the Quebec code".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, on the point raised by the hon. member for Calgary West, if I may dare to get into this interesting discussion between two eminent lawyers, I wonder whether any consideration was given in the committee to a citation that I think 

has a bearing on the point, and which is found in Beauchesne at page 302 of his third edition. The citation is number 798, but anyone who looks at it will note that at the end there appears the notation "B.611". That means that Beauchesne took it from Bourinot, and for reasons that will be obvious in a moment I should like to read the paragraph from page 611 of Bourinot's fourth edition. In both cases private bills are under discussion by these noted authors on procedure. I am sure the hon. member for Calgary West will be interested in this if he has not seen it before. It reads:
In cases when the committee have considered an amendment of the general law preferable to the passage of certain private bills, they have occasionally made a special report to that effect, and postponed the consideration of the bills to which it had reference to enable the house to take action in the matter (k); or they have expunged certain provisions and recommended an amendment of the general law in these respects (1).
The significance of the letters "k" and is that they refer to footnotes which indicate the bills that illustrate the point. There are three or four referred to at the bottom of page 611 in Bourinot; mining companies bills, 1854-55; Joliette incorporation of 1863; De Lery gold mining company, 1865; Quebec corporation of 1865. Naturally I have not had time to look up these particular private bills, and it is not my purpose to prolong the argument, but it seems to me that the point raised by the hon. member for Calgary West was not far-fetched.
As regards the point suggested by the Prime Minister in reply as to acts for the relief of various people-in other words, divorce bills-I would point out that divorce is listed in section 91 of the British North America Act as one of the powers that parliament has. Therefore we are not exceeding the power of parliament when we pass divorce acts. I do not think the hon. member for Calgary West was far out in raising the point whether we should by a private act set aside the general law without at least making a note of the fact. In fact, Beauchesne and Bourinot would seem to suggest that sometimes there are occasions like this where it is preferable to amend the general law to achieve a purpose such as that of this bill.


Mr. Harkness:: As indicated by the hon. member for Calgary West, the purchase of the Shawinigan Falls Terminal Railway Company is a joint enterprise by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways. According to the evidence presented to us in the committee it will entail an expenditure on the part of the



I. 1950

[Stage Direction]
Canadian National Railways in the neighbourhood of $410,000. That is what it will amount to by the time they pay their share of the cost of purchasing this railway and new diesel engines and so on; and of course that $410,000 is money we in this house will have to vote in order to enable the Canadian National to complete its part in the purchase of this line. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he is quite satisfied that the Canadian National should undertake that expenditure of almost half a million dollars for these purposes.
Mr. Chevrier:: It is not for me to say whether or not this is a proper expenditure to be made by the Canadian National Railways. That is generally done by the officers of the company, who bring their budget before the house committee on railways and shipping for approval. If the case is as the hon. member says, I presume that when the amount is put in the budget of the Canadian National it will come before the committee in the usual course some time next year. As far as the Department of Transport is concerned, it has some interest indirectly in such bills, but all I can say is that the legal officers of the department have looked at this bill and they have no objection to it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 7, to incorporate Alberta Natural Gas Company- Mr. Maybank-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion on which this bill has been before this committee since it was considered by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and I believe a word or two should be said about what took place in that committee. I have reference more particularly, or in the first place, to the attitude taken by the sponsor of this bill, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Howard Charles Green: I must beg somebody's pardon.


Mr. Maybank:: Don't apologize to me;
apologize to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Howard Charles Green: The sponsor of the bill is the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who is also a parliamentary assistant. When this bill was before the house for consideration
Alberta Natural Gas Company those of us who opposed it were told on numerous occasions by various supporters of the bill that we should let it go to committee so we could get the facts. Time and again that plea was made: Why don't you let this bill go to the committee so we can get the facts? Well, the bill finally went to the committee.
Then we found that the sponsor of the bill was a member of the committee, which in the first place I submit is quite an improper procedure. When an hon. member is sponsoring a private bill he should not be a member of the committee considering that bill. However the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was a member, and took a very active part in the work of the committee; in fact from the beginning he tried to dominate it and to assert authority over its workings. His position was doubly bad because of the fact that he is also a parliamentary assistant. It is about time the government decided just how far these parliamentary assistants can go.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Discussion in committee must be strictly relevant to the item under consideration.


Howard Charles Green: This is very relevant, Mr. Chairman.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I do not think the hon. member is in order when he suggests that the government should look into the matter of the parliamentary assistants.


Howard Charles Green: Then let me go at it in this way. Let me point out to the committee what this parliamentary assistant undertook to do when the bill he was sponsoring was under consideration. Not only did he act in a most high-handed and arbitrary manner from the start, but on Thursday evening-


Mr. Riley:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Howard Charles Green: On Thursday evening-


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Saint John-Albert is raising a point of order.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra has just accused one of the parliamentary assistants of acting in a highhanded and arbitrary manner before a committee. I was a member of that committee-


Howard Charles Green: That is not a point of order.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: The parliamentary assistant of whom the hon. member speaks was not the chairman of that committee.


Howard Charles Green: There is no point of order in that.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Therefore he was not in a position to act in a high-handed or arbitrary manner.

Alberta Natural Gas Company


Ralph Maybank: In view of the fact that it does not matter very much to me what the accusations of the hon. member are, and in view of the fact that it is not likely I shall bother to answer them, perhaps I should indicate to the committee my utter indifference to the charges he has made or may make.


Howard Charles Green: That is not a point of order, either, but that is typical of the hon. member's attitude in the committee. Now I see he is walking out; he cannot take any more.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Ralph Maybank: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the hon. member wishes to speak to a point of order he may do so.


Ralph Maybank: No, I really don't wish to speak at all. I think I will just let the hon. member go ahead.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I merely asked the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra to be careful in the choice of his words. I know the hon. member does not want to use unparliamentary or offensive language, and of course when it comes to passing judgment on such expressions it is sometimes difficult to say whether they may be offensive to the hon. member to whom they are directed. Therefore, in order to preserve order in the committee, I merely ask the hon. member to be careful in his language.


Mr. Drew:: Just so we may have some slight understanding of what this is about, Mr. Chairman, would you indicate what words could possibly have been regarded as offensive?


Louis-René Beaudoin: The words "highhanded and arbitrary manner"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The words "highhanded and arbitrary manner" were applied to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I am not giving a ruling on this issue, but in Beauchesne there is a whole list of words that in the past have been ruled unparliamentary. When it comes to offensive words there is a rule of a general character which states that it depends upon the tone in which they are said, and so on. I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra can make his point without risking the use of expressions which may be offensive.


Howard Charles Green: I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I could describe the actions of the hon. member much better in unparliamentary language. However, I have no intention of breaking the rules of the house. The action


which I think was most open to criticism was taken by this parliamentary assistant on Thursday evening, the second day the committee had been considering this bill. Just a few minutes before eleven, he rose in the committee and made this motion. I am quoting now from the proceedings of that evening:


Ralph Maybank: Mr. Chairman, X wish to move that at the next sitting of this committee we shall commence to consider the bill, clause by clause-and that is the end of the motion.
He continued as follows:
That is to say that at the conclusion of the sitting of the moment we will not proceed any further with the taking of evidence. It is not my intention to express any argument with regard to these things-I feel there may be other people who will wish to argue about them. My own view is that we have had a masterly presentation of triviality long enough.
That was after we had only partially heard the evidence of Mr. Dixon, who is to be president of this Alberta Natural Gas Company. The day before we had started hearing the evidence of Mr. Connolly, the solicitor for the applicants, when on a motion by the member for Cariboo which was supported by all the government members on the committee-


Mr. Goode:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has just made a statement to this house which I am sure he will want to correct.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, the member for Burnaby-Richmond voted with us. The motion was forced through, and it had the effect of stopping the cross-examination of Mr. Connolly. We had to go on with the evidence of Mr. Dixon. Then the second day, when we were only partially through with the cross-examination of Mr. Dixon, this motion that there could be no cross-examination of witnesses the following day was brought in by the parliamentary assistant. The motion was introduced just before the committee was to adjourn at eleven o'clock. Finally, an additional hour on Friday morning was granted, during which we could crossexamine Mr. Dixon. The effect of all this was that the cross-examination of Mr. Dixon was not completed. Members who had wished to question him were unable to do so. We were unable to question Mr. Connolly further, and no .other witnesses could be called. In effect, this was a closure plan initiated in that committee by this parliamentary assistant.
If he was speaking1 for the government, and I believe he was, then that is one matter, and the government must accept responsibility for this procedure which, Mr. Chairman, can only be described as high-handed

and unparliamentary. On the other hand, if he was not acting for the government, then the Prime Minister should call for his resignation.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Prime Minister will do no such thing, Mr. Chairman.


Howard Charles Green: The Prime Minister has done exactly what I expected him to do, just the same as he lost his temper ten days ago when this question was before the house.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There are occasions when the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra does things over which almost anyone would lose his temper if he took him at all seriously.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: The trained seals again.


Howard Charles Green: Before this is over, I expect the Prime Minister will be challenging me to another duel as he did the other day.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon, member is as serious as usual. He knows that this is absolutely farcical. '


Howard Charles Green: That is the whole point; this issue is deadly serious for the people of British Columbia, and it is too bad that the Prime Minister continues to evade his responsibility with regard to the issue.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have already told the hon. member I will not evade anything he can suggest, unless he does make the ridiculous suggestion of the duel; but if there is anything else he can suggest, any other form of contest, I shall be quite prepared to meet him * at any time. .


Howard Charles Green: Some day we may be able to arrange this contest, Mr. Chairman. I repeat, whether or not the Prime Minister takes it seriously, the actions of this parliamentary assistant were such that the Prime Minister should call for his resignation. There is no reason why, in this parliament, the opposition should be subjected to petty tyranny of the kind that was practised in that committee' on railways, canals and telegraph lines. This is just another illustration of the frame of mind into which this government has fallen, the frame of mind that Canada js now a one-party state.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I should like to ask the hon. member to speak to clause 1 of the bill.


Mr. Pouliol:: You ark the contrary evidence.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to say one word about another member, Mr. Chairman. While he was not a member of the committee, the member for Vancouver Centre was a busy beaver in the sittings of that committee. I
Alberta Natural Gas Company think his position is open to question. A year ago he was one of the applicants for incorporation of the Alberta Natural Gas Company, and his name appeared on the bill. He and the parliamentary assistant were the two men trying to force this bill through the committee. Personally, I do not see how his actions in this regard can be squared with his responsibility as the member for Vancouver Centre. However, that is his responsibility. The feeling in his riding is entirely the other way, but he must decide what his attitude is to be. I particularly draw it to the attention of the house, because I do not think it is a proper attitude, under these conditions, for a member of this house to take.
The actions of one other supporter of the government should be kept in mind in connection with the consideration of this bill, and they are the actions of the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. Less than a month ago the minister wrote a letter to the Vancouver city council about this pipe line. The council had unanimously passed a resolution -there are Liberals as well as Conservatives on that council, in fact, more Liberals than Conservatives-on March 27 which read as follows:
That the city council advise the federal government of its opinion that the routing of a gas pipe line through British Columbia is imperative for the industrial development of the regional area through Vancouver.
In reply to a letter containing that resolution, the Minister of Trade and Commerce wrote a letter containing this paragraph:
While it is alleged that the Alberta Natural Gas Company, if incorporated, proposes to build a pipe line through the United States, this is not the information that the company has given to me.
Hon. members will notice that he refers only to the Alberta Natural Gas Company, which obviously has been his favourite throughout this row. I continue quoting from the letter:
My information is that the new company is proposing to build this line through all-Canadian territory and to serve all Vancouver points before taking the line into the United States.
Now, that is a startling statement, and if the Minister of Trade and Commerce would rise in his place and say that is government policy, or if the Prime Minister would do that, then there would be no further opposition to either this bill or the one to incorporate Prairie Transmission Lines Limited.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What was the date of that letter?


Howard Charles Green: This letter was dated April 4, 1950. In the committee we had the opportunity, or I had the opportunity, of crossexamining Mr. Dixon who, as I said before,

Alberta Natural Gas Company is to be the president of this company and is also the president of the parent company known as the Northwest Natural Gas Company. I asked him this question:
Will you give any pledge to this committee that your company, if it is incorporated, will build the Canada-first line, build a main line through Canada to the west coast?
A. No.
And it was, not said with any hesitation by Mr. Dixon. I continued:
Q. Mr. Dixon, that is clear-cut and we are glad to have that statement but I ask you if in your talks with the Right Hon. Mr. Howe, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that is the stand you have taken?
A. Just exactly; I have not said anything to Mr. Howe I have not said to you.
Q. Mr. Howe wrote a letter to the Vancouver city council on April 4 of this year, in which he said:
And then I quoted the paragraph above and continued:
Now, you dispute that, the terms of that letter by Mr. Howe?
A. I told him just what I told you, that we had the five routes, that we would1 build any line we would be permitted to build; that the board of transport commissioners told us that we would be permitted to build. If the board of transport commissioners tells us to build the all-Canadian route that will be the line that will be built.
Of course that is an entirely different story from the story given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the city of Vancouver.
Q. Did you assure Mr. Howe that you were going to build an all-Canadian route?
A. I wish we could have assured him that we were going to build any line.
Q. So you did not assure him you were going to build an all-Canadian route?
A. Well, we said we would build an all-Canadian route if the board of transport commissioners selected it. He was perfectly correct in his statement.
Q. If you were ordered.
A. If we were ordered.
That shows that either the one or the other of these men was making misrepresentations. I am afraid there is not any doubt that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, throughout that paragraph in that letter to the city council of Vancouver, was setting out or making statements which were not in accordance with the facts.
In considering this bill in committee of the whole house, now that it is back from the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, I suggest that we should bear in mind the fact of this action, which appears to have been one of misrepresentation in so far as the statements made to the city of Vancouver were concerned.
There is one other fact I wish to bring out in connection with this first clause of the bill and it is this. This clause lists the applicants for incorporation. Before the bill went .to the committee on railways, canals and

telegraph lines, I said that the spider in this web was Morgan, Stanley and Company of New York; that they were the power behind the throne, that they were the people financing this whole plan and that they in effect had and would have control of the company.
I would point out that we were able to find out in the committee that one of the applicants for incorporation, Mr. Cortelyou Ladd Simonson of the city of New York in the state of New York, investment banker, is actually one of the partners of Morgan, Stanley and Company. He is the only representative of a financial house who is listed among the applicants for incorporation and he is to sit on this board representing that financial house.
I will have something further to say with regard to this set-up as we proceed with the discussion, but the fact was made clear by Mr. Dixon in the committee that Mr. Simonson is a partner of Morgan, Stanley and Company and that he is to sit on the board of this new company representing that financial house.


George Prudham: For many months past we have listened to hour upon hour of talk about the Alberta pipe lines. I did not previously have anything to say because I did not want to be a party to a filibuster which in effect was, in my opinion, designed to create a monopoly for one company which was fortunate enough to have been granted a charter by a previous parliament. That pipe line company was given a charter to build gas pipe lines within and without Canada. In justice, this parliament cannot do otherwise than grant the same privilege to the more recent applicants.
Although a great deal of the time of this house was wasted during the time allotted to private bills for the last several months, I would not say that the time was entirely wasted because many good arguments were advanced to prove that Canadian needs should be served first. I believe that everyone in this house is of the opinion that Canadian needs should be served first. Coming from Alberta, and from Edmonton which is the centre of the new oil and gas development, I am greatly concerned about the disposition of our immense resources. I have lived in Alberta for the last twenty years. Many times during that interval I have been prompted to think that many people look upon Alberta as a good place in which to sell farm machinery and other manufactured products, to sell life insurance and to lend money at high rates of interest, with little thought for the welfare of that part of the country. Alberta has been discriminated against for years, in my opinion, by adverse

freight rates. Alberta is at the apex of the freight rates structure. These comparative high freight rates have always been a deterrent to the development of Alberta. Now, by a turn of good fortune, great natural resources have been discovered, the great natural resources of gas and oil, and they are now being developed. These resources are being developed by private enterprise. Many local and foreign companies are now engaged in the fascinating search for oil. A potential billion barrels of oil have now been proven and at the present rate of exploration it is expected that by 1951 two billion barrels of potential oil production will have been proven. That is enough to serve Canada's needs for the next twenty years. Potential gas reserves are now measured not by millions but by trillions of cubic feet.
Alberta, and especially Edmonton, is the most talked of district on the continent. These great resources of oil and gas have been placed there by Providence, and the people of Alberta cannot take any special credit for them. Indeed it is fortunate that we have a measure of control over these resources.
The province of Alberta also has about one-twentieth of the world's known coal reserves. These coal reserves are as yet only partially developed. My information, however, is that 10,000 people in Alberta depend directly on the coal industry for their livelihood. This coal is marketed largely outside our province. When the Alberta government is considering the granting of permits for the export of gas, I hope that they carefully consider the effect of the export of this gas on our markets for Alberta coal.
The people of the lower mainland of British Columbia are extremely anxious to get Alberta gas. Pipe lines to convey that gas to the Pacific coast and elsewhere will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It is my opinion that governments and industry should carefully consider the advisability of establishing industries in Alberta at the source of the cheap power rather than spending millions of dollars on expensive pipe lines to serve industries in other parts of Canada and the United States.
Especially with the constant threat of a third world war, both this country and the United States should plan to disperse heavy industry so that our continent cannot be knocked out by a surprise attack on the heavily concentrated industrial areas of the east and west.
If we can believe press reports, Russia long ago recognized the value of this strategy and began to establish industries deep in the interior-away from the reach of potential 55946-1311
Alberta Natural Gas Company invaders. Our own country and the United States, in my opinion, would be well advised to do the same.
Where in Canada have we a better place to establish branch factories and new industries than in Alberta? That province is protected on the west by the Rocky mountains and on the north by strong United States defences and the wastes of the Arctic. However, despite the fact that Alberta has been fortunate enough to fall heir to a measure of control over these great resources, we must share these resources with the rest of Canada, and with the United States, with our Canadian neighbours first, and secondly with our United States neighbours, and only after Alberta's needs and Canadian needs are adequately protected.
During the past week a committee of this house heard evidence from experts representing companies desiring charters to construct pipe lines for Alberta gas to our own Pacific coast and to the United States northwest. The people of Vancouver and the lower mainland are exceedingly anxious to be served by these pipe lines, before any surplus is exported to the United States. I think that we are all agreed that this is highly desirable. The company which has already received the charter has explored different routes and has now unofficially stated that they favour the building of a pipe line through the Yellowhead pass to the Pacific coast, with extensions to the United States northwest and to the south. Other companies, who are seeking charters, have indicated several proposed routes mostly in United States territory, with one proposed Canadian route, which parallels the international boundary line. Neither of the new companies now seeking a charter has yet made a survey of the Yellowhead pass, but both companies have indicated that they will do so before applying for licence from the Alberta government and the board of transport commissioners.
Evidence given would indicate that the United States routes for the pipe line are somewhat cheaper to construct but by following those routes United States cities will be served by the pipe line first with Vancouver and the lower mainland on the end of the line. From the evidence presented, the Yellowhead route is approximately the same length from the gas fields of the Edmonton district to Vancouver, as the alternate route in the south of the province is from the southern fields of Alberta. The Yellowhead route has many advantages over the southern route. Some of the advantages of this pass are that it is well within Canadian territory and there would be no international complications until the needs of our Canadian Pacific

Alberta Natural Gas Company coast have been served. The Yellowhead pass is the most accessible pass in the Canadian Rockies. It is the pass used by the Canadian National Railways. On that route are beautiful Jasper Park, Mount Robson, Kamloops and populous Fraser valley. That route taps the great oil and gas fields of the Edmonton district. It is midway in central Alberta. It will be accessible and within reasonable distance from the potential gas and oil fields of the Peace river country. Any gas line that is built to the Pacific coast or southward will have to depend on a grid collection system, connecting all Alberta gas fields. This route has the advantage of connecting to this grid system about midway of the proven and potential gas-producing areas.
Evidence given by an expert representing one company seeking a charter last week was to the effect that a railway paralleling the gas line would contribute to cheaper construction cost, and also that a highway paralleling the gas line would greatly reduce costs. Evidence was also given that the pipe line must be served by an all-year highway of some kind, for construction as well as year-round maintenance.
The Yellowhead route has comparatively light snowfall and although a highway has not been built through that pass, there is a trail which has been used by automobiles which could be developed into a first-class highway cheaper than any other pass through mountains. The people of central and northern Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are very anxious to have an all-weather road to the Pacific coast. The construction of a gas line through this pass would of necessity require a highway which would serve the people of the prairie provinces and make possible a year-round highway for access to the Pacific coast.
I am very doubtful if year-round traffic will be possible over the other highway routes which are now contemplated through the mountains. Even though the cost of a pipe line through the Yellowhead pass should be proven higher than a pipe line on United States soil, we must weigh carefully the advantages of the all-Canadian route. One reason these advantages cannot be overlooked is the fact that, if and when the great cities of the United States northwest are served by Alberta gas, a highway paralleling a gas line from Canada will have a great attraction to tourists.
The Yellowhead route would bring United States tourists a long way into Canada. The further they come into Canada the more United States dollars they spend in Canada. I am convinced that a highway paralleling a gas line throughout the Yellowhead pass


would soon earn enough tourist revenue to offset any difference in original cost. The Yellowhead route has the additional tourist attraction of our string of national parks, which would then be accessible, Mount Robson, Jasper, Banff, Elk Island, Prince Albert national park and Riding Mountain national park in Manitoba.
The construction cost of the pipe line through this route should be less when accompanied by a highway. The cost of the construction of a highway should be less because of the construction of a pipe line. Both of these projects would be aided by the fact that the railway parallels the route. If the people of the Pacific coast really want Alberta gas before it is exported to the United States, I am surprised that they did not give these possibilities and advantages more consideration when locating the British Columbia section of the trans-Canada highway. Evidence produced shows that it would be rather difficult to serve Trail and certain towns in the southern interior of British Columbia by the Yellowhead route. My opinion is that, if and when the Alberta reserves of gas warrant extensive export to the United States, a return pipe-line loop should be built-possibly through United States territory-connecting with the southern end of the Alberta grid system.
This would be an insurance against interruption of service for all users, which would have a tendency to greatly increase the volume of sales. In the early days of gas service in Edmonton, when the city was depending on one line, the service was interrupted by breaks with disastrous results in cold weather which discouraged people from converting from coal to gas for many years, until duplicate lines were installed and confidence restored.
I know the argument will be used that connecting the southern loop of this system would cost money. I am sure that industries and domestic users would be willing to pay more for their gas to be adequately insured against interruptions of service.
If and when this becomes an accomplished fact, the people of Trail and southern British Columbia can be served by stub lines. The committee was told by certain witnesses that the city of Trail has a potential market for almost as much gas as Vancouver. However, the evidence was also given that if Trail is served by gas the gas will largely replace fuel oil. Alberta has a surplus of oil for which we must find markets. Why be in a hurry to destroy our markets for oil?
Mr. Chairman, many speakers argue that, although one company has already received

a charter to build pipe lines within and without Canada without restriction, we should not perpetuate that mistake by granting the same privilege to others.
The Alberta government has a measure of control over the export of gas, as also have the board of transport commissioners and the Department of Trade and Commerce. I am sure that Canadian interests will be well protected, and besides these controls which are vested in our governments and government corporations there is in my opinion an overwhelming public opinion which demands that our Canadian needs be met first.
During the last month it has been rather puzzling to me to understand why the Progressive Conservative party, who are the so-called proponents of private enterprise, have been party to a filibuster which would create a monopoly for one company, and also that the C.C.F., who are supposedly in favour of public enterprise, have given their support to a filibuster which, if successful, would create a monopoly for that private company.
I am supporting this bill because I do not believe parliament should be a party to creating a monopoly for one company.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few remarks on section 1 of this bill to incorporate Alberta Natural Gas Company. I might say before proceeding that this debate occurs on a date replete with historical significance. I think this day might be termed British Columbia's May day protest day. I do not offer any apology for continuing to protest concerning this and other bills, until they are amended so that, whichever company gets the charter, we will have an allCanadian route to Vancouver, from one direction or the other.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra nearly thirty-six years ago stood side by side with me facing a common enemy who was determined, if he could, to impose his will upon us. Today we stand side by side facing opponents who are determined to impose their will upon us if they can, and to impose their will upon the great majority of the people in British Columbia. Thirty-six years ago, Mr. Chairman, we won our objective. I am of the opinion that today, or in the days to come, so far as this bill is concerned-or these other bills-history will repeat itself. In fact, I am firmly convinced of that because, in the first instance, we were standing for democratic principles, and in this instance we represent the majority of opinions and views of the people of British Columbia.
As a member of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-and I think in future it will possibly add pipe lines-I wish
Alberta Natural Gas Company to support the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra with respect to the manner of carrying on, shall I say, the business of that committee. During the lengthy debate that has occurred in recent months in connection with these pipe line bills we have been told repeatedly by members on the government side of the house that we should cease carrying on debate and should allow the bills to go to committee, and that in committee we could ask any questions we wished.
I recall that, from previous experience, I had always found when we got a bill into committee we were on the skids-and we jolly soon found we were on the skids when we got into that committee. I think the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, when he objected to the, shall I say, impropriety of the sponsor of the bill being a member of the committee, were quite correct. His opposition was correctly taken, and I support him in it. I am of opinion that no fair member of the committee who has time to look at the question in an objective way could say that the sponsor of the bill acted according to democratic principles in that committee.
I would say without doubt, and I think that privately at least some government members on the committee would support me, that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre dominated that committee, and as sponsor of the bill steered the action of the committee through the majority behind him. I take strong exception to that, and support the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in that respect.
The committee had sat only a few hours when there was a mention of saving time. The first witness, Mr. Connolly, was asked to be allowed to stand down so that Mr. Dixon could be questioned, because it was thought that that would save time. We have the evidence of the technical expert-and I must give credit to Mr. Dixon as an excellent witness; I am not blaming the representatives of the natural gas company before the committee at all, for anything. They were courteous and answered the questions very well indeed.
It was suggested however that we ask Mr. Dixon the questions first so as to save duplication, and the assurance was given the committee that if members wished to ask Mr. Connolly the questions later, he would be recalled to the stand. In that instance the promise was not carried out. Mr. Dixon was questioned and, when the questioning was completed so far as Mr. Dixon was concerned, several members of the committee

Alberta Natural Gas Company who had waited two days for an opportunity to question Mr. Connolly on legal matters were denied their opportunity.
On Thursday the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, moved what was in effect a motion of closure, to shorten the questioning of the witnesses. That closure motion was carried, because of the majority on the committee behind the sponsor of the bill. As a result of that motion carrying, several members on the committee did not have the opportunity to ask either Mr. Dixon or- Mr. Connolly important questions they had wished to ask.
I put it to the committee this way:	these
bills represent an investment in Canadian natural resources to the extent of between $75 million and $100 million, before the projects are completed. This committee of the House of Commons, dealing with a subject that may affect the whole course of the development of British Columbia for generations to come, because of the government majority thereon, was permitted to spend not more than twelve hours discussing the bill and asking questions on an important matter representing an investment of from $75 million to $100 million in Canadian natural resources. I ask the house to look at this matter in all fairness, and particularly members from eastern Canada who may be under the impression that we are carrying on a filibuster out of pure cussedness, shall I say. We are trying to present the point of view of the people of British Columbia. The members of the committee who are presenting that point of view are firmly of the opinion that we did not have an opportunity to perform our duties properly in the committee because of the government majority supporting the tactics of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, the sponsor of the bill.
I oppose the bill on several grounds. I am not going to go into all of them tonight. I oppose it first of all, and I have no hesitation in doing so, on the basis of the principle that I believe the use of Canadian natural resources should be first assured to the Canadian people. I think that is a reasonable proposition and one that members of all parties should support. From the evidence given to the committee I am quite convinced that the use of these Canadian natural resources has not been assured to Canadian people first. For instance, when Mr. Dixon, the very capable engineer representing this company, was questioned as to the amount allocated to the large city of Vancouver, he replied in effect that the amount being allocated was less than the present domestic use of gas in the city of Calgary. No one can say that is an adequate provision for Canadian
[Mr. Herridge.l

requirements in the city of Vancouver, and without any possibility of expansion in the future. The gentleman in question said that the pipe line program was being designed to operate in the first five years at about 75 per cent capacity. Therefore on that basis if the people of Vancouver are going to have less gas than the city of Calgary is using at the present time for domestic purposes, and are then going to get some proportion of the remaining 25 per cent that it is expected will be developed, you can see that the final provision for the city of Vancouver is not more than the present use in the city of Calgary.


Mr. Blackmore:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly.


John Horne Blackmore: What reason did Mr. Dixon give for the estimate that Vancouver would only receive so small an amount of gas? There is enough gas, is there not? What is he intending to do with all the gas available if Vancouver is not to obtain its share?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I cannot remember the exact reason given at the time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No reason was given.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not remember the reason. I was going to say that quite an unusual procedure was followed in connection with these measures. Members of the committee had their first meeting on Tuesday, the 25th of April last, and this is Monday, May 1. To date we have only had the printed evidence of the first meeting of the committee and that has to do with the C.P.R. bill. We have not had an opportunity to study the evidence as to the measure now before us and to be quite certain of the answers to questions. I think we should have had that evidence on this most important matter if we want to be fair. I do not want to be unfair to Mr. Dixon, Mr. Connolly, or any member of the committee. Therefore I am not able to say exactly what answer was given, because I do not remember it. Generally speaking, however, I remember that Canada was to receive about 25 per cent of the total gas to be carried through the pipe line.


Howard Charles Green: Twenty per cent.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Twenty per cent of the total amount of gas going through the pipe line, and 80 per cent was to go to the United States. Only yesterday I was reading of the measures that are being taken in the United States to conserve natural gas because they believe that in from 25 to 30 years the supply of natural gas in a number of areas in that country will be exhausted. We must realize

what an Important part we are playing in the industrial development not only of British Columbia but of all Canada when we realize that possibly the greatest reserves of natural gas on the North American continent are in western Canada. Yet here we are at the present time failing to provide for the needs of Canada now and in the future.
When Mr. Dixon gave his evidence to the committee he brought to their attention five routes and provided the committee with a plan of what is known as route A, which is an all-Canadian route proceeding just north of the international boundary from Pincher Creek in Alberta, where the grid system ends, to Vancouver on the Pacific coast.. Then there was route B, which enters the United States; route C, which provides for a loop into the United States between Kingsgate and Trail; route D, which is partially in the United States and partially in Canada; and route E, which also provides another loop into the United States, the remainder of the line being in Canada.
In listening carefully to the evidence I was struck by this point. I am firmly convinced, and I think other members of the committee are, that the promoters of this company were considerably influenced by the debate in this house. I am firmly of the opinion that in the original instance the United States route was the only one being considered. I think all the plans were drafted with that in mind. My impression from listening to the evidence is that exact, close and careful calculations had all taken place in connection with route B, the United States route. That is the one that the company had in mind to build. As a result of the opposition expressed by members of parliament to a partly United States route, and the obvious opposition expressed in the legislature of British Columbia, by newspapers and public bodies of all types, I believe the promoters of the company said something like this: Well now, we will have to go through the motions; we will have to provide five routes to present to these people and we will tell them that we will buld the route we are ordered to build.
I am not convinced, Mr. Chairman, that the situation is what it appears to be on the surface. I had a very strong feeling, and I think other members of the committee also had it, that the company was going through the motions of presenting five routes and then saying: We will build the route that the board of transport commissioners orders us to build. I am of the opinion that when the board of transport commissioners come to deal with a matter of this importance they should not only accept evidence presented
Alberta Natural Gas Company by engineers of this or other companies. This question is big enough for this government to have some check made by its own engineers. I can well understand that before the transport board these other gentlemen naturally will want to support their case, and they will give evidence that will make it appear that the poor consumer in Vancouver is going to suffer if we have an all-Canadian route. They will make sure the costs appear high, naturally. They will not balance one factor against another.
In committee we were told that the cost to the consumers in Vancouver might be increased by from $750,000 to $1 million a year if an all-Canadian route were followed. When you deal with a figure like that you should know the number of people who are going to use gas, and you should weigh the other factors that are going to benefit Canada, such as the large maintenance staff, the extra taxes that will be paid to both the provincial and federal governments, and so on. Then we in the committee felt there should be some regulatory power. This company is obtaining a federal charter, and the public utilities commission of British Columbia cannot regulate its tariffs and tolls. I believe all members of the committee in opposition to these bills believed we should have some federal regulation which would make certain that the consumers of British Columbia got their gas at a reasonable and proper cost; and I am quite sure those members of the committee who take the point of view I am expressing tonight will agree that no figures were presented with respect to the cost of any route, or as to the cost to the consumer in Vancouver, which would indicate that by proper management and proper government action we could not have an allCanadian route which would supply gas to the coastal area at reasonable and proper rates.
I was also impressed with the fact that the plans of this company were based on a United States route, leaving Canada at Kingsgate, rather than an all-Canadian route. Another point struck me in connection with the correspondence that was read during Mr. Dixon's evidence. He produced letters to show that the company intended to purchase Canadian material, steel and other products. There was one letter from a steel company in Canada replying to a letter from the pipe line company asking if the steel company could provide steel for four hundred miles of pipe. They replied giving a general quotation per ton. The point I make in that respect is that the fact the pipe line company asked for a bid on four hundred miles of pipe indicated to me that this steel was required for the pipe necessary to carry the line from Alberta

Alberta Natural Gas Company to Kingsgate. That to me makes it plain that their plans were based on the United States route. In addition I noticed that all those letters were of recent date, late March, early April, late April. They had been gathered together quickly, to show us that these people were really interested in Canada, and that they were going .to buy all these materials here. None of the letters had been written last session. These people put on a very good show of giving us an opportunity to choose one of five routes, and in trying to convince us that naturally they were going to buy Canadian materials and, if so ordered, would build the route in Canada.
I am still opposed to these bills unless they are amended. I want to quote the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in reply to questions asked by the hon. member for Yorkton and the hon. member for Fraser Valley, to show the lack of definition and, shall 1 say, the doubt in our minds. At page 791 of Hansard for March 16, 1950, I find this:


Mr. A. C. Stewart (Yorkton):: I should like to
direct the following questions to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Have any representations been made to him by the C.C.F. government of Saskatchewan with regard to protecting Saskatchewan so far as export of oil and gas from Alberta is concerned? What is the policy of the minister with regard to the granting of permits for pipe lines from Alberta to the United States?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The answer to the first question is
that I have no knowledge of any representations from the province of Saskatchewan in that connection. In answer to the second question I would say that I spoke on this subject at the last session of parliament, and pointed out that the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act is designed to protect Canadian consumers. It is necessary under the act for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to give a certificate to the effect that the present and foreseeable future needs of Canada are protected before any exports of electricity or gas are permitted. It has been suggested frequently in the current debate that gas will be sent to the United States from the pipe line before the pipe line reaches Vancouver. I stated last session that that would not be permitted. I know from discussions with the sponsors of the pipe line that it is not proposed to undertake any such export.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley was not present at the time the question was asked, and wanted the matter clarified. So on March 17, at page 850 of Hansard, he asked this question:
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I was not in the house yesterday when the orders of the day were called, but I note that the minister is reported on page 792 of Hansard as having said:
"It has been suggested frequently in the current debate that gas will be sent to the United States from the pipe line before the pipe line reaches Vancouver. I stated last session that that would not be permitted. I know from discussions with the sponsors of the pipe line that it is not proposed to undertake any such export."

Am I to understand from that statement that no export permit will be granted other than through an all-Canadian route?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Several members of the house have
given information that they obtained from the principals behind the bill, and I have given information that I obtained from the principals behind the bill. I might say that I cannot understand the unnatural fear that certain hon. members have of letting these men come before a committee of the house where members of the house could find out what they intend to do.


Mr. Cruickshank:: I take it the minister is not
going to answer my question. Is that correct?
We must bear in mind those statements together with the letter read this evening by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, written by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the clerk of the corporation of Vancouver, in which it was emphatically stated that the sponsors of the bill had assured the minister that the line was to proceed on Canadian soil, or words to that effect. In view of those apparently definite statements and in view of the answers given by Mr. Dixon on behalf of the company, as outlined by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, would any average person say we were unreasonable in doubting that in reality one of five or six routes is going to be chosen and that all these routes are being treated on an absolutely equal basis at the present time? The members of the committee who are in opposition to these bills are definitely of the opinion that certain interests are very much in favour of that route going through the United States; and we are also of the opinion that the examination before the committee and the proceedings of the committee were just a form of going through the motions. Because we believe that and because we are determined to do the best we can to protect the rights of the people of British Columbia, as well as the rights of the Canadian people, we are determined to oppose these bills, unless they are amended so that those rights are protected now and in the future.


Mr. Sinclair:: I should like to say a few words on this bill at this time. In view of the fact that I am a parliamentary assistant, I should state that I am not speaking either for or against the government, but I am speaking as the member for Coast-Capilano on a private bill. I have only spoken once in two years in this pipe-line debate, because I did not want it inferred in any way that I was taking part in what certainly appeared to be a filibuster, since the same information was repeated again and again.
When I spoke a year ago, I said that I would vote for these bills on second reading so that we could have the actual facts obtained before the standing committee, not

secondhand facts through members of this house who were in favour of or opposed to these bills. I wanted the facts obtained from professional men who had the technical qualifications to be listened to with respect, with regard to both the supply of gas and the feasibility of a Canadian route. Almost everyone who has spoken in the house has given some sort of lip service to an all-Canadian route, the only question being whether or not such a route is economically feasible. I must say that having finally got these bills to this committee, I was extremely disappointed in its proceedings. I was not a member of the committee, but I would have liked to be. For part of the time I was busy on budget matters, but I did attend committee meetings as often as I could, as members who were there will recall. I also followed the proceedings of the committee in the press.
It was my hope that some accurate technical information would be obtained from people other than those putting forward their own case for acquisition of a charter. I was hoping especially that someone would have called the employee of this government who is the greatest expert on oil and gas in Canada, Dr. Hume of the geological survey branch. A year ago I attended a convention of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy in Vancouver, that is the professional body of the mining men and geologists in Canada. The second day of the convention was given over to a discussion of Alberta oil. All the geologists of the large oil companies and other experts were there, but Dr. Hume was chosen as the keynote speaker. In that gathering of men he was introduced as the man who knew most about gas and oil in Canada. It is a great pity that the committee did not have the benefit . of Dr. Hume's opinions as they were expressed that day as to the tremendous amount of gas which was available, and other factors in connection with gas and oil development.
I was sorry, too, that the original pipeline company, the Westcoast Transmission Company, who at various times have alleged that an all-Canadian route is economically feasible, were not called back before that committee to refute the evidence of those two other companies who put forward their plea. According to the two companies the all-Canadian route, while perhaps physically possible, was not economically practical. There are two or three quite obvious reasons why we should not perhaps worry about the arguments put forward by these other two companies to show that such a route is impractical. To begin with the engineering point of view, a railroad, a road, and a pipe Line are difficult to build in that order. A railroad, of course, with its gradual curves
Alberta Natural Gas Company and grades, is a most difficult engineering feat. A road, with its sharper curves and sharper grades, is less difficult, and a pipe line can be built almost anywhere, since the grades and curves are not of the same importance and little right of way is needed.
Across British Columbia, which has been described again and again as a wilderness of mountains, we have today three transcontinental rail lines, and two main road systems. No insurmountable difficulty has been found in building those, and it is a much more difficult engineering feat to take them through these mountains than a pipe line.
Then, this question of cost was raised by Mr. Dixon. He said that the Canadian route along southern British Columbia through the Crowsnest pass was feasible from the engineering point of view, but it would cost $17 million more. He just picked that figure out of the air, and there was no substantiation given for it. He tried to leave the impression that the mountains of British Columbia suddenly stop at the international boundary, and that Washington is one great plain south of the boundary across which construction would be easy. He actually used that expression, "crossing the great plain of central Washington". Hon. members have crossed Washington in their cars, and know that there is no great plain in the centre of Washington. The same mountain ranges that traverse British Columbia also cut across Washington. As a matter of fact, two out of the three passes in Washington are higher than the passes on the Canadian side.
Then this man went on to say that this $17 million would result in an extra cost of about a million dollars a year to the consumer in Vancouver. I also heard him give evidence to the effect that Vancouver would take only one-sixth of the gas. An extra million for one-sixth means an extra six million to be paid to finance an extra capital investment of $17 million. These figures make it easy to understand their eagerness to get into this pipe line business, when you can get an annual return of $6 million on a capital investment of $17 million.
I must confess that throughout this pipe line debate, right from the time it entered the house first, my greatest disappointment has been the attitude of the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways. My colleague the member for Comox-Alberni mentioned this a year ago when he voted against a pipe line bill. These two companies, after all, are the backbone of the transportation industry in Canada. They are in rail transportation, in air transportation, in deep sea and coastal shipping, and today they are even in the truck and bus transportation business. The
2068	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company best business these two companies have ever enjoyed out of Edmonton has been the transportation of oil in the last two or three years, yet they stand idly aside and see this transportation business taken from them by these American firms. To me, it is an amazing situation. These railways have the transportation know-how; they have the rights of way; they have the bridges and tunnels which could easily carry these lines. The same section crews that maintain a railway could easily maintain the pipe line right of way, yet these companies have decided to stand idly by. I do not think the Canadian Pacific would have stood aside in the days of Shaughnessy, Smith, Van Horne. If they had applied for charters, we would not be worrying about an all-Canadian route across this country, or expressing concern about developing Canada in the Canadian pattern for they were Canadians interested in developing Canada. If that view had been adopted at the time the Canadian Pacific railway was built, we would not have this railroad across Canada today. It would have been more economical to take our wheat from Manitoba south to the American lines which were already built, and then across to the seaboard in that manner. It was because the government of that day thought it was in the interest of Canada to have a Canadian route that the Canadian Pacific was built across this barren land in northern Ontario to maintain and help Canadian development, even though the cost was far greater than building a route through to the United States.
A week or ten days ago the Minister of Resources and Development announced with pride that six of the provinces had signed an agreement which would bring the trans-Canada highway a step closer to reality. We are going to spend $300 million on the building of that highway. When I say "we", I mean the people of Canada, federally and provincially, are going to spend $300 million to have this Canadian route across the country. If the argument of some of these pipe line companies were to be heeded, it would be much cheaper for the people of Canada to continue taking their cars down to the United States, crossing the United States, and then going back up to Vancouver rather than spend $300 million on this road. We decided, however, to have proper road facilities across the country as a factor in Canadian development.
I should like to use another example. Suppose that this gas, instead of being in Alberta, were in Montana, and the problem were the same, to get the gas down to Vancouver, Portland, Seattle and Tacoma, where the market is. Is anyone in this house so


naive as to think that, under any circumstances, the people of the United States, even if it were half the cost to build through Canada, would loop a line up into Alberta and through British Columbia in that way? National pride and national development would insist that they build the line in the United States if they possibly could. That is exactly what they would do. We have already seen an example of that in the state of Washington just to the south of our province where President Roosevelt and the administrations both before him and since him have poured countless millions into the development of that area in order to give them power, the cheapest hydro power in the world out of the greatest hydro development in the world, Grand Coulee dam. That development of cheap power in that country has made that country bloom and blossom. They have the cheapest power in America and have built industry and agriculture on that power. If to that cheap power is now added cheap gas, our province of British Columbia which, after all, is their natural competitor, will certainly lag far behind. They may have cheap power, but we should have the full benefit of this cheap gas, which is a Canadian resource.
Some of the eastern members think this is a feud between the Conservatives, the C.C.F. and the government, although this is a private bill. Let me give hon. members from Ontario an illustration which may help them understand the real position. Suppose gas were found at Windsor and that it was decided to be desirable to get it to Toronto for industrial use in that area. How many Ontario members would there be who would think the route should be built the American way, south of Lake Erie? Even if the route to the south of Lake Erie, through the states and up to Toronto, was a little bit cheaper, how many Ontario members would think the route should be built in that way? You would naturally demand to have developed within Canada this Canadian resource, with of course the obvious addendum that if we had a surplus, then it should be exported to the United States.
The most significant thing, however, in Mr. Dixon's evidence was this. I think we can all dismiss the other company which I noticed in the papers was described as an also-ran. As I say, the most significant thing was the fact that although Mr. Dixon mentioned in an offhand way the southern Canadian routes, and described how economically impossible they were, he said his company had never surveyed what any engineer, looking back in railway history, would have said was the most obvious route, the

Yellowhead route. He said he had been through there on the train. He did promise the hon. member for Edmonton West that they would make another survey before they applied to the board of transport commissioners, which would involve buying another train ticket, a ticket from Edmonton to Vancouver.
But I was greatly interested in this Yellow-head route for two reasons. First of all, the Yellowhead route will tap the centre of the present known Alberta gas fields. We have our gas fields in the south of Alberta. We have the Pincher Creek area and Medicine Hat and those fields there in the central area. We have this great new expanding field of the Edmonton area already as big as the proven southern fields, and there are further new fields going to be discovered up in the north, the Peace river district. The Yellowhead route will tap in the centre, not either at the south end or at the far north end. That seems a practical approach to the matter of getting best advantage out of all three fields.
The second thing of course is that the Yellowhead pass is the best pass through the Rocky mountains. The C.N.R. are fortunate in having that pass, as the hon. member for Edmonton West has said, and I join him in all his remarks except in his conclusion. He said that would undoubtedly be the most practical of the routes to be built. An interesting thing was that despite all these protestations of Mr. Dixon that they were interested in building a Canadian route, if economically feasible, they have never done anything serious about the Yellowhead route. I know a little bit about the Edmonton route because some months ago I made a speech in the house and I described the Westcoast Transmission Company as having deceived us because they applied for the Monkman pass through British Columbia, and when they got the bill through they ran off to the board of transport commissioners and applied for the same route that these other American companies are asking for. Shortly after this speech, I received a visit from a friend of mine who is a mining engineer, who told me that his firm had been hired by the Westcoast Transmission Company to run their survey through the Yellowhead pass. I have great faith in this man. I knew him years ago as a mining engineer. Later he was a good army engineer. He was captured at Dieppe, and as a matter of fact one of his best engineering feats was the famous escape tunnel at Oflag 4C through which he and the former member for Van-couver-Burrard escaped a few years ago. He is a Canadian, and is interested as a Canadian, not as an American promoter trying to make
Alberta Natural Gas Company as much money as he can through easy exploitation of Canada. He assures me as an engineer, whose opinion I respect, that after having done a detailed survey he believes that the Yellowhead route is practical and feasible. One other thing is that I was struck tonight by the fact that these companies, which give the assurance so easily outside the house to members that if practical they will build in Canada, are also apparently just as casual in giving assurance to cabinet ministers. But when the chips are down and assurances are to be given either in the standing committee or committees, or better by an agreed amendment to the bill, there is a strange silence on the part of the sponsors of these bills.
The next reason why I feel that there should be a Canadian route has been very well described by many of the members who have spoken before me; that is the matter of Canadian development. As to that route through British Columbia, if it does cost $17 million, which is the top figure Mr. Dixon gave, the people of Vancouver are not averse to paying an extra charge for the gas if it will help British Columbia development. They will still make great savings because the public utilities people in Vancouver have said that the cost will still be about half the cost of our present manufactured gas, and that the cost of heating by gas will be about half the cost of heating by coal.
Vancouver has never been a hogtown. Vancouver has always realized that its richness depended on the riches of the hinterland of British Columbia; that from the logging camps, the mines, farms and fisheries of British Columbia came the wealth of the city of Vancouver. For Vancouver to prosper, all British Columbia must prosper. For too long our province of British Columbia has been what I am going to describe in a phrase used by a man who I regret to see is now one of the incorporators in this bill, namely, Mr. H. R. MacMillan, a great British Columbian who has done a tremendous amount to develop British Columbia. About fifteen years ago in a speech to the Vancouver board of trade which made a great impression on me, as I am sure it did on all his listeners, he traced the retarded development of our province because for too long-and these were his words, and they were biblical words-we have been regarded as hewers of wood and drawers of water. Before the war we cut our logs up, loaded them in barges and they went to Japan, Australia or England. For a long time we did not even get the work of cutting our own logs into lumber. We loaded our ore and concentrates in boats and did the same thing, sending it to other countries for processing. In my own riding is a mine in

Alberta Natural Gas Company which I worked at one time, Britannia mine, one of the great copper mines of the world, a mine which has been in operation for over forty years. Britannia mine at times reached production of 8,500 tons a day and today still produces 4,000 tons. We have never done any more than take the ore out of the ground, mill it and ship it to the American side to Tacoma, a city which is built upon British Columbia ore, Britannia ore.
At the beginning, it was thought not economically feasible to smelt the ore in Canada. We had the lime, the coal and the copper ore, all on sea water within twenty miles of each other, but still it was said to be not feasible. But down it went to Tacoma where they also used our coal and lime, only because again it was American interests who owned the mine and who naturally were anxious to spend their money on the American side. In that forty years we could have built a smelter town in British Columbia of the size of Tacoma; but for forty years that ore has gone to Tacoma, in the same way as our logs and our pulp in the past have gone out of the country. Only in the last twenty years have we seen the beginning of secondary industry in British Columbia. Now again in these pipe line bills we see this desire to export our resources to the United States as fast as possible. That is why the British Columbia legislature, city councils and boards of trade across our province have said, "We are opposed to the granting of any franchise or any charter to a company whose announced policy is to take gas through the American route."
Finally I want to deal with this monopoly cry. The cry is that if we oppose these charters and if we vote against these charters and deny them, we will then be fastening a monopoly on the country, because we will be protecting the one charter given to the West-coast Transmission Company a year ago. That charter has not been shown to be of much use so far because the government of Alberta have refused to give it any consideration until other firms are in the field with charters.
I want to say at this point how proud I was two years ago before the railway committee to hear geologists of two of the largest companies say-and to see their remark repeated the following year at the mining convention to which I alluded earlier-that the oil and gas policy of the Alberta government today is the best on the entire continent. That is why they are refusing to deal with just one company, for after all they said they will not give gas to this one company as long as they are alone. They will only give gas when there are competitors in the field and they can pick the best of them. No monopoly
TMr. Sinclair.]

has thus been created so far when the one company with a charter cannot proceed any further because of the vision and good management of the Alberta government. The only people who are creating a monopoly are the actual sponsors of these bills. All they have to do to ensure their passage is to agree to an amendment providing a Canadian route. I do not think this parliament should foist such an amendment on them, because I think that is contrary to the spirit of a private bill. The company or individual who brings forth a private bill has that knowledge of the thing which he wants. If he cannot get that, if parliament says he is not to get that, then it turns it down. To add an amendment to it unacceptable to the sponsor is useless, because the company will not go on with it; they will let the thing lie dormant. If these pipe line companies are sincere, and if they want to end the pipe line monopoly that the Westcoast Transmission Company has, then let them come forward and give the assurance in a form which will carry weight, this assurance that they have apparently promised outside the house where it has no real weight, by amending one of the sections of this bill, of their own volition, to specify building a Canadian route. If that were to happen there would not be one member in this House of Commons who would vote against these bills. We would then have three pipe line companies with charters, and it would be for the Alberta government to choose between them as to which one they thought best fitted to carry the gas to this market in the way most beneficial both to Alberta and to the people of Canada generally.
For these reasons, on the third reading of this bill, I intend to vote against the granting of these charters, not to create a monopoly but to make these companies realize the day of the ready and quick export of the raw resources of this country is ended and we must think in terms of Canada first.


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Maclnnis:: British Columbia is falling in line. Don't carry this filibuster too far.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I had not expected to speak on this bill this evening, because I thought I had said enough in committee, but several objections have been raised as to the way in which the committee carried on its business. Personally, I felt at times that probably it would have been better if we had allowed more time for the taking of evidence. It is quite evident from the disclosures we have had here tonight that any evidence that might have been given by Mr. Dixon particularly would not have carried a great deal of weight anyway,

because it has been indicated by previous speakers that they did not consider that he had given much thought to anything that he had prepared, and that most of his figures had been refuted in some way.
I think the big mistake regarding this whole question, particularly this evening, was that the committee did not sit for the purpose of determining a route for the proposed gas pipe line. The purpose of the committee was to determine the qualifications of the company under the Pipe Lines Act, and thereby grant a charter similar to the charter that has been granted to the West-coast Transmission Company.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra indicated that it was improper for other people who were not members of the committee to be interested in the procedure.


Howard Charles Green: No. On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I did not say that. I said that it was improper for the sponsor of the bill to be a member of the committee.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra also brought in the question of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre being interested in what was taking place.


Howard Charles Green: He certainly was.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I also noted a great deal of interest taken in the proceedings by other people. I noticed that the hon. member for Fraser Valley, the sponsor of the bill that was passed last April granting a charter to the Westcoast Transmission Company, was very active in the committee room. He seemed to take a great deal of interest in the procedure, and no doubt helped in some measure in the opposition that was being carried on.
It has been indicated that in the committee we did not take sufficient time to hear all of the witnesses. Upon entering that committee the first thing I noticed was that there seemed to be a determined effort to waste time. On two occasions I rose to point out the fact that time was being wasted.
Mr. Connolly, who was solicitor for the company, on presenting his case, read a brief that he had prepared. Upon finishing the brief he indicated that the man who would have the facts-I may be unwise even to consider anything a pipe line company had as facts-was Mr. Dixon, who would be able to put us straight on almost every question that would arise. Well, it was insisted that Mr. Connolly take the stand, and he was held on the stand for some two hours, and almost every other question that was put to him was a technical question, and he could not answer them. Mr. Dixon, who sat alongside him with all the information at his fingertips, was denied the right
Alberta Natural Gas Company to answer at that time. I say that that was a definite attempt to waste considerable time, and it was done.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You had control of the committee. Why didn't you fix it as you fixed everything else?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member said that we had control of the committee. I was new on parliamentary committees, but not new on all committees. I have had some experience, and I have seen many attempts made at committee meetings to dominate the committee. I saw early that that was what was going to be done by those opposing the bill. There was a motion moved that this committee follow the usual procedure of other committees and revert to twelve members. There was considerable objection to that, and when it was voted down I heard someone to my left say: "Well, we won the first round." I could see from that there were definite attempts being made to take sides in the whole affair.
It has been indicated by the pipe lines bill and by everyone in the house that this matter of routes does not come under the bill; that we could not write into those bills what the route should be; that that would be for the board of transport commissioners to decide. The board of transport commissioners are civil servants who are paid in the neighbourhood of $10,000 a year to look after the best interests of the Canadian people. I, as a member of a democratic government and country, have absolute faith in the civil servants who are paid to look after our interests, and I do not intend even to indicate that I would take the word of a director of any pipe line company, or of any other company, as a declaration that they will look after the best interests of the Canadian people. But that is not their function. Their function is to look after the best interests of their shareholders, and that is what they are paid to do.
I personally feel that the board of transport commissioners are the ones who will determine. If it is not possible for us to get: sufficient data on it so that we can say categorically that a line must go in any one particular direction, we cannot take the place of those people who are paid to know those things and who study them completely.
It has been said in the debate that the Yellowhead route is the one to follow, and that anyone who votes for these companies which are now applying for a charter is voting against the Yellowhead route. That is not so. Mr. Dixon, who gave evidence, is I understand the president of the company. He said that he would build a pipe line where the board of transport commissioners.

Alberta Natural Gas Company or anyone else in authority in Canada, directed him to build it. That could be the Yellowhead route. I do not think the company that now has a charter has any franchise for the Yellowhead route or any other route, because I believe they have also surveyed and applied for a permit to use the noted route known as the Crowsnest-Spokane route. They have made application to follow this route, so that one can see at once that there is no franchise on any of the routes; and whichever is determined as the most suitable to Canadian needs will be the one to be built.
To vote for these bills is not to vote for a route. It is a vote for the best interests of the Canadian people. It was stated categorically in the committee that they would build an all-Canadian route if it was determined that that was the most logical and feasible of the routes. It has been brought out by the previous speaker that the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway are the logical companies to build these pipe lines. I am sure the committee on which I served would have been just as willing to grant a charter either to the C.P.R. or to the C.N.R. to build a pipe line, if such a bill had been before it.
But we were not considering a bill of that kind; it was not a bill to incorporate the C.P.R. or the C.N.R. We were simply discussing a pipe line bill, and the coihmittee was not railroading in any shape or form. It was performing its duties as best it knew how.
It was stated in committee-I said it myself-that there was considerable time wasted in the house in the last four months listening to people discussing pipe lines who knew nothing whatever about them. Those same people, in my humble opinion, wasted a lot of time in committee expressing their opinions and framing questions they knew could not be answered.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Would you care to be more particular? Who were they?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I had not intended to speak on this question tonight. I wish to assure the committee, however, that when I speak I do so to exonerate members who sat on the committee from the charge that they did not act in accordance with parliamentary procedure. I feel they did. Further, if we were to imagine that the route depended upon our decision here tonight, we would be under a misapprehension. That will not be determined. If we turned down these bills it

would not mean that the pipe line would travel through the Yellowhead route.
I asked both engineers who appeared before the committee if it was economical or feasible to supply the cities of Trail and Nelson by following the Yellowhead route. I asked both men and directed my question particularly to Mr. Dixon, who has been in the pipe line business practically all his life. His statement is on record, and I doubt very much if he would make a statement knowing it to be false. His reply was that it was impractical and most unlikely that a pipe line built through the Yellowhead route would be able to serve those places economically. That was another reason for wishing to have others incorporated, and also for taking in the southeast corner of British Columbia through the use of the Crowsnest route.
It should be well understood that in any decision we make in this matter we are not determining the route. Let me repeat that I have more confidence in our civil servants than some seem to have. I believe they will look after the best interests of the Canadian people to an extent greater than would be indicated in any declaration made by anyone in any incorporated company.


Mr. Laing:: Mr. Chairman, I believe we are drawing to the end of a debate which has been characterized by a great deal of material, some of which has been relevant, some semi-relevant and some utterly irrelevant. I hope what I have to say tonight will be at least semi-relevant to the subject.
Part of the argument I was going to advance has already been made by the hon. member for Edmonton West, and part of it has been made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. In our province of British Columbia we are particularly concerned with the development of industry within the province. The hon. member for Edmonton West has said that he spent twenty years in Alberta. Well, some time this fall I shall have spent forty-six years in British Columbia. I take second place to no one in this chamber in my knowledge of that province, and I think I know some of the factors in connection with it that make it difficult for us at times in the province of British Columbia.
I speak with particular reference to the fact that within greater Vancouver we have over half the entire population of the province. We have not the clearest weather, but almost any day one can go to one of the higher promontories of our beautiful city,

look south and see the escarpment of Point Roberts, which is in the United States of America.
Our city is about fifteen miles north of the United States boundary, and in it we have a great concentration of people. That, in part, lends itself to the difficulties we have in matters of employment at certain seasons of the year. We in British Columbia want to decentralize our industry. We have to build up a great country north of Prince George. We have got to develop the Kootenays and develop further the Okanagan district. We are too much in one place, in British Columbia, for our own good.
Reference has been made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano to the development which has taken place in the northwestern states of the United States. This started with the policy of that great president, President Roosevelt, who thought it wise to put more people in the northwestern states. Great development has taken place there. I believe the development of those states-and 1 am referring particularly to Washington, Oregon, Idaho and the western tier of Montana-has been subsidized by the federal government of the United States to the extent of at least 25 per cent in the last twenty years. They have great curving highways. These are military highways, because they were built by engineers of the United States government. They have Grand Coulee-indeed, they have, as a matter of fact, 27 per cent of all the developed power in the United States and 41 per cent of the potential.
Little wonder that our people in British Columbia look somewhat askance at any plan which might send natural gas or other fuels down to those states to build them up. We know something about the economic pull. The people of British Columbia today want the 49th parallel to remain the division between our two great countries. If we get too great development there we know what it will mean economically. As a matter of fact, in our part of the country there is today an organization known as the northwest trade and development association. I believe that is the name of it. It has members on both sides of the line, in the United States of America and in Canada. What can come out of that, I do not know; but it indicates some of the primary and basic thinking that might lead to a change of that line.
I do not want to see it changed. I do not think it needs to be changed if we take some care, as two or three other members have said, in seeing to it that we get the first use af the primary products which enter into the
Alberta Natural Gas Company cost of manufacturing and industrial processes in Canada. Unlike some members, I believe we have to have faith in our board of transport commissioners. In addition, I have a great deal of faith in the petroleum and oil conservation board of Alberta. As it stands, I intend to vote for these bills, but inside and outside the house I am going to do my very best to build up an opinion in our province that will demand that, before any gas is exported to the United States, the line proceed through British Columbia and end in Vancouver so far as Canada is concerned.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, I am not from British Columbia, but I am exceedingly happy at the turn the debate has taken tonight. In the five years I have been in the house I have never seen such an extraordinary change, as it were, in the opinions of certain members of the house. As I say, I am very happy at the turn it has taken. I should like to congratulate particularly the hon. member for Coast-Capilano in whom for the first time tonight I thought I recognized some semblance to the same old member for Vancouver North whom we used to admire so much in this house for his independent and crusading spirit. I had to take him to task the other day, and I think he deserved it, for continually interrupting speeches in the house, and at that moment mine particularly. May I say I shall be delighted to take back that chastisement, verbal only of course, in view of his change of mind? I have no doubt in my own mind that this general change of heart has been the work of the same hon. member for Coast-Capilano.
There is one thing that has occurred to me in this surprising debate. I have a little difficulty at times, and I think some other members of the house also have, in understanding exactly what the hon. member for Kootenay East means when he speaks. I admit I had some difficulty tonight in completely understanding his position, or even his words. He talked much of what he pronounces as pipe line "routs". May I suggest that this recantation on the part of these fine young British Columbia members perhaps spells the rout of pipe lines at least in regard to the route through the United States. The hon. member for Kootenay East also accused certain people in the house and on the committee, people whom he did not name, of holding up this particular legislation by what has been called a filibuster. I took no part in that in the committee and little in the house, but I want to say to the hon. member for Kootenay East and to other members who have spoken, and who in my opinion have

Alberta Natural Gas Company recanted tonight, that if it had not been for that same holding up of this legislation in the house and in the committee by the members of the various opposition groups the thing would have slipped through before now without any opposition from the particular members who have spoken tonight.
Again may I say I am delighted at the turn that events have taken at this last minute.
When I take part in proceedings of the committee of the whole dealing with a bill sponsored by the government I expect to see someone over there on the government benches who is prepared to answer questions concerning the clauses of the bill. There is a minister of the crown who assumes that responsibility. I wonder where the sponsor of this present bill is tonight? Did he perchance have advance notice of the turn that events were going to take and leave the chamber in disgust? I did not intend to take part in the general debate, but I did intend to ask the sponsor of the bill a question or two with respect to one of the clauses. I see he is not in the house. Under the circumstances if I were in his position perhaps I should not be in the house either.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take very much time tonight. I think I should say a word or two as I have been accused, particularly by one or two of my young colleagues to the right, of having had something to do with a filibuster in connection with this measure. I dispute that. I think if you will check the time taken tonight as indicated by the speeches recorded in Hansard, the time taken generally throughout debate on this measure, and also the time taken in the committee, you will see that is not so. I will not go so far as to designate as a committee the meeting held the other day in the railway committee room.
I have only been a member of the house since 1940, a short time, but it is the first time during that period of years that five members from my province who were definitely on one side of a question were put on a committee when the only member from this side of the house who had declared himself as opposed to the measure was most emphatically left off the committee. I never saw a committee like that before. Unlike yourself, Mr. Chairman, in your official civilian capacity I never attend court if I can help it because if I should happen to do so I would most likely be on the wrong side of the bench. I have attended court a few times. I like to go and hear brilliant lawyers, like many of those in this house, expound cases before juries. I have yet to see a defence lawyer whisper continually in the ears of the jurors. Nor have I ever in my limited experience in the courts of Canada seen a defence lawyer whisper time after time in the ear of the judge presiding over a case with a jury. I did not go very much for that jury the other day.
I do not intend to say a great deal tonight. As I said, I have been accused of having a small part in a so-called filibuster. If I have I am proud of that fact inasmuch as I come from the province of British Columbia because tonight we had the experience of one of the most brilliant speakers and minds in my opinion from my province or any other part of Canada making the speech that I have been waiting for him to make. It will be enjoyed by every Canadian in my province.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will move to go into supply and call two departments, national health and welfare and post office. The item called in the Department of National Health and Welfare will stand. The item called in the Post Office Department will be discussed so that questions put by members concerning the denial of the use of the mail service to certain people may be aired. Then we will move to go into ways and means with the hope of a vote on the amendment of the leader of the opposition so that we may continue consideration of the budget resolutions.


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