1952-06-16

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West) presented the first report of the special committee on Bill 305, an act respecting immigration, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
First reading of Senate bills-Bill No. 307 (Letter B of the Senate) intituled: An Act to amend the Canada Dairy Products Act.-Mr. Croll.
Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to take over this bill standing in my name on the order paper.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 307 (from the Senate), to amend the Canada Dairy Products Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	How many men are employed at deep-sea fishing in Nova Scotia, in (a) trawlers or seine liners; (b) inshore fishing?
2.	What is the value of (a) catch of 1 (a); (b) catch of 1 (b); (c) equipment in 1 (a); (d) equipment in 1 (b)?


Mr. MacNaught:: *1. (a) 4,116 (1); (b) 11,607.
*2.	(a)	$7,000,000	(2);	(b)	$14,400,000;
(c) $7,594,640 (3); (d) $3,063,780 (4).
^Information based on statistics for calendar year 1950.
Notes
in inshore operations. It is not possible therefore to give an exact figure of the number of vessels or men solely engaged in either offshore or inshore operations during a year.
(2)	Estimate.
(3)	Including vessels of from 10 to 20 gross tons that participate in offshore operations on a part-time basis. Value of fishing gear is not included.
(4)	Excluding vessels of from 10 to 20 tons (gross) which engage part-time in offshore operations. Value of fishing gear is not included.


FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS
Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: 1.	How many farm improvement loans have been made in each of the provinces under the Farm Improvement Loans Act of 1944, since April 1, 1951?
2.	What has been the total amount of such loans for each province for the same period?
3.	How many loans have been made in 1952 to date, in each province?
4.	What is the total amount of such loans in each province?
5.	Through what banks were loans financed in Newfoundland in 1952?
6.	For what purposes have loans been made in Newfoundland?
7.	In what sections of Newfoundland have loans been made?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1 and 2. From April, 1951, to April 30, 1952, both dates inclusive, loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944, have been made in the number and amounts as follows:
	Number of	Amount of
	Loans	Loans
British Columbia .	... 2,171	$ 2,278,622.35Alberta	... 24,009	27,354,487.05Saskatchewan ....	... 29,650	35,099,804.20Manitoba 	... 11,921	13,211,625.63Ontario	... 12,866	13,918,497.59Quebec 	.. . 6,060	6,908,248.35New Brunswick ..	... 762	813,463.51Nova Scotia	... 768	703,006.42Prince Edward Island 1,465	1,350,554.50Newfoundland ...	... 9	9,951.50
(1) This figure includes men on vessels of from 10 to 20 gross tons. A great number of these vessels fish offshore for certain periods of the year, at other times they are engaged
89,681	$101,648,261.15
3	and 4. From January 1, 1952, to April 30, 1952, both dates inclusive, loans under the

Questions
Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944, have been made in number and amounts as follows:
	Number of	Amount of
	Loans	Loans
British Columbia .	... 593	$ 631,883.78Alberta	. .. 6,490	7,352,474.36Saskatchewan ....	. . . 8,092	9,162,485.91Manitoba 	. .. 3,064	3,177,689.40Ontario	. .. 3,153	3,803,317.62Quebec 	... 1,125	1,305,196.15New Brunswick ..	. . . 160	166,354.97Nova Scotia	.. . 163	166,834.25Prince Edward Island 319	310,930.19Newfoundland ...	. . . 6	7,539.00Total 	. . . 23,525	$26,084,705.635.	The Bank of Nova Scotia.6.	The purposes for which loans were made in Newfoundland were to finance the purchase of farm implements and livestock and the construction, repair or alteration of farm buildings.7.	Loans have been made in Newfoundland in those sections centring at Bay Roberts, Channel, Corner Brook, Springdale and St. John's.


MAILING OF OLD AGE SECURITY CHEQUES
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	On what day of the month are old age security cheques put in the mail?
2.	Has consideration been given to mailing these cheques in time so that they will be received a few days in advance of the end of the month?
3.	If so, what is the result of such consideration?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1.	On the last business day of the month.
2.	Yes.
3.	The decision to delay delivery of old age security cheques until the first few days of the month following the month the payment purports to cover was determined by the following considerations:
(a)	Old age security cheques are issued by the same offices and with the same equipment as are used for family allowances payments and sufficient time is not available after the closing-off of the family allowances cheque-run to permit the old age security cheques to be prepared and dispatched to the post offices in time for delivery to the payees several days before the close of the month. The alternatives would be (a) to advance the mailing date of family allowances cheques; or (b) to increase staffs and equipment so as to enable the preparation and delivery of the cheques by, say, the 28th of the month.
(b)	The banks are heavily engaged during the last few days of the month in handling
(Mr. Sinclair.]
government cheques in payment of salaries and wages of civil servants, war pensions, veterans' allowances, assigned pay of members of the armed forces, superannuation, and many other month-end payments, and it was accordingly felt that to add a further 650,000 cheques to this load would place an unreasonable burden on the banks.
(c)	The addition of a further 650,000 cheques to the month-end issue would overburden the cheque adjustment branch of the Department of Finance, which is already heavily taxed in clearing the existing month-end issues mentioned in (b).



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Pouliof:: 1.	How many steam locomotives were repaired during 1951 in each of the Canadian National erecting shops?
2.	Before the expiration of the year 1951, what was the repair program as to steam locomotives at the Canadian National erecting shops during the current year (1952), and how were such repairs to be apportioned in each of the said erecting shops?
3.	Since January 1, 1952, how many steam locomotives have been sent to each erecting shop for repairs?
4.	What was the original program established in 1951 concerning the repair of steam locomotives for the period April 15 to May 15, 1952?
5.	During that period, how many steam locomotives were sent to each of the Canadian National erecting shops for repairs?
6.	What types of locomotives were to be sent to Riviere du Loup for repairs?
V. If they were not sent to Riviere du Loup, to what erecting shop were they sent for repairs?


Mr. Benidickson:: Now tabled.



DOMINION ARCHIVES

Mr. Courlemanche:: 1.	Have the manuscripts of Marshal de Levis and the Beauharnois papers been acquired by the dominion archives?
2.	If so, when, and at what cost?
3.	What employees of the archives hold history degrees from Canadian universities?
4.	What members of the staff of the archives are working on the cataloguing of manuscripts?
5.	Were Canadian historians consulted with a view to improving the service of the public archives?
6.	If so, what were their recommendations, if any?


Mr. Bradley:: Tabled herewith.



TENDERS


Mr. Green:: 1.	Do any of the departments, after having called for tenders for certain goods, make changes in the specifications on the basis of which such tenders were called?
2.	If so, which departments follow this practice?

3.	Is notice of the change given to firms which have submitted tenders?
4.	Are such firms given an opportunity to retender?



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That the following amendments be made to Bill No. 181, intituled: An act respecting allowances for war veterans and their dependents:
1.	That in paragraph (a) of subclause one of clause three the words: "sixty-five" be deleted and the word: "sixty" be substituted therefor.
2.	That subclause one of clause six be amended by inserting after paragraph (h) the following: "(i) interest on bank deposits and bonds and dividends on shares in the capital stock of any company to the extent of twenty-five dollars per annum from all such sources;" and by relettering the present paragraph (i) as paragraph (j).
3.	That subclauses two and three of clause thirty-one be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
" (2) Every person who, immediately prior to the coming into force of this act, was in receipt of an allowance under the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946, may be paid an additional allowance equal to the amount that he would have been eligible to receive under this act in respect of the period between the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, and the coming into force of this act, if this act, except section four, had been in force during that period, less any amount that he was eligible to receive under the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946, in respect of that period.
"(3) Every person (a) who was awarded an allowance under the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946, whose allowance was discontinued and was not being paid immediately prior to the coming into force of this act, for the reason that the amount of his income rendered him ineligible for the allowance, or (b) who, prior to the coming into force of this act, applied for an allowance under the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946, but was not granted the allowance for the reason that the amount of his income rendered him ineligible for such an allowance, may apply for and be granted an allowance in respect of the period between the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, and the coming into force of this act equal to the amount that he would have been eligible to receive under this act in respect of that period if this act, except section four, had been in force during that period, less any amount that he was eligible to receive under the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946, in respect of that period."
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the 55704-205
Proposed Legislation
next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to make capital expenditures in the year 1952 not exceeding $154,755,280 and to make certain capital expenditures and enter into certain contracts prior to July 1, 1953; to authorize the national company to issue securities to provide amounts required for the authorized expenditures; to provide that the aggregate principal amount of securities, not including any securities issued to secure temporary loans made by the Minister of Finance, outstanding at any time shall not exceed $202,405,280; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal and interest of securities issued by the company for the purpose aforesaid; to authorize the Minister of Finance to make temporary loans to the said. company secured by such securities and not exceeding $202,405,280 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet such expenditures and with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the said national system.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, but as I did not have time to inform him of it beforehand I ask that he take it as notice and perhaps give an answer tomorrow. Would the minister give the reasons why the customs office at Windsor, Ontario, charged the Oral Roberts Healing Campaign, which is a religious organization, $700 on their coming into Canada for a 16-day healing mission?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: I shall give an answer at the next sitting.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Would it be possible to have a statement from one of the members of the government concerning the strike in the logging and lumbering industry in British Columbia? I notice the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) is not here but perhaps we could have a statement tomorrow.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The strike in the forest industry in British Columbia is a matter

Cold Storage Act
entirely within the jurisdiction of that province. No federal minister would have authority to give an explanation.



COLD STORAGE ACT


James Garfield Gardiner: the second reading of Bill No. 335, to amend the Cold Storage Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Subsidy payment.
Mr. Charlton:: Would the minister explain just what -this amendment is?


James Garfield Gardiner: The provision in the act as it now stands is for payment by the federal government of 30 per cent of the cost, an initial payment to be made followed by four equal payments. It has been represented to us that some of the provinces might desire to make grants as well toward the establishment of cold storage plants and for that reason it was thought better to have a three-way split, one-third by the federal government, probably one-third by the province and one-third by those who were desiring to have the cold storage constructed. That was the reason for making it one-third instead of 30 per cent.
It must be remembered that this act was brought in in 1907 and was merely experimental at that time. It was thought best to have these payments spread over four years in order to keep some check on the charges that were made and on other regulations that might be applied to the operation of the plant. Our experience has indicated that there is no real advantage in that as these plants run for long terms of years. After four years there is no more control to be exercised by the fact that you are holding back money, although we still exercise the same control after the four years has passed.
It was thought by those who are benefited, particularly the co-operatives, that it would be of great help if the payment was made at one time thus doing away with the necessity to borrow money and pay interest thereon. So far as the government is concerned, it does not mean any more after we get into it a short time as the payments per year will be just about the same.


Mr. Coldwell:: I am not opposing the bill but as a matter of information will the minister state whether this was discussed
with the provinces before the legislation was brought in? Is it being done at their request or with their approval?


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been no relationship with the provinces in connection with this matter. It was discussed with cooperatives and others who are putting in cold storage facilities and it has been represented to us that some of the provinces might pay something toward these facilities. That is not any concern of ours; it is just a concern of the organization setting up the cold storage. However, they have suggested that if it was on a one-third basis a proper proposal for them to make to the province would be one-third from us, one-third from the province and one-third to be provided by the operator.


Mr. Wright:: Would this apply to the case where a province itself builds a cold storage plant?


James Garfield Gardiner: It does not apply to cold storage plants put up by provinces; it does apply to cold storage plants put up in provinces by others and toward which the province may be making a grant.


Mr. Fulton:: It is suggested that the following words be added to the section:
In respect of which a contract has been entered into pursuant to section 3.
What is new about that? Has it always been necessary that a contract shall have been entered into before a payment was made even though those words were not in the section?


James Garfield Gardiner: Section 3 reads:
All applications, accompanied by the information required by section two of these regulations, shall be filed in duplicate with the Department of Agriculture, Ottawa.
That is all there is in section 3.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It would appear that there is a new requirement to be met, that a contract must be entered into before this payment can be authorized. I would take it that previously no such contract was necessary, that it was merely approval that was required.


James Garfield Gardiner: There always has had to be a contract entered into. Whether that was required by the act before, I am not certain.


Major James William Coldwell: Not only does this act assist the co-operatives to build storage plants, it assists private industry to do the same thing. If that is -the case, why should not a province be assisted when it wishes to build storage plants in order to take care of surpluses that may arise from time to time. At the present time, there is a surplus of one

commodity in Saskatchewan. I was told last Tuesday, for example, that eggs were being sold at Sonningdale in the northern part of my constituency for as low as 8 cents a dozen.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no reason why that should be.


Major James William Coldwell: Consequently it seems to me that the provinces should be encouraged to build storage plants. If private interests such as the packing companies are going to receive assistance then it seems to me that the provinces should receive some federal assistance in the building of these plants.


Mr. Nowlan:: I quite agree with the minister that it is a desirable change to have the subsidy paid in one instalment rather than as heretofore. As he has said, perhaps it has been embarrassing to the companies which have proceeded with construction, but his department has always had control in any event. There is one matter I should like to raise about which I am not certain, and I think it is one to which the department should give careful consideration. His department has had cases of applications for a cold storage subsidy where additions are being made to existing plants. The ruling by the department has been based upon an old ruling of the Department of Justice, and I might say to the Minister of Justice that, with respect, I think it is a ruling that is substantially in error. The ruling was that new construction or a new addition could not participate in any additional subsidy unless it was in a new building or an addition to the building. For instance, if you build a wing on a building and instal cold storage machinery therein then that cold storage machinery would qualify to receive an additional subsidy. In the particular case which was referred to the department a few months ago-and I notice the official who dealt with it is here and is listening-it was proposed to instal machinery for the purpose of cold storing vegetables in the basement of the United Fruit Company plant which had theretofore dealt specifically with fruit. No additional capital expenditure whatsoever was involved for the construction of a building and the department had to rule, basing itself on the old ruling of the Department of Justice, that since there was no additional structure or addition to the building the machinery did not qualify for an increased subsidy. It was admitted, however, that if an addition to the building had been installed the department would have been required to pay a much larger increased subsidy because the company could then qualify for the cost of the building as well as the machinery.
55704-205i
Cold Storage Act
It seems to be a most unfortunate situation that a company which is trying to economize, both in its own expenditure and that of the department, in installing machinery in existing facilities, cannot qualify for a subsidy whereas if they had gone to the expense of building a new wing on their plant and putting the machinery in that wing they could have received a subsidy for both the machinery and the new wing. I would hope that the reference to a contract might obviate that. If it does not I suggest to the minister that he should give the matter very careful consideration, and possibly before the legislation is passed either he or his colleague, the Minister of Justice, might get a new ruling or amend the legislation so that it would be possible to make a new ruling. Otherwise it is a most unfair situation.


James Garfield Gardiner: When the question of
whether we would amend this legislation this year was under consideration it was found that there were some respects in which the act should eventually be overhauled. We did not think there was time to do that at this session, but we are hoping to bring down a bill for a revision of the act at a later session. I hope it will be at the next one. However, for the time being we thought the two particular amendments that are proposed should be put through, namely, the one providing for a subsidy of 33J per cent instead of 30 per cent and the other providing for payment all at one time. That is all we intend to do by this measure at the moment. I suggest that any other amendments that are necessary stand over until another session.


George Clyde Nowlan: Under the existing practice the minister's department has to agree on the amount which is actually being expended for cold storage purposes and then, in the case of the province of Nova Scotia at least, the province accepts the departmental valuation, which I think has always been fair. As the minister knows, the province is then prepared to lend money on a mortgage based on the departmental valuation. I presume under the new procedure of substituting a contract for the original practice there will still be a valuation made by the minister's department which will be available to the province. Otherwise I think the province would have considerable difficulty in properly making advances under mortgages. Will that be continued?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will have the matter looked into.


Mr. Carroll:: I want to ask the minister a question. At Margaree Forks there is a butter factory. A couple of years ago Mr. Lewis of the Department of Agriculture went down there and there is an agreement now between

Cold Storage Act
the department and the co-operative for the installation of cold storage, but there seems to be some misunderstanding on the part of the co-operative as to the meaning of the contract. When this measure becomes law, as it undoubtedly will, and when satisfactory arrangements have been made for the construction of the cold storage unit which will involve an addition to the butter factory, will the co-operative be able to get the full amount of the subsidy when the cold storage facilities have been satisfactorily built and installed?


James Garfield Gardiner: From the description given I am not altogether certain whether it is this act or the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act that is involved in that arrangement. Under our Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act there is provision made whereby we pay 50 per cent of the cost of installing a cooling room in a plant. That does not come under this act. Under this act the provision has always been, and I think it is still the case under the amendments-I do not think there is any change-that where an application is made for a grant under the Cold Storage Act the department has to be satisfied with respect to all the points covered under section 2 before they will consent to a grant being paid, but once they are satisfied that these points have been met then the grant is paid in all cases. There is no question about it provided the conditions are met by the company.


William F. Carroll: In this case it is not an addition to the creamery itself. As their agreement specifies, the purpose is to provide storage for the farmers of the community who wish to store certain meats, vegetables, eggs and so on during the process of distribution.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would not like to give a decision on any particular case. That is provided for in the terms of the act. If they have met the conditions of the act they will receive payment.


Mr. Thatcher:: Would the minister state how much was paid out under this particular act in the last fiscal year?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount paid was


Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain):: I am not
clear on who can obtain grants. Can an individual obtain a grant or must it be a co-operative or a packing plant?


James Garfield Gardiner: Anyone who is constructing cold storage facilities can obtain a grant, whether it is an individual, a corporation or a co-operative. However, in so far as freezer plants are concerned, which are provided for under this act, only co-operatives can obtain a grant.


Mr. Gibson:: Could a crown company get what everybody else seems to be getting?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. I answered that earlier. A provincial government set-up does not receive the grant.


John Alpheus Charlton: Would the minister explain why provincial governments which build cooperative cold storage plants do not receive the grant?


James Garfield Gardiner: The act does not provide for it and I am not recommending that it should.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 310, for the control of traffic on government property.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
John Lambert Gibson: I am just wondering whether we are going to have a bit of general discussion with the minister as far as the parking problem on the hill is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Lambert Gibson: Well, I think we have got time as we started pretty early today. I quite appreciate the difficulty we are having now and I am all in accord with having something done about it. It certainly is a very deplorable situation at the moment. My good friend the Minister of Public Works is a man of infinite ideas but I would just make one or two observations about what I think might be improved around this place.
I appreciate that cabinet ministers with their drivers do not have the same problem as private members, which is all to the good, because I would hate to see a cabinet minister digging his car out of the snow here in the winter time. I do not think that would be proper.
We have these open parking lots and the snow piles up on the cars which are sometimes buried for days. Sometimes cars are frozen up here because of the fact that we lack electric plugs to keep them warm. With the ingenuity of the Minister of Public Works I think something might be done to improve that situation.

I do not know whether we ought to have underground parking here but there are some banks into which we might burrow, or we might have put up some of those artistic greenhouses to cover our cars. That is just a thought, but certainly things are not good now.
I know that the minister will agree with me that it is quite a problem to keep up with snow removal in the winter, having to remove cars which have been stalled there all night. I would think that in the long run we could make a good many improvements if the minister would give the problem some thought.


Alphonse Fournier: May I put the hon. gentleman right? Maintenance of the grounds around parliament hill is under the control of the federal district commission. Circulation of traffic on the hill has always been handled by the mounted police. The points brought out this morning, although they interest me as an individual, do not interest me very much as Minister of Public Works. I have tried, in the last few weeks, to divest myself of the authority because I have no personnel to look after the welfare of ministers and members. Now that the Minister of Justice is handling this question, and with the mounted police under his jurisdiction, I think everything will be fine after this bill goes through.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Lennard:: Might I remind the member for Comox-Alberni that if some of the members living in Ottawa would not leave their cars here overnight it might relieve the congestion.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: I wonder if the Minister of Justice has taken a survey of the number of cars owned by members who must park on parliament hill? If traffic continues to be as great as it is now I suggest that he put in parking meters.


The Chairman:: Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Johnston:: We cannot hear very well up in this corner so I did not get what the minister was saying. This bill is an act to control traffic on government property and I presume it will cover parking on the hill. It has seemed strange to me that if the government has not got any power to control traffic on the hill-and I understand that is the case-parking lots for ministers can be very effectively controlled and are being controlled. I am not objecting, and I think it is the proper thing, but it does seem rather queer to me that there is authority for the mounted police to control certain sections while they have no power to control other sections of the hill.
Government Property Traffic Act
Parking has been very, very bad here on the hill. One day last week I came in and drove around the building three times to see if I could find a parking spot. I could not and when I asked the policeman where I could go he said that I should take my car away down below the buildings and I would find a place to park. I know of another person who came here at nine o'clock in the morning the other day and could not find a place to park. He had to take his car away down behind the justice building.
I am sure that there are a great many cars parked on parliament hill which are not owned by people who are employed here. Even if those cars were prohibited I do not think that would solve the question, and I do think the member for Comox-Alberni had a good suggestion. I have often wondered why there could not be underground parking. As you come up to the entrance of this building there is quite a hill and I cannot see why there could not be very effective parking under the driveway. It would be quite an undertaking but it would to a great extent solve the parking problem. It might be necessary to take some of the space now covered by grass and convert it into parking areas.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Charles Edward Johnston: The situation is such now that those who are compelled to use cars to get here every day-and I am in that group -just cannot find a parking spot. I do not know where to put my car if I cannot put it up here. I cannot park it on the city streets because the police will soon notify me about that. The question has become a very serious one and I hope this bill is wide enough in its terms to allow for some form of parking regulation on the hill, and that the Minister of Public Works, if he has the authority, will make further parking arrangements.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is just one point I want to raise. It is not very often that an opposition member comes or attempts to come to the relief of the government but I do raise the question now whether it is wise to provide that the governor in council shall make these regulations. We are not dealing here with something that affects the country generally. Certainly if that were the case I would not be one to suggest reducing the number of those who assume executive responsibility; but we are dealing with regulations affecting something that is already the property of the government of Canada. I suppose the minister has considered this, but I am wondering whether

Government Property Traffic Act it is wise to require that the whole cabinet should sit and pass on a parking regulation or a speed limit, instead of giving that responsibility to one minister, by giving him power to make regulations?
On the face of it, it seems much more sensible to suggest that the administration of government property with respect to traffic regulations should be vested in one minister, whether it be the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Public Works, so there could be the one body and you would not need the whole cabinet passing an order in council to control traffic. The Minister of Public Works will control the public buildings, and the federal district commission will control some lands, while for other places it may be the Minister of Justice. I raise the question whether it seems wise to have the whole cabinet saying that you should not go more than twenty miles an hour on government property, rather than have one minister make regulations.


Mr. Graydon:: Will the minister say who parks in front of the building along Wellington street? I notice cars down there.


Alphonse Fournier: At one time the press gallery requested space there, and I know that during the summer months tourists park their cars there. It was found that the act we had did not give us the authority to control the circulation of traffic or parking on the hill. The Department of Justice has gone into this new bill, and they tell us that with these powers in this bill they will be in a position to control the circulation of traffic and parking on the hill.
My difficulty has always been that the regulations came under my department but I had nobody to enforce them. They had to be enforced by the mounted police. The police became discouraged, because when they tried to use their authority it was found they could not enforce the regulations. The legal lights in the Department of Justice have told us that this bill is nearly perfect. I hope that it will be, and that we will be able to control this traffic.


Mr. Knowles:: You had better frame it.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not think it is a pious hope, because the police will see that order is kept on this property.


Mr. Mclvor:: I am a little inclined to oppose this bill, because we only hear one side of the story. We hear the side of the members of parliament, but we do not hear the side of those who are employed by parliament. There are civil servants who belong, in one sense, to the House of Commons, and we should look after them. Some of these people

have purchased small cars in order to obviate the necessity of paying for any other mode of transportation. I think these civil servants should have some consideration. I am therefore a little bit doubtful whether this measure is going to work. After this bill passes even the members of the mounted police themselves could not park a car on parliament hill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Regulations.
Stuart Sinclair Garson: Perhaps I might answer one or two of the observations that were made by hon. members. The answer to the question raised by the hon. member for Bow River, as to the enforcement of parking regulations in the parking area for ministers, is that the mounted police have been purporting to administer certain regulations which were passed under the existing statute. The reason we are asking for a new statute now is that on at least three occasions on which prosecutions were launched for offences under these existing regulations the crown lost the case. There is a grave doubt as to whether what we are now purporting to do can be made to stick when it is taken into court.
The whole purpose of the present bill is to provide a proper statutory foundation upon which enforceable regulations can be made by the governor in council. I think that, having regard to the fact that the governor in council will be making regulations in relation not only to the parliament buildings but to other government property, it is desirable that they should be made by the governor in council, and not by the minister who may be in charge of this or that government property.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Fort William, I would suggest that we are seeking here for authority to pass regulations, and I would assume that some provision would be made for civil servants, subject to the claims of members of parliament and ministers, in the framing of those regulations.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With regard to the observation made by my colleague the Minister of Public Works to the effect that the Department of Justice is affirming this is a perfect bill, his remarks place me in an embarrassing position because I now have to suggest an amendment to clause 2. This matter came to our attention after the bill had gone to the printers. If members will look at the first two lines of section 2, they will see that they read:
The governor in council may make regulations for the control of traffic upon any lands belonging to Her Majesty in right of Canada,-

We think there is a possibility, although it seems perhaps a remote one, that we should take care of by inserting the words, "or occupied by", after the words "belonging to", to cover those lands which perhaps Her Majesty will hold under lease or otherwise. I would therefore suggest that my colleague the Minister of Fisheries move an amendment to that effect. I may say that we will also be amending clause 4 of the bill by consequential amendments of the same character.


Mr. Mayhew:: I move:
That clause 2 be amended by inserting the words "or occupied by" after the words "belonging to" in line 7 on page 1.


Mr. Drew:: There is one point that arises in connection with this that perhaps may not be so clearly under this bill as under some other provision, but I think it should be raised at this time. As I understand this bill it would, if enacted, give the government the proper authority over the highways and other properties which would be under the jurisdiction of the federal district commission. Is that correct?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Subject to the control which they have. This bill is a general one and the first part reads:
The governor in council may make regulations for the control of traffic upon any lands belonging to Her Majesty in right of Canada,-
And after this amendment comes into effect it will read, "or occupied by Her Majesty."
-and in particular, but without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations.
Then, those regulation-making powers are specified. I wish to point out to the hon. member in relation to the point he has just raised that this is an empowering bill, and any regulations which are passed by the governor in council under it will be co-ordinated with any existing regulations which there may be under the authority of the Federal District Commission Act.


George Alexander Drew: I can think of a number of cases that might arise under this, but at the moment I do not intend to amplify them. I do wish to speak of one problem, of which the Prime Minister would have an appreciation, and I do so not because I happen to use these bridges frequently myself, but I would point out that on the road that leads to Government House and to other official buildings, where of necessity many people visiting Ottawa on official business must pass back and forth, there are two of the most dangerous bridges of which I know anywhere in Canada. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that nowhere in any city have I seen two such dangerous bridges as those
Government Property Traffic Act between here and Government House which, of necessity, must be frequently visited by those coming here on official business, to say nothing of those who have occasion to use the road for other purposes. I would suggest that, until the bridges can be changed, the federal district commission and the other authorities concerned may find it possible to work out better traffic regulations, and that should be approached as soon as possible.
As the minister knows, people have been killed there under circumstances which may have involved none of the ordinary negligence which often arises on occasions of that kind. In darkness, when it is raining or if it is foggy, even the most careful driver might easily have a fatal accident on one of these bridges. Cars carrying important visitors to this country on official business find themselves approaching the bridge without any real evidence of the fact that one half of it is for vehicular traffic and the other half for street-cars. I need say no more than that in dealing with the matter at this moment. I simply seize the opportunity to suggest to the minister that in some way, through the various agencies that have something to do with this subject, steps be taken to insist upon some effective traffic regulations at that point until such time as those bridges can be replaced. Most certainly those bridges should be replaced at the earliest possible moment not only in the interests of safety but in the interests of appearance of that particular part of Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Evidence.
Stuart Sinclair Garson: To clause 4 there will be amendments consequential upon that which has already been passed by the committee. The amendment will be as follows:
That clause 4 be amended
1.	By inserting the words "or occupant" after the word "owner" in line 13 on page 2;
2.	By inserting the words "or are occupied by" after the words "belong to" in line 25 on page 2-and
3.	By inserting the words "as the case may be" after the word Canada" in line 26 on page 2.
I will ask my colleague the Minister of Fisheries to make that motion.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I so move, Mr. Chairman.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall this amendment
carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the only purpose of this consequential amendment, like the purpose of the amendment to clause 2, is to provide for any circumstances that may
3254	HOUSE OF
Government Property Traffic Act arise. Is that correct? Might I ask the minister whether there are any cases specifically in mind at the moment? If so, what are they?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think that I can affirm that there are, although I suspect that there are. In order to answer my hon. friend's question categorically, it would be necessary to go back over the titles of all the lands which are to be brought under this bill and examine them as to whether they are owned by the crown, or whether they are leased by the crown or otherwise occupied by the crown. That is an undertaking which I do not think would pay off having regard to the value of information which it would provide. In the great majority of cases the lands affected will obviously be lands owned by the crown; but there may be the odd one upon which the crown merely has a lease but which we are anxious to bring within this system of traffic and parking regulations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister satisfied that, with these amendments, he now has a perfect bill?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, Mr. Chairman; that is an illusion that I have never permitted myself to entertain with regard to any bill.


Mr. McLuxe:: May I ask who polices the grounds at the entrance and the exit?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police police the grounds.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: There never seem to be any there at 11 o'clock at night, where you are coming in or going out. The leader of the Social Credit party can tell you about that.


Gordon Graydon: This measure is much wider in its application than simply to Ottawa. As I understand it, this legislation governs the control of traffic on any lands belonging to Her Majesty anywhere in Canada. What I am wondering is this. Has the government given careful consideration to whether or not in other parts of Canada there is some arrangement there for the control of traffic by provincial or municipal authorities? If that is the case, has that matter been thoroughly canvassed in order to see whether in trying to settle some problems around Ottawa, you perhaps may be getting into, in other parts of Canada, some problems that are not in the minister's mind at all?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have already stated-and I should now like to emphasize-that this present bill in itself does not make regulations with regard to traffic. It merely empowers the governor in council to make regulations with regard to traffic. In making those regulations in regard to Ottawa, I am sure that in the ordinary course of events, and as a matter 

of the most ordinary prudence, regard would be had to co-ordinating those regulations with the regulations which were in effect in the city that was concerned; or with any regulation in effect in a national park such as that at Banff, I am sure moreover that in all cases the provincial regulations would be checked to make sure that they could be co-ordinated most appropriately with those passed under this bill.
All we are doing by this bill is to give to the governor in council powers to pass orders in council making these regulations in respect of crown property. It is when we come to consider the terms of these regulations themselves that the considerations to which my hon. friend has just referred will arise.


Gordon Graydon: Did the government have in mind any other area in Canada when this measure was first introduced? If it is only for the purpose of dealing with an isolated case that arises on parliament hill, and if you are going to extend this, even with the enabling power which you give to make regulations all over Canada, it seems that you are, as it were, taking out a sledge hammer to try to kill a fly. I was wondering whether you would need to make the legislation as broad as you are making it. I should like to know, however, whether any other part of Canada was in the mind of the government, other than this difficulty on parliament hill?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am only giving my impression. I have not sought any information nor have I been supplied with any information upon the point which my hon. friend is raising. The present law, being chapter 47, passed in July, 1930, reads in this way:
The governor in council may make regulations for controlling or prohibiting the operation of certain vehicles in or upon any of the parks, roads, avenues and driveways which are situate on the property of His Majesty, and over which there exists no public right of way.
As my hon. friend can see, that language is general in its application. My impression is, however, that there were no regulations passed under that original bill except those which related to property within the cities of Ottawa and Chalk River. It was because this 1930 statute had certain drafting defects, which made the regulations passed pursuant to it unenforceable, that we are now seeking the present bill which we hope is a remedy for all of these drafting defects. For example, one was with respect to a road or driveway "over which there exists no public right of way". It was found that it was difficult to establish, as an ingredient of the offence, that there was no public right of way over roads or driveways situate upon the property of Her Majesty because obviously the public were going to and fro all the time upon those lands of Her Majesty. There were three or

four other defects of that sort which it was the purpose of this bill to clear up and which we think it has cleared up.


Gordon Graydon: In the area I represent, for instance, we have a good deal of government land. Part of this is at Malton airport; another part is the national defence property at Lakeview, more commonly known as the Long Branch rifle range. In the eastern and central parts of the rifle range area many hundreds of people are now located in an emergency housing development, as a result of arrangements with the city of Toronto. Streets and avenues have been laid out, and the traffic goes back and forth. This property is actually owned by Her Majesty in the right of the dominion. I noticed that the minister used the word "Canada", but it seems to me that he means the dominion. However, I suppose we will have to let him have his little say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which dominion?


Gordon Graydon: Whether it is referred to as dominion or as federal property, hon. members will know what I mean.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a point of privilege; I was quoting from an act passed in 1930, and the reference there was to Canada.


Gordon Graydon: I do not think anyone is objecting to it. My only comment is that the minister was pleased to be able to refer to it in that way.
In areas such as those to which I have referred, is it the intention of the government to make regulations as to speed, the designation of one-way traffic and the like, or is this bill really intended to cover only parliament hill?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My impression is that the immediate occasion for the passing of this bill is to provide enforceable regulations on property belonging to Her Majesty in the right of Canada, in the Ottawa area. My understanding is that traffic which flows upon property of the federal district commission is controlled by regulations passed under the authority of the Federal District Commission Act.
However, we control traffic on the property of crown municipal corporations, or municipalities such as Chalk River. The present measure would permit us to control traffic in places of that kind.


Gordon Graydon: You could.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, we could. In fact, we do at Chalk River. But whether we would do it in other cases would depend upon whether there was a necessity for its being done. That, in turn, would depend upon whether it appeared that the application of
Government Property Traffic Act provincial regulations to such area was inadvisable, or did not suit the peculiar circumstances of the area. I am sure my hon. friend would realize at once that we are not likely to go out of our way to invoke this statute throughout Canada, generally; because the carrying out of traffic regulations is not a task which elicits any great amount of gratitude from anyone.


Gordon Graydon: The minister is not out looking for trouble.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4 as amended agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Mr. Speaker:: There are amendments, and when that is so it is customary to have leave before a bill is read a third time, on the same day.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: that the bill be read a third time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the third reading of Bill No. 306, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee of supply.



CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I intend to deal with a subject today which has been under consideration in the house on earlier occasions, and which is one that seems to call for increasing attention, in view of the extent to which other nations are looking to Canada as a source of raw materials for their defence requirements.

Conservation of Natural Resources
For many years we have been inclined to think of resources in this country as being inexhaustible; and for that very reason it took us a great many years to believe that there was any necessity in this country to introduce plans for the conservation of any of those great resources. Not long ago in the house a statement was made to the effect that we need not be greatly concerned about the raw materials that we were shipping out in large quantities.
I quote at this time the words used on June 3 by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), because it seems to me that they do draw our attention to a point of view which should be given careful consideration by the house. These are his words as they are reported at page 2855 of Hansard:
Fortunately we have an abundance of raw materials. I do not know of any material produced in this country that is in poorer supply today than when we first began export of the commodity. We all know that instead of a lower production of metals we have a higher production of metals. We all know that we have been able, by exploring and prospecting this rich country of ours, to become a very large scale exporter of iron ore which we formerly imported in almost our total requirements. We know, as we export that iron ore, that we are not depleting this country for future generations, because we have the commodity in abundance.
And shortly before that, in the same speech, the minister said:
Canada is immensely fortunate in that it is rich in those commodities the world needs and which the world is able to pay for, no matter what market conditions prevail in the have-not countries of the world.
Those words indicate that there is not yet in the minds of the government the belief that we need to conserve our resources in the face of the most unusual demands that we have been met with. In effect we are told that no matter what the demands by other countries may be, Canadians need not worry about expanding the export of raw materials because of their almost limitless quantity here in Canada.
It is true that our resources are enormous. Every hon. member of this house is aware of the extent to which exploration has expanded the knowledge of our available resources within these past few years. Nevertheless I suggest that it is wise for us at the same time to realize why it is that so many people from other countries have been pushing forward exploration and development of materials in this country. There is always the urge on the part of venture capital to seek new opportunities. That desire to find new places for investment undoubtedly would have produced extensive activities along that line in any event. However, there are other reasons why a great deal of this activity is being pressed forward. One of the main


reasons for activity in some particular lines of raw materials is that the use of raw materials in other countries in recent years has exhausted or come within a measurable distance of exhausting their own supply. For that reason new and increasing demands are being imposed upon Canada.
We can quite properly say that no nation with a population similar to ours possesses even comparable resources. Even without the qualification as to population it may be said that few countries with any population have as great resources as we possess. Probably the only countries in the world that have resources available for new development to the extent that we have here are Russia, the United States and Brazil. Even in the United States it may now be doubtful if they have resources available for new development on the scale that we have in Canada.
But there is a tremendous difference. Russia with her great resources has 200 million people and with a number of satellite nations dependent upon her for resources. The United States has approximately 160 million people. Brazil with great and still relatively undeveloped resources has more than 50 million people as compared with the 14 million living in Canada.
There is one very important reason why our position is different from that of any other country. We live next door to a nation of 160 million people who have attained the highest level of industrial production ever attained by any nation in the history of the world. They have attained a level of industrial production which has built up a very high level of prosperity that they will naturally seek to maintain in every way they can. It is in our interests as well as their own that they do maintain the standard of living they have been able to build up.
Our proximity to the United States places our resources in a very different position from those of Russia, Brazil and other countries with still undeveloped resources such as ours. For all practical purposes Russia is a self-contained unit except to the extent that under very rigid direction they may channel the movement of resources and trade within the total area of the Soviet empire.
Brazil is far from the great industrial centres of the northern hemisphere. Brazil is the natural base of supplies for a great many types of production for South America as a whole. Brazil has the markets of South America at her doors. Brazil has no other nation next door which is likely to feel the need for drawing supplies of raw materials

which the United States requires at this time and for which she will naturally turn to us as being the closest neighbour in a very substantial measure.
These facts create a unique situation so far as Canada is concerned. Our position cannot be compared with that of any other country in the world today possessing resources in any way comparable to ours. Immediately to the south and within a short rail haul lie the great industrial centres of the United States which have pitched their productive capacity to a level which they are not going to be able to maintain from the supplies of raw materials available within their own boundaries.
When this government points to the tremendous expansion in export trade which has brought to this country such apparent prosperity within the past few years it seems to ignore the fact that in a very substantial degree that export trade is based upon the exhaustion of raw materials in our two greatest markets for raw materials. We have seen an enormous expansion in our exports of raw materials to the United States. We have seen an expansion of our exports of raw materials to the United Kingdom. Export to the United States has increased to a much higher level proportionately than it has to the United Kingdom. We know that the demands being made upon us, and which we are very fortunate to be able to meet to the extent that we are, have largely been the result of the unhappy fact that the need for defence preparations has tremendously expanded the type of industrial production in both the United States and the United Kingdom which is based upon the utilization of the kind of raw materials that we possess in such tremendous quantities. That demand is going to continue. It is going to continue even if the demand for defence stockpiling should be greatly eased. It is going to continue because industrial production in the United States and the United Kingdom will call for metals and other raw materials on an increasing scale in the years ahead. It will call for exports on an increasing scale by virtue of the fact the United States is coming within measurable distance of exhaustion of its own raw materials in a number of lines.
If any country ever had an object lesson in the need for conservation and the careful use of its resources Canada has had that object lesson in seeing what has taken place in the United States as well as our own country in certain types of employment of raw materials. We Canadians are the last who should speak of raw materials as being inexhaustible. True, we have not exhausted any of our raw materials, so far as I know. We have, however,
Conservation of Natural Resources had the most unfortunate proof that raw materials can be exhausted, and it has been for that reason that during recent years so many Canadians have been urging effective plans for the conservation of the great forest resources of this country. The dominion government and the governments of most of the provinces have taken steps to encourage conservation of forest resources because of the convincing and unchallengeable evidence they have seen of the extent to which there can be a dangerous depletion of that particular type of raw material right here in our own country.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and most other hon. members in the house have seen in different parts of Canada ghost towns which once were prosperous communities. They are ghost towns for no other reason than the depletion or exhaustion of resources. Some of them are still ghost towns. Fortunately some of them have been revived by methods of conservation or by employment of other types of resources. One of the more dramatic examples of the exhaustion of resources and what it means to a community is to be found in the Dawson City of today. Once it was a thriving, prosperous and busy community in the Yukon which based its wealth upon the apparently inexhaustible gold available by placer mining in that area.
I can think of many other communities from the Atlantic to the Pacific which are ghost towns today or which have lost their prosperity because not merely forest resources but other resources were depleted to the point where they could no longer sustain the population which had once lived in prosperity in these communities. The fact that we may still have a large over-all supply of raw materials does not ease the situation for those who suffer directly from a situation of that kind. I am mentioning these instances because of the statement that seems to convey the thought that our resources are not exhaustible.
There are other features to the employment of our resources which should also be borne in mind. We have taken steps in this country to conserve our forest resources. The federal government has made some very positive advances in the conservation and protection of forest areas. The provincial governments in those provinces with great forest resources have devoted large sums of money and great effort to their conservation. That effort has produced positive and satisfactory results in many cases. I can think of a number of communities in the province of Ontario, as can the Minister of Trade and Commerce, which have been revived from almost total inactivity
3258	HOUSE OF
Conservation of Natural Resources by the introduction of new methods and the use of other types of wood. The fact that these efforts became necessary and have been crowned with success in no way diminishes the evidence of the danger of depletion of resources.
I would point out that the danger of exhaustion of forest resources is not as great as in the case of certain other resources because if there are wise plans of conservation our forests become a continuing crop rotating over long periods of years which can be maintained at an undiminished level if by the combined wisdom of the dominion and provincial governments cutting and reforestation plans as well as protective measures assure that continuity. This does not apply, however, to mineral resources which are gone forever once they are removed from the rock or soil in which they were originally found. For that reason even greater attention needs to be devoted to the conservation of our mineral resources. We have seen a number of cases where the exhaustion of minerals left empty buildings which today stand as tragic evidence of what occurs when any community that has been dependent upon raw materials of that type can no longer obtain those raw materials. What has happened in isolated cases can happen on a broad scale as well.
There is another aspect of this question which I would like to emphasize in discussing the use of our forest resources. One of the reasons that there has been such a demand for wood from our forests here in Canada is the depletion of the forest resources of the United States. The reason that we are called upon to export to the United States such enormous quantities of paper, of pulp, and of other wood products as well as cut wood itself is largely the fact that they have failed to conserve their own forest supplies. Perhaps it was impossible in a country with 160 million people to conserve their forest resources. We should remember, however, that if their forest resources in their large land area could not be maintained in such a manner as to meet their requirements, it certainly would be possible for us to deplete our resources if we continued to meet all their requirements in the years ahead without exercising the utmost caution and wisdom in the supervision of our forest resources.
However, there is a very particular reason which has a bearing on the utilization of our resources. Why do we now earn so much money from our wood products? Last year our forest products industry in this country earned nearly $1,100 million, a large part of that in the form of United States dollars coming into this country for the purchase of paper, pulp and other wood products-as


well as cut logs. The reason that we have built up this tremendous industry in Canada, and the reason that it is such a large earner of United States dollars as well as domestic dollars, lies in the positive policy that was adopted in this country in regard to the utilization of our forest resources.
Years ago it was decided as a matter of definite policy that we would follow a course which would encourage private enterprise to invest in the processing of cut wood in this country in a way that would create employment in Canada-employment at wage levels that are paid in industry using the raw materials. As a result of that we have seen the value of our forest products industry increase almost tenfold within a single generation. That is the direct result of a clear and definite policy of encouraging the manufacture, under private enterprise here in Canada, of wood products made from the trees cut in Canada. True, we have continued to export raw wood in many forms. It would appear that we are likely to continue that export for years to come. Canadians did, however, make a very simple decision. They decided that it was proper that Canadians themselves should benefit most from the use of the raw materials which Providence has placed at our disposal.
I cannot recall having heard or read of a single criticism, from what might be regarded as a well-informed quarter in the United States, of the adoption of that policy here in this country. True, there have been some criticisms of the incidence of that policy. I find, however, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has recently indicated in public statements that he approves of such steps as may be taken by those in Canada responsible for production which uses our forest products to obtain what they regard as prices which will adequately meet the demands for wages and other requirements here in Canada. While there has been a discussion of the price of newsprint and incidental details of that kind, I can only repeat that I am not aware of any case where anyone who might be regarded as well informed in matters of this kind has criticized Canada or has criticized Canadians for following the course of legitimate self-interest in this respect.
It seems to me that with the evidence we have that a policy of that kind can produce such striking and gratifying results in the case of the forest industry, we might well consider ways and means by which similar plans could be made for the utilization of our other resources to the highest level of employment here in our country.

When the United States found it necessary to turn to us for pulp logs to carry on their production of pulp, paper and similar products, they would have continued to supply their own mills with raw material from Canada and to have expanded the production in their own country instead of building mills in Canada if the same laissez-faire policy had been adopted in that case as has been adopted by this government in relation to our other raw materials.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: There was no reason for the great pulp and paper producers in the United States to build mills in Canada if they could have obtained all the pulp logs they wanted simply by towing them across the great lakes at various points or carrying them by rail at other points in Canada. True, there would have been a pulp and paper industry here, but there is no hon. member in this house who is not aware that the reason for the tremendous increase in the production of paper in this country within the past few years, as well as the processing of pulp of various types and of other wood products, has been the encouragement of that industry through the various arrangements that were made with private industry under the legitimate direction of different governments within this country.
This subject now assumes a new relationship to the government of Canada at a time when, wisely or unwisely, the government has insisted upon renewing, in the years of peace, emergency powers which give it potential control over all of our resources. The Emergency Powers Act and the Defence Production Act, so long as they remain on the statute books, give this government a measure of control and a measure of direct interest, in our resources which might be employed in ways as yet unknown by any member of this house. I have indicated my own concern about the extent to which those powers have been carried forward into the years of general peace. Those powers have, however, been conferred upon this government, and this government has the authority to exercise them at any time. There are many other ways in which the dominion government now has a relationship with industry and the expansion of industry which it did not have in the past.
Through the various government agencies, it is called upon to co-operate with private industry, and under various plans it may be called upon from time to time to give financial assistance for the expansion of private industry, either for defence or for other purposes. For all these reasons, there are
Conservation of Natural Resources many ways in which the dominion government today would be able to make arrangements for the erection of mills and industries across this country which would utilize, at the highest and best paid level of employment, the raw materials which we have in such abundance. I can only repeat that we would not have had this tremendous pulp and paper industry in Canada, about which we hear so much today, had there not been some positive plans to encourage the great companies in the United States to build mills in Canada.
It is no answer to that statement to point out that the largest of the pulp and paper industries is a Canadian company, financed by Canadians. That company was able to carry out its financing and its expansion because of the general impetus given to this industry through policies of the kind I have mentioned. Within recent years large new plants have been erected right across Canada because of positive policies of this kind.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when it was pointed out recently that there was a serious loss of our historic export markets in the United Kingdom for agricultural products of many kinds, we were answered with the statement that our exports to the United Kingdom, in dollar value, have been increasing during the past years and again within the past few months. It is true that we are exporting large quantities of materials required for defence production as well as other industrial production in the United Kingdom and the United States, It is true that the United Kingdom, as well as the United States, needs large quantities of nickel, aluminum, copper, zinc and other raw materials that we possess in such abundance. I need not go through the very long list of metals that we possess which today are in such great need, largely in other countries which at one time thought their resources were inexhaustible. They are being withdrawn at their present rate largely because of the failure to preserve the very rules of conservation which I am suggesting we should bear in mind here.
There is no reason why this country should be immune, over the years, from the same consequences as other countries have faced when they simply proceeded to use their resources without regard for the future. The answer that we are exporting a greater dollar value of exports to the United Kingdom is no answer to any farmer in this country. It does not in any way mislead him as to what has happened to our historic export markets in many lines. It obviously did not mislead the farmers of western Canada, and it has not misled farmers elsewhere. I hope no one will try to tell the dairy farmers that

Conservation of Natural Resources they can sell to the United Kingdom all that they can produce. I hope no one will try to tell the farmers who raise poultry, and who were exporting large quantities of their products, that they could sell all that they could produce to the United Kingdom. I hope that no hog raiser will be told he could sell as much bacon or pork to the United Kingdom as he could produce. I certainly hope that no cheese manufacturer will be told that we are still selling as much cheese as we were selling to the United Kingdom during the years past.
I say that I hope no attempt will be made to convince them, because I think that any attempt to do so would probably put in question the sanity of the person putting forward an argument of that kind. They know what has happened to their traditional markets. We all know that this year we will be selling hardly any agricultural products except grain and the cereals generally, as well as the meat that may be sold under the recent arrangement that was made between the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand and Canada. There is no mystery whatever about this increase in dollar value. Therefore, as we recognize the fact that countries which have exhausted their own raw materials are going to be looking for raw materials outside, this is the time for us to come to a clear understanding as to what our policy is going to be in the development and utilization of our own resources.
There are a number of other countries which have available supplies of raw materials similar to our own; but not many of them, if any, have the fantastic variety that we have here. Iron ore, copper, aluminum, uranium, zinc and many of the other metals and raw materials that we possess are to be found in many other parts of the world. There is a difference, however. There are many countries in the world with resources of raw materials of that kind which have not the fuel, the electrical energy, the highly developed communities nor the industrial skill to make use of those resources within the country concerned.
Most certainly we Canadians would not wish to see the United States in a position where its great industrial production would suffer for lack of raw materials. Most certainly we Canadians would not want to see any of those industries producing weapons or machines of defence held back in any measure because of shortage of raw materials for those industries and mills upon which we, as members of the western defence community, jointly depend. That consideration, however, does not change the over-all
	i
problem with which we are confronted. Where there is to be an increase in production of defence or other requirements, there is no reason to believe that in many cases that increase in production cannot take place just as well here in Canada as in the United States.
At the time when the United States was developing its industries from its own raw materials, during the latter part of the last century and during the early part of this century, I am not aware that at any time they hesitated to say that their first concern was the development of industry in the United States and the employment of citizens of the United States at the highest possible wages through the use of the raw materials which they themselves possessed. I am not aware of any occasion when the government of the United States felt that it was impelled to seek to place at the disposal of the industries of Europe raw materials which they could employ to their own advantage in the mills and the industries of the United States. The wealth, the strength and the population of the United States, and its pre-eminence as a world power today, have all come as the result of a clearly-understood policy that the first concern of the government of the United States at all times was not only to create employment in the United States for the citizens of that country already there, but also to create an expanding measure of employment which would make the largest possible use of the total resources-agricultural and forest as well as industrial.

that Providence had placed at the disposal of that single nation. Surely no citizen of the United States today could question the decision of any Canadian who decided that it is not only industrial employment with which we are concerned but employment of all kinds, and that we Canadians recognize that the best way to give greater stability to our agriculture in this country is to increase our population so that we have the largest possible domestic consuming market for the agricultural products which we can turn out.
Mr. Speaker, the figures of agricultural and industrial production suggest that we can well afford to recognize how vitally important the industrial development of this country is at all times to the agricultural population. There was a time, still within comparatively recent years, when we thought of this as primarily an agricultural country. Today we recognize that, while agriculture is our primary industry, the value of our industrial products now far exceeds that of our agricultural production. The figures showing the total value of agricultural production and of industrial production indicate the extent to

which we can create new demands for agricultural products of all kinds, by increasing the industrial and other employment across Canada through the widest possible utilization of our own resources.
When I say that, I am applying my remarks to all types of resources, but I particularly refer to those resources which have been so much before our eyes in recent years, and even perhaps more conspicuously in recent months. Canada has suddenly come to realize that it is one of the great producers of oil in the world, and that it has some of the greatest oil deposits known anywhere at this time. We have also come to realize that our oldest mineral industry in Canada, namely the iron industry, has new and almost unbelievable possibilities. Certainly those two resources- oil which today in its many forms is such an essential part of the development of our mcdern community and our whole industrial and commercial activity, and iron ore which is the foundation of the great industrial development of any country-have given us new and challenging opportunities.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, what is happening in the case of iron ore will explain the point I wish to make generally with regard to resources, without limiting my argument in any way to that one raw material. I am not in any way seeking to minimize the importance of what has already taken place, nor am I seeking to minimize what the government has done in many respects to assist in that development. I am pointing out that under the unusual pressures which now exist and which will continue to increase, there is bound to be an ever-expanding demand for the resources we possess.
A new iron ore empire has emerged right across Canada. New towns are being built to house the workers both in the developments that are taking place and in the subsidiary activities growing up in those areas. There is a rapid increase in the production of iron ore, which means a great deal to this country.
Let us look at the figures. In 1946 our production of iron ore was 1,550,000 tons. By 1951 that had risen to 4,680,000 tons, and by 1955 it is said our production will be 20 million tons. That is a challenging story of expansion. But let us look at what this means in terms of steel made from the iron ore. In 1946 Canada produced 2,250,000 tons of steel, whereas last year we produced
3,445,000	tons. As has been explained in
Conservation of Natural Resources the house, an expansion is now under way which will increase production by another
1.150.000	tons. That would bring our total production up to approximately 4,600,000 tons.
Assuming that the expansion is even beyond what is now estimated and planned, that would mean that by 1955 we might be producing some five million tons of steel a year in Canada. And that is a great deal of steel. We are frequently told of the enormous expansion of steel production that is taking place. No one should seek to minimize the importance of that expansion. But the question we must ask ourselves, in view of these fantastic increases in the use and the supply of the raw material, is this: Is that enough? I submit the answer, definitely, is n-o.
In addition to the 3,445,000 tons of steel we produced in Canada last year, our imports jumped to 2,260,000 tons. That means that last year our use of steel for our own requirements amounted to approximately
5.700.000	tons. That does not take into consideration of course the steel machinery, the machine tools of all kinds, and other things which we imported but which we could have made here, if the steel had been available and we had gone into the production of these particular requirements.
We do see however that our requirements, on the basis of production plus imports of steel, alone, indicate that we used steel in 1951 substantially in excess of the amount that we will have available in 1955, under any plans which have yet been announced. This reduces itself to the simple proposition that unless there is a change in policy which does encourage greater expansion of steel production we are going to increase our production of iron ore by leaps and bounds at a time when we are also increasing the importation of steel made, in many cases, from that same iron ore which we export from Canada.
Merely by way of illustration, I recall the fact that today we are exporting iron ore from British Columbia to Japan, which returns in the form of steel ingots. We are exporting iron ore to the United States, and we see it returning in the form of steel to be used in industry in this country. We are exporting iron ore across the Atlantic also to be returned in the form of steel.
The important thing for all of us to remember is that at the same time we are exporting these raw materials, we are also exporting the most valuable asset this country possesses, and that is the young Canadians educated and trained here in our own country at the public expense, because those young Canadians are seeking employment elsewhere. In a great many cases they are

Conservation of Natural Resources leaving Canada to seek employment in those very industrial plants which are making finished products from the iron ore and other raw materials we export in an unprocessed state from this country.
These two problems go hand in hand; they must stand side by side to some considerable extent. Many Canadians were greatly disturbed, and there was a great deal of comment editorially and otherwise in the press, when an examination of the figures issued early this year by the dominion bureau of statistics indicated that while 591,000 people had come into Canada during the past ten years, 486,000 had left Canada in the same length of time. These were not 486,000 of the 591,000 who had come here. In most cases those 486,000 emigrants were young Canadians, born and educated and trained in this country, who were seeking employment elsewhere because of the higher wages offered in skilled activities outside Canada. That means that for every six people coming into Canada, five left. We paid a great deal of money to bring those people here. I am not questioning the wisdom of the policy which brings those people to Canada. I am pointing out, however, that those who left were young people with the training, character and skill that we want to keep in Canada by every possible method that we can adopt.
This it seems to me illustrates most forcibly what happens when we send our raw materials out and the highest level of employment in the use of those raw materials is elsewhere. Again may I say that I am not suggesting that we are not using our raw materials extensively; I am not suggesting that we are not increasing and improving our industrial production all along the line; I am simply placing these figures before us to indicate that there is a great deal more that we can do.
I hope that no one will suggest that I am placing before this house any argument that we should stop the export of our raw materials. I hope I have made it clear that I think we should export our raw materials in reasonable quantities, particularly those raw materials required to maintain the production of defence requirements. So long as we are not unreasonably depleting any of our own resources I see no reason why we should not maintain the export of such quantities of raw materials as will contribute to the maintenance of industrial production in other countries which are associated with us in our common efforts today. But I do think that if there is to be expansion in production related to the use of those raw materials, that expansion in production and employment should be here in Canada and not in some other country.


We have talked a great deal about keeping young Canadians in Canada and we have reason to talk about that. The best way to keep Canadians in this country is to do what we can to offer to them the most attractive type of employment that there is, to create for them in every way within our power under a free enterprise system the highest measure of employment in the most advanced stages of industrial production possible from the raw materials we possess. It is in work of this kind that so may of the new graduates in engineering, medicine and other technical branches of education feel that they can find greater opportunities in the United States today.
By all means let us send the last pound of raw materials that is needed for the production of those things required in this period of emergency in the common cause of the defence of freedom. If it can be used outside of Canada in this period of emergency, let it be sent to the places where it can best be used. But we should not encourage the export of a single pound of raw materials which is not necessary for that purpose or for the maintenance of the continued production of essential requirements in another country.
I have pointed out that most of these raw materials are available in many other countries which have not the same facilities for industrial production that we possess. This is something which is of interest not only to those who may possibly be employed in the steel or any other industry in Canada; it is a subject of primary concern to the farmer, to the office worker and to every other Canadian who benefits from the total volume of production and employment in this country. The more we fabricate in finished or highly processed form from our own resources, the more money we will earn as a people and the larger and more profitable will be the markets for our farmers, our fishermen and those who supply our basic food and other requirements.
I hope that nothing I have said will be interpreted as an argument in favour of any dog-in-the-manger policy. I am only suggesting that in the rapidly expanding development of resources opportunities for Canadians shall at all times be the first consideration of the parliament of Canada and of the people of Canada generally.
Nothing that I have said is a suggestion in any way that we should isolate ourselves from a world which more and more is bound up in trade. On the other hand, I do suggest that there are dangers which are before the eyes of every one of us and which are of particular significance to Canada, which depends so largely upon export trade. The

best kind of export trade we can have is the export trade that earns the most dollars for the volume of exports and at the same time creates the largest domestic employment so that the purchasing power of our industrial communities may advance the opportunities and prosperity of the whole of Canada.
We have lost our markets for many lines of agricultural production. We hope that they will return, but in the meantime the loss of those markets emphasizes the need for greater domestic markets. It emphasizes the need for increasing population in this country which can feed and support a population so far beyond that which we have today. The outstanding fact in this country at this time is that with virtually every raw material that is needed for expansion and production of all kinds, Canada lacks the most important natural resource of all, it lacks people. It lacks them in the number required to create internal markets which will cushion our economy against external disturbances. We particularly lack employment in sufficient quantity for those highly skilled occupations which attract the best brains from our universities and technical schools.
By the highest possible use of our materials for the development of industrial production in Canada we will make the most effective contribution we can to the maintenance of the human resources of this country which are so much more valuable than anything else we possess. I repeat that of all the resources, other than human, steel is the most important of the metal resources we possess. Of course it is not as important as food and the other basic requirements for our actual living, but for the purpose of creating employment it is the most important resource of all. With an adequate quantity of steel available, all other production can be expanded. With our resources of iron ore we have in Canada the brightest possibility of expansion we have ever had.
Because of the great abundance of all resources, we have taken those resources for granted. We have talked constantly about our limitless resources and have used that expression with some measure of justification. But in recent years as never before we have seen the depletion of resource capital throughout the world and we should now revise our ideas on this subject. There is no suggestion of criticism of this government alone. All Canadians, growing up surrounded by such an abundance of resources, have been inclined to dismiss from their minds the possibility that they could ever be used up. Nevertheless we know
Conservation of Natural Resources now that a number of countries are bankrupt in resources at this time. That kind of bankruptcy has not only reduced the status of nations in the past and in recent years but has destroyed civilizations in the past. Great opportunities are before us. With demands coming from all parts of the world for raw materials or the things made from raw materials, the decision for us to make with respect to what goes out of Canada is whether it shall go out in the form of raw materials or do we do everything possible to see that it goes out in the form of finished products?
Distant though the possibility of exhaustion may seem, there is every reason for us to remember that we are not immune from the dangers which have done so much to injure other countries when adequate measures of conservation were not introduced. It is with that thought in mind, and in the hope that, no matter who may have been responsible at any time in the past, we will now think particularly of the future, that I am presenting an amendment which I hope will be regarded as a positive proposal rather than as criticism of this or any other government. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon):
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"whereas the natural resources of Canada are a heritage that should be developed and conserved for the purpose of providing the greatest possible measure of opportunity and security for all Canadians, this house is of the opinion that immediate consideration should be given to a national policy under a system of free enterprise and in close association and collaboration with the provinces that will:
(a)	promote and develop all the country's natural resources for the benefit of the people of every part of Canada:
(b)	protect and conserve our forest, mineral and other resources from undue depletion or exhaustion:
(c)	expand the use of our resources for industrial production in Canada and thus create greater opportunities for employment and advancement of Canadians."


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, with a great deal of what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said in the course of his speech I think all members of the house will find themselves in agreement. I think everyone here is conscious of the desirability of doing everything possible both by conserving our resources and by planning for their efficient use within Canada so that the citizens of Canada now and hereafter will enjoy the maximum benefits from the great heritage which is ours. Indeed, it is only within the last few years that many Canadians have begun to realize that this country is as richly endowed as it really is.

Conservation of Natural Resources
The recent discoveries of oil, uranium, minerals such as iron in Labrador, northern Quebec and Ontario, the new fields of nickel, copper, and so on, together with the development of the great natural resources in our waterpower, have at last led the people of our country to realize the extent of our resources and the possibilities that lie in them. I notice that the leader of the opposition has inserted in his amendment these words:
. . . this house is of the opinion that immediate consideration should be given to a national policy under a system of free enterprise and in close association and collaboration with the provinces that will . . .
Then follow the various clauses. Let me point out that over the years it was under a system of free enterprise that such resources as it was recognized we had in this country were either neglected or exploited ruthlessly. If one wishes to see what unlimited, unrestricted free enterprise will do to a great resource all one has to do is to drive up the Ottawa and Gatineau valleys where once there were great stands of white pine from which the ships of the United Kingdom derived their masts and a great deal of the lumber that was required to build those wooden walls of Britain 150 years ago, to say nothing of the ships that we built ourselves on the great lakes and along the St. Lawrence river. Today one searches these valleys in vain for that mighty pine which once dominated them.
A few people made enormous fortunes. I need not mention their names because they are familiar to us in the streets and surroundings of the city of Ottawa, but nevertheless it was the free enterprise of these people that denied to this generation and to posterity a continuance of these mighty forests that once clothed the slopes of the Gatineau and Ottawa valleys.


John Lambert Gibson: They do not use many wooden masts any more.


Major James William Coldwell: What is true of these valleys is true of many other parts of Canada and the United States. I agree with the leader of the opposition when he points out the tremendous wastage of pulp and paper on the other side of the line and the manner in which our great resources are moving across the line with very little promise of reforestation in some parts of Canada. I had an interruption a moment ago from my good friend, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson). Of course he lives in a rather favoured part of Canada-


John Lambert Gibson: Not since Thursday.


Major James William Coldwell: -where as a matter of fact denuded forests reproduce themselves with


some rapidity particularly if assisted to some extent by those who are cutting down the trees at the present time; but even in his region it will take tens of years to replace the mighty Douglas fir which has fallen and is falling to the axes of lumbermen along the Pacific coast.


John Lambert Gibson: We may not need them.


Major James William Coldwell: I am making my own speech. If the hon. member does not agree with me he can rise later and tell me wherein I am wrong. All you have to do is to look across our country and the United States to see monuments to free enterprise in the wasteful exploitation of the great forest wealth of the North American continent. I have driven through Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, parts of Ontario and other places where once great forests grew and where free enterprisers have had unlimited opportunity to deny to this generation and those that succeed us the crop of trees to which they are entitled. I am very happy that today governments are stepping in and limiting free enterprise and are putting into effect conservation policies similar to those that they have had in the social democratic countries of Norway and Sweden, and even indeed in countries that are not social democratic such as Germany where an annual crop of lumber is now assured.
I know it is very difficult for governments to put such policies into effect. In my own province of Saskatchewan a royal commission was set up in 1944 or 1945 to go into the matter of conserving the forests of the northern part of that province. Their report was that with the rate of cutting then in effect there would be no saw logs left to cut within eight years. Therefore the government had to institute a conservation policy which was unpopular. Apparently it is understood now in the light of the results of the voting there in the last week, but at the outset it was unpopular, and any government which attempts to put conservation policies of that description into effect to ensure a permanent supply of lumber and to limit cutting to those trees that are ripe for cutting will have difficulties.
I welcome the resolution in so far as I am able to agree with it because it does to an extent focus the attention of this house upon the problem which confronts this country with its vast resources, particularly with its forest resources at the present time.
I say therefore that if you are going to do anything in the way of conservation you have got to say "Thou shalt not". That in itself is a limitation to private or free enterprise; and in respect of its reference to free enterprise I would, of course, have to oppose

this resolution. I do not agree that it can he done under private and free enterprise.
I am glad too that the governments of the various provinces, in co-operation with our own mines and resources department, have taken steps in recent years to prevent the loss of lumber and timber through fire hazards. I have noted that in all provinces there is a consciousness of the danger of fire and the loss which accrues to the provinces and to the country because of fire. We now have fire equipment in many parts of Canada to mitigate the evil effects of forest fires.
Then too there is the manner in which governments have tried to promote-and I will give some credit to the present government in this regard and to the provincial governments-conservation of the soil. After all, the most valuable resource we have in the long run is the top six inches of the earth's surface, which we call soil. I am one of those who fifteen years ago or thereabouts saw the effects of soil drifting-erosion by wind-due to some extent to the dryness of the soil and to some extent to faulty methods of cultivation. It was also due to overcultivation of the soil. We saw the soil blowing across the lands in such quantities that in the middle of the day in some of our western cities one had to turn on the headlights of a car in order to see where one was going. However, because of the experience and because of the encouragement of governments, that has to some extent been stopped. New methods of cultivation have been adopted-summerfallowing every year, leaving the soil in a lumpy condition instead of working it down like a nice garden so that it will blow-has all helped in recent days to prevent erosion of that description. Governments have encouraged contour plowing of the land-around the hills instead of up and down-so that when the rains come the soil is not washed down into the rivers, lakes and seas.
With soil conservation we have in this country a resource that will last for ages. European countries have demonstrated that soil can be cultivated not for hundreds of years but literally for thousands of years where proper methods are put into effect. On the other hand, parts of Africa, and parts of Asia have demonstrated to us that without careful methods of cultivation and without irrigation, lands which once grew great crops of fruits, grain and foodstuffs can be turned into the deserts of Mesopotamia or the deserts of North Africa. Anything that the government can do to conserve the top six inches of soil and to encourage its proper cultivation, and with that the conservation of water
Conservation of Natural Resources so that when necessary the water can be used to replenish moisture in the land, is well worth putting into effect and supporting.
I quite agree with the leader of the opposition that these forest resources, the soil and so on, will eventually be worth far more to this country than the wasting resources. Once you have found gold and have taken it out of the ground you have nothing left but a hole in the ground. I remember that not very far from where I was born, 2,000 years ago vast quantities of tin were mined and shipped by the Phoenicians-


Mr. Brooks:: You don't look that old.


Major James William Coldwell: I meant that I had read about it. Probably I phrased my remarks a little awkwardly and I did not intend to imply that I have either that age or the wisdom that goes with it. But there the old mines, the holes in the ground, remain. They are worked out and very little tin now is found where once great quantities were mined.
With respect to wasting resources such as oil and minerals which we have, as the leader of the opposition said, recently we have learned of further great resources of that basic mineral-iron ore in Labrador and iron ore in northern Quebec. I would like to see as much of that iron ore as possible processed in this country and utilized for the building of industry in this country. I do not know just what encouragement the leader of the opposition would give but I would point this out. Over the years the government of Canada has given a tremendous amount of encouragement to industrialists to utilize our resources within this country. We were for many years one of the highest tariff countries in the world, protecting Canadian industry, and I am sometimes inclined to blame Canadian capitalists who, at that time under the guarantee of domestic free enterprise and behind high tariff walls, had the opportunity of doing a great deal to develop industry in this country but did not do so. I do not think that today, if I may interject this thought, we can afford to grant that kind of protection for the building up of industries that will utilize our natural resources. In the kind of world in which we live we have to sell things to get dollars, as the leader of the opposition put it, into the country. The only way in which we can try to do that is to export goods and receive in return goods which nations can send to us for consumption or, perchance, export to third parties from whom they or we can receive goods in order to maintain our export industry and our trading position. Consequently, I cannot agree that any encouragement should be forthcoming or can be forthcoming to Canadian

Conservation of Natural Resources industry if that involves any raising of the tariffs in any new measure of protection. That is a point upon which I would like my hon. friends to my right to comment when they rise to participate in this debate.
The reason great iron resources of Canada are now being searched for, and where found are being developed by American capital is that they have wastefully mined a good deal of their iron resources in their country. We know, of course, of the Mesabi range in Minnesota and Wisconsin. It has been said that had that range been mined more carefully the resource would have lasted much longer.
However, be that as it may, we have other resources that were not particularly mentioned which I should like to mention before I speak of the human resources, one of which is fish. We should conserve our fisheries, and I hope that more will be done to conserve the coastal waters fisheries and also the fisheries in our inland lakes and rivers. We have a fine source of wealth in the fresh water fish that can be found all across Canada, in the Northwest Territories and south of them, in almost every province. They form a rich source of food supply, as well as a wealth of employment and industry.
Then, of course, for a time we were in danger of having our fur-bearing animals severely depleted. When the leader of the opposition was speaking I looked up the conservation policies that have been put into effect in my own province since 1944. In that year the beaver in the province were almost extinct, and only 473 beaver were trapped. A conservation policy was put into effect, as with muskrats and other fur-bearing animals, and only a certain number of animals were allowed to be taken in certain spots. As a result, in 1951 the trappers were allowed to take 14,078 beaver, and still leave behind plenty of breeding stock. All this was accomplished in the short space of about seven years. Of course, it involved transferring a few beaver, which were making nuisances of themselves in the southern part of the province into regions where they could live and breed freely without doing any injury to the surrounding countryside. All these are resources that are worth conserving. The provinces, together with the Department of Resources and Development, have an obligation to conserve these resources, to put in the proper conservation policy, and incidentally I hope that the members of all parties in this house will support such a move.
A government which sets out to put conservation policies into effect, to say to trappers that they cannot trap except in certain areas and in certain quantity, is going to have


difficulty. The same thing is true when you say to fishermen that they cannot fish in certain lakes until they have been cleaned of disease. You are going to have difficulty, because it takes a few years for the people who are affected to realize that this is being done in their own interests. I realize that in those few years there may be elections and seats may be lost in the areas in which these conservation policies are put into effect. Consequently, I should like to see such conservation policies supported by all parties in this house, and not made matters of political controversy or of political division.
The concluding portion of the speech by the leader of the opposition was one which struck a very responsive note in my mind, and that was his reference to the conservation of human resources. It is not only the loss of our young people abroad that is vital in that regard, but the death rale among the population of Canada, or some parts of it, is equally vital.
Last week I was staggered when I was told that until hospitals and schools had been put into the north regions of Saskatchewan since 1944 the infant mortality in that particular area-not the whole of it but in quite a large area-was no less than 50 per cent. One half of the children died before reaching one year of age. Today, of course, hospitals, schools, education and so on have tended to reduce that death rate until, while it is above the normal average for the country, it has been greatly reduced. The health of our people, therefore, is a question that should be faced very freely. I was reading an article in the current issue of Maclean's magazine a few days ago concerning the high cost of medical care, the high cost of hospitalization and so on in this country. Until we bring hospitalization and health facilities so close to the people that they can be used as freely as our children use the public and separate schools in our country, we shall not have put into effect a human conservation policy such as we should have in Canada.
The leader of the opposition mentioned the tragic loss of many of our ablest young university students, who cross to the United States because they think there is a better opportunity there. In January, I had the opportunity of addressing the social science group of the University of Chicago. On Sunday morning when I went down to the university chapel, I was invited to lunch by the Canadian students. I found twenty-seven of them in that university, and all were interested in Canada. While I was unprepared to do so, they asked me to tell them something about the opportunities that were likely to be presented to young people in this country

in the days to come. I told them that while I thought, at the moment, if they came back to Canada they might have to take a slightly lower salary or wage than they might receive at the moment in the United States, I was convinced that five or ten years from now, when they had trained themselves to fit into the economy of our country, they would be in a better position in Canada than they would be in five or ten years in the United States. I believe that is so. I strongly advised them to come back.
I outlined, off the cuff as it were, what was happening in this country today. I told them of the great aluminum and power developments as well as the pulp and paper development in the province of British Columbia; the development of the great oil resources of Alberta; the hunt for oil in Saskatchewan and the finding of uranium and other minerals in that north country; Manitoba, with its nickel and other resources; Ontario, with its mineral wealth, its power resources and other resources; Quebec, with the tremendous resources in northern Quebec and Labrador and so on.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In other words, we are doing what this resolution asks us to do.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. I did not say I was going to vote for the resolution. I am not going to vote for the resolution. As a matter of fact, I think it is fair to say that a great deal is being done along this line, but I think it is being done altogether without proper government encouragement. In fact, the leader of the opposition does not want it altogether with government supervision, because he says it may be done under private enterprise. In the past, private enterprise has not taken advantage of the opportunities that were within this country.


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, because I know he is eminently fair in his presentation of an argument of this kind. I think he inadvertently made a statement that I should not leave on the record unchallenged, when he said I did not wish government supervision. I have made it clear that I do wish government supervision, but I believe the government should not be in the actual business of development.


Major James William Coldwell: I accept the correction, and perhaps that does express the point of view of the leader of the opposition better than the interpretation I had placed upon his remarks. But I will say this: that in my opinion, if we are going to develop the resources of this country in the manner in which they should be developed, then they must be developed with intelligence and on a plan. If you are going to have a plan, you must be able to
16. 1952
Conservation of Natural Resources exercise some control in order to put that plan into effect. Consequently private enterprise, working in the interests of the private investors alone without regard, as is often the case, to the safeguarding of the rights of the masses of the people, will not develop our resources in the manner in which they should be developed. I say quite readily to the leader of the opposition and to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that there is a place for private enterprise in the development of our resources; but I do not think you can leave the development of our resources wholly to private enterprise, as this resolution implies. It says, "a national policy under a system of free enterprise". That is the quarrel I have with the resolution.
If I may do so, Mr. Speaker, in order to put our viewpoint clearly before the house, I want to move an amendment to the amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles);
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom the words "under a system of free enterprise and"
It would then read:
this house is of the opinion that immediate consideration should be given to a national policy in close association and collaboration with the provinces that will:
(a)	promote and develop all the country's natural resources for the benefit of the people of every part of Canada;
(b)	protect and conserve our forest, mineral and other resources from undue depletion or exhaustion;
(c)	expand the use of our resources for industrial production in Canada and thus create greater opportunities for employment and advancement of Canadians.
I move that as an amendment to the amendment, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Maclnnis:: That makes it a good resolution.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes; that makes it a better resolution.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, this discussion has been, I think, timely and one which should attract considerable interest throughout the whole house and throughout the country. I am keenly interested in it because, during my short life, I have witnessed the almost wanton destruction of certain of Canada's great resources; and I think it is time that something really worth while be done by way of conservation and intelligent development.
The speeches which have been made this afternoon on the amendment have been, I think, most revealing and a good many suggestions have been put forward. On reading the amendment I find myself in much the same position as that of the hon. member for

Conservation of Natural Resources Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I was just a bit puzzled about the use of that term "under a system of free enterprise and in close association and collaboration with the provinces". I have always championed the cause of private enterprise, and I shall continue to do so because I believe it is the best way in which to induce the utmost from human beings. I think that under no other system can the proper inducements be offered. For that reason I would go along with the resolution and with what has been said about it, with the following reservations. Mr. Speaker, I believe that in the development of our great resources there must be laid down fundamental policies that will definitely result in proper conservation as well as development. I do not know whether you would call that a plan. If the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar would like to call it a plan, that is fine; but I think that is policy. I think the difference between "plan" and "policy" may be infinitesimal, but I prefer to look upon it as a policy laid down by the representatives of the people and adhered to carefully by the administrative part of government.
I think that experience of the past will show that under a system of the kind of free enterprise to which we have consigned our resources, waste, destruction and depletion have resulted; I do not think there is any question about that. If we are to conserve those resources as they ought to be conserved, I believe that we must keep title in government; I mean to say that the ownership of the resources themselves should reside in the provincial governments. I do not see any other way of administering a careful scheme or policy of development along with the necessary conservation.
That is the experience that we have had in our province. We find that if the province retains the title to the resources and does not give individuals or corporations large acreages, large slices or large concessions-that is, give them outright-we then have some sort of control by which we might regulate carefully future development and conservation. It therefore seems to me that the first and most important part of any national policy of development of resources should be the determination to keep ownership residing in government which, of course, in this case would be the government of the province.
In the second place we believe that it is wiser to have the developmental work done by private enterprise regulated under a government system of leases, rentals and royalties whereby, through a specific contract, there might be careful supervision. If the contract is not lived up to in all details,

we feel that the contract should be taken away and perhaps given to other individuals or private enterprises which are prepared to do the job as it ought to be done.
That is the experience which we have had in the province in which I reside; and it has proved itself many times over. Not only has it proved wise from the point of view of conservation and orderly development but, in addition, it has proved wise in that we have been able, from our resources, to recover a substantial share of the proceeds for the people themselves who own those resources. Somehow or other governments in the past have had the idea that in order to get development you had to give great big slices of our various resources to certain individuals or corporations to induce them to develop them. That is not so. That was the policy, I think, for a good many years; and I am just afraid that a great many political heelers have benefited as a consequence of the feeling that the party owed them something, that they have thus been able to get large slices of our resources and have gone ahead to develop them as they wanted to develop them, without any thought for future generations.
If government keeps title and if government therefore lays down a definite and specific policy for the orderly development and the conservation of those resources, we feel that adequate supervision can be given and that there will be something left for the generations yet unborn.
That is the way we have proceeded with our oil development, that is the way we are proceeding with our timber development, and so it will be with the tar sands and other resources that are now just coming into some prominence. If that is the kind of thing which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has in his mind when he moves this resolution, I find that I can go along with him quite well. But if he means that we shall continue, as in the past, to grant by gift or title certain substantial slices of our resources to anybody for development, then I cannot go along with him at all because that is not the way to get conservation.


Mr. Prudham:: Can the hon. member give a specific instance where our natural resources have been given away as a gift?


Solon Earl Low: Yes, I certainly can. In Alberta, as the minister should know, when we received our resources back from the federal government in 1931, almost 50 per cent of the subsurface rights had been given away to private corporations and individuals by deed of gift. They were therefore alienated for all time from the crown, so nothing whatever could be done by the government at the

time to conserve or to induce development, with the possible exception of a reasonable system of mineral taxation. We in Alberta as a government, therefore, have control over only about 50 per cent of the mineral rights.


George Prudham: That does not mean they were given away.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, it does mean they were given away. And I will point out to my hon. friend that his own party, through Hon. Charles Stewart as premier of Alberta, just after the first great war, sent word down here by way of a resolution passed by the legislative assembly of Alberta that they wanted this parliament in Ottawa to pass a bill enabling the legislature in Alberta to sell or to give to the Shell Oil Company the total oil rights of that province for $5,000 cash. And if that does not mean giving it away I do not know what it does mean. I think the minister had better look up the history of the matter, and find out what his own party has done in the past.


George Prudham: At least it was a British company.


Solon Earl Low: Conservation of Natural Resources country in connection with the preservation of wild ducks and wild geese. At the same time they are helping to conserve water supplies, and to store it for the use of people in those areas. In addition we have other demonstrations such as those being carried out by the Jack Miner foundation at Kingsville. Sometimes I wonder if such projects are receiving the encouragement they merit. I am doubtful about it. While I am not in possession of the whole story, from what I have observed I can say that these demonstrations are very much worth while and are doing a great deal to preserve for future generations the benefits to be derived from maintaining the numbers of those wonderful old game birds that, through the years, have been wantonly destroyed.
I wonder if we are taking sufficient care to see that such demonstrations as are put on are given proper encouragement. Correspondence I have received would seem to indicate that the Jack Miner foundation and perhaps some others in Canada are not just as affluent as they might be. It looks to me as though some of them are in real danger of encountering financial failure, through lack of public support. These are matters concerning all people, not just a few of them. It seems to me we ought to be paying much more attention to the success of these wildlife conservation schemes that have been going on for so many years on a basis of voluntary private enterprise. I would not want to see any of them fail.
A word now about our human resources. I agree we are losing too many of our educated young men and women, and I believe some of that loss can be traced to higher salaries in other countries, notably in the country to the south. It may be traced to better working conditions that exist in other countries, but that is not all. I am sure careful investigation will show that there are some very stupid professional policies being followed right here in Canada, and I want to cite one of them.
I have in mind a bright young fellow who finished high school in 1946, the year after the war ended. It will be recalled that young returned men were making application for entry into the universities of Canada and, as was proper, they were given priority. This young man applied to every university in Canada at which the professional course which he wanted to take was taught. He was told that their classes were full, that they were giving priority to returned men and therefore he could not get in.
He did not want to waste a year or two, so he applied to several universities in the United States and was finally accepted, I


think by one in southern Idaho. He went down there, took his course and after graduation came back to his native land to practise pharmacy. There was a scarcity of pharmacists in Ontario, and I understand also in other provinces. He applied for a licence to practise and although the pharmaceutical association were quite prepared to admit that his qualifications were as good as those they required for a licence in Ontario, they would not let him have a licence until he had first obtained one from his own home association, which in his case was in the state where he had finished his university training. That was the situation in every province in Canada where this young man applied for a licence.
He then had to go back to the United States; but before he could obtain a licence to practise there he had to renounce his Canadian citizenship and apply for United States citizenship. Having done that and having passed his examination in the state and received a licence, he found that before he could obtain a licence in Canada he would have to wait five years before he could regain his Canadian citizenship, working for low wages as a pharmaceutical assistant during that time.
This is characteristic of the stupid policies we have in Canada by which many professional bodies are bound. These professional bodies are doing a whole lot to add to the losses we are sustaining in bright young men and women who are graduating from our universities. These young men want to live in this country, they want to work here and help to develop our country. It seems to me that we ought to be coming to our senses and doing something to conserve our human resources.
I agree with the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) that our young people are of paramount importance and that everything possible should be done to introduce health schemes in the provinces throughout Canada which will give our young people a chance to live abundant lives free from disease and disability.
Finally I want to say that during the discussion of this important topic this afternoon I have not heard anyone refer to the fact that the great waster of our resources at all times has been war. Sometimes we overlook the fact that wartime is when we deplete our resources, especially our mineral and forest resources. Notorious as war has been as a wanton waster, we are doing very little to correct the situation. It seems to me that the best conservation scheme we could possibly work out would be one which would get at and remove the causes of war. When

we do that I am satisfied that we will not then have to run the dangers that we have been running of depleting the valuable resources which are Canada's. We should be able to root out and cure these basic causes, and there are basic causes.
When that happens we can turn our attention to other schemes of conservation such as the one I have outlined, under which the provincial governments on behalf of the people would retain title to the resources, which, in turn, would be developed under a policy of private enterprise, regulated and supervised by the government. If the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) indicates that that is the thing he had in mind when he said "under a system of free enterprise and in close association and collaboration with the provinces" then I would say we will support his amendment.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, there are quite a number of people at the lakehead who are interested in the development of our natural resources which in that vicinity are of two types, pulp and paper and mining. I must say that I was considerably heated up when a communist member of the provincial government at Toronto came up to Port Arthur and told us we should have a smelter at the lakehead. Using his own words, there was no reason why we should not have a smelter there.
I have inquired about this from several people who are interested in the Steep Rock mine and they tell me the reason we do not have a smelter at Steep Rock or at the lakehead is that the iron ore is of high quality and in order to make it of commercial value it must be mixed with a lower grade ore. That is one reason. The other reason we do not have a smelter at the lake-head is that we are too far away from markets or from sources of power in the form of coal or gas. We are told that gas is on the way to Fort William from Alberta, and if that comes through we are more likely to have a smelter at the lakehead. When that happens I am sure the right hon. minister and myself will be very pleased.
Our other main natural resource is pulp and paper. We hear a great deal about the amount of pulp being shipped to the United States, but I think these statements are exaggerated. I made some inquiries a few minutes ago and found out that very little pulp is shipped out of British Columbia. Perhaps more is shipped out of Alberta, but I am informed by a prominent pulp and paper man at the lakehead that not more than 5 per cent of the pulp produced there is shipped to the United States. Let me indicate how true that statement is.
Conservation of Natural Resources
We have two mills at Fort William, one of them having the largest paper machine in the world. The two big machines in the Great Lakes Paper Company have the greatest production record of any mill in Canada. There are two pulp and paper mills at Port Arthur; there is one at Dryden, one at Nipigon, one at Terrace Bay, one at Marathon and one at Heron Bay. These mills employ thousands of men in the bush and in the mills themselves.
I say that our record in the development of resources at the head of the lakes is splendid, so much so that I think we can tell the rest of Canada and the rest of the world how it can be done. I know we cannot develop and manufacture all our natural resources. We cannot process our gold for the market. We must export some of our wheat, and we are sorry we have to ship some of our barley to the United States for a purpose that is perhaps not in the best interests of the citizens of that country. At the lakehead we think our natural resources are being used to do a big job in developing our country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed the first part of the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I came into the house when he was discussing conservation of our natural products. To begin with, perhaps I might say a word on that subject.
The natural products that we export can be divided into groups. Our field crops include wheat, oats, barley, and also timber, for timber is also a crop. I think we are all interested in making sure that our ability to grow these crops is protected to the full. Our grain crops for export are grown chiefly in the prairie provinces, and the federal government and the three prairie provinces have for many years devoted close attention to protecting the ability of the soil of these three provinces to produce cereal crops. These crops are used in Canada to the extent that they are required for human consumption and feed in this country and of course the balance is exported. I am sure there can be no objection to that type of export of our annual crops.
I might point out that the natural resources of this country are owned by the provinces. The federal government can assist the provinces to protect the ability of the soil to produce, but it cannot direct the methods of production. The federal government is responsible for the export marketing of the products, but the regulation of production methods is primarily for the provinces. Again it is the provinces which own the metals, the petroleum and the other mineral resources

Conservation of Natural Resources of Canada. So far as forests are concerned, there again the policy of forest management is for the provinces to determine. Each province has a policy. In my opinion some are better than others, but I think that by and large all the provinces are attempting to do a good job of forest management. Part of the task of forest management is to make sure that cutting does not overtake natural growth. Forests are a crop that matures every twenty to forty years, and each province is responsible for seeing that the cutting does not exceed this respective rate of reproduction. I do not know whether it was true, but I am told that up to a few years ago the toll of the forests taken by fire and by destruction through overage was about equal to the cutting. I hope that situation is not true today. However, we know that in addition to the harvesting of the forests there is a very considerable loss by fire and by allowing trees to become overage. There again I believe a fair job is being done in protecting the forests. In that respect the federal government is also making considerable expenditures, and I believe it is doing a reasonable job in helping the provinces to do what is primarily their job.
Then we come to minerals. There again mineral leases are granted by the provinces, and the federal government takes an active part in promoting the production of minerals and in improving methods for the treatment of those minerals. The suggestion was made that we are exporting too great a proportion of our production of mineral wealth. I doubt If that is true. We use in Canada the larger part of mineral production from Canadian soil. For instance, at the present time we are fabricating in Canada about 60 per cent of our production of copper, approximately 50 per cent of our production of zinc and a considerable proportion of our production of lead. The balance is going to countries that are joined with us in defence preparations, and our present markets in those countries are really an expansion of our normal markets, the larger demand arising from the needs of war production.
I was interested in a statement by the leader of the opposition which I hope I wrote down correctly. He said that not a pound of our metals not required for defence or for the normal needs of another country should be exported. I think we can be a little more generous than that. Canada has been and still is dependent on other countries for metals that are vital to this country, and other countries do not limit us to the amount that we need for defence or for the normal purposes of this country. They deliver to us what this country needs. I suppose as good an example as one can find is aluminum. We are one of the world's great exporters


of aluminum. What part of aluminum originally comes from Canadian soil? None of it. The only thing that we contribute to the manufacture of aluminum is electric power. The principal ingredient of aluminum is bauxite. Canada imports bauxite from British Guiana, from Jamaica and from French Africa. Another ingredient of aluminum is cryolite, which we import from Greenland. Another is limestone. We used to obtain it from Newfoundland before Newfoundland became part of the dominion, and we still obtain it from Newfoundland. Therefore I should say that we contribute both power and limestone to the manufacture of aluminum. Well, you can say that these countries are robbing their own resources by shipping all this bauxite to Canada. It is true that some day British Guiana is going to be depleted so far as bauxite is concerned; nevertheless when we discuss our own policy with respect to the exporting of raw materials it is well to realize the dependence of Canada on the raw materials of other countries.
I have a few figures with regard to our principal imports. Let us take crude rubber. In 1951 we imported crude rubber to the value of $65 million. We imported raw cotton to the value of $94 million and raw wool to the value of $95 million. We imported coal and coke from the United States and thus depleted their resources to the extent of $190 million last year. We imported petroleum last year to the extent of $354 million. We talk about how careful we must be not to overproduce but we are only producing about one-third of the petroleum requirements of this country. In the next ten years we hope we can raise the one-third to one-half, but the consumption of petroleum in Canada is rising almost as fast as production in this country is being increased.
We have imported other raw materials too: molybdenum, manganese, and tin. We have no source of supply of those products native to Canada. We are dependent on other countries to see that our requirements for them are met.
It is said that the United States has been built on the basis of self-interest; that the United States never exported to Canada or anywhere else any material that they needed at home. Now, let us examine that for a moment. In the last war supplies of petroleum were very short indeed. Every motorist in the United States and every motorist in Canada was rationed, and rationed severely; but the United States never withheld supplies from Canada that put the

Canadian user of petroleum in any worse position, than United States users of petroleum.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Had they followed the suggestion of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and not exported anything they needed at home we certainly would not have had any petroleum. That is only one example. We have had periods of coal shortage when there was not enough coal to go around. The United States have always divided their supply of coal fairly with Canada. The Canadian user of coal has never been placed in any worse position than the United States user of coal. That is again the opposite to the suggestion of the United States looking after themselves first.
In the case of sugar, it was in short supply during the last war. The United Kingdom controlled all the empire sources of sugar, but the United Kingdom made sure that Canada got the sugar needed and that Canada fared just as well as her own people or the people in any other part of the empire. That was true of manganese. Our sole source of manganese at that time was South Africa, and there again the United Kingdom made sure that Canada had the manganese we needed. Tin we get partly from empire sources and partly from other sources. There again those responsible for the distribution of tin were not Canadians; nevertheless they made sure that Canada got her full share of tin when tin was in short supply.
Now we in turn have been trying to do our share in looking after the metal requirements of the free world. We had a very heavy responsibility in the matter of nickel. Before the second world war we supplied 90 per cent of all the nickel used in the world, and today I suppose we supply about 85 per cent. True, we have been depleting our resources of nickel. In the last war we had only one source of supply. Today we have many. Why? Because in an effort to keep up with the enlarged requirements- and we are mining more nickel than at any previous time in our history-we have opened up other sources of nickel. We are building a railroad into Lynn Lake where there is a very important deposit. I am told there are other discoveries in that vicinity which promise to make northern Manitoba as large a source of nickel as Sudbury. Plans are under way to open up a nickel deposit in British Columbia. We all know that Falcon-bridge, also operating in the Sudbury area, is bringing in three new properties at the present time. Are we really depleting our
16, 1952	3273
Conservation of Natural Resources nickel resources? True, we are mining great quantities of nickel; but the fact that we are using great quantities of nickel has stimulated exploration and from exploration has come development with the result that Canada is far richer in known deposits of nickel today than it was when the great demand of the second world war came upon that industry.
The same is true of other metals. Copper, in this country, has been a by-product metal. It has always been mined as a by-product of nickel or as a by-product of gold. There again the present great demand for copper has turned our prospectors to exploration for new deposits of copper. The result is that we have located a tremendous body of lower grade copper ore in the Gaspe peninsula. An enormous development of copper, for copper alone, is to be undertaken in that area. We also know of other deposits of copper which can be brought in as demand requires.
The production of zinc has been stepped up by about 35 per cent since the preparedness program began, and we know now it can be stepped up to almost any known requirement. Again, exploration has stepped ahead as demand has been stepped up.
I might mention the rarer metals as well. For example, in the last war there was a strong requirement for tungsten. There was a known deposit of tungsten in the country and, as private enterprise was not prepared to develop it, the government stepped in and opened the Emerald tungsten project. A mill was set up there and, in the course of several months, we provided sufficient tungsten to turn a shortage situation into a situation of oversupply. When the war ended the government thought it had a high cost tungsten deposit on hand and as there was also lead and zinc on the property which might be developed it seemed good business to sell the property to private enterprise. When the Korean situation came along the government bought back that property at exactly what it had sold it for. Further exploration has indicated that the tungsten deposit being worked during the last war was underlain by a much richer deposit, and today the government has a mine of rich tungsten ore that will stand up and be competitive in peacetime as well as in wartime. We are able to supply friendly nations with tungsten, and that at this time is a very great contribution indeed. I suggest in mining that tungsten we are not depleting the resources or Canada. When the present supply is used up we know that we have several other deposits of tungsten, and we are sure we can

Conservation of Natural Resources meet any requirements the world may have for tungsten for decades to come.
The same is true of cobalt. It was assumed that all the cobalt had been mined in this country years ago. The town of Cobalt was built on the mining of cobalt and the mines were supposed to be worked out. When cobalt became a scarce metal in this war we went back into that area and have been producing cobalt there on a very extensive scale, a scale that has in fact enabled us to remedy the world shortage of cobalt. Today cobalt is no longer a metal that is embarrassing war production.
I could go on and mention other metals. I might take uranium, which is a metal in tremendous demand. We were mining it before the last war but the mine had been closed down and was flooded. When the demand grew for uranium the government bought that property and proceeded to open it up. I may say the known resources of uranium in that particular mine are considerably greater today than the known resources were at the time the property was acquired. Prospecting for uranium has brought to light other deposits, not as rich but tremendously more extensive. The government and a number of private industries are engaged in bringing in uranium metal as a very large scale development.
The amendment states, in part, that in association and collaboration with the provinces the dominion should promote and develop all the country's natural resources for the benefit of the people of every part of Canada. I suggest we are doing that very thing at a rate that has never been equalled. We are not only taking care of the requirements of the people of Canada, but we are able to make a substantial contribution to the requirements of other countries.
For a moment let us examine the position of the United Kingdom under the policy laid down by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). He believes that we should supply the defence requirements of a country together with sufficient metal for its normal requirements, but not a pound more. The United Kingdom is in the most difficult position of any country in the world today. It is without raw materials. It is true that there are raw materials within the empire, but not within the United Kingdom. The only raw material that the United Kingdom has in any considerable quantity is coal. The people of the United Kingdom are only able to produce about 60 per cent of the food they consume. Their task is to make their living by importing raw material from other parts of the world, fabricating that material into finished

goods and exporting the finished goods in exchange for other raw material and for food.
The leader of the opposition made the statement that England has metals in other parts of the world. It is true that Britain has metals in other parts of the world. Why does she not obtain metals from those sources?
I am sure that in the position in which Britain is today, if she could obtain them from a sterling area she would do so in preference to paying dollars for these metals. If more copper could be obtained from Rhodesia-and there is plenty of copper there-that is where it would be obtained. Some is obtained there. If more zinc, lead and other metals could be obtained from other possessions-and there is plenty of zinc and lead in other parts of the British empire-they would be obtained from those sources. Britain is obtaining all that can be obtained from those sources, and is buying from Canada just as she has always bought from Canada because her requirements cannot be filled by other parts of the British empire alone. We are supplying metal to Britain. She has always been the principal customer for our copper and zinc, and still is our principal customer. So long as Britain requires copper and zinc from Canada, I believe it will be the policy of the present government to see that she gets that copper and zinc.
I may say that we have given preference to the requirements of the United Kingdom in that regard, and we have refused to permit our exporters to send copper to the United States or elsewhere to an extent that will deprive Britain of her full requirements from this country. We took that action because Britain is our historic market, and we have endeavoured, during periods of shortage, to protect our historic customers.
The amendment further states that we should protect and conserve our forest, mineral and other resources from undue depletion or exhaustion. I believe the provinces are doing a fair job of protecting the productivity of the soil so far as grains and timber are concerned. I suggest that so far as minerals are concerned, we have a very long way to go and very many decades to pass before there will be any shortage of any metal that Canada is producing today.
The amendment states also that we should expand our industrial production. We have been doing that. In each year since the war Canada has never invested less than 20 per cent of our national income in new development. Last year we spent about 24 per cent of our national income in capital investment. I know of no other country in the world that has managed to spend as much as 20 per cent of its national income for that purpose. Last year we spent in permanent investment, that

is in machinery, in factories, for everything of a permanent nature that we build in Canada, about $4,400 million. This year the expenditure in capital improvements will probably exceed $5 billion. There is a limit to the proportion of its national income that any country can afford to put into capital investment. I wish we could afford to go at a faster pace. I wish we were geared to move at a faster pace, but we have been gearing ourselves to move at an ever faster pace each year.
The first year after the war our total investment in capital improvements was about $3 billion, and this year we expect to be able to spend about $5 billion in capital investment. Provided this country continues to prosper, we will spend larger sums each year in the development of the resources of this country.


Solon Earl Low: There would be some danger in going too fast?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a physical limit to what can be done. In other words we cannot move any faster than the productivity of the country will permit. If we could move faster than we are now, we all know of very desirable projects we would like to have under way. They will come in their turn. There is no lack of projects in this country, and there will be no slowing down of the physical expansion of our productivity as the years go by.
We talk a great deal about steel. We say that steel is in a terrible situation. We have all this iron ore, and only so much steel. We are still importing steel, and we are exporting steel, too. We exported many million dollars worth of steel last year. What about the ore situation? We are at present not anywhere near in balance with our iron ore. We are net importers of ore today. It takes about two tons of iron ore to make a ton of steel. We imported more iron ore than we exported last year, and we shall have to do so this year, in order to meet the requirements of our steel plants. It is said that we have not been expanding steel production as rapidly as we should. The leader of the opposition placed some figures on Hansard. Prior to the war we were producing 1,500,000 tons of finished steel. By 1945, before the war ended, we were producing 2,250,000 tons of finished steel. In 1949, we were producing 3,455,000 tons of finished steel. This year we shall probably produce 4,600,000 tons of finished steel. We have additional capacity coming in at the end of the year which should add a million tons of finished steel. In 1953, therefore, we hope 55704-207
16, 1952
Conservation of Natural Resources to produce about 5-5 million tons of steel. You say, but we should be producing more steel.
It has been said that this year we shall use 6-5 million tons of steel. So we shall. But it is almost impossible for a country of 14 million people to be entirely self-contained in steel production because there are types of steel that are extremely expensive to make and for which use in this country is on a scale that would not warrant the additional productive investment. At the present time, in structural steels, the largest shape we make is a six by six angle. In two or three months -certainly by October-we will be able to produce everything up to an eighteen inch I-beam, which is a substantial expansion of our capacity to produce structural steel. A great deal of imported structural steel is in the form of H-beams, made only by the Bethlehem Steel Company, and not even made in England. There are other special shapes in larger than eighteen inch I-beams that are used in considerable quantity, a variety of which we import and probably will import for many years. That type of item makes up the million tons or a good part of it, that we will still require to import.
Back in the days of the depression we were importing steel. We were making our 1J million tons and we were importing about 500,000 tons of steel. In the pre-war days we were accustomed to import about 1 million tons of steel. Why? Because of the variety of shapes that our volume of use did not permit us to make. We will always be importers of steel and we will always be exporters of steel. I have the trade figures here. This year we exported primary and semi-finished steel to the value of $29,300,000. Canada is a trading country; therefore Canada will probably always be an importer of steel as well as an exporter of steel. But I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we have in this country a steel industry that will attempt to supply the needs of Canada to the full extent that economy of production will permit.
The industry at the moment is responsible for spending about $150 million in the present expansion program. Since the beginning of the war I suppose an additional $200 million has been spent by that private industry in expanding steel facilities. It is true that the expansion has not been as rapid as I should have liked to see; nevertheless the industry has borne a tremendous burden, and the results will be reaped by the end of this year or the early months of next year.
We are told that the export of raw materials prevents this country from maximum industrial expansion. May I point out that the production of minerals in quantity also leads

Conservation of Natural Resources to the expansion of allied industry. One of the most rapidly expanding industries we have is the chemical industry. I do not know how many hundreds of millions of dollars have been poured into the chemical industry since the beginning of the last war, but I am sure it must run to $300 or $400 million. The industry is spending over $100 million for expansion at this present moment.
Then as to the smelting industry, the copper ore, the nickel ore and the titanium ore is all smelted in this country before export. We do not export the ore as such. We may export iron ore in the future. We have not done so yet, but we may in due time.


Howard Charles Green: We are exporting it to Japan.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The few contracts made represent an amount which is small.


Howard Charles Green: Over 1 million tons a year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is not true. One million tons a year? Ridiculous!


Howard Charles Green: That is according to reports.


Clarence Decatur Howe: One million tons a year coming out of British Columbia?


John Lambert Gibson: Of iron ore.


Clarence Decatur Howe: One million tons a year?


John Lambert Gibson: About that.


Mr. Rowe:: They both can't be wrong.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That quantity does not show up in the total figures of 4 million tons produced in Canada last year.


Howard Charles Green: According to reports there are one million tons a year-


Clarence Decatur Howe: It must have been a fiction
magazine that the hon. member was reading. In any event I will look at the figures of production. If iron ore exports from British Columbia are one-twelfth of one million tons I will make a public apology in this house.


Howard Charles Green: One hundred thousand tons a month.


William Earl Rowe: That is more than 1 million tons a year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; "if". I will get the exact figures from my statistical department and give them to the house.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the minister give us the figures on concentrates at the same time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Concentrates of what?


Major James William Coldwell: Copper and so on!


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no substantial quantity of concentrates of copper going out. There are zinc and lead concentrates going out from eastern Canada. That is being remedied shortly by building a smelter in eastern

Canada. Zinc concentrates are practically all smelted in transit for the United Kingdom. The export of metals has produced a tremendous investment in smelting and refining facilities in this country, and will continue to do so.
It is being assumed that we have no export of manufactured goods. I may say that the export of manufactured goods is increasing about in step with the export of semi-fabricated products. The largest exports are automobiles and agricultural machinery. Our exports of automobiles used to go principally to sterling countries, but on account of the economy measures by sterling countries we have lost that market in good part; but we have replaced it in somewhat larger volume by markets in South America and elsewhere.
A good deal has been said about losing markets in the sterling area. Well, we have lost markets for some products but what is the reason we have lost them? The reason is that the sterling countries just cannot afford to buy all they want in dollar markets at the present time. We are extremely sorry for this situation. We have done everything we could to encourage Canadians to purchase from sterling countries. At one time we were purchasing from the sterling area more than we were shipping to the sterling area. That would be the case today had the availability to Canada kept up, and had we been able to buy the things we needed in sterling countries. However, the availability has not been there and our imports from the sterling area are slipping. Nevertheless it is the policy of the government to encourage the purchase in sterling area countries of everything that can be purchased there. We believe that is the way, and the only way, to make it possible for sterling countries to buy in Canada the type of manufactured goods that those countries were buying in Canada before the second great war.
I do not know that I need to say any more. The amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply fairly well sets out the policy that this government is following. I should say to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) when he stresses the policy being followed by his provincial government -and I have no criticism of that policy; I think their situation has been well handled- that that policy was adopted holus-bolus from the policy of the dominion government at the time the natural resources of the province were returned to Alberta in 1938.


Major James William Coldwell: The year of the return of the natural resources was 1931.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not to Alberta.


Solon Earl Low: 
Major James William Coldwell: And Saskatchewan.


Clarence Decatur Howe: To Saskatchewan; but as to the oil resources, I remember that they were turned back in my years in the House of Commons. Certain resources were turned back, I think the leases of oil-perhaps just the residual leases-


Solon Earl Low: The residual leases and the tar sands.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps it was at that time. However, the policies Alberta is following are the policies the federal government has been following in the Northwest Territories for a good many years. Perhaps I should not have gone into that, since my dates may not have been correct. However, there is no quarrel between us.
As I have said, this amendment sets out a policy the government is following and has been following. It may be asked: Then why would the government vote against the amendment? The answer is that it is put in the form of a want of confidence motion. If the amendment is carried, then it means that the house cannot go into committee of supply. If the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) wishes to move an amendment of this kind, as a want of confidence motion, it is the duty of the government to oppose the motion-which I shall do, and which I hope other members of this party will do as well.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to approach this discussion from a different angle than that taken by other members who have spoken in the debate thus far.
During the 17 years I have been in the House of Commons I have always felt, when listening to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), that he would make an excellent auctioneer. I was born and reared on the farm, and we held the view that if there was a way to paint a bright picture, a picture of perfection, the auctioneer was the man who would be able to do it. It may be, however, that the minister will permit some suggestions by way of improving that picture of perfection; because what he has said about his policies and his administration would seem to indicate something pretty close to perfection.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: I said that was what the minister had said. At this time I should like to advance a proposal which I offered on another occasion, on October 22, 1951, when I dealt with the matter of collaboration between the federal and provincial governments in connection with natural resources. What I said at that time was to a great
16, 1952	3277
Conservation of Natural Resources extent the outgrowth of a situation which had developed in the council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, just before the date of the debate in the house to which I have referred.
I believe many people were both startled and shocked to learn at that time, as a result of information emanating from the council meeting, that there had not been on any broad scale in any of the countries of the NATO community any real survey or inventory of the economic resources then available to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is true there might have been some semblance of an inventory; but some of the most caustic observations at that time were directed to the fact that no proper inventory had been made setting out the resources of the free countries of the world. When it is said that there was no proper inventory, it will be suggested that such a statement could be made only in a matter of degree, and that there had been some inventory. The fact remains that this critical comment was made on that occasion, and it was those comments which prompted the proposal I made in my speech in the house on October 22, 1951.
While I am not seeking to commit anyone at this time to the proposals I then made, I might point out that they were presented in an effort to be constructive. I was convinced then, and I am still convinced, that there is work for a board or a commission, whichever one may choose to call it, which would deal with our natural resources. The name to be applied to such a body is not important; the important thing is what the body does, the purposes for which it is set up and the extent to which it achieves its objectives.
On the occasion to which I have referred I made these suggestions:
That appropriate legislation be introduced setting up a national development production board to be composed of representatives of government on the federal and provincial levels and of agriculture, industry and labour and other branches of our national endeavour, to achieve the following objectives :
(a)	To survey at once the natural resources of Canada in relation to their availability and the foreseeable demands as presently indicated by the requirements for our defence program, the anticipated demands arising from our international obligations and the domestic demands of an expanding economy.
(b)	To recommend with the least possible delay upon the basis of such investigation and examination how best this nation can meet the demands and obligations above-mentioned.
My proposal at that time was not made with a view to supplanting in any way the functions of provincial or dominion governments. What I had in mind was to find a way whereby, working together under our present

Conservation of Natural Resources system, we could obtain the maximum development of the objectives we had in mind. It was an attempt to co-ordinate the activities of governments at various levels in the hope that not only would we be able to meet in an orderly fashion the obligations placed upon us by our NATO commitments, but that we would be capable of handling our expanding economy at home, as well as looking sufficiently far into the future to meet conditions that might develop at that future time. Let us hope that the day may not be far distant when we may be in that position. We have to be ready for the day when the current international impasse will be at an end and we may return to a more normal state, although it may well be that the present industrial buoyancy resulting from defence preparedness may not be present then in the same degree as it is now. Let us hope that at such time we will be in a strong position to relate our economy to the needs of our own people, always keeping in mind our relations with other countries of the world as they may develop in the future.
It seemed to me that there was merit in the proposals I offered at that time. I felt that as a first move the provinces should be consulted, and that after such consultation the board might be set up for the purpose of making recommendations to bring about the desired objectives. I believe my suggestion has within it the germ of a program under which this country would move forward through concerted action, rather than by haphazard and piecemeal methods, both in the international and domestic fields. My suggestions had in mind no interference whatsoever with federal, provincial, municipal or private rights, but rather have for their purpose what might be described as Canadian team-play.
I believe any move in that direction should be welcomed by the government. I repeat the suggestion to the minister with all the conviction I can summon, because I feel there is need for this type of improvement, not only for the betterment of our own economy in Canada at this time but with a view to stabilizing our position internationally in the days that lie ahead.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a question of privilege, I was challenged about the iron ore shipments from the west coast. I should like to state now that in the full year 1951 the shipments amounted to 113,364 tons; and for the first four months of 1952, 60,375 tons. Those are the totals for the period.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister any estimate for this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The hon. member can make the estimates; I can only give the facts.
[Mr. Graydon.l


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the subject matter of the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) differ to some considerable extent. My main reason for getting to my feet at this time is to comment on the fact that in the surveys to which I have listened of the development of Canada's resources every speaker has ended at Quebec. As I have said on a good many occasions, the thinking of Ottawa, particularly those who live here and have to do with the management of the country, is to forget completely that there are four provinces east of Quebec. The statements this afternoon were all alike in their failure to recognize that important fact.
The development of our resources from the national standpoint, either by the government or by free enterprise, poses this question in my mind:	What is there left to
develop which is not already under lease? There is very little. My main quarrel in the house over the years has been that United States rather than Canadian capital is developing Canada's resources. We have leased practically all the resources of this country to outside capital, and I do not think that is a good thing. In that kind of development we are losing control of our resources, either under the free enterprise system or under government control.
Let us consider for a minute this question of iron ore. When a bill was proposed in this house to give the Hollinger exploration company a franchise in the Ungava area which included the construction of railroads and all the rest of it some of us opposed the measure. I still think that despite the fact that we have these iron ore deposits which are so important to the steel industry of the future, we will still be importing iron ore after they are fully developed -because this development is being undertaken by United States interests. The M. A. Hanna Company in the United States are supplying the capital and in the final analysis will own the ore deposits in that area for ten years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Half is owned by the Hollinger interest and half by the Hanna Company.


Clarence Gillis: The Hollinger people are acting as the Canadian front for the M. A. Hanna Company of the United States. The point I am making, and the point which the leader of the opposition missed, is that this development is being undertaken by United States capital because the necessary risk capital could not be found in Canada. The Canadian

free enterpriser was not enterprising enough to see the future of that development.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend says that there is no risk capital being put up in Canada. I assure him that the first $5 million that went into Ungava was put up by the Hollinger Mining Company and 50 per cent of the next $5 million was also put up by that same company. Let us not run down our own institutions.


Clarence Gillis: The point I am making, and which I think the minister is fully aware of, is that the Hollinger people are subsidiaries of United States interests.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Clarence Gillis: Oh, yes, they are.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a point of order, let us be accurate. The Hollinger mining company is owned to a large extent, I think 60 per cent, by the Timmins family. It always has been and probably always will be. A good part of the balance is owned by Canadians. The United States holdings in Hollinger are quite small.


Clarence Gillis: I am not going to argue with the minister at this time, but when the bill was under discussion names, dates and amounts were placed on the record and they are there for anyone to see. I am not going to go into the Hollinger operations in Canada and their tie-in with the United States company because we have done our research on it and it is a matter of record in the house.
I think that even after this ore is fully developed we are still going to be importing iron ore. The United States interests are going to have the final say in what ore we get and what they keep.
The same thing applies to oil. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) says that his government has rented these oil rights. That is fine as far as his government is concerned, but the pipe-line companies had to come to the House of Commons for a franchise to pipe the oil to the United States. When it is finally piped over there the Americans are going to have the say as to how the oil is to be distributed. We fought this in the house, and I think rightly so. We wanted to have these pipe lines constructed on Canadian soil declared to be common carriers. We submitted that if the federal government were going to assume the responsibility of issuing franchises the main pipe lines in Canada should be declared common carriers so that anyone would have the right to tap them or put on branch lines.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under the provisions of the Pipe Lines Act they are all common carriers.
Conservation of Natural Resources


Clarence Gillis: They have not been declared to be common carriers. The same thing applies to natural gas. The pipe-line companies are being given the right to tap the natural gas and distribute it all over the country. We should not be patting ourselves on the back because of this type of development. I think the leader of the opposition missed the boat completely when he failed to realize that the system of free enterprise which he talks so much about has not been free enterprising enough in the way of supplying capital. We have had to import capital from the United States in order to develop our resources.
I submit that if risk capital could not be found in Canada to at least meet these basic requirements the Canadian government should have protected the Canadian people by retaining at least a 51 per cent interest in the capital invested in these resources in the name of the Canadian people. That could have been done, and I think it should have been done. The premier of Newfoundland is doing that kind of thing right now so far as bringing capital into that province by retaining 51 per cent of the shares, stock or capital going into such developments. I think it is something that is very necessary.
As I said when I rose, so far as thinking about the development of this country is concerned, it stops after you reach Quebec. I am glad to see the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) is now in his seat. He has a department under his control which is presumed to be concerned with the development of our resources; but it seems that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is the minister who actually has that power at the present time. I should like to call to the attention of the house the fact that within the last couple of months I had occasion to approach the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. I was appealed to by a certain gentleman who had 57 square miles of territory, I think it was, leased in the province of Nova Scotia. He had tested that area and had found an excellent grade of iron ore.
All his tests were made and he had made a connection with a British company that took his samples and told him, according to the correspondence between them which I have read, that if he could develop that area the company would take one million tons a year of that grade of ore. The person who had the property under lease was not able to complete a certain survey that was necessary. He needed a magnetic survey of the area in order to complete the proving-up of the whole region. The Nova Scotia provincial government did not have that kind
32S0

Conservation of Natural Resources of equipment, but it is available in the federal Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. I sent the department the correspondence between myself and the gentleman concerned and the correspondence between him and the British company which was pushing him to proceed with the development of the area and was willing to take a million tons of that type of ore. After considerable delay I received a letter from the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys to the effect that they would not undertake that kind of survey for commercial purposes.
For what other purposes does the department make surveys? I hope it is not merely to put them in the archives. However, that is as far as I could get with the department. In his speech this afternoon the minister set out very clearly the need' for iron and other basic materials, and outlined the research and exploration that is being carried on. In the case to which I have referred this man carried on his own exploration for two years, had all his analyses made and finally came to the point where, in order to put the property under development and having an assured market for the product, all he needed was the help of the department in making a magnetic survey; and he was not able to get it.
I should like to ask the members from the maritimes if they think in that particular instance that part of the country is getting the kind of deal with respect to the development of its resources that the rest of Canada is getting. The minister clearly indicated that they opened a tungsten mine, I believe it was, in western Canada, operated it during the war and then sold it to a company. I imagine there was considerable capital invested there. When the war started they repurchased the mine, redeveloped it and put more capital into it. I imagine that millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money went into that development; but when the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys is asked to do an ordinary routine job involving the use of equipment they already have one gets the short answer from the minister that they do not do that kind of survey for commercial purposes.


Mr. Blackmore:: Did the hon. member take the matter up with the Nova. Scotia government, and did they back up his request?


Clarence Gillis: I did not take it up with the Nova Scotia government because the man who approached me had already done so and the Nova Scotia government did not have that kind of equipment.


John Horne Blackmore: What I am wondering is whether the Nova Scotia government would have sought the survey from Ottawa.


Clarence Gillis: I do not know. I made representations and I know the answer I got. I got the answer that that kind of survey was not made by the department for commercial purposes. When the minister's estimates are before the house I hope he will let us know for what purpose they send out survey parties to search for new mineral deposits. Is it merely to get reports and then bury them in the archives, or is not the end in view, so far as all research, exploration and mapping is concerned, development for commercial purposes later on? I should like to get an answer from the minister to that question because I am sure the results of a large percentage of the research and exploration carried on by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys are made available to the larger companies to help them in expansion and so forth.
My main reason for rising at this time was to bring up this matter. We hear discussions in the house year in and year out with regard to the development of the country, but they stop at Quebec. There is no thought of going east of Quebec. I have just mentioned the fact that I tried to get a little help from the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys to develop an industry that is badly needed in the maritimes, and I was lightly brushed off with the answer I have already given the house. As far as I am concerned, I cannot see the necessity for the amendment now before the house which has to do with developing our resources primarily for the benefit of Canada. Every possible development in this country, oil, coal and what have you, is already under lease either to Canadian capital or United States capital, but largely United States capital.
Let us take coal. In the maritimes the rights are under lease to the Dominion Coal Company for the next 99 years. There are parts of that section of the country where there are very good deposits of coal, but there is no capital in Canada with which to develop them. I could mention one example in the Inverness section. If the hon. member who represents that part of the country were in his seat he would tell you that for the past fifteen or twenty years that area has been a relief camp. There is an excellent grade of coal available there, but it will cost considerable money to develop it. We discussed that proposition in the reconstruction committee in 1942. We got an idea of the amount of capital necessary to develop it. The only

people in Canada who can supply the capital necessary to develop that area are the federal government, and the federal government is not going to undertake the project despite the fact that we import every year about 60 per cent of Canada's coal requirements. The federal government will not undertake that kind of development, and you cannot find in this country the kind of money necessary to undertake that kind of project.
The amendment suggests that the resources of the country should be developed by a combination of government and private enterprise, but I very much doubt whether you could find any resources in this country at the present time that are not already under lease. I cannot think of anything in the field of our basic resources that is not already leased to private capital in either Canada or the United States.
I do not agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce that this is a want of confidence motion. I think the motion and the amendment merely ask for the development of a policy in Canada that would urge the Canadian government and Canadian capital to take a greater part in the development of Canadian resources, with a guarantee that those resources are going to be owned, managed and distributed in Canada first on the basis of our own requirements, and secondly the surplus to outside countries.
I cannot see where there is any want of confidence. I think this business of leasing our resources to the United States leaves much to be desired. I understand a lot of people think it is wonderful that we brought our dollar back to par. The main reason the dollar came back to par is because of United States investment in this country. At the' same time my information is that in bringing the dollar back a little above par we have lost about $80 million in foreign exchange. There was that difference in our foreign exchange position. If our dollar has stepped up we have paid for it, if the press statement is true that there was that difference in our foreign exchange position.
I cannot see any reason why I cannot vote for this motion; but as far as I am concerned I am not satisfied with leasing Canadian resources to United States capital without the Canadian government taking some steps to protect Canadian people with respect to the future use of those resources. I believe that where we cannot find risk capital for development in this country, then the government of Canada should do what the government of Newfoundland is now doing; that is, hold at least 51 per cent of the shares, stocks
Conservation of Natural Resources or capital in that resource in this country as a guarantee of the protection of the rights of the Canadian people. When you sell oil rights to capital outside this country by way of indiscriminate leases-and this applies to other resources-you have no more control over them. They will be exploited and used in the manner intended by those who purchase them, and that will be in their own interests first.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: This debate is one I enter with protest because of the things that have been said. I am normally in quite fair agreement with my hon. friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), although I cannot but disagree with his interpretation of the United States capital invested in Canada. As a matter of fact, one thing that surprises me more than anything else is how little United States capital controls Canadian industry, how very little United States capital has recently entered Canada.
Figures in the millions or even in the billions are impressive, but compared with the new plant and the tremendous increase in gross national product, the percentage of United States investment in Canada has actually decreased since after the first war to the present time. It has decreased very considerably since the start of the second war. In other words, Canadian capital is now playing a very much larger part in the development of this country than it ever did before. Unfortunately I have not the figures with me, but I think I am safe in saying the percentage of United States capital, taken as a percentage either of the gross national product or of the capital value productive plant of this country, has decreased by as much as 35 per cent in the last ten years. I shall certainly ask the dominion bureau of statistics to get me those figures, and I would suggest that if any association can get them for a particular industry they would be extremely interesting. The point is that Canadian capital has led the field in this country. Canadian capital has done a job of development and Canadian capital is now doing a greater percentage of that development than it has ever done before.
Coming now to what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said this afternoon when he complained about the cutting of white pine up the Ottawa and Gatineau valleys:	True, the white pine was
cut; but it made the foundation of the building trade and the foundation of most of the construction of our cities and pioneer factories. Today the banks of the Ottawa river,

Conservation of Natural Resources far from being waste land, is good farm land; and from looking at them I would say they are being prosperously farmed all up and down the river at least on the Ontario side. Apart from that there has been probably the greatest hydroelectric development and capital investment on any river in the world. Again I would like somebody to compare the value of the trees, the white pine that has been cut, even at today's values, with the value of the electricity produced on those two rivers, the Gatineau and the Ottawa, in one single year. Far from leaving the valleys laid waste I do not think there is any valley in the world that has been so intensively developed. As a matter of fact, when I wish to show someone visiting Canada an area the development of which I am proud, I take them up the Ottawa river. I show them the tremendous capital development that has taken place in building those hydroelectric plants.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it will be said that they were developed by the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec. That is true; but the point I wish to make is that while we have depleted our white pine resources we have in their stead a large farming area and the greatest hydroelectric development, as I have suggested, on any river in the world, with the possible exception of the Columbia.
Let us not belittle Canadians. Let us not say we have not done things when we have done them. Let us above all try to evaluate this matter of our natural resources and what we have done with them in a factual way.
There are two sides of this question of the depletion of natural resources, and there are two main theories that are being developed. One is the theory that has been put forward by Eugene Holman, who is president of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, in which he advances the idea that our natural resources are inexhaustible. He mentions oil, and I assume his figures are accurate, and states that for every barrel of oil that has been extracted in the last year, two barrels of potential oil have been discovered and brought into production. Not being an oil geologist I do not know the technical terms, but those are his figures, and I presume that as president of the world's largest oil company he knows what he is talking about.
I should like to quote what he says about the oil development in his article in the Atlantic Monthly for June. Speaking about oil he says the record-
... is one that shows that for every barrel of crude oil or cubic foot of natural gas withdrawn from the IMr. Adamson.]

ground in 1951, two new barrels of oil or cubic feet of gas were found or developed. Perhaps the idea is getting around.
I believe his concluding paragraph is of sufficient interest to the house to quote it. It reads as follows:
The basic requirement for progress is freedom- freedom to inquire, to think, to communicate, to venture. Without these conditions, the human mind and spirit will be so shackled that the availability of natural resources will be limited and we may exhaust the known sources of some needed material and find nothing to replace it. To the free man all things are possible. Opportunity is the wand which can change the useless into the useful, waste into raw materials of great value, exhaustible resources into inexhaustible resources. It is the key that unlocks the greatest energy source of all-the infinite power of the human individual.
The things which he regards as the shackling things are extreme nationalism, government control, monopoly, currrency restrictions, abnormal tariffs, threat of expropriation, wars and revolution. These are all the by-products of socialism. This is the argument of a petroleum chemist, who tells us that there will be and can be a continuing expansion of our natural resources. He believes that if one resource is depleted a substitute will be found through the genius of chemistry.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that on the basis of the record there is a tremendous amount in what this gentleman says. The improvement in our ability to refine and extract many minerals which we are now using so freely makes a big difference. Aluminum is an example. Today it is selling at 15 cents a pound; at the turn of the century it was selling for many dollars a pound. The ability of the mining industry, the ability of the chemist and the geologist to discover and extract all metals has reduced the price and made aluminum universally available. Titanium is another metal which we have recently discovered how to use. We may find that titanium will be a substitute for steel for certain uses. The chemist, the engineer and the research scientist have made it possible for this resource, known to us for many years, to become one of the great metal developments of this century.
So much for the man who believes that we have an inexhaustible store of resources. Let us look at the other side of the coin. Let us look at it from the point of view of this continent, and let us examine the metals in which Canada and the United States are deficient. We are a part of the North American economy, and we cannot but be influenced by deficiencies in the United States. At this point therefore I should like to quote from a table prepared by Professor Alan M. Bateman, chief of the department of geology of Yale university. I believe these figures are so significant, and that they will have

such an effect on the whole Canadian economy, that they should become a part of this record. The table is as follows, and has the
	Per cent foreign during	Per cent
	world	foreign
Mineral	war II	in 1975
Antimony 			94
Bauxite (aluminum) 			 1818	85
Beryl 				90
Asbestos (strategic) 			 100-0	100
Chrome 			100
Cobalt 			90
Corundum 			100
Copper 			65
Diamonds (industrial) 	
100-0	100Fluorspar 	
2-0	50Graphite 	100Iron ore 	35-45Lead 	
44-2	70Manganese 	
85-5	80Mercury 	80Mica (strategic) 	
88 0	95Quartz (radio) 	
99-0	100Nickel 	100Petroleum 	50Tantalum-columbium 	
990	99Sulphur 	50Tin 	100Titanium 	80Vanadium 	
32-4	25Tungsten 	
61-1	70Zinc 	60
Here is the chief of the department of geology at Yale university quoting industrial figures which I gather he obtained from the department of mines in the United States and saying as to such basic products as petroleum and sulphur-of which there was no deficiency whatsoever in the United States at the end of the last war; that is just five years ago-that in less than the next quarter of a century the United States will have a deficiency of 50 per cent of their requirements.
Those figures cannot be laughed off. For us in Canada those figures are an extremely important challenge. The first challenge, of course, is that we must do everything possible to see that our production is increased to such an extent that we can supply the North American needs for these two basic materials. Whether we like it or not, we on this continent form an economic unit which must stand together.
Of the deficiency materials mentioned Canada is a source of the following: asbestos, cobalt, copper, iron ore, lead, nickel, petroleum, sulphur, titanium, tungsten and zinc. Most of the metals or the minerals, because there are minerals in this group, are deficient to the United States economy in a large percentage, and the deficiency is growing at an alarming rate. Probably never before in 55704-208
Conservation of Natural Resources heading, "Dependence on foreign minerals expressed as a percentage in world war II and in 1975."
Probable chief foreign sources China, Mexico, Bolivia, Peru Surinam, British Guiana, Jamaica, Indonesia Brazil, India, Argentina, Africa Rhodesia, S. Africa, Canada
S. Africa, S. Rhodesia, Turkey, New Caledonia, Philippines, Cuba Belgian Congo, Rhodesia, Canada S. Africa
Chile, N. Rhodesia, Belgian Congo, Canada
Congo, Angola, S. Africa, Brazil
Mexico, Africa
Madagascar, Ceylon
Venezuela, Canada
Mexico, Peru, Australia, Canada
India, Africa, Brazil, Cuba
Italy, Spain, Mexico, Canada
India, Brazil
Brazil
Canada, Cuba, New Caledonia, Celebes
Venezuela, Middle East, Canada
Brazil, Congo, Nigeria
Canada, Mexico, Europe
Malaya, Indonesia, Bolivia, Congo
Canada, India, Norway
Peru
China, Bolivia, Brazil, Portugal, Canada Mexico, Peru, Australia, Canada
the history of any single nation has a challenge so dramatic and so imperative been placed before it. If we are to play our part in the free world we have to see to it that our production of these materials, of which we are one of the greatest potential sources of supply, is adequately developed. Nothing could be more important, for instance, than that every effort should be made towards the production of elemental sulphur. We should see to it that not one single pound is wasted of any substance that is capable of being made into elemental sulphur.
As I have said, petroleum is a subject for the petroleum and oil people. But here again, despite the glowing terms used by the head of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey -who in effect said that in the last year two barrels of petroleum were found for every barrel used-nevertheless in 1975 the United States are going to have a deficiency of 50 per cent of their petroleum requirements. Those are staggering figures. No challenge that we have ever had put up to us as Canadians is as significant as is the challenge we now face with respect to the production of raw and basic materials.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Conservation of Natural Resources AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose I was just about to discuss the situation with regard to iron and steel in Canada in the light of our position as a North American country; because, whether we like it or not, we cannot defy geography. It is one of those things that are inescapable; and to try to divorce ourselves from the North American concept is not only ridiculous but impossible.
We have an economy that, until such time as atomic energy and nuclear fission take the place of the present sources of energy, must be built on the known fuels, and on basic steel. The figures I gave before recess regarding our North American deficiency position show that of the essential ingredients of a steel industry, we have to look forward to providing no less than seven of the alloys that go to make modern steel the effective metal it is. A steel industry is based on the essential ingredients of coal, iron ore and scrap. The basic components, in addition to these, of which we are deficient on this continent are manganese, fluorspar and graphite. Just to give an example of the importance of one small item, for the graphite used in the lining of the crucibles in which steel is poured we are dependent upon Madagascar and Ceylon. I mention this simply to show a tremendous job of research that might be done. If we could obtain a substitute for graphite, which is a small but essential ingredient in the process of steel making, we would forge one small link, nevertheless an essential link, in the whole process.
The components in which the American steel industry is deficient, are the following: chrome, manganese, nickel, cobalt, tungsten, molybdenum and vanadium. All these are essential in a steel industry for it is upon them that the maintenance of a modern steel industry depends. The challenge to us is to develop the seven alloy metals on which the whole complex economy of this continent depends. Unless we are prepared to be merely a producer of raw materials for others, a position which even in the days of confederation Sir John A. Macdonald rejected, the job lying ahead is much greater than anything we have met up to now.
A strange national psychology has been that we were a one-crop or one-product nation, one of the greatest errors we could make- and my authority for this statement is Dudley Stamp, in his book "Land of Tomorrow"-is to allow our western agriculture to remain a one-crop economy. We must begin to think in terms of a mixed farming economy in the west, just as we must continue to think of

a mixed manufacturing economy in the east and in the west, and not think as we did in the old days when manufacturing was done in the east and agriculture was confined to the west. I believe the great industrial revolution now taking place in the prairie provinces will soon adjust that balance.
The amendment contains a protest against what I like to call little Canadianism. We have this challenge; we have this responsibility as citizens of the world, not merely to produce the basic commodities but to find more of those basic commodities, to see that our resources are not depleted in respect of what we have and, furthermore, to see that everything we produce is used by us, not selfishly for our own good-because the world is too small for that-but so that everything we produce may reach its ultimate stage in Canada, so far as possible.
I have referred to 1975 as being the year when we will see a serious deficit position in the United States. This challenge is one which means that we must raise our sights with regard to population. It is one which means that we must raise our sights with regard to manufacturing and industry. It is one which demands that we must raise our sights with regard to the production of all raw materials. We cannot afford to waste anything. We cannot afford to leave any part of this country undeveloped or unexplored. If we do, we are not fulfilling our destiny; we are retrogressing and will become merely a producer of raw materials for others to use. That is a position I never want to see, a position which we in this house at this moment have a tremendous responsibility to prevent.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, the subject raised by the amendment is of vital importance to all Canadians; I feel that I should make an observation or two before a vote is taken on that amendment. In the main, members of the Social Credit group are in harmony with those who have spoken up to the present time. I should like to refer particularly to the speech of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), with practically all of which I heartily agree. However, I felt the hon. member left the house and the country in some uncertainty about the oil situation in Alberta.
It seems to matter very little how often one puts the truth before the people, as some people seem to have a hard time getting it or believing those who tell it. The hon. member gave the idea that notwithstanding what the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) had said, notwithstanding what I had said the other night, the Alberta government had alienated from the crown the lands on which

oil has been or is being found. That idea is absolutely fallacious. I hope that somehow or other we can impress upon our C.C.F. friends that the kind of thing they have been telling in Saskatchewan and British Columbia about what Alberta is doing with respect to oil is wrong.
Men who pretend to be as much interested in the development of Canadian resources and welfare as these gentlemen certainly can afford to tell the truth about what is being done in one province that is leading the way in respect to policies which they claim to be so interested in putting into operation in the country. One hon. member says that he has never mentioned oil. I am thankful that he is not responsible for the kind of thing I found in Saskatchewan a week ago. There certainly was some nonsense there, and the people who were spreading it seemed to be so sure they were right that you could not pound the truth into their heads with a claw hammer.


Mr. Argue:: Did you have a hammer with you?


John Horne Blackmore: Conservation of Natural Resources in 1952, an absolutely authentic document. Dealing with natural resources, it states this on page 47:
No oil, mineral or timber bearing lands are sold. They are leased only for development on terms which ensure to all the people of the province a fair share of the development. The Alberta government's policy of giving encouragement to individual enterprise-co-operative as well as private- has proved beneficial in the interests of the people. The government does not risk the taxpayer's money in speculative enterprises. Monopoly control is prevented.
Once more that is a declaration that certainly anyone in this house and anyone attempting to be in public life ought to have the intelligence to understand and the honour to report correctly. On page 51 there is another comment which reads as follows:
Prior to 1941-maximum royalty from oil production on crown lands was 10 per cent. After 1941- royalty increased and placed on graduated scale with a maximum of 15 per cent and a minimum of 5 per cent dependent on average daily production with the option to the operator of paying 12J per cent of gross production until 1951. After June 1. 1951, royalty was placed on a sliding scale with a maximum of 163 per cent and minimum of 5 per cent dependent on the production of the well each month. Average royalty rate for latter half of 1951 was 14-1 per cent.
Here again is the clearest possible proof that the province has not in any way surrendered its rights to absolute control of its resources.
On page 55 of the document we find something pertaining to the protection of forests. With all that has been said in the house in this debate respecting the protection of Canadian forests I heartily agree. I believe we have been exceedingly remiss in our duty in this generation and in the generations immediately preceding ours, in the matter of conserving our forests. There are provinces where the reckless way in which lumbering and logging is permitted to go on I think constitutes a reflection on the intelligence of the people of those provinces, and an absolute disregard for the welfare of those who are to come in the future.
There are provinces in this dominion where 25 years from now I doubt very much that anyone will be able to get a piece of virgin timber to develop at all. I do not know how provision is being made for those who will come after us 50 years from now to obtain wood with which to build their homes. I am sure all this must stop. A public consciousness is developing, very slowly, in some parts of the country, which dictates to the people that they have a responsibility to their children and their children's children in the matter of conserving resources.

I will now read from page 55 of this document what Alberta does with respect to the protection of forests. It reads as follows:
The Alberta government has outlined a comprehensive program for the protection of forests and has taken definite action in this regard. Extensive areas have been set aside as permanent forested areas, in which no settlement will be permitted, and in which those engaged in lumbering operations will be required to follow a program of selective cutting and conservation. Restriction of settlement in the forested areas will not prevent development.
Negotiations carried out with the federal government resulted in a conservation program for the entire eastern slope of the Rocky mountains. Protection of this vast area is carried out by a special board.
May I interrupt for a moment to commend the responsible ministers of the government at Ottawa for the way in which they co-operated with Alberta in establishing protective measures on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains. It was a fine, laudable thing which should produce rich results for those who come in the future. I continue:
The foremost objective is to stabilize and amplify the water supply for all the rivers watering the prairie plains. Experimental and research work is co-ordinated with the methods of the practical operator to learn the best logging practices. This will provide a supply of timber annually for the province's growing lumber industry, and with reforestation practices will ensure a perpetual source of supply.
I interrupt my reading to say that this constitutes an ideal state of affairs. It is a state of affairs which should prevail in every area across Canada from coast to coast. I go on:
An inventory of Alberta's forests started in 1949 and already 70,000 square miles have been photographed. Base maps and forest inventory maps are being prepared from these photographs. A forest surveys branch with a forest engineer in charge has been set up to handle the inventory and aerial photography in forest areas. Miles of roads, trails and telephone lines have been built in areas formerly inaccessible for fire fighting. Additional look-out towers and the installation of two-way radio facilities have furthered the safeguarding of this valuable natural resource, the forests of Alberta.
In the building of roads, exploring for oil, prospecting for ore, or for the extraction of lumber, aerial photographs are invaluable to the oil man, the lumberman, the surveyor or the engineer. Since the inception of the aerial photographic survey of the province by the department of lands and forests, 120,000 photographs now are available. Alberta is the first province to photograph aerially an entire province. The saving in time, money and energy of such a project will be a major factor in promoting and expanding the resources of this province.
May I interrupt to point out that this is one of the devices which have had such beneficial effects in the development of the Alberta oil industry. I believe that is sufficient to indicate the care that Alberta is taking. The document goes on to point out that very careful measures have been taken for the

preservation of game and fur-bearing animals and the increase thereof and that very adequate measures have been adopted, although in the beginning stages, in the development of Alberta fisheries and the protection thereof.
I am glad this debate has arisen. I wish that more positive and practical suggestions had been made by some of the speakers as to how the objectives they have in mind could be attained but, as I say, the debate was well worth while. We Social Crediters are heartily behind all wise measures for.the development of the nation's resources and the conservation thereof.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal very briefly with one or two points that came up during the discussion. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) spoke of the fact that in the discussion that had taken place there had been no reference to any place east of Quebec. I would not wish to leave that on the record unchallenged. I did not attempt to go into the details of the tremendous iron possibilities across Canada. However, on many occasions I have made it clear that I am firmly convinced there are immense possibilities for the increased employment of our iron resources in every part of Canada. I hoped I had made it clear that I was not limiting my statement when I used the expression that a new iron ore empire has emerged right across Canada. I went further and spoke of the possibility of the greater use of our resources from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I mention that only for this reason, that I was not limiting my remarks in any way but stating a proposition which I believe applies to our iron ore resources right across the country.
I also wish to deal with one or two points made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I did not interrupt at the time he was speaking, but an interpretation was placed upon remarks I had made which I am sure those remarks did not support. He indicated that I had put forward a proposition that not a pound of iron ore should go to the United Kingdom. I said nothing of the kind. I said that the last pound of raw materials needed for the production of defence requirements should be assured. I did say that we should not encourage the export of a pound of iron ore that was not necessary for the defence purposes or that was not needed for the maintenance of continued production of essential requirements in another country. In fact I sought to make it clear that my position was the very contrary, and I believe these are the exact words I used. I said:
I hope that nothing I have said will be interpreted as an argument in favour of any dog-in-the-manger policy.
Conservation of Natural Resources
I had hoped my remarks from beginning to end indicated quite clearly that we should be prepared to accord those courtesies to the United Kingdom which we have received from them and also that we should co-operate with the United States in the great joint efforts we have made. I was directing my remarks particularly to the fact that we are expanding production of our raw materials at a tremendous rate, and I believe that in the increased production of these raw materials we should be directing our attention to the possibility of increasing the processing at advanced stages of all these raw materials for the greater employment of people in this country.
Referring to the subamendment moved by the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell),
I would simply like to make a brief observation to explain why I do not propose to support it. If it were simply a deletion of those words with no explanation and nothing to indicate what the purpose of the deletion is, I might not object to voting for the motion in the amended form. The hon. member has very properly explained what he does mean by the subamendment. He has indicated that in moving this deletion it is an expression of his own objection to the advantage of the free enterprise system in the development of these resources.
When he criticizes what has happened under the free enterprise system in the development of these resources, and indicates perhaps not too explicitly that he thinks they could be better developed and processed under another system, I would point out that the abuses he is referring to have been abuses from the failure of governments to adequately supervise the use of those resources. I have indicated, without directing my criticism to any particular government, that in the very nature of things in a country with such abundant resources there has been a tendency to take them for granted; and undoubtedly at the government level and other levels there have been methods employed which should not be approved.
On the other hand I do not think the record of governments in supervising the use of these resources in itself is a very good argument in favour of giving still greater authority to a government not only to supervise but to go apparently a step further and to engage in processing as well. It was for that very reason that this motion sought to make it clear in advocating the further processing, as well as the conservation of these resources, we believe it is under the free

Conservation of Natural Resources enterprise system that this work will best be carried on and the highest measure of employment will be created.
That does not in any way overlook the abuses that have threatened some of our resources in the past. Nor does it in any way lessen the weight of my own contention that we should use our resources with the utmost care. I do believe, however, that it is the function of government to supervise, and that the actual processing and manufacturing can be carried out by private enterprise to the greatest advantage of our people. For that reason I do not intend to support the subamendment.
The motion by way of amendment is clearly intended to assert the proposition that under adequate plans for conservation and supervision we believe we should rely on the enterprise and energy of free men and women in building up the various activities of this country.
There is one other point I wish to touch, and it was raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). He raised the question whether this motion which I have moved by way of an amendment in any way interfered with the plans for leasing the property now leased in different parts of this country, as distinguished from outright grants. I want to leave no doubt that I am not putting forward any proposition that any plans or any policy for the development of our resources should at any time be permitted to infringe upon the jurisdiction of the provincial governments over the resources that have been placed under their control.
Some of those resources are leased in different parts of the country. Others have been granted for development. I think it is quite clear that the dominion government and the parliament of Canada must not interfere with the rights of the provincial governments and the provincial legislatures to determine how they will deal with their own resources. For that reason I would point out to the hon. member for Peace River that I naturally am not only supporting but emphasizing that the plans worked out in any province for the handling of their resources must be respected and preserved.
I can only once more point out what I said in my earlier remarks, that I had hoped the proposal put forward would be regarded as a constructive proposal, and that it need not be looked upon as criticism of what has happened in the past under this or any other government. We have entered a period where there is going to be a tremendous demand on our resources because of the unusual world demand. That demand is going to be enormously increased, as was

pointed out by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson), who placed before this house figures showing that in the comparatively near future there is going to be such a serious deficiency of raw materials in the United States that pressures are going to mount to a still greater level for the supply of raw materials from Canada.
We wish to co-operate with our friends and neighbours in every way, but I repeat what I said at the outset. In presenting this motion I believe the first concern of the government of Canada and the parliament of Canada should be the welfare of the people of Canada. I believe, therefore, that there should be a clearly stated policy that while we are prepared to export our resources under arrangements that will meet proper demands in keeping with the resources we possess, at the same time we should make sure that in every way possible those resources will be processed and manufactured to a very high level so that wages can be paid to Canadian workmen and so that employment may be expanded and increased throughout the whole of this country.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Had I voted I would have voted for the subamendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the amendment carry?


George Alexander Drew: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the amendment will please say "yea".


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will say "nay".


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it necessary to ring the bell again?
16, 1952
Conservation of Natural Resources


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I put the question now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: I read the question a moment ago. Is it necessary to read it again?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with reading the question?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Black (Chaieauguay - Huntingdon -Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OP FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
116. Departmental administration (including the former administration of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1943, and the administration of the Municipal Grants Act, and the custody of paid cheques formerly administered by the auditor general's office, $1,643,396.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
The Speaker of the Senate-
208. Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend, revise and consolidate the Northwest Territories Act and inter alia to provide for an increase in the allowance for living expenses of the members of the council when the council is in session; to provide also for the payment of all territorial revenues into the consolidated revenue fund and for the establishment therein of an account to be known as the Northwest Territories revenue account to which shall be credited (a) amounts equal to the territorial revenues paid from time to time into the consolidated revenue fund pursuant to subsection one; (b) all moneys appropriated by parliament to be credited to the Northwest Territories


revenue account; and (c) an amount equal to the amount standing to the credit, at the commencement of this act, of the account then known as the Northwest Territories revenue account; to provide also for the payment, out of the consolidated revenue fund, of money required for the territorial purposes specified in the ordinances of the commissioner in council, all such payments to be charged to the Northwest Territories revenue account; to provide also for the establishment of a territorial court of the Northwest Territories and for the appointment in certain cases of deputy judges thereto; and to provide also that the governor in council may appoint police magistrates in and for the territories and may fix their salaries and allowances; and to provide further that the governor in council may appoint the clerk of the court, sheriff and such other officers as are deemed necessary and fix their salaries and allowances.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: This is rather
important legislation to place before the house at this stage. I think we should have a detailed explanation from the Minister of Resources and Development, setting out the justification for it.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker, I have already submitted the argument we had to make on motions of this kind that it would not be proper for the minister proposing such a resolution to deal with the merits of it. There was considerable discussion at that time; but the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) suggested he would like to have some time to consider the objection. It was agreed that another opportunity would be provided; and I think this might be the convenient time to have the argument completed, and then to have Your Honour's opinion on the point raised.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, in the first place may I point out to Your Honour that, should the contention of the Prime Minister be accepted, the result would be to do away with one occasion for debate. I submit that cannot be contradicted. That very fact, in itself, is one good reason why there should be a very clear case for changing the practice of the house by way of a ruling from Your Honour on this point.
It has been admitted by the Prime Minister that this motion is debatable; but he seeks to cut down the debate to such an extent that, in effect, should his contention be accepted, it would not be debatable. I propose to go into the question of the extent to which the motion should be debatable. Also there is one other key fact that should be considered by Your Honour, and that is that there can be a vote on this motion. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) nods his head, and I do not think it can be questioned that there can be a vote on this motion. The extent to which the motion can be debated was dealt with very fully by Hon. Mr. Glen in 1942 when he

was Speaker. After reviewing the whole question carefully, the Speaker is reported on page 800 of Hansard, of February 23, 1942 as follows:
The debate, therefore, must be directed to the negative of that motion, that the resolution should not be submitted to the committee of the whole, for, as I have pointed out, no amendment at this stage can be in order.
He did not stop there. I want to point out to Your Honour that in the remarks you made the other day you dealt almost entirely with that one paragraph of the ruling made by the Speaker, whereas in effect that paragraph is only introductory to his real ruling. Stress should be placed on the next paragraph, which reads:
In my judgment the debate should be general, with no reference to details, all of which can be discussed in committee, and on the bill which follows the resolution.
Those are the key words of the ruling by Hon. Mr. Glen. I do not know how he could give a wider ruling than to use the words, "in my judgment the debate should be general." I submit that those are the words which should be followed by Your Honour.
My second key fact is that there can be a vote on this motion. I thought the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) became a little confused when he dealt with that the other day.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: He never gets
confused.


Howard Charles Green: To you he would not be confused, no matter what he said. I realize that the last words of standing order 60 are as follows:
-and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon.
The Prime Minister seemed to think that the word "vote" meant that there can be no vote by the house because he said, as reported on page 2372 of Hansard of May 20, 1952:
There cannot at this stage or until the committee has considered the resolution be any vote of the house upon its substance.
Hon. Mr. Glen dealt with that very point in his ruling in 1942 when he said, as reported on page 799 of Hansard of that year:
I would direct the attention of the house to the word "vote" in the last line.
He was referring to the word "vote" in the last line of standing order 60.
That means a vote of a sum of money, and is used as in the first column of the estimates now before the house.
In other words, it means an appropriation vote, not the ordinary vote which takes place in the house on a motion. In order to vote we are surely entitled to know what
Northwest Territories Act the resolution means. Does the Prime Minister suggest that there should be a blind vote without any discussion of the resolution? I admit that there are occasional blind votes in this house on the other side, but I do not think anybody would seriously contend that where there is a vote of the house, where members are asked to express their opinion for or against, there should not be the right to have a question discussed.
Take this very resolution with which we are dealing at the moment. It has to do with the Northwest Territories Act and is an involved resolution.


Alphonse Fournier: That is not what we are dealing with; we are dealing with the motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair.


Howard Charles Green: The minister can make his argument later if he wishes. We have before us this resolution concerning the Northwest Territories Act. Surely we are entitled to have a statement from the minister as to what that resolution means. Having had such a statement, then at least one member of the official opposition should have the right to state his views concerning the question, and the same is true of members of the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties. As Hon. Mr. Glen said, there can then be a general debate. As I pointed out, Hon. Mr. Glen said:
In my judgment the debate should be general, with no reference to details.
From there on the debate is in the hands of the presiding officer and Your Honour would be within, your rights in deciding just how far the discussion should go. But the Prime Minister is asking much more than that. In effect he is asking that there be no debate at this stage, and I submit that the ruling does not mean any such thing.
The Prime Minister pays very little attention to standing order 38, which is the one which says this motion is debatable. I do not think the Prime Minister even mentioned that standing order the other day. When this question was raised in 1942 Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King made a very careful argument. He weighed the whole question most carefully; it was not just a flash in the pan, something that was raised for just a minute or two. The right hon. gentleman went into great detail and it was after that-


Mr. Speaker:: Did not Mr. Mackenzie King argue that the motion was not debatable?


Howard Charles Green: No; I say that in effect-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, he did.


Mr. Speaker:: My recollection is that he said the motion was not debatable.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. King did argue that point, and at considerable length and with great

Northwest Territories Act care. In spite of that argument Hon. Mr. Glen ruled against him, that the motion was debatable. You see, Your Honour this is a case where the government side and the opposition side look at things differently. I can well understand that the government are anxious to cut out all debate that can be cut out, and the opposition on the other hand-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member should address himself to the extent to which the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair on a money resolution is debatable. I think it has been agreed by all hon. members that the motion is debatable. The only question which concerns me at the moment is the extent to which it is debatable.


Howard Charles Green: I submit that Your Honour cannot in fairness get away from the ruling made by Hon. Mr. Glen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I intend to be fair. I do not think the hon. member's statement should go that far.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member cannot speak without suggesting such implications.


An hon. Member:: It is his nature.


An hon. Member:: He is all twisted.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: If he can, he does not very often.


Howard Charles Green: I submit I am entitled to explain that from the opposition point of view this is one stage at which we get information which helps us eventually to debate the bill. Legislation is brought in by the government. They have the advice of numerous members of the civil service, and the opposition is always in the position of having to be more or less participating in a quiz contest. We have to find out what these proposals are all about and ordinarily, where a matter is at all complicated, it is of great value to us to have a statement by the minister concerned at this stage, and to have a brief debate. It helps us to fulfil our function of scrutinizing all legislation. It is a little different during the discussion of a bill because once a bill has been introduced and we are debating second reading we are then limited to the principle of the bill. On the resolutions preceding bills there can be a different approach. We can get the general picture of the background of the government's proposal. A debate at this stage is very important from our point of view.
The Prime Minister's own suggestion was that all that could be debated was whether it would be worth while to set up a committee of the house. He said, as recorded at page 2894 of Hansard for June 4:
I said that there should not be any protracted debate unless there are members who think that


the matter suggested is so futile that it is not worth while setting up a committee.
Surely even to decide whether or not it is worth while to set up a committee there must be a general debate such as was approved by Hon. Mr. Glen. For these reasons I would ask Your Honour to hold that there can be a general debate but that from there on it is in your hands as to how far the debate should go, and that can only be decided on each individual resolution. I do not think there is any way in which a rule can be laid down saying that we stop here or we stop there. Discretion should be left in the hands of the presiding officer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like the Prime Minister I expressed myself with regard to this same point of order the last time it was raised, namely on .the 4th of June. Therefore I shall not take too many minutes now-and even that is with Your Honour's permission- because I think that as between the Prime Minister and myself, and as between Your Honour and myself, if I may put it that way, we have narrowed the question considerably. When this matter was being discussed before Your Honour said there was no doubt in your mind but that the motion was debatable. In that statement you were re-echoing the view expressed by Mr. Speaker Glen on February 23, 1942, when he said that this motion is clearly debatable. I am not so sure that that was implied in the first objection the Prime Minister raised to debate at this time, but certainly in later discussion on it the Prime Minister took that position as well, namely that there was no doubt but that the motion is debatable.
The question Your Honour feels you must decide is the same question that puzzled Mr. Glen in 1942, namely the extent of the debate. In 1942 Mr. Speaker Glen suggested that the extent of the debate might be narrowed by the use of that phrase which he coined, namely that the debate should be directed to the negative of the question. I submit that that way of putting it creates quite a difficulty. What would be the situation in the house if after this motion is put six, eight or ten members of the opposition side were to get up and speak to the negative of the question and oppose the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole on a certain resolution? Would Your Honour then deny to members on the government side the right to speak to the affirmative of the question? With all due respect to that aspect of the ruling Mr. Glen made in 1942, it seems to me that it is difficult to carry it out, for it implies a one-sided debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is it not a one-sided debate under our present practice? It is customary now for the minister to make a statement. After he makes his statement other members rise and express their views on the resolution. They ask questions with regard to the resolution. The minister has no opportunity to answer them. The minister has the right to speak once. He makes his statement and then he hears objections. The minister has no opportunity to answer objections, and under our present practice it is my opinion that the house cannot vote intelligently on the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point you have just raised may I suggest that, although you are correct in saying that the minister does not have the right to reply on this type of motion, other ministers or other members on the government side have the right to get into the debate and take part in it on the same side for which the minister spoke. May I also point out that in some of these debates the minister concerned may speak in support of the motion and those on the opposition side may also speak in support of it. Sometimes those in the opposition are more in favour of a government motion than those on the government side. In fact they may want something more than is in the motion.
All I am suggesting is that our position should be either that debate is allowed or is not allowed. If it is allowed then it should be open to members to speak according to their views on the question, whether they are for or against whatever is before the house. I would support Your Honour wholly in ruling that the debate must be relevant to the subject matter of the resolution on which we are to go into committee, but I do see considerable *difficulty in a strict application of that phrase in Mr. Glen's ruling of February 23, 1942, when he said that the debate therefore must be directed to the negative of the motion. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) has pointed out, as you yourself said when the matter was discussed before, and it has been made clear by Mr. Glen and by all others who have studied the matter, that the question is debatable.
The only point at issue is as to the extent of the debate. My view is that Your Honour should not feel yourself bound by that phrase Mr. Glen used, namely speaking to the negative, but that Your Honour should take the view Your Honour took the last time, that the motion is debatable. You might also take the view that you are going to insist on debate being relevant to the question on which it is proposed that we go into committee of the whole. I for one will certainly support Your Honour in insisting on the law of relevancy being applied. I
Northwest Territories Act would think it would be within that framework that you would resolve the problem you gave to us the other day as to the extent of debate which should be allowed.
As members know, Mr. Speaker, there is a good deal more that I could say, but there is no point in repeating what I said the other day. I will just add this. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said on June 4 when speaking on this point of order that I surely was not serious in feeling unhappy about the fact that a ruling was being sought on this point at this juncture when the whole question of whether or not we should have debate at this stage is still under discussion by a special committee of this house on procedure. It may be that I did not make my position clear, but in what I said to the Prime Minister and to Your Honour I was quite serious. I feel that way in view of the fact that ever since Mr. Speaker Glen's ruling of ten years ago we have continued to have debate at this stage; in view of the fact the right to have that debate has been taken for granted; and in view of the fact that three committees have considered whether or not it should be abolished.
To me therefore it would be unfortunate if a situation were to develop in which that right might be taken away by a ruling made while the whole question is still being considered. I am quite satisfied that is one of the problems that will undoubtedly concern Your Honour in dealing with this; and Your Honour certainly will be of the view that the committee will still be in a position to consider whether or not we should have the debate at this stage.
I have already indicated that I would support Your Honour in applying the law of relevancy, but I would hope any ruling that would make any drastic change in procedure at this stage would not be given until the committee on procedure has had more time to deal with this important question.


George Alexander Drew: I think there is one aspect of
this discussion which may seem somewhat technical but which it seems to me should not be regarded in making a ruling in relation to the point which has been raised by the Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker Glen made a ruling which in effect said that after the introduction of the matter by the minister who presents the motion there could be a debate, but that the debate must simply be from the negative point of view.
I do not think we are splitting hairs in a matter of this kind by pointing out that if a discussion is to be from only one point

Northwest Territories Act of view it is not a debate at all. Without going into dictionary definitions too much, it seems to me quite clear from the Oxford dictionary definition of the word "debate" that the word implies the expression of at least two different points of view. Anything less than that is not a debate at all.
No matter what ruling Mr. Speaker Glen made, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to accept that ruling and continue to follow the direction that there must be only comments from the negative point of view, then you are placed in a very difficult position because it will be very -hard for you to determine in some cases until the closing remarks whether the discussion is from the negative or positive point of view. An analysis of the subject matter before the house would be presented by a member, and unless Your Honour attempted to impose a condition at the very outset that a member must state what his ultimate remarks were going to be, then you would be in a position in many cases where you could not say whether it was negative or positive.
I am pointing these things out because I suggest a strict interpretation of that ruling presents a number of difficulties. Your Honour has left the impression, I think, that you have already come to the conclusion that a debate of some kind is permitted.


Mr. Speaker:: That has been agreed by all hon. members who have spoken.


George Alexander Drew: If that is the case then I simply emphasize the fact, and from no hair-splitting point of view, that if we are to accept the proposition that there is to be a debate, we then accept the proposition that two different points of view at least can be expressed. If two different points of view at least are to be expressed, then it seems to me once a motion is introduced there should be freedom of discussion as to whether the motion can proceed.
I submit that there is another point in this matter which deserves consideration. This is a motion to go into committee in regard to a certain resolution. We need not consider the resolution now before us because the discussion relates to any resolution of this nature. Conceivably there might be very strong reasons in the minds of many of the members, conceivably the majority of members, why we should not go into committee. If there is to be a statement by the minister and then if there is to be anything in the nature of a debate at all, surely the pros and cons as to why we should go into committee can be expressed in the ordinary way. I submit that anything else is not consistent with the general practice that once a motion becomes debatable it can be debated.


Mr. Speaker:: Would you not think it better if the cons were discussed first and then the pros? Those opposed to the motion would give reasons why they were opposed to it or why they think they should have further information, and then the minister could reply and give an explanation why he thinks we should go into committee. As I pointed out, at the present time we have the-reverse method. The minister expresses his view and then those opposed express their views and the minister has no right of reply.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I submit the minister is in a position to state reasons why we should go into committee. Then it would seem that others should be in a position to explain why we should not go into committee.
I do suggest that there are perhaps reasons in this house why it should be possible for members to express opinions on both sides; because we have not yet reached the point, and it does not seem that we are likely to-reach the point, where all those who are in opposition follow a uniform course in regard to expression on matters that come before this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: That being so it would seem we do create a double difficulty if the minister must present one point of view and then everybody else must simply confine themselves to negative comments.
I do not want to extend my remarks beyond saying that I think you are going to create great difficulties of interpretation for yourself, Mr. Speaker, as well as creating a debate that is not a debate at all.


Gordon Graydon: May I say a word on this
matter, Mr. Speaker. I expressed my position before, but I should like to make this observation. If Your Honour gives a. ruling that the debate is to be strait-jacketed, we are going to have wholesale-confusion with respect to this part of the debate on the resolution upon which a bill will be founded. The confusion will arise from Your Honour attempting in some way to regulate the debate on grounds other than relevancy. Your Honour has never had to do that, to my knowledge, with respect to any debate in the House of Commons. So long as the speeches are relevant and are kept within the proper time and do not offend the rules of the house generally, the debate is allowed to continue.
If this change is allowed to operate as a rule, then we are going to have tedious and time-consuming arguments over what the-Speaker thinks is the proper progress of the debate. The confusion in British Columbia would be small compared with the confusion

there would be in every debate with respect to the launching of a motion such as this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where are you in that confusion?


James Sinclair: They were last out there, and they are last here.


Gordon Graydon: The simpler we make the rules and the practice of this house, the more speedily will our legislation go through. If we attempt to surround the conduct of this first debate on the resolution with a network of rules, then the resolution will take two or three times as long to go through as it does now. I think we ought to be moving towards greater simplification of the rules of procedure, rather than towards complication. If this change is made, in my opinion it will definitely be a retrograde step so far as our debates are concerned.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: My submission is that there is no request from anyone or any intention anywhere to ask you to make a change in these rules, Mr. Speaker. This rule 60 has only to be read to make it clear that there is not to be a debate on the merits of the resolutions for the introduction of money bills until the house is in committee. It is not something new. It is not something that was invented here in Canada. It is something that was taken verbatim from the rules of the British house passed on March 20, 1866. The language is exactly the same. Rule 60 reads:
If any motion be made in the house for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the house thinks fit to appoint; and then it-
That is to say, the debate thereon.
-shall be referred to a committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon.
That is the old rule, and I do not see how there can be any anxiety over the fact that there are not going to be two debates, one following immediately upon the other, on the merits of the resolution. A debate must not take place on the day it is first mentioned in the house, but a day must be appointed and on that day the consideration and debate are referred to the committee of the whole for discussion and decision.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) says that in Mr. Speaker Glen's decision the word "vote" was taken to mean the same thing as the word "vote" in the first column of the estimates. Well, that cannot apply to a resolution; it is a resolution or vote, and what the ruling requires to be referred to the committee is the consideration and debate. Now here the motion is that
Northwest Territories Act the Speaker do leave the chair so the committee can consider and debate the merits of the resolution. The language used by Mr. Glen may have appeared to be rather new when it was first used, that the debate should be addressed to the negative point of view. I take it that merely means that there is no case required for the affirmative that the Speaker leave the chair, but that if there are objections on the negative side to his leaving the chair for the house to consider and debate in committee, then the objections from the negative side can be raised and met. The practice has grown up however that there should be a full dress debate on the merits of the resolution with the Speaker in the chair, and then start it all over again as soon as the Speaker leaves the chair and the house goes into committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister admits that has been the practice.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: That has been the developing practice, even since Mr. Speaker Glen's decision of 1942; but I think the terms of the standing order and the language used by Mr. Speaker Glen clearly indicate that the debate on the merits is one to be had when the house is in committee. There can, however, be a debate and a vote on the proposal that is now before the Speaker, that he do leave the chair.


George Alexander Drew: With your consent, Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this point, may I add a few comments. There is no question about the fact that the rule we are discussing is precisely the same rule which has been in force for some years at Westminster. As I understand it, at Westminster there is no debate on the motion.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: The rule has been changed since. I think they have done away with this rule which was copied into our standing orders when they were first drafted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not true that our rule 60 is qualified by our rule 38, as Mr. Speaker Glen pointed out in the ruling he made ir 1942?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: My submission is that rule 60 is not qualified, but that the motion tha1 the Speaker leave the chair is a debatable motion.


George Alexander Drew: I had not completed my com ments, although I welcome the comment bj the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that the rule has been changed. Up to the point wher it was changed, the practice was quite clea: that a debate was not permitted. The practice has grown up here that a debate should be permitted, and Mr. Speaker Glen in makinj the ruling he did decided that there coulc

Northwest Territories Act be what he described as a debate, but that the arguments put forward following the original submission by the minister should be to the negative.
Let us see what happens under circumstances of that kind. The minister is in a position to make an extended statement, and frequently that has been the occasion when he has accepted the opportunity to make a statement concerning the legislation he proposes to introduce. As I understand the argument that is being put forward, we are likely to find ourselves in a position where we do not know whether a statement is to be made then or at some later time. If on the other hand the statement is made by the minister, as the practice has been, and if Your Honour is to follow the ruling of Mr. Speaker Glen, that would continue to be a choice on the part of the minister, then we would have the extended statement prepared by the minister, handed to the press, and we would find ourselves conducting something that was not a debate at all and in which Your Honour would be constantly seeking to interpret what the members were trying to put forward. I submit we would get into a very confusing situation.
I think probably we would all be much happier if we followed the original practice in Westminster and there were no submission by the minister if there were to be no real debate. On the other hand if there is to be a submission on one side, then I submit that the debate should be a real one in which argument could be put forward by either side so that when it is tested by a vote, if that test is to come, it can be then based upon an exchange of ideas.


Howard Charles Green: If I may, I should like to make one further representation, Your Honour.
I think you cannot compare the practice in the British House of Commons with the practice here. They have what is called rule 17 (1) which is found at page 17 of May's fifteenth edition, 1950, which reads as follows:
Whenever an order of the day is read for the house to resolve itself into a committee other than a committee on a bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question, and the house shall thereupon resolve itself into such committee, unless on a day on which the committee of supply stands as the first order of the day a minister of the crown moves, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair," for the purpose of enabling a motion on ;oing into committee of supply to be moved as an amendment to that question.
And at page 748 of May that ruling is interpreted as follows:
In the case of committees of the whole house appointed in reply to a message under the Sign Manual, or on the recommendation of the crown,


or to consider resolutions to which the recommendation of the crown is signified under S.O. No. 84. the Speaker leaves the chair without question put. (S.O. No. 17-(1).)
Mr. Glen dealt with that matter, and I am now reading from page 800 of Hansard of 1942. He said:
The resolution is on the order of proceedings for the day. I would point out that standing order 60 was passed in 1867, while standing order 38 was passed on March 22, 1927. In other words, standing order 38 is remedial to standing order 60, and I must conclude that standing order 38 must rule, and decide that the resolution before the house is debatable.


Mr. Speaker:: This is an exceedingly important matter. I thank hon. members for having discussed it so fully. I think I should reread the discussion that took place on this subject about a week ago and should also read carefully what was said today. Probably it might meet with the wishes of hon. members if I reserved my ruling until some later time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I will go into the matter and give my ruling as soon as possible.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the discussion of the point of order is now complete and that you have reserved your decision on the completed discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. That is how I feel about it. I think there has been full discussion on this matter; and I will base my decision not only on the discussion which has taken place tonight but also on that which took place about a week ago.


Percy Chapman Black: Pending the
change in the established rule, will the minister make his statement now?


Mr. St. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker, we have given way on this subject two or three times. Would it not be well now if the minister could be allowed to make his statement in committee, and the questions could be put there? I do not know that it makes a great deal of difference.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the government have not given way on anything. They are trying to do away with that rule. We have had no concession from them. As a matter of fact they are trying to take something away from us, we believe. I suggest the minister could make his statement now. He has it there all ready to give.


George Alexander Drew: And is probably anxious to give it.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is no further discussion I will put the motion. The motion is that I should leave the chair for the house to-


Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Speaker, I asked for a statement from the minister. He can either make it now or later; but I think it would be to the advantage of hon. members that they have his statement. Then they will know how to deal with it. Perhaps there will be no objection to it at all at the next stage.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the statement I make will not be objectionable. I can assure you and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) that he could not have been forecasting my statement about this resolution because I can say that my statement is neither long nor has it been given to the press. Mr. Speaker, you have heard the views of the government with respect to the appropriate time for me to make my statement. I will say that although I should be glad to make the statement, I would prefer to do it after the house goes into committee of the whole to consider the resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, are we not likely to get into an extended argument in which you would not rule against us, even if you made the ruling that the Prime Minister submits you should make? We probably would be arguing from the negative as to why we should not be proceeding at all, and that is exactly the sort of difficulty we might get into. If the minister is satisfied that this statement is not one that would raise any controversy-and it is quite likely that it is not-I think probably we would avoid unnecessary argument at this stage if he would proceed with it. He might be surprised to find that everyone was in immediate agreement with him.


Alphonse Fournier: The minister has spoken once on this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, the continued growth of Canada's north was the underlying reason why the government, during the first session last year, asked parliament to pass a number of amendments to the Northwest
Northwest Territories Act Territories Act to bring it more into line with present-day conditions. The principal amendment at that time was one empowering the citizens of the Northwest Territories to elect three members to the Northwest Territories council, whose total membership is eight. Since that time a careful study has been made of the apportionment of responsibilities between the federal government and the territorial government. It is now proposed to transfer additional revenues to the territorial government and to place upon it additional responsibilities more in keeping with its new status.
It is proposed to confer upon the commissioner in council of the territories legislative jurisdiction in several matters which are now not assigned to it; to provide for the establishment of a territorial revenue account; to re-establish the territorial court to facilitate the administration of justice.
In one of the amendments last year provision was made to pay to each elected member of the council the actual travelling expenses incurred by him in travelling from his place of residence to the place where the council holds its session, and return; and also an allowance for living expenses not exceeding $15 for each day during which the council is in session. For a variety of reasons the amount established to cover living expenses is not considered to be adequate, and it is proposed to increase it. It is proposed also to make a number of other minor changes to the act.
The proposed legislation will be in the form of a consolidation of the present act of 1927 and the four amending acts passed in 1938, 1940, 1948, and 1951.


Percy Chapman Black: Did I understand from the minister that the first legislation having to do with the Northwest Territories was passed in 1927? I understand that the Northwest Territories were taken over by Canada long before that date, and I presume legislation would be enacted to enable the government of the territories at that time. Perhaps the minister can tell the committee just when the Northwest Territories were taken over. When that was done the maritime provinces were instrumental in passing the legislation, and were partially responsible for the taxation appropriations enabling the administration of the territories. Those of us from the maritime provinces made our contribution. Our elder statesmen had great vision, and we know that Sir Charles Tupper, Sir Leonard Tilley and many others made their contributions.
I am interested to learn from the minister when the first legislation was passed by this

Northwest Territories Act parliament exercising authority over the might meet at Aklavik, as well as at Port Northwest Territories. I am sure it was before Radium and Fort Smith. Those are the most 1927.	likely places.


Robert Henry Winters: What I am saying is that the present act covering the administration of the Northwest Territories was passed in 1927. I have not the date of the original legislation under which, up to that time, the territories had been governed. However, since this measure is only in the resolution stage, I shall be glad to give the hon. member the information when we have the bill before us.


Howard Charles Green: The resolution points out that there is to be an increase in the allowance for living expenses of members of the council, when the council is in session. Where does it meet, and who are the members? What living allowances do they now receive, and what is the amount of the proposed increase?


Robert Henry Winters: Under the provisions of the act the council must meet at least twice a year, and there is a further provision that at least one of those meetings shall be at some point to be designated in the Northwest Territories. The first meeting was held last December at Yellowknife; the second will commence on July 2 in Ottawa. It is intended to have one meeting each year in Ottawa and one meeting at some point to be designated in the Northwest Territories. We propose to rotate the place of meeting in the Northwest Territories, so that members of the council will have the opportunity of becoming as familiar as possible with various centres in the Northwest Territories.
The present level of expense allowances is not to exceed $15 a day. While that seems to be generally adequate when the council meets in the Northwest Territories, it is considered that because the sittings are so short requiring people to leave their occupations for two or three days to come to Ottawa, where hotel expenses are high and where certain other costs are considerably higher than would be encountered in the Northwest Territories, the amount should be raised.
While the bill is not before the house, I think I can tell the hon. member that we contemplate an increase in the maximum of expense allowances to $25 a day instead of the present $15.


Howard Charles Green: At what points in the Northwest Territories, in addition to Yellowknife, will the commission meet?


Robert Henry Winters: The commission will decide that itself. I think it is reasonable to assume, however, that, in addition to meeting at Yellowknife, it will meet occasionally at Hay River, and perhaps at Norman Wells. It


Howard Charles Green: What are the names of the members of the commission?


Robert Henry Winters: The commissioner of the Northwest Territories is Major General H. A. Young, who is also deputy minister of the Department of Resources and Development. The deputy commissioner is Colonel F. J. G. Cunningham, also employed in the Department of Resources and Development. I am not sure that I can recall the names of all the members of the council. One is Commander L. C. Audette, who is a member of the Canadian maritime commission. Then, there is Commissioner L. H. Nicholson, of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The other names are: Major D. M. MacKay, director of Indian affairs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration; and Air Commodore W. I. Clements, R.C.A.F. Then the names of the three elected members of the council are Mr. Mervyn Arthur Hardie, Mr. James Brodie, and Mr. Frank Carmichael.


Howard Charles Green: They are all from the Northwest Territories?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, they are all from the Northwest Territories, and were elected last year.


Howard Charles Green: I notice in the last part of the resolution there is provision for the establishment of a territorial court in the Northwest Territories, and for the appointment in certain cases of deputy judges. Furthermore there is provision for the appointment of police magistrates. What is the present procedure, and what does the change signify?


Robert Henry Winters: At present the administration of justice in the Northwest Territories is carried out by stipendiary magistrates and justices of the peace. This proposal would enable a judge now having jurisdiction in the Yukon Territory to extend his jurisdiction to include the Northwest Territories.


Howard Charles Green: Does this mean that the judge from Whitehorse which, I believe, is the seat of justice in the Yukon, would have to fly over to Yellowknife or to some other point in the Northwest Territories to conduct trials?


Robert Henry Winters: That is basically right, yes. His seat of residence is now at Whitehorse in the Yukon, and his territory will now include the Northwest Territories.


Howard Charles Green: Why is this done? We are just putting through a change in the redistribution act to give the Yukon and the Northwest Territories separate members. I should think it would be much wiser to have separate judges, one in the Yukon and one in the

Northwest Territories Act
Northwest Territories. That arrangement would be more likely to meet the interests of justice, as well as those of the judge himself. He would be required, either by flying or by some other method, to go many thousands of miles. I do not see why we do not have a separate judge for the Northwest Territories.


Robert Henry Winters: Although the territory is large the population is not dense, and the load of work is not too heavy. I believe one judge could handle it adequately. However, in the event of his not being able to be in a certain place at a certain time, provision will be made for the appointment of a deputy judge. There are also other provisions in the act for concurrent jurisdiction which I believe will meet what the hon. member has in mind. Certainly he will have the opportunity to consider the matter thoroughly when the bill is before us.


Percy Chapman Black: What are the present charges on the federal revenue for administering this territory? What will be the increased cost after the new legislation is enacted?


Robert Henry Winters: The total expenditures on administration of the Northwest Territories, for all purposes, is of the order of $10 million. This measure contemplates no increase in over-all expenditures. It is a realignment rather than an increase of revenues and expenditures.


Percy Chapman Black: For what purposes is the major portion of the $10 million used? What revenues accrue to the dominion government through the control of this territory, and its administration under the act?


Robert Henry Winters: A typical breakdown is for the fiscal year 1948-49. I also have the subsequent year 1949-50, which shows total expenditures to be $7,963,000 broken up as follows:
Department	Expenditures
Agriculture	 $	19,828
Citizenship and immigration-Indian
affairs	 874,255
Fisheries	 112,858
Labour	 8,121
Mines and technical	surveys	 169,168
National defence	 1,292,270
National health and	welfare	 474,064
Post office	 335,914
Public works	 324,595
Resources and development	 2,068,440
Northwest Territories power commission	 462,572
R.C.M.P	 459,770
Veterans affairs	 18,536
Transport	 1,342,988


Percy Chapman Black: What revenue accrues to the federal government?


Robert Henry Winters: The revenue corresponding to that total figure of expenditure was $720,000.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Does the minister consider $25 a day as adequate compensation for these elected members?


Robert Henry Winters: That is just the living allowance. There is an indemnity in addition of $50 per day.


George Matheson Murray: That is for the days of sitting of the council?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


George Matheson Murray: I suggest that there should be an indemnity similar to that paid to members of the provincial legislature. These men devote a lot of time to this work and have great distances to travel. They have a lot of details to look after for the trappers, miners, Indians and others up in that part of the country.
I should like to ask the minister if consideration has been given to picking out some central point where a capital could be established for the Northwest Territories, probably at Fort Simpson.


Robert Henry Winters: The administrative headquarters are now at Fort Smith, which seems to be a pretty good point. This is the channel through which traffic flows into and out of the territories. The seat of government is at Ottawa, but Fort Smith provides a satisfactory administrative headquarters.


George Matheson Murray: It would be typical of Canada to pick out Fort Smith because it is at the southern limits of the Northwest Territories, just as Victoria is out in the Pacific ocean at the southwestern limits of British Columbia. It all adds very much to the confusion of the situation. It is actually below the 49th parallel. I would suggest that a site be picked out in the centre of the Northwest Territories which would be convenient to all parts of the district. The government could be installed there with the view of having a province established later on in that part of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Provision is made for appointing a clerk of the court and a sheriff. Will these people have to fly over from Whitehorse to the Northwest Territories?


Robert Henry Winters: I think not. I think they would be deputized at the place at which the court is to meet. I must say that I am not sure on these details at the moment and I think we shall have to work some of them out as we go along. I shall be glad to give my hon. friend more information in respect to that point when the bill is before the committee.


Percy Chapman Black: Where are the records having to do with the administration kept at the present time, and where is it proposed to keep them? I would suppose that

Treaty of Peace (Japan) Act it is most important that proper records be kept and be available to those responsible for the administration of the territory. If there is going to be a change in the assembly place from Whitehorse to Hay River or to these other places, what will be done with regard to the administrative records?


Robert Henry Winters: It is not proposed that the Northwest Territories council shall meet at any time at Whitehorse in the Yukon as mentioned by my hon. friend. When it meets at Yellowknife, Hay River, Norman Wells or any other place within the territories the records required for the meeting will go along with the people attending the meeting. The master records are kept here in Ottawa, although quite a large volume are retained at Fort Smith, with some at Yellowknife and other places for local administration.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Winters thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 337, respecting the Northwest Territories.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TREATY OF PEACE (JAPAN) ACT PROVISIONS FOR CARRYING TREATY INTO EFFECT

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 210, to provide for carrying into effect the treaty of peace between Canada and Japan.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to delay the progress of the committee with respect to this measure. I rise only to indicate that not only was this bill which is to implement the treaty of peace between Canada and Japan studied by the standing committee on external affairs, but that committee also had before it the treaty itself, which was fully discussed.
The deliberations in the committee were centred around inquiries of various governmental representatives from the Department of External Affairs, the department of immigration, the Department of Trade and Commerce and others. Perhaps the main interest of the committee was in the questions of trade and immigration, as one might expect having in mind the character of the relationship between Canada and Japan in previous times.
The main contention which arose in the committee had to do with section 4 and this resulted in a vote on the question of whether

or not the governor in council had been given too much power and parliament too little, if I may put it in those oversimplified terms. During the progress of this discussion I think the hon. member for Eglinton may have a word with respect to clause 4, because he was the member who took the initiative concerning this matter. With the exception of that feature I think the committee presented a somewhat unanimous front with respect to the treaty itself. While there were certain items in it which of course caused the committee some concern, as no doubt they cause the government a good deal of concern, nevertheless on balance the treaty was endorsed. In addition so was Bill No. 210, the issue having been decided against those who thought there should have been a change in clause 4. I do not think there is any point in my elaborating on the committee's work or in making any further observations.


Howard Charles Green: For quite a long time now there have been indications that once this treaty with Japan had been ratified an attempt would be made to bring about substantial immigration of Japanese to Canada. The lead in this direction has been taken by the national Japanese-Canadian citizens' association.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Does the hon. member think we should go into this question?


Howard Charles Green: Pardon?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Does the hon. member think he is in order in wanting to go into the question of possible Japanese immigration?


Howard Charles Green: This very subject was one of the main questions considered by the committee on external affairs.


Louis-René Beaudoin: It may have been considered by the committee on external affairs, but as I understood the remarks of the hon. member for Peel the committee did not only discuss the bill. It discussed many other matters in connection with it. There was more latitude there. Perhaps the hon. member for Peel might clarify the situation.


Gordon Graydon: Yes. I can understand the position the chairman would normally take on a matter of this kind. I have no great objection to that; but as the minister and those who were members of the committee know, when the treaty was up for discussion in the house there was some question raised whether the treaty itself should go before the external affairs committee. It was generally agreed that was the course that should be followed. It was agreed that the treaty would go before the external affairs committee together with Bill No. 210, and that the bill would be the vehicle by

which it would come before the external affairs committee. It having been so agreed, I think it would be the unanimous opinion of those who were members of the standing committee that, the bill having been reported back to the house, it would be proper for discussion to take place here with respect to the Japanese treaty and anything connected with it. I would feel very badly if there were any ruling to the contrary, because I am quite certain that is the committee's desire.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I thank the hon. member for Peel for bringing these matters to my attention. I merely want to point out that I will have to ask hon. members for their co-operation because I do not have the treaty of peace with Japan before me. Members could speak about anything under the sun and say it was in the treaty and I would not know. It is quite unusual for the chairman to direct discussion when all he has before him is a bill with five clauses in it, with hon. members at the same time speaking on a treaty. I do not have the document before me.


Howard Charles Green: I raise this question because I think there is some danger that the treaty will again bring about difficulties in connection with Japanese immigration into Canada. I am not criticizing the peace treaty itself but this is one of the questions which may cause trouble in the future if the *departments of government concerned are not aware of the difficulties which may arise and of the effort which is being made to bring about immigration of Japanese to Canada. I have here a clipping from the New Canadian, which is a publication of the national Japanese-Canadian citizens' association. In this particular article they are outlining the submissions which they made to a beet growers' association in southern Alberta. The article is dated February 23, 1952, and there are two paragraphs which are pertinent. The first reads as follows:
The work of the national J.C.C.A. in submitting a brief last year to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Walter Harris on restrictions upon reentry and immigration of persons of Japanese ancestry and a subsequent reply that the government would issue an official statement was mentioned in connection with the desire of the association for Japanese migrants to meet its need for labour.
The second reads as follows:
The brief stated the belief that a new immigration policy would be the outcome of the ratification of the Japanese peace treaty by Canada at the coming parliamentary session. With the possibility of new immigration from Japan in the future and with the success of the national J.C.C.A. in effecting re-entry of certain cases of strandees, it was stated that the present and possibly future shortage of beet labour could be lessened by making possible the entry to Alberta of strandees and later on of new immigrants.
Treaty of Peace (Japan) Act
I believe the government should give very careful consideration to this problem, because we do not want it to grow and become a problem similar to the one we faced before the recent war. Some of the groups of Japanese whom this association is endeavouring to get back to Canada, and incidentally whom they refer to as "strandees", are young Japanese who were in Japan when the war broke out. At that time the Japanese had a recognized policy of registering the births of their children with the Japanese consul in Vancouver as well as registering them with the British Columbia governmental authorities. They were taking advantage of a dual citizenship. A great many of these young people were sent back to Japan for their education and for training of one kind and another. At the time the war broke out different investigations made by governmental commissions and other authorities showed that there were about 1,500 children in Japan at the outbreak of war whose families were registered in Canada.
I have here the first report on the removal of Japanese from protected areas, issued by the British Columbia security commission covering the period of the commission's activities from the 4th of March to the 31st of October, 1942. On page 29 we find the figure of 1,500 children in Japan. In many cases, or in some cases at least, these young people served in the Japanese forces during the war. I would regret, and I think it would be a mistake, if the Canadian government adopted a policy of allowing them to come to Canada now. If they can, then of course they will ask that their families come too, and the first thing we know there may be several thousand covered in the group, being the children who were in Japan when war broke out and now their families.
In 1945 provision was made by the government for Japanese in Canada to ask to be sent back to Japan if they so wished. About 4,000 were sent back as a result of that policy. Transportation was paid by the government; they were allowed to remove the value of their property and assets held in Canada; they were given minimum financial credits; and in needy cases there was government assistance. As I said, about 4,000 were sent back under that plan.
I have here a further report on the re-establishment of Japanese in Canada from 1944 to 1946 issued by the Department of Labour. At pages 14 and 15 we find a summary of that movement. Also at page 23 there is a copy of a statement made in the house on January 24, 1947, by the then prime minister, Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, dealing with this repatriation. At that time it was provided

Treaty of Peace (Japan) Act that any who chose to go back and who were naturalized Canadians forfeited their right to naturalization. They understood that and went back subject to that condition. Now an attempt is being made to bring back those who wish to return to Canada. They made their choice at that time and I think the government would make a mistake if it yielded to the request that this group now be allowed to return to this country. If they come back their immediate families would also want to be allowed to come back, and here again several thousand might very well be involved.
In addition, the association to which I have referred seems to be in favour of some sort of general immigration of Japanese to Canada. The request is not made by the Japanese government at all. I find no evidence whatever of the Japanese government asking for that right for any of these groups. I do not believe it has taken that stand, but there is this campaign being carried on by the association here in Canada. I think it would be unfortunate if that campaign were to succeed.
As hon. members know there were great difficulties during the war over this question. Many of the Japanese were relocated in eastern Canada, where they have done very well; and they deserve great credit for the way they met the difficulties at that time. In recent years quite a few have returned to British Columbia, but as a group they are now living in different parts of Canada taking, I think, a very fair part in the life of the nation. I would urge that nothing be done now to upset that situation.
As the Minister of Fisheries knows it was a very difficult question in British Columbia before the war, and personally I wish to go on record as warning the government about steps they take now to permit immigration of this type. I express the hope that they will not adopt a policy which will result in more friction in British Columbia over this question. There is no doubt that it could be a source of friction in the future as it has been in the past. There is no need for that. A fresh page is turned now, and we are welcoming Japan back into the brotherhood of nations.
I hope the minister of external affairs and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will see to it that policies are adopted which will not allow this issue to become once more a burning and difficult question in British Columbia.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, as you have already pointed out this bill itself does not deal with the question raised by my hon. friend. I am aware, as the hon. member for Peel has pointed out, that when the resolution approving the Japanese peace treaty was before the house that approval was


expedited on the understanding that the treaty would be given very careful consideration by the committee on external affairs. That was done.
I would have thought that perhaps the place for discussion of general questions might have been on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs or the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. However, since the hon. gentleman has raised the question, and it is an important one, I would like to set his mind at rest and assure him that there is no desire on the part of the government, in the light of the ratification of the Japanese peace treaty or of the consideration of this bill, to ease in any way the possibility of Japanese emigration to Canada; to make it any easier in the future for them to get here than it has been in the past-and it has not been very easy in the past.
In so far as Canadian citizens are concerned, of whatever race, colour or creed they may be as long as they are Canadian citizens, under our law if they present themselves at a Canadian port they are admitted. But even in the case of Canadian citizens, who may have been in Japan during recent years, no steps have been taken by the Canadian authorities to facilitate their transportation to Canada or their admission to this country. I can assure my hon. friend that the government is quite aware of the difficulties and indeed the dangers of this situation. I am sure I speak for my colleagues when I say there is no disposition on our part to create a situation in regard to Japanese immigration which would arouse any uneasiness in any part of Canada.
I do not think that at this time I -need to go any further.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Penalties.
Mr. Fleming:: I should like to discuss a matter which I raised in the standing committee on external affairs which touches on the question of the propriety of parliament vesting in the governor in council power to prescribe penalties by way of either fine or imprisonment. The section before the committee provides in subsection 1 as follows:
Subject to subsection two, the governor in council may prescribe a fine or a term of imprisonment ox both a fine and a term of imprisonment as a penalty for violation of any order or regulation, and may also prescribe whether the penalty shall be imposed upon summary conviction or upon conviction under indictment or upon either summary conviction or conviction under indictment.
Then subsection 2 provides that the fine prescribed shall not exceed $100 for summary conviction and $1,000 for conviction

under indictment, and the term of imprisonment prescribed shall not exceed two months for summary conviction and two years for conviction under indictment. The nub of the matter is this, Mr. Chairman. In my submission, while previously the same power has been given to the governor in council to do certain things that become necessary in the light of these treaties, it is neither necessary nor desirable that the governor in council should be given the kind of powers that are proposed under section 4 of the bill, to enact what is in effect penal legislation and to prescribe penalties that directly relate to the liberty of the subject.
Precedents for legislation of this kind are frankly quite mixed, Mr. Chairman. If one looks at the previous statutes which have been passed by this parliament following the ratification of peace treaties, one finds that in all cases there is legislation similar to section 3 in the bill before us, and some precedents are in harmony with the scheme of legislation provided in section 4. For instance, in the Treaties of Peace Act, 1919, chapter 30 of the statutes of that year, it was provided that-
Any order in council made under this act may provide for the imposition by summary process or otherwise of penalties in respect of breaches of the provisions thereof-
Then there is a provision that it should be laid before parliament as soon as may be after it is made. Similarly, in the Bulgarian Peace Treaty Act, 1920, chapter 4 of the statutes of that year, we have a provision identical to that which I read from the act of 1919. In the Hungary and Turkey Treaties of Peace Act, 1922, chapter 49 of the statutes of that year, we have a similar provision. Then after the conclusion of world war II, this parliament in 1948 passed the Treaties of Peace (Italy, Roumania, Hungary and Finland) Act, 1948, chapter 71, and the provision was changed somewhat. Section 4 of that act provided as follows:
Subject to subsection two, the governor in council may prescribe a fine or term of imprisonment-
-and so on, being the language that we have in section 4 now before the committee.
Whatever may be said for these precedents, in my respectful submission there is a better course to follow, and that better course is the one followed recently by the parliament of the United Kingdom in passing a bill to deal with the same circumstances dealt with in the bill now before this house. It was a bill to provide for carrying into effect the treaty of peace with Japan and the protocol thereto. On examination it will be noticed that in this case the parliament of the United Kingdom did not vest in His Majesty in council the power to prescribe penalties for breach of
Treaty of Peace (Japan) Act these orders in council. It established the penalties in the statute itself, but did reserve leave to His Majesty in council to reduce the penalty. Parliament did fix the penalty in the statute. This is the language used by the parliament of the United Kingdom in that regard:
Any order in council made under this section may provide that persons contravening or failing to comply with provisions of the order shall be guilty of offences against this section, and (except in so far as any such order may provide for less penalties), any person guilty of an offence against this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such imprisonment and such fine, or on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both such imprisonment and such fine.
In the light of that better precedent it seems to me that the course the house ought to follow here is not to enact provisions in the terms of section 4, but to provide a penalty in the act that will operate as a maximum in all cases, that is with respect to conviction upon summary hearing and also conviction under indictment. We shall then be preserving the sound principle that parliament ought to do legislating of this kind, and parliament ought not to vest in the governor in council power to pass penal laws of this kind which directly affect the rights and liberties of the subject.
In the committee I offered an amendment to section 4 of the bill, Mr. Chairman, which would have adopted the better precedent to which I have referred in the recent enactment of the United Kingdom. I would ask the minister if he would agree to the amendment of section 4 so that it might read as follows, and this is the language of the amendment that I introduced in the committee:
Any order in council made under this act may provide that persons contravening or failing to comply with the provisions of the order shall be guilty of offences against this section and except in so far as any such order may provide for less penalties, any person guilty of an offence against this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $100 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two months or both, and on conviction under indictment to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years or both.
May I say, sir, that the amendment will not change the maximum which is named in the present bill, but let it not be thought that this is a simple matter of form. In my submission it is a matter of substance because it relates directly to the principle that in matters of this kind parliament can, as in the present case, do its own legislating and need not and should not hand over to the governor in council this power to establish penalties which include terms of imprisonment. It is nol
3304	HOUSE OF
Treaty of Peace (Japan) Act necessary that that be done because parliament can do this by direct legislation here and now.
As to the penalties, it the maximum may be thought severe, that situation could be provided for as in the case of the United Kingdom legislation, by reserving the right to establish lesser penalties. The principle I am contending for is sound. It could be accomplished by the introduction of this amendment without doing any violence to the general purpose of the present bill.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I feel hardly qualified to follow my hon. and learned friend in a legal argument. I know that in his view it is more than a legal argument, but possibly he will allow me to make an observation as a layman. The section we are discussing, section 4, as he has pointed out is in exactly the same wording as a parallel section in an act implementing the treaties of peace with Italy and some of the satellite countries after world war II.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Italy, Roumania, Hungary and Finland.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is right. Although the Canadian legislation after the second world war dealing with this point is not in exactly the same terms as similar legislation passed by the United Kingdom, as the hon. member has pointed out, I believe the difference between the section in the United Kingdom legislation and that in this bill is more one of form than of substance. I know my hon. friend does not agree with that contention. The United Kingdom parliament fixes the maximum penalty, but the following words appear in brackets in the United Kingdom act, and I quote "except in so far as any such order may provide for less penalties".
I submit that those words indicate clearly that the actual penalty imposed by the United Kingdom is determined by order in council and that the provision of section 4 in this statute does in fact embody the same principle. In other words, as I see it, the United Kingdom statute purported to fix the penalty but by including the words "not exceeding" preceding the amount of the fine or the term of the imprisonment, it also recognized that by order in council a lesser penalty could ae imposed. The Canadian legislation which is now before us, as in 1948, delegates to the governor in council the power to fix the penalty but restricts the power by prescribing ;he maximum limit of the penalty in a separate subsection. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, is I see it, there is no difference in principle aetween us. For that reason we would prefer 

to adopt the same form of words in section 4 of this act as we have adopted in previous legislation in connection with such matters.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to make one brief observation. To many laymen this might seem like a hair-splitting matter; but it is not, Mr. Chairman. It is a question of principle. It may well be that in the result we shall find the penalties the same in both countries. That could easily result. But in the method that I am proposing-which I think to be sound, parliamentary and constitutional-the result would be achieved by a correct method and by parliamentary enactment. The way the government proposes to arrive at that result is by delegation on the part of parliament to the governor in council of powers so wide that, in my submission, the principle is unsound.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Just before the section is passed, Mr. Chairman, I should point out that between section 4 of this bill and the British act there is one difference of substance, and that is that the fine or terms of imprisonment which could be imposed by order in council in this bill would be or might be less than that in the parallel bill in the United Kingdom, where the maximum is higher.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: the second reading of Bill No. 333, to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will take up the following bills, resolutions and notices of motions: Bill No. 334, to amend the Army Benevolent Fund Act, 1947. I understand this bill is going to the committee on veterans affairs after second reading.

Then we will take the notice of motion to approve the protocol to the North Atlantic treaty signed at Paris on May 27, 1952; then Bill No. 336, respecting marine and aviation war risks insurance and reinsurance agreements. That is the bill we could perhaps have passed tonight. Then we will take Bill No. 279, to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act; the resolutions in the name of the Minister of Finance, the first concerning the Canadian National Railways and the second
Business of the House
respecting agreements with the governments of the provinces; Bill No. 309, to amend the Criminal Code (race meetings); then the notice of motion of the Minister of Transport to approve the agreement for the promotion of safety on the great lakes; and Bill No. 308, to revise the capital structure of the Canadian National Railway Company.


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