1952-06-26

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. McCulloch.
Seventh report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Winkler.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 391 (from the Senate), to amend the Eastern Rocky Mountain Forest Conservation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


Mr. LaCroix:: 1.	Who is responsible for printing cheques of the Canadian government, such as those for family allowances, old age pensions, etc.?
2.	Why are not these cheques printed and distributed all over the country in the two official languages, as is the paper money issued by the Bank of Canada?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	All cheques issued on behalf of the government of Canada including those for family allowances and old age security are produced and issued by the office of the comptroller of the treasury, Department of Finance.
_ 2- The practice followed from the inception of the family allowances program (July 1945) and the old age security program (January 1952) has been the same as that followed by the provincial governments in each of the provinces of Canada.



HEALTH GRANTS


Mr. Arsenauli:: 1.	What has been done under the national health grants program to reduce tuberculosis morbidity and mortality in the province of Quebec?
2.	What reduction has there been in the tuberculosis mortality rate in the province of Quebec, since the inauguration of the national health grants program?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	Since 1948, approximately $7,034,000 has been expended under the federal health grants program for the control of tuberculosis in Quebec. Included is federal assistance amounting to $2,234,000 toward the construction of 2,021 additional beds in nine provincial sanatoria. Preventive, diagnostic and treatment services were provided. Staff and equipment were provided for diagnostic clinics, mobile clinics and sanatoria. Drugs such as streptomycin, para-amino salicyclic acid and tibione were purchased for free distribution to tuberculous patients. A B.C.G. vaccination program among children has been established and various investigations into B.C.G. vaccine were carried out.
2.	The death rate from tuberculosis in Quebec has fallen markedly-in 1950, the rate was 39-3 per 100,000 as compared with 72-4 per 100,000 in 1946.



FEDERAL EXPENDITURES IN PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

Mr. Macnaughion:: 1.	What are the estimated expenditures In the province of Quebec for the fiscal year 1952-53, for (a) family allowances; (b) old age pensions, old age assistance and pensions for the blind?
2.	What were the expenditures of each department of government in the province of Quebec, for the fiscal year 1950-51?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1.	(a) $106,000,000; (b) Old age security $70,000,000; Old age assistance $6,500,000 to $7,500,000; Allowances for blind persons $1,100,000.
2.	A. Direct payments to the provincial government:
Amount in Thousands of dollars
(a) Statutory subsidies	 2,867
(b) General health grants	 6,143
(c)	Half of net taxes collected from certain public utility companies (under section 7 of chapter 58 of the Statutes of 1947)	 1,247
10,257

Questions
B. Direct payments to or on behalf of persons resident in the province:
(a)	Family allowances	
99,558(b)	Old age pensions and pensions to blind persons	
25,909(c)	Pensions (world war 1 and	2)	9,842(d)	Veterans war service gratuities and re-establishment credits	
2,193(e)	Veterans post-discharge rehabilitation benefits	
1,467(f)	War veterans allowances	.	..	2,338
141,307
C. Interest paid on government of Canada
bonds:
Interest paid to holders residing within the province (estimated)	 83,344
D. Estimate of major expenditures by government departments or agencies within the province:
(a)	Agriculture	
13,609(b)	Chief electoral officer	
66(c)	Citizenship and immigration 2,438(d)	Finance	
3,103(e)	Fisheries	
165(f)	Justice	
2,987(g)	Labour	
*..	8,044(h)	Mines and technical surveys 2,672(i)	National defence	
128,748(j)	National health and welfare 2,229(k)	National revenue	
9,359(l)	Public works	
18,392(m)	Resources and development 1,082(n)	Royal Canadian MountedPolice	
1,044(o)	Trade and commerce	
2,545(p)	Transport (including C.M.C.and N.H. board)	
18,667(q)	Veterans affairs	
11,830(r)	Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation	
4,699
231,679
E. Proportional share of federal government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund ($26,133):
Portion allocated to province on basis of proportion of number of insured workers in province to number of insured workers in Canada:	7,623
F. Estimate of expenditures on loans to veterans (Veterans
Land Act)	 1,093
*Total Expenditures	 475,303

'^Expenditure figures do not include:
(a)	The more general type of budgetary expenditures which are made for the benefit of the country as a whole and which are of direct benefit to all the provinces. In this category are the expenses of the central legislative body at Ottawa, and the administrative departments at Ottawa and the research activities of the national research council.
(b)	Payments to the majority of suppliers of goods and services as the payments are in many cases made to the head office of the company and therefore do not lend themselves to an accurate segregation by provinces.



HEALTH GRANTS


Mr. Arsenault:: With the federal assistance provided under the professional training grant or other grants, in the national health grants program, how many persons in the province of Quebec, by categories, have been or are receiving training since the program started?


Mr. McCusker:: 620 persons in the province of Quebec have been or are receiving training under the federal national health grants program. These comprise 104 mental health personnel, 181 physicians, 137 nurses, 91 laboratory personnel, 24 sanitation personnel and 83 other hospital personnel.



CIVIL DEFENCE TRAINING SCHOOL


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: How many people from the province of Quebec nave been trained at federal expense, at the federal civil defence training school, since January, 1951?


Emmett Andrew McCusker: To June 14, 1952, 153 persons from the province of Quebec have been trained at federal expense at the federal civil defence training school in the following courses- general civil defence course, rescue course, and welfare course.
This number includes 37 persons who attended the special course which was held from March 24-29,	1952, exclusively for
French-speaking workers in the field of civil defence.



STEVESTON, B.C., BREAKWATER

Mr. Goode:: What steps have been taken by the Minister of Public Works to call tenders for the breakwater at Steveston, British Columbia?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Plans and specifications are being prepared.



CIVIL DEFENCE


Pierre Gauthier: What is the total value of training equipment and supplies provided by the federal government, to the province of Quebec for civil defence purposes?


Emmett Andrew McCusker: The federal government has provided training equipment and supplies to the province of Quebec for civil defence purposes to the value of approximately $260,000.
Questions



HEALTH GRANTS


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: 1.	Since the health grants program came into effect how many new general hospitals in the province of Quebec are being or have been given federal assistance, under the hospital construction grant?
2.	What are the names and bed capacities of these hospitals, and how many people will they serve?


Mr. McCusker:: 1. Twenty-one.
2. Name of Hospital
Ste. Justine (pop. 1,400,000)	
Hopital Maisonneuve	
Hotel Dieu de St. Joseph	
Hotel Dieu d'Amos	
Hopital Ste. Marie	
Hopital St. Georges de Beauce	
Hotel Dieu de Sorel	
Hopital du St. Redempteur	
Hotel Dieu de Montmagny	
Sherbrooke	
Hopital Lafleche	
Hopital St. Sauveur	
Hopital Notre Dame de Ste. Croix...!!
Barrie Memorial	
Hopital Notre Dame de Charny	
Hopital de la Providence	
Pontiac Community	
Hopital Notre Dame de la Recouvrance
Hopital Notre Dame de Lourdes	
Gatineau Memorial	
Harrington (Grenfell)	
Total




Mr. Valois:: 1.	Has any contribution been made under the national health grants program for research into mental illness in the province of Quebec?
2.	If so, what was the amount of such contribution?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$103,636.




Mr. Macnaughlon:: 1.	What measures have been taken by the federal government under the national health grants program to assist crippled children in the province of Quebec?
2.	What sums have been approved for this purpose since the program went into effect?
	Estimated
Number	population
of beds	served
. 803	
. 478	1,400,000
. 238	25,000
. 224	90,000
. 173	68,300
. 166	60,000
. 161	61,000
. 159	50,000
. 147	105,500
. 136	56,100
. 118	90,000
. 78	4,300
. 65	85,000
. 63	30,000
. 59	28,000
. 53	105,000
. 52	19,110
. 29	6,000
. 23	1,800
. 17	10,000
. 16	2,500
. 3,258	2,297,610


Mr. McCusker:: 1. The following projects have been approved under the national health grants program to provide federal assistance to crippled children in the province of Quebec:
Assistance toward extending the services of -the orthopaedic section of the hopital du Sacre-Coeur, Cartierville;
Assistance toward extending the services of l'Ecole Cardinal Villeneuve, Quebec City;
The provision of large quantities of orthopaedic appliances to be supplied to crippled children through a number of orthopaedic centres;
Assistance toward extending the services of La Societe de Secours aux Enfants Infirmes, Montreal;
Employment of supplementary staff to extend the services of the speech therapy clinic of the Royal Victoria hospital, Montreal;

Questions
Provision of staff and equipment for the Rehabilitation Society for Cripples, Montreal;
Assistance toward extending the services of the Orthopaedic Centre of La Societe de Rehabilitation, Inc., Sherbrooke.
2. $187,377.
FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN PROVINCE OF QUEBEC Mr. Beaudry:
1.	What was the total of family allowances payments In the province of Quebec for the month of May, 1952?
2.	How many children benefited by these payments?
3.	How many families were involved?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	$8,795,407.
2.	1,464,023.
3.	546,870.



HEALTH GRANTS-ASSISTANCE TO RESEARCH IN PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

Mr. Gauthier (Porlneuf):: In respect of what research projects and in what amounts has approval been given for financial assistance to the province of Quebec, by the federal government under the national health grants program, since the program started in 1948?


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Types of Research Projects Expenditures Pathological physiology in respiratory diseases	 $ 86,992.56
Hormonal changes in psychiatric
patients	 40,610.00
Biochemical changes occurring in old people and the problems in social adjustment in an urban
community	 33,113.13
Home care section (pilot plan),
Herbert Reddy hospital		23,079.49
Development of a new therapy by
endocrines	  22,200.00
Epidemiology of virus diseases ..	17,325.00
Biochemical changes in cerebrospinal fluid in schizophrenia ..	14,975.00
Social aspects of epilepsy	 13,587.50
Physiological fuel value of foods	12,000.00
Frequency of histoplasmosis in the
province of Quebec	 11,358.98
Role of iodine deficiency and other dietary factors in the production
of endemic goitre	 11,014.00
Telecenphalic structures in relation to behaviour	 10,000.00
Follow-up survey of neurological
cases	 9,475.00
Laboratory and clinical investigation with the B.C.G. prepared according to Dubos' method ...	8,801.06
Metabolism of zinc and silicon ..	8,572.32

Types of Research Projects Expenditures
Investigation of behaviour patterns through moving picture and
magnetic tape recording		8,350.00
Neurotropic viruses	 8,116.37
Genetics of diseases in children ..	6,926.37
Early detection of multiple sclerosis and pre-disposition of
this disease	 6,000.00
Streptomycin and nicotinic acid requirements in man and
animals	 5,680.00
Mycobacterium tuberculosis		4,789.85
Psychotherapy in sleep and electrical brain stimulation with
extracranial electrodes	 4,700.00
Vitamin A metabolism in the rat 4,492.51 Effect of defatting B.C.G. on its immunizing and experimental
value	 4,200.00
Future control of B.C.G. scarification	 4,100.00
Methods of detection of tubercle bacilli in sputum by culture and addition of culture of sputum to the routine services offered by
the division of laboratories ...	3,683.76
Brucella abortus strain in milk
and humans	 3,000.00
Dispersion of tubercle bacilli in the organism with the aid of
radioactive isotopes	 2,820.00
Selective differentiation of bacteriophage for the phage typing of staphylococcus pyogenes ....	2,260.00
Experimental study in the prevention and treatment of pneumoconiosis	 2,150.00
Nucleoprotein metabolism in
.dementia praecox	 1,938.53
Thiamin content of potatoes ....	1,638.61
Quantitative in vitro appreciation
of virulence of tubercle bacillus	1,400.00
Total	 $399,350.04



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has a committee now been set up to work out specifications for a new type of ocean cargo ship for Canada? If so, will the minister explain the kind of committee that has been set up and the work they are to do?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I thought I had dealt with this subject in a general way on my estimates but perhaps I did not make it sufficiently clear. A

committee has been established composed of the maritime commission and representatives of shipping and shipbuilding interests whose object it is to study the possibility of establishing a standard cargo vessel which would meet the requirements of the shipping interests and which would be adaptable to national defence in case of an emergency. That committee is now working with the object of studying the specifications and plans for such a ship.


Howard Charles Green: What is to be the speed of these ships?


Lionel Chevrier: That is a matter to be determined by the committee but it should be a modern fast vessel.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence of which I have sent notice. With reference to a news dispatch appearing in the press last night and this morning, will the department give consideration to granting compassionate leave to men serving outside of the country if a parent is dying?


Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Minister of National Defence):: This question is a very difficult one to deal with. The most serious consideration is given to all requests for compassionate leave. Generally speaking the practice is followed to return a soldier from the front line in Korea when a parent is ill only in cases where the return of the soldier is likely to contribute to the recovery of the parent. Otherwise men would be coming and going, often too late and often to no avail whatever. However, the most serious consideration is given to each case on its merits.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence based on my earlier question.
As the soldier concerned is due to return to Canada on rotation leave in August, and as his mother is only given three weeks to live, would it not be more reasonable to have him return now instead of waiting until August?


Brooke Claxton: I shall be glad to look into the matter further.
55704-237J
Inquiries of the Ministry



BOMBING OF YALU POWER PLANTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Was Canada consulted prior to the decision to bomb power plants on the Yalu? If not, what is Canada's position in the matter?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: We were not consulted before this action took place. It was felt that the action, which I should point out took place in Korea, was within existing military directives, and we have been assured that it was ordered by the unified command with military considerations solely in mind.


Mr. Ferguson:: It is pretty near time the government stopped trying to meddle in matters they know nothing about. Let these people get on with their job and do not try to run it from here.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of Australia, the Right Hon. Robert Menzies, has been in Ottawa for the last few days. During his visit was any consideration given by the Prime Minister and the members of the government to the suggestion of Mr. Menzies with respect to the convening of a British commonwealth trade and resources conference? Would the government consider giving a lead in the direction of convening such a conference?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The matter of an economic conference, covering the wide field that the Prime Minister of Australia referred to in his speech before the Canadian Club yesterday, was discussed. The government of Canada will not take the initiative in calling such a conference. It might possibly be that if the government were to attempt to do so at this time it would be embarrassing to others who are considering and discussing the matter with which the Prime Minister of Australia was so much concerned.	.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Prime


'3758 HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister although perhaps I should have sent notice of it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the statement, published in the Toronto Telegram of June 23, 1952, and attributed to one Dobroslav Jevjdevic, that he had been responsible for the death of 30,000 Red partisans opposing the nazi and fascist invaders of Yugoslavia and that he wished to kill more of them, been drawn to the attention of the government? If so, does the government consider it in the public interest to permit the issue of visas to aliens who are disposed to stir up trouble in Canada against what has become, and we hope will remain, a friendly Yugoslav administration?
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I must confess that I have not seen the dispatch to which the question refers. The notice of the question sent to my office was referred to the Department of External Affairs and I was informed they had taken cognizance of the report. Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs has some information that he might communicate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot add very much except to say that a visa was granted to this Yugoslav citizen by one of our offices abroad. The circumstances of that action are being looked into. I might add that it is of course undesirable that any visitor should cause embarrassment to the government in its relations with friendly governments.


INQUIRY AS TO GRANTING OF VISAS TO VITALIS PANTENBURG AND WIFE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs: Have the German scientist, Vitalis Pantenburg, and his Russian-born wife been granted a visa to enter Canada and to travel through Labrador, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know but I will look into the matter.


REGISTRATION OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS IN CANADA WTH AMERICAN AUTHORITIES  QUES- TION AS TO EXTRATERRITORIAL ENFORCEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Yesterday the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked a question regarding the report that United States citizens in Canada were being instructed to register at United States consular offices in this country and he inquired

'whether any arrangements had been made with Canada to cover the enforcement of those reported regulations.
I would like to confirm what I said yesterday that there are no such arrangements, and to add that the position of the government had been made clear in this matter by a circular note dated May 6, 1947, which was sent to all foreign missions and consular offices in Canada. The pertinent portions of this circular note, which was based on section 11 of the Foreign Enlistment Act, read as follows:
As indicated in section 11 of the Foreign Enlistment Act there is no objection in principle to a foreign representative sending a call-up notice to a person who is a national of that country and who is not a Canadian citizen. However, the view of the Canadian government, with which foreign representatives will naturally wish to comply, is that such call-up notices should not give the impression that failure to obey will expose the person to penalties on Canadian soil.


AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (Si. John's Wesi):: I
should like to direct to the Minister of Transport a question of which I have already given him notice. I should like to know if the statement appearing in an editorial in a recent issue of the Daily News of St. John's, Newfoundland, is correct, namely, that two of the runways at Gander airport necessary for landing and take-off in cross winds cannot be used by the large aircraft now in use on the international routes. Further, I should like to ask if he has any comment to make on the suggestion contained in the editorial that Mr. Chevrier's department would be quite happy to see Gander by-passed and thus be relieved of the obligation for its maintenance.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes before I came into the house the hon. member sent me the clipping to which he has referred. The article is not only inaccurate but it is untrue. In the first place there is nothing abnormal about not being able to operate aircraft in cross winds on certain strips. There is a main strip at Gander on which the government has spent a substantial sum of money and which is capable of taking any loads and any aircraft which may be used on any occasion. There is absolutely nothing the matter with that airstrip.
It is a fact that the two airstrips referred to have been affected by the frost and we have definite plans for the development of the Gander airport. That is indicated by the fact

that we have already spent several millions of dollars there. We have in hand now a proposal with reference to the town site which we are discussing with the provincial authorities. This is not indicative of our by-passing Gander. Not only are the contents of the article untrue, but quite the converse is the fact.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg). Is it compulsory for students to have unemployment insurance books and if not, what is the procedure?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I shall be glad to get the information and provide an answer for the hon. member tomorrow.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the second reading of Bill No. 392, to provide retiring allowances, on a contributory basis, for persons who have served as members of the House of Commons of Canada.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate once more that I am not opposed to a scheme to provide pensions for members of parliament but I am opposed to the present plan.
My reasons are that I am convinced, as a result of the discussions and the evidence presented in the banking and commerce committee, that the present scheme can and should be modified by way of an age floor and some restrictions on the rights to withdrawal so as still to permit a substantial pension benefit to members while at the same time reducing if not eliminating the proposed level of treasury contributions and thus removing from the scheme those features which, as I see them at present, must subject parliament itself to damaging criticism.
I have pressed these views as vigorously as possible both here and in the banking and commerce committee and from what has followed I can only conclude that my views are not generally shared.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Having pressed them already to the best of my ability I do not propose to cause further delay by repeating them again in detail here, but I ask you, sir, and my colleagues, simply to accept this as an
Members of Parliament-Pensions expression of my continued opposition to the present proposal for the reasons already given.


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


Howard Charles Green: On division.


Mr. Sf. Laurent:: If there is to be a division I think we should see where the dividing line falls.


Mr. Sinnoll:: Where is the hon. member for Lake Centre?
After the taking of the vote:
Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.


Mr. Mclvor:: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. If anyone does not want to receive this pension, he does not need to receive it, and his contribution will be given back to him?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As I understand it, under the provisions of the bill, those who do not receive a pension get their contributions back without interest.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Amounts to be credited to the account.
The Chairman:: Shall clause 4 carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.


Louis-René Beaudoin: On division.
Section agreed to on division.
Sections 5 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On section 11-Amount of allowance.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall clause 11 carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.
'Mr. St. Laurent.]


Louis-René Beaudoin: On division.
Section agreed to on division.
Section 12 agreed to.
On section 13-Withdrawal allowance if member expelled.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall clause 13 carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.


Louis-René Beaudoin: On division.
Section agreed to on division.
Sections 14 to 18 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the bill carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Carried on division.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Next sitting.


WAR RISKS INSURANCE
Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 336, respecting marine and aviation war risks insurance and reinsurance agreements.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps I should point out that this bill has been carefully considered by the banking and commerce committee and was reported as amended.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: When this bill was up for consideration before, while we entirely approved the purposes of it, it seemed that it was not really legislation; it was more like a licence to the government to legislate in any way it wanted to. In other words, it seemed that it was much too widely expressed. Some concession has been made to that view. There is an amendment which will be made, I believe, when we come to section 3. When we come to that section, I will add a word or two.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Insurance and reinsurance agreements.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall clause 3 as amended carry?


Mr. Sinclair:: Since hon. members for the most part have the bill as printed on first reading, they have not the one amendment which was made in the banking and commerce committee. We discussed this bill in three of our meetings. The hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Greenwood asked that section 3 be made more specific by the inclusion after the words "the minister" of the following words:
for the purpose of securing that ships and aircraft are not laid up and that commerce is not interrupted by reason of lack of insurance facilities.
The rest of the section is as it is in the bill which hon. members have.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The objection which we raised and which was further discussed in committee was, as I said, to the wide-open wording of the bill. We drew to the attention of the committee that the corresponding English legislation seemed to be more specific. We should like to have had more by way of addition, but nevertheless this is a concession to the view which we put forward. We may, so to speak, take it on account. At some later time this legislation may be subject to further amendment but that is .not a matter for discussion now.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 4 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On the title.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to raise one question on clause 8. There was an amendment proposed there by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming)

who is not at present in the house-which I have not got. I wonder whether the parliamentary assistant would give it to us and also the reasons for it. I do not know whether this is quite in order, but I should like it on the record.


James Sinclair: As I recall it, the amendment which was put forward and which was defeated in the committee was to the effect that these agreements or reinsurance contracts between the Minister of Finance and the mutual insurance club of ship owners should contain a provision that there should be a period of 14 days after tabling in the house, within which the agreements could be annulled by joint vote of the House of Commons and the Senate. The Minister of Finance came to the committee and said that such a provision would be quite contrary to the general conception of responsible government; that the government must take responsibility for whatever contracts they may enter into under this legislation, and he pointed out further that should the actual ship owners who were insuring through their mutual insurance company-a bill for which
War Risks Insurance
will be back before this house on Friday night-find later that the contract could be broken unilaterally by action of the house they would probably be a little reluctant to enter into such contracts, and for that reason the Minister of Finance said that the suggested amendment was not acceptable to him, and it was voted down.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Supplementing what the parliamentary assistant has said, I just want to put on record the fact that our view was that this amendment, which was taken from the Emergency Powers Act, was a good one. I want to put on the record that while the Minister of Finance did say that this was unusual-I think the only one instance that he knew of, and that he said was not properly applicable in this case, was the emergency powers provision- while that view prevailed, I just want to state that in our view it was sufficiently important to be adopted. I am not pursuing the matter now but I should like to put on record that we were defeated but not convinced.


Mr. Fleming:: I should like to reinforce what was said by the hon. member for Greenwood and to press one point which was raised in the committee when we asked for a further amendment to the bill.
It is true that the principal section of the bill has been amended with a view to setting forth the purposes for which powers are vested by parliament in the governor in council in respect to insurance for war risks. That goes some distance in meeting the fundamental objection that some of us had to this open type of legislation. When I say "open" I mean that as submitted to the house in the first place it empowered the governor in council without limitation, and without any attempt at setting limits or bounds, to enter into contracts for this type of insurance.
There was one further provision which it seemed to me might well be inserted in the bill with a view to maintaining direct control by parliament over the exercise by the governor in council of the powers vested in him by this legislation. I refer to the precedent provided in this connection by the Emergency Powers Act, chapter 5 of the first session of 1951. There you recall, Mr. Chairman, that following the vesting of certain powers of parliament in the governor in council, parliament saw fit to attach this provision to be found in section 2 subsection 5 of that act:
(5) If the Senate and House of Commons within a period of forty days, beginning with the day on which any regulation is laid before parliament in accordance with subsection four, and excluding any time during which parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both the Senate and House

War Risks Insurance
of Commons are adjourned for more than four days, resolve that it be annulled, it shall cease to have effect.
It would not go the whole way, but at least it would be one additional means of maintaining parliamentary control over the exercise by the governor in council of the powers vested in him by this bill if such a provision were written into it. There is a counterpart of such a provision also in the act of the United Kingdom to which frequent reference was made in the committee on banking and commerce, and from which the words were borrowed which have how been written into section 3 of the bill by way of amendment thereto. The mere provision for annulment in terms like these is not of very much effect, Mr. Chairman, unless there is some undertaking and willingness on the part of the government, as there was, you will recall, in connection with the Emergency Powers Act, to make it possible for a private member of the house to introduce one of those motions to annul.
On that occasion the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that even in spite of the difficulties that normally attend the introduction of motions by a private member, every effective opportunity would be given for this purpose if any private member indicated that he wished to bring such a motion under the provisions of section 2, subsection 5, of the Emergency Powers Act. In the case of the present bill, I urge that such an amendment should be written into it and that such an undertaking should be given on the part of the government.
I might point out in that connection also that under the British bill it is sufficient if the House of Commons alone passes a resolution to annul these contracts of insurance. It is not necessary that the resolution be passed by both houses of parliament.
In conclusion, I know I do not need to repeat what I said in the committee in speaking on both these proposed amendments, that there is no quarrel in this house, so far as I know, with providing a means of writing insurance of this kind. The risks are extraordinary and the occasion can descend upon us without warning. We must be prepared; we must take steps in advance to prepare should such unhappy emergency arise. The principle that some of us have seen in this matter, which seems to be directly raised by the wide terms in which the legislation was submitted to the house, is the issue as to how far parliament can go in vesting legislative power in the governor in council. The one amendment to this bill does help somewhat in that respect. I urge on the government again that they agree to a further amendment to the bill which, 
while in itself it is not completely effective, nevertheless has much to be said for it by way of maintaining parliamentary control over the exercise by the governor in council of these powers which the bill will vest in the governor in council.


Mr. McLure:: May I be permitted to ask just one question? Will boats such as the ferry steamers Abegweit, Prince Edward Island and the Nova Scotia, and other boats running to Prince Edward Island, be insured, or are they already insured?


James Sinclair: Unfortunately I am not
familiar with the ownership of these ships. Are they publicly owned or privately owned?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Two of them are privately owned and two are government-owned.


James Sinclair: As far as the privately-owned ships are concerned, the owners of the ships would decide whether they wanted to come into this Canadian Shipowners Mutual Assurance Company to cover their ships with war risk insurance in the case of hostilities or apprehended hostilities. The experience of the last war shows that private ship owners whose ships were likely to encounter war risks immediately took part in this arrangement.
As far as the government-owned ships are concerned, while they are covered by marine insurance in time of peace they too might be exposed in time of war. It would then be a government decision as to whether those government-owned ships would be placed in the pool or whether they would take the chance directly as the government does with most of its other properties.
As far as the privately-owned ships are concerned, that is a decision for their owners. The experience of the last war shows that if the owners think that there is any war risk involved they would immediately enter the pool.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Is the Abegweit insured? The Charlottetown, which was a government-owned ship, was lost in 1941 but it was insured. I was wondering whether the new ship was insured.


James Sinclair: I am not qualified to answer that because marine insurance on government-owned ships would come under the Minister of Transport. My recollection is that he said last week that the government does carry marine insurance on their shipping. Of course the government does not carry insurance generally on public property throughout Canada because they can spread the risk. I shall find out from the Minister

of Transport and see that an answer is given later. Of course that matter would not come within the scope of this bill.


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

Alphonse Fournier: Last night I announced that I would take up Bill No. 390, respecting currency, the Royal Canadian Mint and the exchange fund. I now find that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, is speaking at the Royal Military College, Kingston, but will be back some time during the day. I would suggest that we go into committee of supply and continue with the estimates of public works.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Trying to take us by surprise.

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



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
344. British Columbia, $2,820,000.
Howard Charles Green: The details on page 404 indicate a vote of $175,000 for a post office building at Vancouver. Can the minister indicate the situation at the present time with regard to the construction of this post office building?


Alphonse Fournier: This amount is required to complete the purchase of the site, for architects' fees and other preliminary work toward the erection of a new post office building in Vancouver, B.C. The site for this building, the city block bounded by Georgia, Homer, Duns-muir and Hamilton streets, was expropriated in 1948. The proposed building will be a four-storey structure approximately 445 feet by 257 feet with basement and sub-basement. It will be of brick construction with stone trim. The preliminary estimate of cost is $6 million and the estimated requirement for 1952-53 is $175,000. The appropriation in 1951-52 was $300,000, including funds transferred, and we spent $291,790. This vote was authorized on February 14, 1950.


Howard Charles Green: I am not quite clear about how the money voted last year was spent and how the money to be voted this year is to be used.


Alphonse Fournier: There were three valuations made of the site which ranged from $338,650 to $582,500. Based on settlements already made, the total cost of this property is now estimated at $640,000, of 55704-238
Supply-Public Works
which amount approximately 95 per cent has been spent. Now that we have the site we are preparing plans.


Howard Charles Green: Am I to understand that there has been paid for the site something like $640,000, but nothing yet has been paid for plans?


Alphonse Fournier: The architects are Messrs. McCarter and Nairne, and I am told that they have not yet received payment for it.


Howard Charles Green: Will this vote of $175,000 all be required for the payments of architects' fees? It looks as though no money is being voted for actual construction work during the present fiscal year.


Alphonse Fournier: I am told that the preparation of plans and specifications for a $6 million building takes from a year to a year and a half, so this amount would be applied on the payment of architects' fees. When the plans and specifications are completed they are approved by the Post Office Department and by the architects of the Department of Public Works. When there has been the necessary approval of the plans we will ask for an estimate to be included in the next main estimates and will then call for tenders and let the contract. My deputy says that it is expected to have an item for this in the estimates for the next fiscal year.


Howard Charles Green: No tenders will be called until the next fiscal year, which would be after March 31, 1953?


Alphonse Fournier: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: When does the minister expect construction to begin?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not want to tie myself to a date.


Howard Charles Green: Approximately.


Alphonse Fournier: I would not want to give a definite date. I will let my friend know as soon as I am convinced that we can start on a certain date but I would have to know the progress made on the plans and specifications before tying myself down.


Howard Charles Green: Obviously it is a matter of some years. Would it be about 1955?


Alphonse Fournier: My officials tell me at the end of next year we will probably be in a position to ask for tenders.


Mr. Laing:: I should like to say a word on this matter not so much from the point of view of when construction is going to start as from the point of view of making some arrangement with the city of Vancouver with respect to parking and general traffic in that

Supply-Public Works
area. At the present time that is one of our most congested areas. The Vancouver city council is of the opinion that something should be done to see that the pony expresses, or whoever picks up the mail in the city, should be able to get down there. About eighteen months ago we had an unsatisfactory state of affairs. The city police were haling the mail rigs into court for double parking. At the present time there is a general situation of conflict of traffic arrangements owing to the fact that west Vancouver is growing very rapidly. There is through traffic across west Vancouver that cuts clean across traffic going north and south. I hope the minister will give some consideration to that matter because in our growing city traffic and all that it means is one of our primary considerations today, and that is the most complicated area of the entire city of Vancouver.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. gentleman may be assured that we will do our best to co-operate with the city authorities with respect to traffic and parking close to that building. I have not any definite knowledge of the situation but my officials will take it under consideration.


Howard Charles Green: I believe there was an attempt made in that connection to get the government to participate in a plan for the setting up of parking areas by means of the payment of a local improvement tax. Private property owners were agreeable to that, but the last time I made inquiries, which I admit was some months ago, the government would have nothing to do with the plan. Here you have a department occupying a large area right in the centre of the busiest part of the city, and I believe it should co-operate in any plan of that kind. I ask the minister to look into the situation.


Alphonse Fournier: We are always ready to co-operate, but I have not heard about the plan that the hon. gentleman has mentioned.


Howard Charles Green: I think it was investigated by the Department of Finance.


Alphonse Fournier: I will call the attention of my colleague to the remarks made by the hon. member.


Howard Charles Green: The matter came up in connection with the payment of taxes by the dominion to various cities. The problem was whether or not payment for this purpose could be considered under the act authorizing the government to make payments in lieu of taxes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

346.	Unforeseen Improvements, $1,200,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is this
another way of saying "sundries"? I notice that last year the amount budgeted for was not wholly spent. Last year the amount in the estimates was $2,200,000 and the amount spent was $1,300,000. Could we have some explanation?


Alphonse Fournier: This is the second year we have had this estimate, and it is based on past experience in the department. I will read what notes my officials have given me about this vote. This vote is required to cover works of a structural nature for which there is no specific appropriation but which cannot be charged to the maintenance vote under the allotment "repairs and upkeep", such as the installation of new elevators or air conditioning systems, construction of small additions, fire escapes, fences, major repairs such as strengthening foundations, supporting walls or floors, reconstruction of roofs and major ground improvements.
In setting up the new objects of expenditure treasury board took the stand that such works are more controllable and therefore should be distinguished from the ordinary repairs and maintenance and interior alterations required for accommodation of employees. The estimate of $1,200,000 for 1952-53 is based roughly on estimated expenditures for 1951-52. As this vote includes "unforeseen" improvements the actual expenditures will of course vary from year to year depending upon the number of projects that come to light from month to month. The estimated requirements for 195253 are divided, as shown in the details on page 405, as follows: At Ottawa, $300,000; other than Ottawa, $900,000.
The appropriation last year was $2,200,000 of which $1,180,703.14 was spent. That is why we have decreased the amount this year now that we have experience to guide us in the preparation of the estimate. This vote was provided for the first time in 1951-52 when the estimates were submitted in the new setup by "objects". The amount of $2,200,000 was a tentative figure as expenditures for works of this nature for previous years had not been listed separately by the treasury office. The amount of $2,200,000 provided for 1951-52 proved to be considerably greater than the actual requirement. Using 1951-52 expenditures as a guide the estimated requirement for 1952-53 has been placed at $1,200,000 which is a reduction of $1 million compared with the preceding year. This way of presenting the estimates was adopted on the recommendation of the comptroller of the treasury and treasury board. We made these

expenditures before but they came out of a general vote. Treasury board wanted to have this special item so they could exercise a better audit and control over it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
offering any opinion for the moment whether it enables treasury board to maintain better control, but if I have understood the minister's explanation it seems to me on the face of it that it is rather open to some question. The minister said, for example, that it would enable elevators and fire escapes to be provided as well as the strengthening of foundations and so forth. Would it be fair to say that this amounts to-what shall I say- being able to fix up an estimate which is not working out according to plan? In other words, you have an estimate for a building and you find you need some more money. As I understand it, instead of going back and correcting that, which might present some difficulties, we now begin all over again with a little separate contract. I assume of course it will all be done by tender after our discussions of last autumn, but will the minister say why, from the point of view of the efficient carrying out of an original contract, it is not carried through, and not supplemented by money brought in from a special fund for an elevator, a fire escape or for strengthening a foundation? It may be more convenient from the point of view of treasury board but if I have understood the situation correctly it seems to present certain questions from the business point of view.


Alphonse Fournier: Perhaps I was not clear enough for my hon. friend. This amount is expended as we go along. When we get reports from our architects and other officials in their districts that buildings are in a condition which they could not foresee when the estimates were prepared, we have to give out a contract for instance to reinforce a foundation.
We follow the same procedure with this vote as with others. We have plans and specifications prepared, tenders called for, and the lowest tender gets the contract. These additional works are not foreseen in the preparation of the estimates. When you have assets in construction as considerable as public works have you cannot think of everything or foresee everything that is going to happen to a building. This was experimented with last year and we had to follow the decision of treasury board. They wanted to have this special vote and follow each project as it goes along. The matter is submitted to treasury board before we can get an allotment to cover these works.
55704-238J
Supply-Public Works
Perhaps I am still not explaining it as clearly as I should but you will recall that under the old procedure the vote was indefinite. Here, you know exactly what the vote is for. You will see that last year we had a vote of $2-2 million and spent $1 [DOT] 1 million. This year we brought it down to that level. In these matters we are guided by the officials of the Department of Finance and by the treasury board. Hon. gentlemen know we cannot touch these amounts even when voted by parliament without the specific approval of the comptroller of the treasury and the treasury officers who are stationed in each department.
This change resulted from their recommendation. Not being expert in these matters, once more I relied on their advice in the preparation of these estimates.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister is so persuasive. Nevertheless, when he says this is for unforeseen contingencies, it cannot be unforeseen that they will need an elevator or fire escape or strong foundations. Would the minister give us an example of where this fund was used?


Alphonse Fournier: Here is a better explanation and I see it more clearly myself. The treasury board and the comptroller of the treasury have taken the words out of the vote we had for maintenance and repairs -that is our general vote for these buildings. They said: This vote is required to cover works of a structural nature for which there is no specific appropriation but which cannot be charged to the maintenance votes under the allotment for repairs and upkeep, such as: installation of new elevators or air conditioning systems, construction of small additions, fire escapes, fences, etc., major repairs such as strengthening foundations, support walls or floors, reconstruction of roofs and major ground improvements.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can the
minister give us one illustration?


Alphonse Fournier: I can try to get from my officials a list of what was done but I have not got the list this morning.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let the item stand until we get that information.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: There is one matter about which I would like to ask under this heading of unforeseen expenditure.


Alphonse Fournier: If the item is to stand I would rather try to get on with something else.

Supply-Public Works


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not want to hold this up and I think the minister can probably give us an illustration very easily.


Alphonse Fournier: I am supposed to do everything very easily, but if you want a list I will have to put my officials to work and make out a list for one year. I will send it to you by mail-registered mail.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I did not ask
for a list; I asked for one illustration. I am ready to let this go through if the minister will say that he will give me this illustration later.


Alphonse Fournier: I will.


Percy Chapman Black: I would like to
bring the attention of the minister to the condition of the lawns surrounding the parliament buildings.


Alphonse Fournier: The lawns?


Percy Chapman Black: Yes.


Alphonse Fournier: They come under the federal district commission. In 1933 parliament took this vote away from me and handed it over to the federal district commission with an appropriation of I think $100,000. I have nothing to do with the grounds around the parliament buildings.


Howard Charles Green: You don't cut the grass out in front.


Alphonse Fournier: I have stopped that.


Percy Chapman Black: I can well understand why the minister does not want to assume any responsibility here because I consider the lawns disgraceful.


Alphonse Fournier: You should say that to the proper department.


Percy Chapman Black: You can see dandelions, plantain and other weeds growing in the lawns.


Alphonse Fournier: This is another case where they are putting on public works all the odium of what takes place, but we have nothing to do with dandelions ahd grass on parliament hill.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item carry?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I would like to ask the minister a question; I may say at the beginning that I am all in favour of any vote for Ottawa

for the beautification of the capital city of Canada

but I do not understand this vote when it says $300,000 for Ottawa and then $900,000 for other than Ottawa. What does it mean by "other than Ottawa"?


Alphonse Fournier: That covers our properties and buildings in different parts of Canada. Three hundred thousand dollars or part thereof is to be spent on our buildings in the city of Ottawa.


Major James William Coldwell: I wonder if I might ask a favour of the minister. I was called out but I wanted to inquire about the status of the public building at Biggar, Saskatchewan.


Alphonse Fournier: The site was purchased in 1938 from Mr. McLaren for the sum of $6,500. The estimated cost of the building would be $60,000; grading and sidewalks, $1,500; supervision, $2,000; contingencies, $11,500. The contract has not been let and I am not sure but I believe that plans for this building are being prepared in the department although I cannot say at what stage they are.


Major James William Coldwell: Since 1938, you see, it has been more or less-


Alphonse Fournier: On the rails.


Major James William Coldwell: -on the way. I hope the minister will see to it that plans are completed and the contract let at an early date.


Percy Chapman Black: The minister says he has no responsibility for the burned up lawns, the dandelions, plantain and other weeds, but would he tell members what minister is responsible for the condition of the grounds surrounding the building?


Alphonse Fournier: Certainly.


Percy Chapman Black: I want to compliment whoever is responsible for the beautiful flowers there were and which will be there later this year, but the lawn is disgraceful.


Alphonse Fournier: The federal district commission comes under the jurisdiction of the president of the privy council.


Percy Chapman Black: Who is he?


Alphonse Fournier: Well, I know I am Minister of Public Works and I know who the president of the privy council is. He is the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. In so far as these grounds are concerned, I was in the house in 1933 when Mr. Bennett's government thought the federal district commission had the expert people to maintain these grounds. It was thought that we did not have the right people to look after these flowers, lawns, shrubs and all of that. These activities were taken away from our department and handed over to the federal district commission. I think it was a wise move, but ever since the Minister of Public Works seems to bear the load* even though the grounds do not come under his department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dredging-
350. Maintenance and operation of plant and contract and day labour works, $3,077,989.
Howard Charles Green: This item has to do with dredging, and I would ask the minister to explain

whether anything is being done about dredging Vancouver harbour during the present fiscal year. There was some discussion on this question when the estimates of the Department of Transport were under consideration, and the minister of that department indicated that, while his department and particularly the national harbours board were very interested in that harbour, any actual dredging would have to be done by the Department of Public Works. I do not need to point out to the minister the great importance of Vancouver harbour. I do not think there is a finer harbour in Canada, possibly on this continent. There is a great deal of traffic going into and out of the harbour.
The situation has now developed that the first narrows, which is the entrance to the harbour, has to be dredged approximately five feet deeper. The necessity for this work has arisen because there are such large oil tankers being built now, which apparently run up to 40,000 tons and over. Some of the tankers are now waiting outside the harbour in order to get the tide at the right stage, although I think that is primarily because of the currents in the second narrows and not the depth of the first narrows. It is agreed on all sides that the first narrows will have to be dredged a further five feet. I am told there has been no dredging there since 1947, which is some five years ago.
This matter is urgent. The dredging will take some time. I hope the Department of Public Works is planning to commence that work during this fiscal year. Unfortunately I cannot find any vote to cover it, either in the regular estimates or in the supplemen-taries, but I believe it is one of the most important works that can be undertaken by the department. I hope the minister will see to it that the work is at least commenced.
Eventually, the first narrows will also have to be widened. There has been a suggestion made by responsible people in Vancouver who are interested in the harbour that a scale model of the harbour should be set up by the dominion government, and the whole question of the future development studied in that way. As the minister knows, there is a model now at the University of British Columbia for studying the currents in the Fraser river. I believe that a similar model for Vancouver harbour, including the first and second narrows, would be very beneficial. It seems this is the modern way of dealing with these harbour improvements. I believe there is such a model, for example, for the development of Niagara falls. I hope the minister will discuss with his colleagues
Supply-Public Works
the possibility of having a model set up and a study undertaken of the whole harbour situation.
But in the meantime this dredging is urgent. I believe the cost of dredging out a further five feet would not be very high. I have an article here from the Vancouver Sun of June 2, by Roy W. Brown, one of our leading journalists in British Columbia, in which he says that this dredging could be done within a year or fifteen months.


Alphonse Fournier: Who said that?


Howard Charles Green: Roy W. Brown of the Vancouver Sun. He is one of the senior and outstanding journalists of British Columbia, and has a wide knowledge of harbour conditions. He says he believes the job could be done within a year or fifteen months at a cost of about a million and a half. Can the minister tell us the situation with regard to that work?


Alphonse Fournier: Three bodies are interested in this project, the national harbours board, the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works. They are actually studying the situation, but I am told the problem is more complicated and the costs would be far more extensive than those mentioned by the hon. member. The idea of having a model, such as the one prepared by national research for the currents in the Fraser river and the former one they had for Niagara falls, seems to be a good one. However, that could not be done in a short time.


Howard Charles Green: That suggestion would be for studying the long term plan. I should like to keep that suggestion distinct from the need for dredging right away.


Alphonse Fournier: Before you can undertake the dredging of the first narrows or the enlargement of it, I am told there is need for a whole scheme and specifications to be prepared. These engineers-I am told they are good men in their line of business-are afraid that the effect of doing the work without having a complete plan and specifications or by the piecemeal method of dredging in the first narrows, would be contrary to the effect the hon. member expects from this dredging. This is one of the projects in which the department is most interested, and you may be sure that with the co-operation of national harbours board and the Department of Transport we will keep this in mind and do our best to hasten the execution of the project.


Howard Charles Green: What progress can be made if there is no money in the estimates?


Alphonse Fournier: The study of this problem by the engineers of the three departments does not need a special estimate. When we have these plans and specifications we

Supply-Public Works certainly will, but the work will not start this year. That is the information I have. We cannot start dredging without the hydraulic studies that have to be made. I am trying to speak as an expert in this matter, but I am not. When we have a report from these people, and the model they can study, we will certainly make a decision. We will have time to have an estimate submitted to the house before starting the work.


Mr. Dickey:: On this question of dredging, in view of the obviously difficult and embarrassing situation with respect to Vancouver harbour, I am sure that the minister is delighted with the fact that we do not have any dredging problems in Halifax harbour. We have, however, some important requirements for dredging in fishing harbours along the coast in Halifax county. I hope that the minister will not permit the necessity of finding a solution to the difficult and expensive problem in Vancouver to delay the important projects that we require on the east coast.


James Sinclair: I should like to point out that the amount of traffic handled in Halifax could be easily handled in Vancouver with the present entry to the harbour. What the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and I are thinking about is the great expansion of harbour traffic which will occur when the deep-sea tankers come in to feed off the Trans Mountain oil lines. I hope that this dredging, most of which will be in my riding, will be accomplished within the next year. We expect to see in the estimates of next year a substantial item so that this work can be undertaken in the spring of next year.


Percy Chapman Black: The minister has had a year in which to study the dredging requirements in the port of Pugwash in my constituency. He has shown great interest in the requirements there when I have drawn the matter to his attention on various occasions. I see there is an appropriation here of $4,166,989. That is a general appropriation. Then there are several appropriations running into hundreds of thousands of dollars, also for the St. Lawrence river $13 million, $15 million and so on.
At the port of Pugwash we have perhaps as fine a natural small harbour as there is anywhere in Canada, but there is some dredging required there. In recent weeks some of these ships carrying pulpwood, pit props and lumber have touched on the bends of the channel, which again emphasizes the necessity for some dredging. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra says that no dredging has been done in his harbour for five years. No dredging has been done in Pugwash since the beginning of time; but it


is needed in order to improve the channel where there are bends and shallow places. I would ask the minister whether, in the last year, he has been able to give further effective study to the requirements and whether he will hold out any promise of dredging to improve conditions in Pugwash.


Alphonse Fournier: The only thing that I recall is this. I believe that two years ago we had some dredging done at Pugwash to the amount of $300,000 or $400,000. Ever since then I had been under the impression that the work was completed to our satisfaction.


Percy Chapman Black: That was building a wharf.


Alphonse Fournier: Then we will have to have some dredging done.


Percy Chapman Black: In order to justify the building of a wharf, you will have to improve the conditions in the channel.


Alphonse Fournier: That is right. I will ask my officials to look into this matter.


William Joseph Browne: Last night I made passing reference to the harbour of Renews. At the harbour of Renews the wharf is not reached easily. It will be necessary to have the place dredged. A firm there is expecting to have a big fish plant, and it will need steamers to go in to the wharf. The whole operation will be held up if the dredging is not carried out. That is the situation as to the wharf. The harbour has been surveyed for dredging and the engineer down there is completely familiar with the situation. The only question is a physical one of getting the dredge to go there. Will there be a dredge available this summer to go to Renews harbour?


Alphonse Fournier: I cannot give the exact date on which dredge No. 400 will be in Renews, but I have here a program of dredging with respect to these small harbours in Newfoundland; it will take two or three weeks, using that dredge No. 400, to do the work at Renews.


William Joseph Browne: It will be this year?


Alphonse Fournier: I am told that we have the list of these different places, and that we divide them up into so many days or weeks.


William Joseph Browne: Yes; but will Renews be done?


Alphonse Fournier: I am trying to extract that promise from my own officials.


William Joseph Browne: Thank you.


Alphonse Fournier: I hope my hon. friend will not press me too much.


William Joseph Browne: I would remind the minister that I have been at this matter since 1949. I have been three years asking for it.	,


An hon. Member:: That is a short time.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Alphonse Fournier: I am told that this is the tenth place on our dredging list in Newfoundland where dredge No. 400 will go and do that work. When it will reach Renews, I do not know; I cannot give an exact date.


William Joseph Browne: That does not seem to me to be fair because it was the first one that was mentioned here. I brought this matter to the minister's attention here on the first estimates.


Alphonse Fournier: I cannot say to my officials that it is not fair. The hon. member may say that to me and I will take it; but I do not like to say it to my officials.


William Joseph Browne: I hate to say it, Mr. Chairman, but each year the matter has been brought to the minister's attention and the dredging has not been done. This year there is an annual vote there and it is just a question of getting the dredge.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Locks and dams-
353.	Maintenance and operation, $355,562.
Howard Charles Green: Can the minister explain what type of locks and dams come under the control of his department as distinguished from those which are under the Department of Transport?


Alphonse Fournier: This appropriation is required to provide for maintenance and operation of various locks and dams which were built or taken over by this department to raise or maintain water levels of the various lakes and rivers in Canada in the interests of navigation. These locks and dams are in operation during the navigation season. The list of them is as follows: Riviere du Lievre lock and dam, French river dams; Latchford dam; St. Andrews lock and dam; Cowan dam, Okanagan dam; Quinze dam; Timiskaming dam; Fryer's island dam; Lewes river dam. That is the list of the locks and dams that come under my department.


Howard Charles Green: The question I asked is this. Where is the line drawn between the dams and locks which are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport and those which come under the minister?


Alphonse Fournier: One is under the canal system in the country and this is on the rivers
Supply-Public Works
and lakes where we are responsible for navigation. We administer the Navigable Waters Protection Act and these dams are built not on the canal system which comes under transport but on these rivers and lakes where we are responsible for navigation.


Howard Charles Green: There is quite a substantial increase in the repair and upkeep item which is to be found at page 413. It has gone up by nearly $200,000. Why is that?


Alphonse Fournier: That is explained in this way. On the northern part of the Ottawa river, north of Timiskaming there is what they call the Quinze dam which is badly in need of repair. This year we expect to spend $198,886 on that dam. Last year it was only $33,666. That would determine where the increase in work will be done on these dams.


Mr. Bryce:: I should like to renew my plea to the minister on behalf of the workmen at St. Andrews lock. I do not think many alterations have been made in conditions there since 1910. Minor regulations may have been changed, but in general they are pretty much the same. As the minister knows, the lock is operated by three lock men and an assistant superintendent. The lock is operated 24 hours a day. Each man works 12 hours. He also works seven days a week. When the men want to change from the day shift to the night shift, they have the swing shift and they work 24 hours a day. I think that situation should be changed. In this day and age we do not ask men to work 12 hours a day. These men, compared with other employees in the government service, are working a day and a half every day. The unfortunate thing about it is that, although they work only seven months a year, during that seven months they put in more hours than the average worker. Then they are laid off, and they find it difficult to get a job in the wintertime. If you take the salaries that they earn per month and divide it up on an hourly rate you will find that it amounts to about 42 cents or 43 cents an hour. That is not a very high wage in these times. The members of the civil service exchange higher salaries for security, but when these fellows are laid off after seven months' work there is no security in the job. Then, they do not have unemployment insurance, and that kind of thing.
On different occasions I have brought this before the minister and he has promised to look into it. I make an appeal now that he do something about it. If you pick up the Canada Year Book and study it you will see that the St. Andrews locks, while small, do a tremendous amount of business. I do not think I am saying anything unreasonable when I say that some of the conditions regarding employment and hours of work in respect to

Supply-Public Works
the locks in the eastern part of Canada should be put into eifect in the St. Andrews locks. I hope that the minister will do what he can for these men.


Alphonse Fournier: I am most sympathetic to the representations made by the hon. member and I will discuss it with my officials.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Snagboats-
354.	Maintenance and operation, $113,178.
Arthur Laing: I should like to say a word on this item and bring to the attention of the minister the work of the snagboats on the Fraser river. At the present time, as I recall it, a snagboat, I think it is Samson V, located at Westminster, is used to remove deadheads and logs from the north arm of the Fraser river particularly. I would draw to the minister's attention the situation that exists in the middle arm of the Fraser river, where apparently sedimentation has now been permitted, and there is no boat traffic through there, but it provides a basin for the airport in respect to seaplanes leaving and arriving at that point. A bad situation exists at that basin at the present time. It is practically loaded with deadheads and presents a dangerous condition for the seaplanes. I rather doubt whether the present Samson can enter the middle channel except at high tide, because of the very low water.
I have already spoken in the house of the very good work being done by private airplane companies. A number of them are running seaplanes out of that basin. They have moved as many as 600 men per day out of there by seaplane. A situation exists there with respect to snags which I think should be remedied. I would ask the minister whether he would pay some attention to the important seaplane base there as well as the general traffic within the north arm of the Fraser and the main arm of the New Westminster to the sea.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for
Queens.


Alphonse Fournier: We have no snagboats in Prince Edward Island. The only snag-boats we have are in the Fraser river. The Samson is employed in the removal of snags and obstructions from the channel of the Fraser river between Chilliwack and the gulf of Georgia, 75 miles. It is also employed in assistance in surveys and inspections and on minor repairs to floats and wharves on the Fraser river and in nearby waters.
The other snagboat, the Essington, keeps the Skeena and Naas rivers, and fishing grounds, clear of snags, floating logs and so
TMr. Bryce.]
forth, which foul and destroy the fishing nets and gear. I will tell my officials to look into the matter referred to by the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Roads and bridges-
355.	Maintenance and operation, $321,230.
Howard Charles Green: What roads and bridges come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works?


Alphonse Fournier: The Burlington channel bridge, that is the one that was struck by a ship not long ago. The Kingston-LaSalle causeway; the New Westminster bridge, and other small bridges; the Great Bear river portage road. I have the list here:	The
Chapeau bridge on the Ottawa river between Allumette island and the mainland; Calumet-Bryson bridge, the Clair bridge in New Brunswick, which is an international bridge; the Des Joachims bridge, on the Ottawa river; the Edmonton-Alberta bridge; I think we have a certain interest in that bridge with the city of Edmonton. That is not a large amount. The city of Edmonton has charge of maintenance and repairs to this bridge. This department, the city and the Canadian National Railways company each bear one-third of the cost of repairs, and that amount of $300 would be our share in the repairs. Then, there is the bridge at Edmund-ston, New Brunswick, and Madawaska, Maine, an international bridge. There is also the Great Bear river, Northwest Territories, Portage road. Then there is the Notre Dame du Nord bridge, that is north of Timiskaming where the Quinze dam is; and the Chaudiere bridge in Ottawa; also the Perley bridge at Hawkesbury, Ontario; Portage du Fort, Quebec; St. Leonard, New Brunswick; Shell-mouth, Manitoba; Matapedia, Quebec, and Missaguash, New Brunswick.


Howard Charles Green: On what basis is jurisdiction given to the minister over bridges? Is it interprovincial and international bridges? What is the basis for providing the jurisdiction?


Alphonse Fournier: If the hon. gentlemen has a moment we will look at the British North America Act and we shall try to find the section under which we have the authority. I think it is section 92.


Mr. Blackmore:: One o'clock.


Alphonse Fournier: Let me clear this
British North America Act with the hon. gentleman. I do not want to come back to it.

It is subsection 10 of section 92 of the British North America Act which reads as follows:
Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes:
a. Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province;
It is under that section that all the provinces want to make me responsible-


Mr. Brooks:: I had one in mind.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member
knows about this, because he has been trying to make me responsible for this work. Since confederation these works have been undertaken by the provinces or by the department itself, or the government itself, and then we maintain them.


Howard Charles Green: How does the Edmonton bridge come into that category?


Alphonse Fournier: That was at the time when Alberta was a part of the Northwest Territories, years ago before the province was carved out. I suppose that the central government, having jurisdiction over the territories, put up a certain amount of money on that bridge, and now we are paying for the upkeep with the Canadian National Railways and the city of Edmonton.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister responsible for all bridges in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon?


Alphonse Fournier: No. Do not give me any more bridges than I need. I understand that the Department of Resources and Development have jurisdiction over those things.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.
356.	Towards international bridge over the St. Croix river between St. Stephen, N.B., and Calais, Me., the state of Maine to pay a like amount (revote), $10,000.
Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: This is a revote toward the survey of the international bridge between St. Stephen, New Brunswick, and Calais, Maine. This bridge is known as the gateway to the maritime provinces. A short time ago the deputy minister visited the particular area and was able to obtain firsthand knowledge of conditions so far as the international bridge is concerned. There is an enormous amount of traffic over the international bridge and it is increasing year by year. Although there is a very efficient staff there, the lack of proper facilities greatly
Supply-Public Works
slows up the examination of freight. In addition all the bus traffic passing through to the west goes through Calais, Maine, and St. Stephen as well as the bus traffic going through to Montreal.
The big problem so far as freight is concerned is the trailer trucks which bring in fruit in particular from the United States to all parts of the maritime provinces. The bridge, which was built in the horse and buggy days, is too small to take care of the traffic that has developed over the years. Although we realize there is a shortage of steel which is responsible for the delay in bringing about this improvement, we are looking forward to the day when the steel supply may be more plentiful so that the department, together with the appropriate United States department, can go ahead with the construction of what is considered to be a very necessary improvement to speed up the handling of tourist and freight traffic entering the maritime provinces. I know the minister is aware of the condition and when the steel situation improves will do what he can to look after it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
357.	Towards interprovincial bridge over the Ottawa river between Pembroke, Ontario, and Allu-mette island, Quebec, the provinces of Ontario and Quebec each to pay one-third of the cost and maintenance thereof (revote), $50,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: This bridge is similar to one which we have asked the minister to consider between Campbellton and Cross Point. I should like to ask the minister what the situation is with reference to the request of the residents of the Campbellton and Cross Point districts with respect to the construction of this bridge. Has there been any agreement between the federal government and the two local governments concerned, and has responsibility for the building of the bridge been definitely settled? The minister will remember that last year the matter came up and the premier of New Brunswick was of the opinion that it was the responsibility of the federal government to construct the bridge. I believe the premier of Quebec was also of the same opinion. I noted that just before the recess the minister read a section of the British North America Act. I think it was under that section that the premier of New Brunswick believed it was the responsibility of the federal government. Has anything more been done, and has any agreement been made with the provinces concerned as to the construction of the bridge?


Alphonse Fournier: The difference between the two projects is that the one mentioned in this item of the estimates is a bridge to

Supply-Public Works Morrison island on the Ottawa river between the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario. The province of Ontario has agreed verbally at least to build one-third of the bridge. There will be three bridges joining these islands. The province of Quebec has written that they will co-operate but no definite answer has been received. In the case of the proposed bridge between Camp-bellton and Cross Point, the two provinces say that it is not their responsibility and they will not make any contribution.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Has the federal government definitely decided that it is not the responsibility of the federal government?


Alphonse Fournier: I would not go that far and have to have the justice department give any legal advice. So far as the Camp-bellton and Cross Point districts are concerned, however, in order that they will not suffer I believe a ferry service is to be established under the maritime commission between the two places, and I understand that the boat is being constructed at the present time.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is that to be a temporary measure?


Alphonse Fournier: It may be temporary, but how temporary I would not know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury hoard may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended upon individual listed projects-
359.	Nova Scotia, $3,401,000.
Percy Chapman Black: This is quite an important vote so far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned. Some of these appropriations appear to be just token ones giving hope to the communities concerned. I have a quarrel with the minister and his department respecting the item of $150,000 for repairs and improvements to the Brooklyn breakwater in Queens county. Tenders were called for this work earlier in the season and three tenders were received. The lowest tender was that of MacDonald and Mclsaac in the amount of $165,000. The next lowest was that of the Tidewater Construction Company in the amount of $178,000. These are both Nova Scotia firms. The highest tender was from T. C. Gorman and Company in the amount of $192,000. I am particularly interested in this breakwater even though it is not in my constituency. The tender of MacDonald and Mclsaac called for the use of Wallace stone at a price of $27,000 below


the highest tenderer. Wallace stone has been used for breakwaters, bridges and seawalls for one hundred years and more. It has been used in the biggest works in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia.
There is no question as to the quality of the stone produced at the Wallace stone quarries in Cumberland county. The fact that the lowest tender envisaged the use of Wallace stone at a very much lower figure warranted the contract being given to MacDonald and Mclsaac. Instead of that being done new tenders were called for from those who had submitted tenders, and instead of the contract being given to the lowest tenderer in the first instance it was given to the highest tenderer, Gorman and Company, a concern owned by interests in central Canada. Their second price was $57,000 below their original tender.
The only change called for in the new specifications was that, instead of using heavy Wallace stone or local granite, concrete blocks were specified. There were only 3,500 yards of these blocks for the outer face called for, but the contractors were allowed to tender and reduce their prices on the whole structure by $57,000 for only 3,500 yards. This means they had the advantage of the prices quoted by both the other Nova Scotia contractors and were able to reduce the price by that amount, using concrete blocks as against native stone.
Anyone in the construction business or any engineer will be able to substantiate the statement that concrete blocks will not stand the erosion of sea water the same as granite or Wallace stone. Wallace stone, as I have said, has been used for this purpose for hundreds of years and the work has always stood up. Cement is in short supply. When I left Nova Scotia a few weeks ago there was a scarcity of cement with a warning that it would be even scarcer as the season advanced.
The Canadian National Railways need the revenue. I think their rate on transporting Wallace stone from Cumberland county to the Brooklyn breakwater would be $2.25 per ton. Instead of paying the Canadian National Railways $15 million or more on deficit, or refinancing their capital structure, they should be given an opportunity to earn money such as for transporting Nova Scotia stone, rather than use cement to make the composite material for these protective blocks required on the outside of the breakwater.
There is little employment at the present time at Wallace. The workmen have no war industry there and they have no major construction work at the present time and they need employment. It is my opinion, it is

their opinion, and it would be the opinion of engineers generally that artificial concrete blocks cannot be justified in place of natural stone-Wallace stone or local granite.
Contractors from outside Nova Scotia were given advantage over local contractors. They were given the advantage of knowing the prices quoted by these local contractors. The workmen in Nova Scotia, the workmen at Wallace, are denied the opportunity to quarry this stone in a community where there is no defence construction employment whatever. There is a real grievance, Mr. Chairman, and I think if the minister would examine into the whole situation he would agree with me that a mistake was made by the department in giving this contract to central Canadian contractors, and giving them the privilege of using artificial blocks made out of cement when cement is in short supply.


Alphonse Fournier: I am grateful to the hon. gentleman for bringing up this case. For years he has been one of my best advisers on works in Nova Scotia and I consider his opinion very highly but this is one of those cases where my department and I thought we could make some economies.
In 1950 in the department we had an estimate prepared for this breakwater. The estimate was $150,000. We called for tenders on June 28, 1950, and I think stone was to be used in the breakwater-Wallace stone or perhaps granite. Two tenders were received -the lowest was $284,459.36; the highest was $305,589.20. My engineers were astounded at the high cost of using Wallace stone or granite for this breakwater but they held off for another year. We did not close at that price as we thought they were exorbitant tenders. On September 5, 1951, we called for new tenders. Only one bid was received- $273,484. That was still a very high price. The third time we called for tenders seriously was on November 21, 1951. We received bids ranging from $165,000 to $192,531. Well, that was still over and above our estimate and the engineers looking into the necessity of the breakwater and the quality of the materials going into it advised having the breakwater built of cement blocks so we changed the specifications and called for new tenders. We received three tenders, the lowest being $135,555.55 and the highest $152,200.
I realize that the breakwater will not be made out of Wallace stone but out of cement. My officials say that the life of this cement will compare favourably with stone if you consider the price which is paid-and we thought we would save quite a bit of money by building it that way. I think we were right there. I like stone-Wallace stone-
Supply-Public Works
myself, but when it became a luxury to use it on a breakwater I thought we should use other means.
With respect to those who did tender I am told that the lowest tenderer has his office in Halifax and that would be in the province of Nova Scotia. The first one was T. C. Gorman and Company. The second one was Tidewater Construction, another Halifax firm tendering at a figure of $148,408; and R. K. MacDonald and Ronald Mclsaac are also in Halifax. So, the three bidders have their offices in Halifax in the province of Nova Scotia.
Now I know these Nova Scotians extend their activities outside the province and we meet them all over the country. They are very aggressive contractors and although they may have offices elsewhere I am told these are three good firms in the province of Nova Scotia.
You can compare this contract for $135,000 with the $305,000 which was the highest tender we received on the first demand for tenders. Perhaps I should have stuck to Wallace stone; I do not know; but my officials would not meet my views. The hon. gentleman knows we have spoken about this matter before. I understood the situation and that this stone was to come from the province of Nova Scotia. It should be put on certain things and they get certain preference for their works, but this amount was too large and I could not comply. I hope the next time we do put up a breakwater we will get tenders with Wallace stone at lower prices.


Percy Chapman Black: I appreciate what the minister has said but I cannot agree that there is justification for using concrete blocks. I cannot agree with him that there is justification for giving the successful contractor, who may have an office in Halifax but the firm is not controlled in Nova Scotia, the advantage of the knowledge of the tenders of the other Nova Scotia firms. The lowest tender for the Wallace stone was $165,000, which showed a saving of $27,000 over the tender first submitted by this firm who was finally given the contract at $135,000.
Under those circumstances, it is my opinion it would have been only fair to allow the two Nova Scotia firms who tendered, the Tidewater Construction Company, who tendered for $148,000, and the MacDonald and Mclsaac Company, who tendered for $152,000, to meet the final figure. Neither of these firms recommended concrete blocks for this work. Perhaps they would have accepted the contract at the low figure of $135,000. There was no justification for that reduction

Supply-Public Works
because of the change made in the specifications by the minister or his department. I think everyone will agree with me on that. This outside firm may have had inside information-


Alphonse Fournier: I do not think you are fair in that.


Percy Chapman Black: -which the other two firms in Nova Scotia did not have.


Alphonse Fournier: I wish to deny that. No information was given. We changed the specifications from Wallace stone to concrete blocks. Those specifications were in the requests for tenders. We gave out no information. That is another charge against the officials of my department. You name the man who gave out the information, and I shall attend to him.


Percy Chapman Black: I do not want to get any man into trouble. He is in enough trouble now.


Alphonse Fournier: That is a further innuendo; I do not think that is fair to the official. If you know him, give me the name. If you do not want to give it publicly, give it to me afterwards and I shall have an investigation made.


Percy Chapman Black: I do not intend to give any name. I think the minister has a lot of good officials, but I think they made an error, perhaps under pressure and perhaps not. I think they made an error in changing the specifications. I am making this statement, that twenty years from now the concrete blocks will not have stood up as the natural stone would have against the washing of the sea.


Alphonse Fournier: Perhaps you are right that the stone would have a longer life than the cement. I have seen stone in Nova Scotia deteriorate in certain of my buildings. I have to rebuild one right now, and it is of Wallace stone. This company with which we are signing the contract is the T. C. Gorman (Nova Scotia) Limited.


Percy Chapman Black: Who are the
shareholders?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not know. If I had to go into who holds the shares of all the companies with whom we do business, we would have to extend our staff because the public works department does business with nearly every large firm in the country. You may be right about the life of the stone and the cement, but on the other hand I think I am right about the price. Any other information you can give me I should like to have, because if I have an official in the branch of engineers who gives out information, I want to know it.
(Mr. Black (Cumberland).]


Percy Chapman Black: There is some other additional information I should like to have. There is the work at Diligent river, which is necessary. Perhaps the minister would give me some information with respect to the revote. There was $21,000 last year and $15,000 is provided this year. How much work was done on the Diligent river wharf repairs last year, and is the vote now being requested to complete that work?


Alphonse Fournier: What was the name of that place?


Percy Chapman Black: Diligent river, the wharf repairs, $15,000.


Alphonse Fournier: This revote is required to complete the contract with Walker and Hall Limited, at $17,008.66 for repairs to the older portion of the wharf which is badly deteriorated and unsafe for public use. These repairs are necessary to ensure sufficient space for the shipment of pulpwood and lumber, which have an annual value of $120,000.
The work will consist of reconstructing the older portion of this wharf by building two native timber pilework sections 20 feet wide by 71 feet long and 20 feet wide by 85 feet long. These two sections are to be at right angles to each other and the area behind them filled and the surface gravelled. By order in council dated November 12, 1951, authority was granted to enter into a contract with the lowest tenderer, Walker and Hall Limited, of Box 1152, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for wharf repairs at Diligent river, amounting to about $17,008.66. The lowest tender was that of Walker and Hall at $17,008.66, and other tenders were received from R. A. Douglas, K. J. Cochrane, Urquhart Construction Limited, B. A. Allaby and R. P. McLeod.


Percy Chapman Black: I raise no objection to the letting of this contract. I am simply inquiring as to whether the amount provided would finish the work as it should be finished. There is no question about the desirability of this work being completed.


Alphonse Fournier: I am told it is to complete the job.


Percy Chapman Black: There is one other item about which I should like to inquire, and that is the repairs to the wharf at Wallace, $55,000. This is an important community, and there has been a wharf there for many years. I am doubtful as to whether this appropriation will be sufficient to give this place the facility that is warranted by the importance of the community and the amount of shipping using the facilities. I should like to find out from the minister when the work is expected to be completed, and whether tenders have yet been called. If not, when will they be called?



' JUNE 26. 1952

Alphonse Fournier: This work is to consist of widening the wharf to 40 feet from end to end, including the stone-filled approach, and it includes repair of the existing 311 foot outer timber section by construction of creo-soted pile trestle work driven through the old cribwork. The estimated cost in this case is $55,000. Tenders will be called in the near future and the lowest tenderer will get the contract. I understand this work is necessary for the fishermen loading and landing their fishing gear and landing and shipping live lobsters for delivery by large refrigerator trucks. The work requested by the fishermen consists of widening the existing public wharf, construction of an ell, 250 feet long at its channel end, and dredging the berths on either side of the wharf to 6 and 8 feet respectively. I think tenders will be called in the near future.


Percy Chapman Black: I thank the minister. There is no question about this work being justified and warranted. My only doubt is whether the amount provided is sufficient to build the wharf and to make the repairs that are warranted by the freight traffic that uses that wharf.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
360.	Prince Edward Island, $1,950,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: This item is for harbour improvements, wharves, et cetera for the whole province of Prince Edward Island. A number of votes for new construction work- and they have been generous ones-have gone to Souris and Summerside. Of this fact I have no complaint whatsoever to make. Once again I wish to draw to the attention of the Minister of Public Works the fact that in Charlottetown we were promised a thorough survey of the harbour and its requirements under the Duncan commission. Their recommendation of 1926 has never yet been carried out with regard to Charlottetown harbour improvements. As they promised this survey, I should like the minister to see that we get a survey of Charlottetown harbour this year.
A partial survey was made a few years ago and they commenced making improvements at the east end of the harbour. There is a fair vote for that purpose this year. They are doing an excellent job of it. The whole harbour should have this survey and we should know what we are going to get.
There is one vital thing which we must get there, namely the marine railway slip. This is another unfulfilled promise of two different governments. We have the best location for it, and it would be the means of giving employment to our labour who have to go abroad looking for employment in the railway slip business and so on. For
Supply-Public Works
instance, at the present time we have there machine shops capable of doing the very best work in connection with repairs on steamers, but they cannot go below the water line. We are therefore handicapped in getting contracts even at the present time. We have, however, a couple of contracts from the defence department; that work is all for repairs above the water line. I wish the Minister of Public Works would be serious about this matter and give our harbour a survey this summer. Then we can realize whether or not we are going to have the fulfilment of these promises.
As to the marine railway slip, we would not have large ships any more than our own; but if we just had our own boats to repair and to overhaul, we would haye sufficient work for our labourers and mechanics. We have the mechanics to do the work. For instance, in 1940 when the Charlottetown was lost, if we had had a marine railway slip we would not have lost that steamer. She was on her way to another yard to be overhauled. All of our local boats could be repaired there. At the present time they must go to Pictou, Saint John, Halifax, or Sorel, entailing greater costs. We could have a certain amount of repairs done during the summer season and also during the winter season on the boats that are in the service such as the Brant, the Sorel and others. In addition to that, we would be holding our own people and giving employment to at least 250 men per year.
I want the minister to be serious about this matter and to give it consideration. I am quite grateful for the harbour improvements that have already been started at the eastern end of the harbour, but we must have a survey here; we must have the recommendation of the Duncan commission carried out because it was their commission and they promised to fulfil the recommendations of that commission. This is one that I have been harping on here for six or seven years. Nothing much has been done about it, except that it comes up at every election. I suppose it will come up at this next one and will be promised all over again.


Alphonse Fournier: While I am always ready to try to fulfil promises made 26 years ago, when I was a young man, I am nevertheless surprised that the hon. member raises this matter today; because from 1930 to 1935, when we both were sitting in the House of Commons, I do not know why he did not get these promises fulfilled. That was the time when he could have had these promises fulfilled. I would not be ready

Supply-Public Works right today to make that promise. I certainly admire the patience and tenacity of my hon. friend. For some years past he has been asking me for various works. If we look at the details we find there is an amount shown for Rustieo harbour, breakwater repairs, Rustico harbour landing, a revote; that is in his riding. This year I see we have nearly $100,000 in the estimates for that harbour. It took my hon. friend a few years to convince us that we should do these works. Now we are doing them. I thought we would have a respite of at least this year before he would bring me into a survey of the whole Charlottetown harbour. I see that for Charlottetown we have $375,000 in the estimates.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I recognize that fact.


Alphonse Fournier: That is for wharf reconstruction and improvements. I like to listen to my hon. friend but I cannot do everything at the same time. I cannot put up his building, his wharf and attend to his Rustico harbour all at the same time. He and I will be here for a long time yet; and as time goes on he will probably succeed in getting far more than he has obtained up until now.


Percy Chapman Black: I should like to ask the minister about one or two items in the Prince Edward Island estimates. The first is with regard to the Souris breakwater repairs. I happen to have been working in the Wallace quarry quite a few years ago getting $50 a month as foreman. In that period we supplied the stone for the Souris breakwater, and for that at Summerside and other places. There is here an appropriation of $101,000, following an appropriation of $86,000 for breakwater repairs at Souris. Can the minister give us some information with regard to what is expected to be accomplished by that expenditure?


Alphonse Fournier: This vote is to reconstruct the 406 foot section, 40 feet wide, adjoining the outer block of the breakwater, on the existing creosoted substructure. Work will consist of closed face timber crib, stringers, plank deck, and ballast fill. All timber except the plank deck is to be creosoted. The estimated cost is $101,000. We did work in 1951-52 up to $86,000 on this breakwater. We will be asking for tenders for this new work during the summer or the fall.


Percy Chapman Black: I did not understand the minister to say how much rock is required for facing this breakwater.


Alphonse Fournier: I have not the specifications, but it will be rock fill.


Percy Chapman Black: It is to be rock fill?


Alphonse Fournier: They say they have plenty of rock on the island.


Percy Chapman Black: They have plenty of rock on the island, but any rock that I have seen on Prince Edward Island did not have a very long life. However, I am not going to say anything against it. There are two works here, Wood Island, breakwater extension; that is where the ferry is working under subsidy, and then Tignish, repairs to breakwaters. What is proposed at Wood Island? A great many tourists cross over at Wood Island. So far as the ferry steamers are concerned, they are reasonably good. They are not up to the requirements of the traffic, and the facilities, the wharf and the breakwater are certainly not adequate. I should like a statement from the minister as to what is proposed to improve the facilities.


Alphonse Fournier: Construction of 200-foot extension at inner end of the east breakwater, extension to be a tied-back wall of close piles, wales, triangular fillers and galvanized wire rope ties. All timber to be creosoted. The estimated cost of the work is $18,500.


Percy Chapman Black: Can the minister give me some information with respect to Tignish, repairs to breakwater on Prince Edward Island? Have tenders been called? If so, who are the successful tenderers? What is the amount?


Alphonse Fournier: Proposed work and estimated cost to rebuild a 573-foot section of the south breakwater with creosoted piles, wales and sheeting, $40,000. That will be by contract. Tenders will be called. By day labour, to repair 115 feet of north breakwater at $8,000.


Percy Chapman Black: Has the contract been called for that work?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not think the contract is let. Perhaps the tenders have been called for it, but I cannot recall having signed any.


Percy Chapman Black: Can the minister give me information later as to whether tenders have been called and whether a contract has been let? Can he give me information as to who the tenderers are and who put in the lowest tender?


Alphonse Fournier: I am told that tenders have been called, but the date for having them in has not expired yet-and I cannot recall the date.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

361.	New Brunswick, $2,755,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I want to ask the minister a general question on this item. It is gratifying to know that great improvements are to be made in the different breakwaters in the province of New Brunswick. I notice that that is also true of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. Is it the general policy of the government to give special attention to these breakwaters?
Yesterday I heard the minister say, in reply to the hon. member for St. John's West, that one at Chance Harbour had been recommended by the Minister of Fisheries. With respect to the repairs to breakwaters throughout the maritime provinces, are the repairs being made as the result of recommendations from the Minister of Fisheries? If so, we feel grateful to the Minister of Fisheries because for many years we had a minister of fisheries in Canada who came from New Brunswick and we never received so much attention with respect to breakwaters as we are having at the present time. Is there a general policy now of improving all breakwaters in the maritime provinces? Are contracts being let for all these different improvements at the present time?


Alphonse Fournier: When requests come in for new work or for large repairs to these breakwaters and piers we consult the Department of Fisheries. They have their officials travelling around the coast, and they know the needs of the fishermen. We do not always base our decisions on what they say, but they serve as advisers to public works. When we have to repair these breakwaters our own engineer makes that survey and he makes his report and we act on his report.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The original recommendation comes from the Department of Fisheries?


Alphonse Fournier: I would not say that. We consult them. They are our consultants, but requests come from everybody with regard to these works, from members of parliament, from the mayors, from the fishermen, from the co-operatives and so on, and then we get a report from our own engineer, and to complete the file we do consult the Department of Fisheries, and when the works are not needed, well, we hesitate before undertaking them, but usually these works are needed.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I understood the minister to tell the hon. member for St. John's West yesterday that recommendations with respect to Chance Harbour, for instance, came from the Minister of Fisheries.


Alphonse Fournier: No, the request came from the local people, and then we submitted
Supply-Public Works
it to the Department of Fisheries. They inquired and they made a recommendation for it.


Percy Chapman Black: Has the minister a recommendation from the inspector of fisheries and the Minister of Fisheries with respect to the petition in Pugwash, Wallace and Malagash for wharves and breakwaters to give protection to the lobster fisheries in that section exposed to the storms of the Northumberland strait? I am. sure the inspector of fisheries would be in accord with requests for sea protection and wharves to serve lobster fishermen in those areas. Has the minister any recollection of that?


Alphonse Fournier: I cannot recall having received it, but I will look it up and if there are recommendations from fisheries they will certainly be consfeered, as the recommendation made by my hon. friend will.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: It has been suggested that the recommendations come from the Department of Fisheries with respect to breakwaters and so on. In my experience in the short time I have been here the Department of Public Works gets information that would be available from the Department of Fisheries as to the number of boats that fish out of the many ports that we have in the maritime provinces. That is information which is helpful, and it is information which I know the department makes available to the Department of Public Works. It has to do with the number engaged in fisheries in a particular port where a breakwater is erected and where improvements are asked for, the value of the fishing carried on and the protection that is required to take care of the fleet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
362.	Quebec, $5,165,600.
Mr. Boisvert:: I should like to say a few words on this item, and I shall speak French on the subject matter.
(Translation):
In the details of this item I see at page 423 of this book of estimates that an amount has been provided for the restoration of the wharf at Ste. Angele, which happens to be located within the constituency I am privileged to represent in this house.
I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to express my appreciation to the government, to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) who have agreed to accept my representations regarding this wharf. This new wharf will be of immense value to the people of Nicolet-Yamaska and Lotbiniere counties and also to several neighbouring

Supply-Public Works constituencies. Moreover, on the other side of the river, the city of Three Rivers, which is located opposite Ste. Angele, will also derive great advantage from this wharf. In this respect I wish to associate the present mayor of the city of Three Rivers with the steps I have taken and which will result in the reconstruction of such an important wharf for the Three Rivers and Nicolet districts.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
363.	Ontario, $5,609,000.
Mr. Cardiff:: With respect to this item for Ontario, I see by the details on page 424 that there is an item of $32,000, which is a revote for Goderich harbour and an estimate of $118,000. There is an ^timated $118,000 .to be spent there. Will the minister tell me what is contemplated in that vote?


Alphonse Fournier: This amount of
$118,000 is to provide for the following: to complete urgent repairs to a portion of the mooring wharf and east harbour wall, $11,000; to reconstruct a 500-foot section of the south pier in steel sheet piling and reinforced concrete, $107,000; making a total of $118,000. The appropriation in 1951-52 was $153,000. Estimated expenditure on Canadian Dredge and Dock Company contract for reconstruction of sections of north and south piers, $113,000; day labour, $8,000, making a total of $124,484.93 including inspection, etc.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Has any consideration been given to moving one of the piers toward the mouth of the river in order to provide more protection?


Alphonse Fournier: I am told by my
deputy that he does not recall any request being made to move piers. I would not want to be definite, but that is the information given to me.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
365.	Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories, $148,500.
Mr. Thomas:: Would the minister check the possibility of having a wharf built at Pigeon Lake in Alberta. This wharf was originally constructed in 1935 or 1936 by piling up some rocks and placing a wooden walk on top. Whenever the ice broke up it came up under the platform and then there was nothing left but a pile of rocks. This creates a hazard, not only to those having boats there but to people using the wharf. A number of boats have been broken up on the rocks during the last few years and I cannot understand why some child has not been either seriously injured or killed by falling on the rocks. I

am not asking the minister for an opinion right now, but I urge him to look into the matter and see if something cannot be done.


Alphonse Fournier: I shall certainly do that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
366.	British Columbia and Yukon, $6,992,000.
Mr. Gibson:: Does the minister consider the dredging equipment now in British Columbia adequate for the needs?


Alphonse Fournier: I am told that we have three dredges working on the coast in British Columbia, and probably if we had a fourth we could find work for it.


John Lambert Gibson: You are considering the construction of another one?


Alphonse Fournier: That is right.


George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to refer to repairs to wharf and breakwater and improvements at Sidney, British Columbia. As the minister knows, I am always extremely conservative in my requests to the department. I thoroughly investigate each one before I make a recommendation and therefore I approach this matter with a great deal of confidence. What improvements are envisaged in connection with this important wharf, and when may we expect to have tenders called for the work?


Alphonse Fournier: This amount is
required to effect repairs to the wharf and breakwater, to extend the wharf and to construct a float. The proposed work and estimated cost is as follows:
Renewal of superstructure of existing
wharfhead	 $ 40,000
Repairs to gantry slip and two guide
dolphins	 25,000
Replacement of 50-foot timber breakwater	10,000
Construction of 12-ft. x 50-ft. float	 3,000
Renewal of three 19-pile outer guide
dolphins	 15,000
Extension of wharfhead including movable
slip and dolphin	  55,000
Renewal of 175-foot timber breakwater____	25,000
Advertising, inspection and contingencies	7,000
Total estimated cost	 $180,000
We expect to call tenders some time during the fall, but the officials of the department are overworked. However, I shall see personally that they are called for as soon as possible.


Howard Charles Green: There are four Vancouver items on page 427, the first being False creek fishing harbour, $100,000, which apparently is a revote. Could the minister state whether anything has been done on this project? Then there is an item of $32,000 for Marpole wharf; another item for $55,000 for the seaplane landing at Sea Island, which is also

a revote, and then finally an item of $35,000 for continuation of sea wall, Stanley park. I presume that that is the yearly contribution that is made. I know this work has been under way for some years. Could the minister give us some information concerning these four votes?


Alphonse Fournier: In the case of False creek, this project has been delayed owing to the difficulty in acquiring the necessary site, and opposition from interests presently operating there. Steps have been taken to acquire the land from the Squamish Indians through the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Before the land is purchased it must be appraised and this is being done by the Vancouver real estate board who have been held up by the presence of snow over the area in question. That was the condition when the report was made. The difficulty there is that we must have the land before we can proceed.


Howard Charles Green: Do I understand the minister to say that the Indian affairs branch is going to pay the Squamish tribe for this land?


Alphonse Fournier: If we buy the land, probably public works will have to pay.


Howard Charles Green: What amount is involved?


Alphonse Fournier: The Vancouver real estate board are handling this for us.


Howard Charles Green: Will construction be started during the present fiscal year?


Alphonse Fournier: I could not give an answer as to the date, when we have not acquired the site.


Howard Charles Green: Have any plans been drawn?


Alphonse Fournier: No plans have been prepared as yet. We must have the site and the location before we can deal with the plans.
The next vote the hon. member asked about was that in reference to Marpole wharf. Contract plans were prepared but as they embraced a larger area than the original wharf and overran the boundaries of foreshore property allocated to the department, it has been necessary to negotiate with persons having rights on the adjoining foreshore areas before reconstruction of the wharf can proceed. It is anticipated that these legal matters will be settled in the near future and than we will be able to proceed.
The next item has to do with Sea Island. An order in council dated April 10, 1952, granted authority to enter into a contract with the lowest tenderer, the Vancouver Pile Driving and Contracting Company Limited, of 910 Dominion Bank building, Vancouver, for the construction of a seaplane landing at
Supply-Public Works
Vancouver, Sea island, amounting to $58,275. The highest tender was that of the Todd Construction Company Limited in the amount of $71,337.36. That work is proceeding or will proceed because the tender has been let.


Howard Charles Green: There is enough money in the vote to complete that work?


Alphonse Fournier: We are asking for $55,000. I see the lowest tender was $58,000, so we will have to find that money somewhere.


Howard Charles Green: On the preceding page there is an item, "North Vancouver, Burrard inlet, to take over and enlarge harbour, $89,000". What is that?


Alphonse Fournier: To take over North Shore Marine Basin Limited there is an amount of $46,750; to improve and repair existing structures, $9,250, and to enlarge boat mooring facilities, $33,000. As I understand it, we are taking over North Shore Marine Basin Limited and we are doing this work on it amounting to some $42,250.


Howard Charles Green: Is that the naval property which is being taken over, or is it property owned by a private firm?


Alphonse Fournier: North Shore Marine Basin Limited is the only place on the north shore of Burrard inlet available to the fishing fleet for wharfage. It is a private enterprise that has provided mooring facilities for the fishing fleet at this place. Because of their limited facilities their revenue is not sufficient to pay taxes and upkeep and maintain the enterprise. They cannot carry it on. They are forced to close down, and we are taking it over so the fishing fleet will have moorage at that place.


Mr. Jones:: There is an item of $1 million for Okanagan flood control. This project has been held over for a year or two now and nothing has been done. I understand the plans have been ready for some time. I should like the minister to say whether or not the work is going to start this year. We understood it was to start early in the spring, but so far nothing has been done.


Alphonse Fournier: We have a vote of $1 million as our share of this work. Preliminary work, including surveys, plans, specifications and acquisition of right of way, was carried out between 1948 and 1951. The actual work has been somewhat delayed because of negotiations involving right of way, and discussion with the government of the United States of America covering the protection of spawning of the blue back salmon in the Okanagan river. This question has been' referred to the international joint commission. That probably would be one difficulty, and we cannot proceed before we have a decision or

Supply-Public Works report from that commission. The $1 million is supposed to be our share in these works. The other 50 per cent will be paid by the government of British Columbia.


Owen Lewis Jones: Is it reasonable to expect that the work will be started this year?


Alphonse Fournier: I hope it will be. This estimate was prepared last December, and we had a request for our share of $1 million.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: I should like to ask a question regarding an item that has been revoted for a number of years with respect to a seaplane base at Prince George on the Fraser river. There is a great growth in aviation in that part of the country. Seaplanes land at great peril in the middle of the stream and no facilities are provided for them. I hope this project may be carried out in the near future.


Alphonse Fournier: Work on this project has been delayed pending acquisition of a foreshore reservation and obtaining agreement from the provincial government for the construction of a roadway. We are taking this matter very seriously. We are trying to hasten the procedure so all difficulties will be cleared out of the way and we may proceed. We are anxious to proceed.


George Matheson Murray: I understand the amount of property involved is very small.


Alphonse Fournier: Those are the difficult ones to settle.


George Matheson Murray: It is more or less a matter of a ribbon of red tape.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not know whether it is red tape, but in my experience we have more trouble settling the little cases than the big ones.


George Matheson Murray: Central B.C. Airways, Canadian Pacific Air Lines and others land there and the lives of pilots and passengers are at hazard as the result of there being no facilities.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally-
367.	Repairs and upkeep for the maintenance of services, including reconstruction and replacements, and to authorize commitments against future years in the total amount of $660,000, no new works to be undertaken, $2,975,000.
Howard Charles Green: What is the relationship between this item and the group of items we have just passed? They all seem to be for repairs and upkeep of harbours and rivers. What is the distinction?


Alphonse Fournier: This is a similar vote to the one in the architectural branch for maintenance and repairs of existing works. This is our maintenance and repair vote for


engineering. Last night or this morning we passed a maintenance vote for buildings. This is a similar vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
368.	Fraser river-fifty per cent of the cost of Investigations to be carried out by the "dominion provincial board Fraser river basin", $137,500.
Howard Charles Green: This item has to do with investigations being carried out by the dominion-provincial board on the Fraser river basin. Will the minister tell us what progress has been made with these investigations and when the last report was filed?


Alphonse Fournier: I am told the last report came into the office yesterday, but some days ago the hon. member for Kamloops asked us what progress and what reports had been made, and I believe about ten days ago I tabled in the house the answer to the inquiry of the hon. member. I do not have it in my memory but I think the hon. member can easily get that document and see what has been done by this board.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
369.	Protection works generally, $300,000.
Howard Charles Green: Is this item to give the minister a sum from which to draw for these works, or what is the purpose of this vote?


Alphonse Fournier: When the engineer reports that damage has been caused by our own works or by navigation, the repair or protection is done under this vote. We get from the engineer a report on the different places where damage has occurred from these two causes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
370.	Miscellaneous works not otherwise provided for, not more than $10,000 to be expended upon any one work, $440,000.
Howard Charles Green: What is this item for? It seems to be another type of reserve vote from which the minister can draw for general purposes.


Alphonse Fournier: This vote is to cover unforeseen construction and miscellaneous works that cannot be provided for from the general vote, which is the maintenance vote I mentioned a moment ago, and which have not otherwise been provided for. The amount to be expended for any one work is not to exceed $10,000. The sum of $150,000 is to be set aside for the use of the architectural branch. Every year there are a great number of small works urgently pressed for such as engines and hoists to assist fishermen, floats, small buildings and docks costing up to $10,000 which in former years were charged to the general votes, but owing to the restricted wording of that vote, "no new

works to be undertaken", that cannot be done now. The amounts are too small to merit a special vote for such items. The increase of $90,000 is necessary because of the rising cost of labour and materials and the increase of the amount which may be spent on any one project from $7,000 to $10,000.
They are all limited to works under $10,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman-


Alphonse Fournier: Will the hon. member wait until we pass my supplementary estimates and then we will have the discussion which he is going to bring up.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. We now pass to the supplementary estimates for the Department of Public Works. For the convenience of hon. members the votes will be found commencing on page 12 of the supplementary estimates and the details will be found on page 38.
742. Nova Scotia, $1.


Percy Chapman Black: What is the
purpose of that one dollar?


Alphonse Fournier: In the main estimates we expect to have a saving of more than $200,000. We are contemplating a building for customs but we are not authorized by law to take this $200,000 from the main estimates because the Halifax customs building has not been named in those estimates. So that I may get the $200,000 out of the main estimates for Nova Scotia I have to have this $1 vote approved by parliament. It is an approval to get from the treasury board a transfer from one item in the general vote to this particular project.


Percy Chapman Black: Is the proposed new customs building for Nova Scotia going to be built with the best sandstone in the world, Wallace sandstone?


Alphonse Fournier: Take my word for it, I am going to be very careful about the stone which will go into that building.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: There is something here which I wish to draw to the attention of the committee. There is a certain amount for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ottawa, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, but there is not a five-cent piece for Prince Edward Island.


Alphonse Fournier: I am not going to go into it, but if you will take the population of the island and the estimate for the island you will see that your share is quite substantial.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Public Works
743. New Brunswick, $1.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I see that New Brunswick gets its usual share here, $1. I would like to ask the minister what this item is for.


Alphonse Fournier: This is to take out of the main estimate the sum of $183,000 which will not be expended, but I am not authorized by law to do that unless parliament gives me a special authority. It comes under the Financial Administration Act, I think. I have to come here and ask for a vote of $1 in order to take money out of the general vote for the Rothesay, Saint John and Sussex public buildings.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
747. Manitoba, $260,000.
Mr. Knowles:: What is the status of the new post office building in Winnipeg?


Alphonse Fournier: Winnipeg public building-amount required $150,000. We think we cin have the excavation given by contract and start the foundations of that building during the fall. We have cleared the site and now we are ready to proceed with the excavation and the foundation.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: With reference to the Rothesay post office, I would like to ask the minister if that is a new building he is putting up. It is the one we have been asking for over a number of years.


Alphonse Fournier: That is my impression. I believe the building there is an old building.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is rented.


Alphonse Fournier: This would be a new building.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is the one we have been asking for.


Alphonse Fournier: They tell me it is a
small one-storey building; and I am going to put up a nice little building in that place.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Roads and bridges-
754. Maintenance and operation-further amount required, $100,000.
Mr. Lennard:: I notice this deals with the maintenance and operation of the Burlington channel bridge. Is that an amount to cover the removal of the wreckage and putting up something new?


Alphonse Fournier: It is for the removal of the wreckage and the installation of a temporary bridge replacing the one that fell down. It is a temporary structure.


Frank Exton Lennard: It will not be similar to the other half of the bridge at all?

Supply-Public Works


Alphonse Fournier: It will not be permanent.


Frank Exton Lennard: What progress, if any, has been made on plans for a new structure to cross that channel?


Alphonse Fournier: The acting minister of highways of Ontario, Mr. Dunbar, with his engineer, came to my office to discuss the future bridge. They are actually preparing plans which will be submitted to us and we will share the cost. Their object is traffic on the highway and ours is navigation. I would not dare say right now what final agreement will be arrived at, but the federal government and the province have agreed that they will share in the costs, if we can agree on the exact location and the exact plans and specifications for this high level bridge.


Frank Exton Lennard: I know from past conversations with the minister that he is all for this project, and I hope nothing will interfere with the early construction of a new bridge of the type that will remove the bottleneck that has existed at the channel for several years. Every time the old bridge was lifted it meant a tie-up of traffic for miles on either side. I know that in requesting this new type of bridge there is no extravagance at all. It will be an eventual economy, because the upkeep will be largely taken care of provincially. That will eventually relieve the federal government of what is now a burden.


Alphonse Fournier: If I recall the conversation with the acting minister of highways for Ontario there was agreement that probably a high level bridge would meet the situation for navigation and for road traffic. On the other hand I understand it is an expensive project. We are ready to put in our share but not more than our share. We will have to come to an agreement with the province, but I think we can do it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
756. Nova Scotia, $814,000.
Percy Chapman Black: I am interested in this item, which is a supplementary estimate for breakwaters and wharves in Nova Scotia. I do not say these are not warranted, but this estimate gives proof to me that there is no lack of funds available to the minister to carry out work of this kind. I am not able to put that excuse before the poor lobster fishermen and others in the various parts of my county who have petitioned for breakwater and wharf facilities to give them protection in their dangerous calling. I want to be able to justify the stand taken by the minister,, if J can, and one of the main bases for the excuse he

previously gave me was that he was short of funds.


Alphonse Fournier: For what project was that?


Percy Chapman Black: Well, in Pugwash, Wallace and Malagash the lobster fishermen require breakwaters to protect their lives when they are carrying on their hazardous occupation. The reason I have been able to give them up to now is that the minister did not have sufficient funds to undertake the work. These individual fishermen signed petitions, and these were submitted to the minister. I am just pointing out that these special appropriations in the supplementary estimates prove to me that the minister has been provided with funds to carry on works of this kind, so I am not able to give these people any explanation to justify the delay in carrying out their wishes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
755. New Brunswick, $190,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I notice that on page 41 of the particulars in connection with this item mention is made of the ferry accommodation at Campbellton.


Alphonse Fournier: That is the wharf for the new ferry.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is in place of the bridge?


Alphonse Fournier: A bridge would take too long to build. This wharf will not take very long, and people will cross the river on the ferry. It is an interprovincial ferry.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is the federal government paying any part of the cost of construction of the ferry?


Alphonse Fournier: That would not come under my department. If the hon. member will address himself to the Minister of Transport, under whom the maritime commission comes, he will get the information.


Howard Charles Green: I thought you did not touch ferry wharves.


Alphonse Fournier: Interprovincial, but not within the province.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
759. Quebec. $750,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I want to thank the minister for the additional amount of $12,000 for the harbour at Rustico.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
761. Manitoba, $1,163,600.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I note that item 761 includes an amount for extending a wharf in Winnipeg

North Centre. Hon. members will be surprised to find that there is a wharf in my constituency, but there is, and it is a busy one too. I note that an amount of $61,000 which is included in this item is for the extension of the Alexander avenue wharf on the Red river, Winnipeg, as has been requested by the harbour commissioners of Winnipeg and St. Boniface. I may tell the minister that we are glad to see it there. One of the things we like about the Minister of Public Works is that he says "No" three or four times, and then after a while the item appears in the estimates.


Alphonse Fournier: I am not strong-willed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
763. British Columbia and Yukon, $1,028,500.
Howard Charles Green: In the particulars of this item at page 42, there is the sum of $400,000 for dredging at Inverness passage. Can the minister give us some details on that?


Alphonse Fournier: This amount is
required for dredging in Inverness passage which has silted up to such an extent that vessels can reach the wharves and docks at high tide only. Numerous requests have been received from the cannery operators and other shipping interests to alleviate the condition caused by silt brought down by the Skeena river. It is proposed to dredge a channel in Inverness passage so that shipping may have access to the cannery wharves at all tides. A preliminary estimate indicates the removal of one million cubic yards of class B material. The estimated cost is $400,000.


Howard Charles Green: Will that be done by contract or the government's own dredge?


Alphonse Fournier: Contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
767. To provide for balances required to complete any projects undertaken in previous fiscal years and for which no specific provision is made in the fiscal year 1952-53-further amount required, $165,000.
John Horne Blackmore: Before the minister's
estimates are finally completed, I should like to express the appreciation which my constituents feel towards the minister for the construction of the new federal building. We have needed that for a long time. Now that we have it we are very glad, and we appreciate that we have not been neglected in our area by the minister.


Alphonse Fournier: I do really appreciate those kind words. I believe that every time a member speaks in the house, if it is not in praise it is to give me new instructions on how the department should be run. I appre-
Finance Acts
ciate those kind words. I am sending over to the hon. member the details of this Coutts building for customs and immigration for his province.
This morning the hon. member for Greenwood asked me on what type of work we were spending this million dollar special vote. I have some of the cases, and a strong one which I find is in Saint John, New Brunswick. A new passenger elevator costing $46,280 was installed in the old post office building there. That is one example of the way in which we are spending wisely the money in that vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Alphonse Fournier: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day.
Progress reported.



FINANCE


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 390, respecting currency, the Royal Canadian Mint, and the exchange fund.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.


John Horne Blackmore: Does the minister intend to make a statement?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. I have nothing to add to the statement I made on second reading, which was quite comprehensive. Of course the bill has been considered with some care in the banking and commerce committee.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, it gives
me a great deal of satisfaction to be able, for the first time, to commend the minister's financial policy. In this bill the Department of Finance quite clearly indicates that it is taking definite steps toward a realistic financial system. A realistic financial system may be described or defined as one which is capable of making, in a community, what is physically possible financially possible.
Anyone who has given any serious thought to the present financial system must have realized time and again that the present system is utterly unable to make what is physically possible financially possible. As a matter of fact, when we get enough goods to make it positively certain that we ought to get on wonderfully well and have plenty of prosperity, then we are in danger of pitching into a depression in which everybody suffers. This fact indicates quite clearly that the

Finance Acts
financial system we now operate under is utterly deficient when it comes to rendering financially possible what is physically possible.
This bill is extremely hopeful in that it indicates quite clearly that the Department of Finance and the Minister of Finance definitely recognize that the thing which gives money value is not gold. For generations people have been taught in school, from the hustings, by the bankers and by every other means of instruction that it is gold behind money that gives money value. Not until 1933 was our country courageous enough to suspend the gold redemption clause and in effect announce that from that time forward the value of Canada's money did not depend upon the capacity of anyone to redeem our money in gold.
This present act aims at suspending the parts of the Bank of Canada Act which indicate that there is virtue in gold as a means of giving value to money. In doing this, by implication our finance department is acknowledging that what give money value are goods and services in a community.
That has been the case all along. Money made of pure gold, studded with diamonds, would soon lose its value in a community where there were not sufficient goods to spend the money on and in which there were not resources enough to produce more goods as fast as those goods were consumed. Thus it has been true all along that the real value of money depended upon the things in the community upon which to spend the money.
This amendment, which we are going to be considering before long, quite definitely confesses that the value of Canada's money from this time forward is going to be recognized as dependent upon goods and services. After all, money is only a medium of exchange. It is only a claim to goods. It is only a title to goods. It can be created readily by any agent with authority to create it whenever there is need for further mediums of exchange or claims to goods.
I am thankful that the minister is able to come before the House of Commons, before I leave it, with a measure which acknowledges this first great fundamental truth about money. Just as soon as we all recognize that the value of money depends on the goods and services in a community and that therefore the amount of money which a community can have and use in active circulation in the community depends upon the amount of goods and services the community has to exchange, then we are in a position to make what is physically possible in terms of goods and services and productive capacity financially possible in terms of the money counter

we use whether it be dollar bills, bank credit or whatever other medium we choose to employ.
There are three more fundamental financial principles which sooner or later a minister of finance in this House of Commons will come forward and concur in or endorse. The first of these three, that is the second great principle of a realistic financial system, is this: Money is just as sound when it is created and spent into circulation as it is when it is created and lent into circulation as practically all our money now is. Unfortunately in this act-probably not by design but because of the nature of it-that important principle is not even implied. Notwithstanding the fact that we are no longer to be relying upon gold as a backing, all our money still is to be borrowed into circulation, the assumption being that the only kind of money that is really sound is money that someone borrows from a bank. While the Bank of Canada will create the money without it necessarily having gold backing, it will not spend the money. If the government wants to use the money, it will have to borrow from the Bank of Canada or from some other bank. This principle is a trammel; it is a handicap; it stands in the way of a realistic financial system. Until a government, a parliament and a people recognize that when there is need for more purchasing power by reason of the amount of goods and services in the community to be exchanged, the government under suitable circumstances can create money debt-free and spend it into circulation to the extent to which it can balance consumption with production we shall and can never have a realistic financial system, that is a financial system capable of rendering what is physically possible financially possible. I do not propose to ask the minister to tell whether or not he agrees with this second principle of government-created debt-free money to be spent, not lent, into circulation. It is one step beyond the distance he is prepared to go; but I am glad that he is acknowledging the first principle.
The third principle of a genuinely realistic financial system is this: It is possible to take the money which is created, debt-free, and use that money to establish a stable price structure both for consumption and production, thereby stabilizing an economy. If a government does not employ that concept it is impossible for it to take adequate care of its price structure within a country; and adequate care in respect of a price structure must be taken, as everybody recognizes. If for instance, just as soon as we begin to get too many hogs in the country, the price of hogs goes down, then obviously we are

disrupting the economy and injuring it. We must be in a position to maintain a stable price for hogs or for any other commodity without subsidizing overmuch. That can be done. We want a stable price at the desired level, whatever that may be found to be; we must not have* a considerable fluctuation in price, a rising and falling, which wrecks people who enter into production, as it is doing now in the Canadian economy, with most deplorable results not only for the present but for the future.
Having established the principle that money depends on goods and services for its value, that the amount of money therefore which you can have in a community depends upon the amount of goods and services you have in the country; having agreed that it is sound for a government under suitable circumstances to create money debt-free and spend it into circulation; and then having learned that a government can use that debt-free money to establish a stable price structure, you must recognize and accept the fourth principle of realistic finance, which is this: A government can use this debt-free money and put it in the hands of the people in such a way that they can buy the products your producers can produce, thereby providing them with a market. I do not propose to go any further into detail in respect of this matter. I do not think it would be quite in order, especially at the present time; but I rejoice that the minister has made the first great step, and I am telling him, the House of Commons and the country today that unless they take the other three steps, and do it soon, they will continue unable to make what is physically possible in this glorious country of ours actually financially possible for the people who live in the country. They will thus be constantly in danger of deflation or depression and of dangerous rises in price.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to say a word or two about this. As the minister said when he introduced the bill it is mainly a tidying up and rather mechanical operation. The only matter which seems to be important is a matter of principle, which I will refer to later in the bill. I take it there will be no objection, when we come to section 25, which has to do with the question of the reserves of the Bank of Canada, to speak in a general way about it then. That is all I want to say at this point, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Gold coins.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I take it that clause 4 is saying that the time may come when we do not leave our dollar, so to
Finance Acts
speak, at large, but when we give it fixed value, and we are taking the power to give it also a gold content.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: For example, suppose at the time we decide to set our dollar's value at 100 cents vis-a-vis the United States dollar. Then 1 take it that we would ipso facto be bound to make the gold content of our dollar the same as that of the United States dollar. I mention that merely because it makes the situation clear. Perhaps the minister might comment on that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is quite correct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Subsidiary coins.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister say a word about subsection 3, having to do with temporary alteration of composition? That is an interesting point.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is an order to provide for some metals other than those which are generally used in the subsidiary coins. The committee will recall that quite recently it was found that because of war demands for nickel we were unable to continue to make our five-cent piece from that metal, but were obliged to switch to steel. We were required to do that, in fact, under the emergency legislation, because the Currency Act as it then stood prescribed nickel for our five-cent coin. In view of possible future necessities of that kind it seemed desirable to provide a little more elasticity under what are really token coins, and that is the reason for the latitude which is given in this section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On section 10-Melting down gold coins.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Under this clause some anxiety was expressed lest innocent people who carry around on their watch chains gold pieces that have holes bored in them might find they were coming under the provisions of the criminal law. I think the committee felt that the danger was not very great, but I do not know whether the minister can give us any assurance on that point.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The committee's feelings will be shared by the minister. I am sure there are a number of things which are made offences under the Criminal Code, but one of the great factors of any criminal offence is intent; and the Criminal Code, like other statutes, is enforced with common sense. I do not know of any case in which any man who has a gold piece on his watch chain has been prosecuted under the Criminal Code for defacing a coin of the realm.

Finance Acts


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 11 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
On section 16-All coins to be made at mint.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I take it on myself to congratulate the minister on the fact that it is still called the Royal Canadian Mint.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has never been called anything else.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 17 to 21 inclusive agreed to.
On section 22-Exchange fund account continued.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Here is
where I should like to say a word or two. This I think is the most important part of the bill. What it does is consolidate in the hands of the minister the reserves which have been available for the protection of the Canadian dollar. Briefly, as I understand it, we passed an Exchange Fund Act in 1935, the chief asset of which was the profit made by the Bank of Canada at the time gold was taken over from the banks at what the hon. member for York West thought was not a fair figure. But that Exchange Fund Act was not really availed of until the war came on, when the foreign exchange control board was set up. The purpose of this section really is to vest now in the hands of the minister, under the terms of this act, the funds which have been held by the foreign exchange control board which, by the terms of this act, is being terminated.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The foreign exchange control board was an agency of the minister, my hon. friend will recall, under the Foreign Exchange Control Act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As the minister points out, the foreign exchange control board was his agent, and so the situation is in no sense substantially changed. I do not think there is anything further I wish to say on that section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 23 and 24 agreed to.
On section 25-Bank of Canada not required to maintain certain reserves.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to make one or two observations on this section. This after all raises the question which has been raised by the hon. member for Lethbridge as to whether or not there should

be any attempt to impose a check of any kind on the credit-issuing power of the financial authority.
Under the Bank of Canada Act it was provided that the bank should have a 25 per cent reserve against its notgs and deposit liabilities. That was changed early in the war because it was felt at that time that it would be desirable to mobilize all our resources of gold and United States dollars in the hands of the foreign exchange control board for the purpose of protecting the position of the Canadian dollar, which at that time had been given a fixed ratio to the United States dollar of 90 cents. When we had our dollar at a fixed ratio obviously it had to be supported, and sometimes it cost money to do it.
Those of us in this house will remember that in 1947 there was quite a loss to the fund. At that time it cost the foreign exchange control board over a billion dollars of its gold and United States funds to protect our dollar. There were differences of opinion at that time as to just what course should have been followed with regard to the Canadian dollar, but there is no need to take any of the time of the committee to consider that now.
In the discussion in the banking and commerce committee yesterday this point of a fixed reserve was raised, and I should like to put this discussion briefly on the record. There is of course the view which has been expressed in this house this afternoon that money should be entirely a managed thing, that there should be no attempt to impose a check of any kind. That was discussed in the committee yesterday, and I think it would be fair to say the view of the experts was that while at the present time they felt that it was wise to leave in abeyance clause 26 of the Bank of Canada Act-in other words they did not think it was wise to reimpose the requirement of 25 per cent gold backing of the currency-nevertheless they did not go the length of saying that a reserve check of some kind was an outmoded superstition.
I was very glad to hear that, because after all there is a view very strongly held that if the regulation of the currency has no check of any kind and is left merely to the government of the day, even governments, as good as they think they are, are composed of human beings, and it may possibly be that when a difficulty comes the desire to ease the situation by inflating the currency may prevail. I am not going to pursue this at length, but I do want to have it on the record that I think the question of a reserve of some kind, a check on the

purely managed currency, should not be regarded as an outworn superstition. I think it should be seriously considered. I am not going to ask the committee to spend time considering it this afternoon. I am anxious just to put it on the record.
The danger I am pointing out is that when money is left entirely to be managed, it may have the effect of our slipping into inflation. That is a real danger. On the other hand, of course it is difficult. The question of the fixed reserve is difficult. You can travesty it. You may say: are you going to set up some kind of fixed reserve requirement and then are you going to obey it? And is the fixed requirement which has been set up to have a higher power than those who set it up and who may feel at the moment that it would be well to cast it aside? That is an argument which is made against a fixed reserve. It is easy to make it. All I wish to do at the moment is say that I was glad to observe in the committee that the view, as far as I could ascertain, in the department was that for the moment in this troubled situation they felt it was wise, as they said, to mobilize all our resources of gold and United States dollars for the purpose of having it all available as a sort of reserve to prevent any violent fluctuations in the currency which at the present time, as you know, finds its own level in the open market.
While that was their present feeling there is the possibility that in more normal times, they would revert to the thinking which was prevalent at the time the Bank of Canada was set up, namely that it was wise to set up a requirement for a fixed reserve-a reserve which would be the result of the best thinking you could give to it in normal times, when you are able to study the matter out in the most well considered manner, so as to have that as a protection to the public against the time when perhaps under stress and strain and with all kinds of abnormal situations arising, the managers of the currency, if it was under no restriction of any kind, might be tempted to take actions which in their better moments they would not take. I think that is all I want to say.


John Horne Blackmore: Will my hon. friend permit a question? I agree entirely with what the hon. member says. What disturbs me is the fact that he said, or at least I thought he said or implied, that someone suggested this afternoon that there should be no restrictions upon the issue of money. I thought as a matter of fact he was referring to me. May I point out to him that I had not said that at all. I pointed out, as I think the hon. member will recall-I know he is 55704-239
Finance Acts
anxious to be completely fair-that debt-free money could be created and spent into circulation only sufficient to balance consumption with production. In other words the limiting factor would be the need of money to consume the products that were produced in the economy. If the hon. member interpreted what I said as meaning that there should be no limiting factor on the issue of money he has misunderstood, and I failed to make myself clear.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I must confess that I have not argued this, because I have always thought the hon. gentleman's limiting factor was purely what I call management; and management according to some views which I would not share. But if in fact I have been wrong and if the hon. member does believe there should be these checks, well then I am very glad.


John Horne Blackmore: May I make another comment? I appreciate that very much. This is just the kind of thing we need in order to see eye to eye. It is absolutely true that the amount of money in circulation must not at any time be in excess of the goods which are to be bought; otherwise you will have a condition which my hon. friend described just a year ago as inflation, "too many dollars chasing too few goods." The ideal is to have the right amount of dollars chasing the right amount of goods. Social Cre-diters maintain that the only way in which a government can do that is by means of the technique of debt-free money. Does that answer my hon. friend?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not know whether I have been living all these years as a Social Crediter without knowing it, but perhaps I had better now reiterate quite definitely that I am certain that it should be part of our economic thinking that it is desirable there should be an automatic check on the amount of credit available. If I did not make that clear I am trying to make it clear now. The other point I want to make is-


John Horne Blackmore: Before the hon. member goes on may I ask one more question? That is an excellent reply. I agree with it completely; so do all Social Crediters. Would the hon. member also believe that there ought to be an automatic check which would prevent banks and other lending institutions from taking money out of the economy when it is seriously needed? To illustrate my point may I give this example. On November 13, 1933, Hon. C. H. Cahan told an audience in Toronto that from the time of the beginning of the depression down to the time he was speaking, $932 million had been taken out of the Canadian economy, which of course accentuated the depression. A similar thing

Finance Acts
happened in the United States. The hon. member will learn that if he reads Professor Irving Fisher's book, "100 percent Money."
Can the hon. member tell me how such withdrawal of money could be prevented in case another depression came along? How it could be done under the present financial system?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: All I can say
in answer to that is that although I have great respect for the late Mr. Cahan, who was a very great lawyer, and certainly I think was an example of the species that hardly exists any longer, an old-fashioned Tory, I am not sure that I ever had any reason to think he was a great financial authority, and I am not able to give any meaning whatever to the disappearance of the $932 million. I am sorry I cannot help in that, and it would be very foolish of me to pretend that I could. I just beg leave to doubt that figure.
The other point I want to make is this. I do not know whether I should commend this or protest it. I will mention it. Section 25 gives statutory imprimatur, so to speak, to what has been the fact for ten years now; that the Bank of Canada has not been required to maintain a 25 per cent gold reserve. The section says:
Notwithstanding section 26 of the Bank of Canada Act, the Bank of Canada is not, unless the governor in council otherwise prescribes, required to maintain a minimum or fixed reserve ratio of gold or foreign exchange to its liabilities.
There again we have legislation with the reservation that the governor in council can change it. I do not think it is wise; nevertheless, I am not going to press the matter now. I hope that this legislation will not be put away on the shelf and left too long, because my own hope is-I refer now to the meeting of the committee yesterday-that what was felt to be the sanction for this type of legislation was that we are living in disturbed times. No one thinks that we are likely to get out of those very quickly, but nevertheless I was not thoroughly convinced by that argument, and I hope that this legislation may in one form or another, on that point at any rate, or in one way or another, come before this house before too long.


John Horne Blackmore: May I say a further word in connection with this matter? One of the disconcerting facts about our whole financial set-up in Canada, a fact which is not provided against in this legislation, is that if a depression begins to come on us we have no device whatsoever whereby we can arrest the rapid withdrawal of loans by the banks and the consequent withdrawal from circulation of a large percentage of the money which the

nation simply has to have to carry on its business. That is the kind of thing that occurred during the great depression in Canada and the United States. The United States could not see how in the world to get back into circulation the $8 billion-one-third of their purchasing medium-which went out of circulation just as a result of the withdrawal of loans by banks and the neglect to advance further loans.
So far as the minister's financial set-up at the present time is concerned, I think he will agree with me, being a man of much experience in this respect, that if a depression began to come on us in Canada he would be at his wits' end to know how to stop the banks withdrawing loans and thereby aggravating the very condition which was beginning to come upon us. On occasions like that, Social Crediters maintain that the government can stop that withdrawing of loans if it wisely uses the technique of debt-free money created by the state and spent into circulation where necessary. This criticism of course applies right through this bill but, in my judgment, is particularly appropriate right at this very point.
I wish to make one further suggestion to the minister. I should like to refer him, as an illustration of the soundness of the policy that Social Crediters advocate and that I am advocating here, to the Finance Act of 1914, at the commencement of world war I, and the Finance Act of 1923 which was a sort of consolidation of the Finance Act of 1914 in the light of the experience our fathers had during the first great war. The Finance Act of 1914 gave the Minister of Finance authority to create dollar bills, two dollar bills, and spend them into circulation if he saw fit. That is to be found very definitely in the report of the royal commission on banking and currency published in 1933. All members can read about the whole matter and its effect on our financial life in paragraph 47 on page 22 of that report.
I should also like to recall to the minister the important fact that under the Finance Act of 1914 the treasury of Canada issued $50 million, bought $50 million worth of wheat in Canada and lent the wheat to Great Britain. There was no financial cost whatsoever. That transaction is also recorded in paragraph 47 on page 22 of the document to which I have referred. If the minister were clothed with that power today, which, by the way, was technically taken away when the Bank of Canada was established and the Finance Act of 1923 was repealed, he would be able to do remarkable things of value in respect of the Canadian economy which at the present time he would not be free to do. The

technique of debt-free money worked admirably on that occasion and it would work admirably today.
I suggest to the minister in all seriousness that he should have his department take steps to re-enact the Finance Act of 1923 with suitable changes or modifications that would naturally result from the experience we have had in finance since 1923. If he would do that this year he would prepare himself for dealing with several serious financial problems which are likely to present themselves to us. As an illustration, when the Minister of Agriculture was faced with the problem of supporting the prices of beef, mutton and pork in Canada just before and just after the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, if the Minister of Finance had been armed with the Finance Act of 1923 he could have created debt-free money and purchased enough beef, pork and mutton from a sufficient number of packing plants to enable them to buy the surpluses going on the market in respect of these meats, and could have maintained the price level of meat in Canada without a ripple. He could have given that meat to Great Britain or lent it to her for ten or twenty years. He would have got it out of the Canadian economy and saved this nation hundreds of millions of dollars and a good many nights of headache for himself.
That is just how simple this thing is. It is exactly the same device that was used in world war I. If it could be used in world war I, when so many of the producers were fighting overseas and there was a natural tendency to scarcity of production, how much more successfully could it be used in 1952 when all over our economy we have a surplus of supply which is threatening a descent into a depression. I suggest that the Minister of Finance take under advisement immediately the feasibility of causing a revised version of the Finance Act of 1923 to be passed by the house. It would not displace the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada would go on financing consumption through loans as it now does. This other mechanism would enable the minister to create debt-free money and spend it into circulation financing consumption as the supply position in the nation justified such creation and expenditure.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 26 to 31 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
55704-239J
Supply-Agriculture SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE Administration service-
1. Departmental administration, $344,433.
John Horne Blackmore: Before we leave item 1 I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture something about the progress of the South Saskatchewan dam. It seems to me this matter is being held up altogether too long.
I would like, as preparation for the questions I wish to ask about the dam, to recall to the minister something I am sure he knows-the general set-up in which this dam should be placed.
I am not sure that all members of the house today understand as they should, and as they would if they came from the west, the situation in which Saskatchewan and Alberta find themselves. In order to appreciate the situation and the urgent need for this dam it is important to know that in the three prairie provinces there is a wide area which normally has far too little rain. The result is that sometimes we have good crops and that most times we do not have good crops. Most times the climate is too dry to produce good crops. This great area, as the minister will recall, is named the Palliser triangle. For the sake of those in the house who have not had an opportunity to hear about the Palliser triangle may I tell them just how they can find how big an area it is on the map.
The Palliser triangle in Alberta starts roughly at Banff according to some authorities and runs to a point some 30 or 40 miles north of Calgary. Then it runs northeast in a jagged line to the North Saskatchewan river where it crosses the Saskatchewan-Alberta boundary. Then it runs northeast to the junction of the North and South Saskatchewan rivers, then south to about Humboldt, then east in a jagged line to the Manitoba border near Swan River, Manitoba. It runs south on the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border to near Roblin, Manitoba, then east to lake Manitoba; then from the southern tip of lake Manitoba east to Beausejour, Manitoba, and then south to the United States boundary.
May I say to the members of the house, for the minister's sake, that all those who wish to understand the problem that is Canada's in the west must familiarize themselves with the facts about that vast uncertain area. Those who would be fair to the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba when estimating their financial capacity must be aware of the effect that

Supply-Agriculture
vast area has had on their public lives in every aspect, and consequently upon their financial condition.
As I have been able to gather, this great Palliser triangle was recognized to be a dangerous area for settlement long, long ago. Captain Palliser between 1857 and 1860 took a trip across this area and reported that it was not suitable for settlement, except for ranches. Hind in 1860 submitted a similar report. Professor John Macoun in 1879 similarly reported, as did Commissioner French of the R.C.M.P. in 1874. A. P. Patrick in 1879, Montague Aldous in 1881 and William Ogilvie in 1881 submitted similar reports.
I have mentioned only a few of many men. The reason I do so is to enable the members of the house to comprehend how serious a blunder the federal government committed in the years from 1900 to 1911 when they permitted wholesale settlement of that area by people who came in all through the south because certain areas in certain years made the country look prosperous and very promising.
Just in a word or two further to indicate how well men should have known how dangerous it was to let a large population go into that area may I give you some figures covering rainfall. In Medicine Hat between 1883 and 1901 the average rainfall was 8-061 inches. It is recognized everywhere that it is just next to impossible to grow crops with less than 12 inches of rainfall a year. The average rainfall in Calgary between 1885 and 1901 was 8-271 inches and for Macleod between 1896 and 1901 it was 7-735 inches.
In connection with this South Saskatchewan dam we need to go back to the year 1934. Although the federal government had permitted a great many people to come in and settle all through that Palliser triangle they did not recognize that thereby they were creating an almost impossible problem for the people who were going to administer those areas in a local way in times to come. The federal government failed to realize the tremendous responsibility it unquestionably incurred in permitting that settlement. They did not do a thing to help rehabilitate that country, to reimburse the provinces for the damage done them, until 1934 when Right Hon. R. B. Bennett's government passed the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. The present minister, in my judgment, will go down in Canadian history as a man of understanding vision and great courage because he has taken the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and expanded its activities in every way.
As I understand it, and the minister will correct me if I am wrong, the proposed South
IMr. Blackmore.]
Saskatchewan dam is one part of a general program which the minister has designed as a means of combating this problem which has arisen in the Palliser triangle and of making up in some small measure for the losses inflicted upon Alberta and Saskatchewan through unwise federal policies of the past.
I would be glad if the minister would take enough time to lay out before the house and the country the general picture; and would he set the South Saskatchewan dam into that picture?


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister allow a reference to the South Saskatchewan dam?


Mr. Gardiner:: I did not interrupt the hon. member because I rather expected he wanted to make the remarks he has made and that probably he would have made them at some time; and perhaps it gives me a little time to -think about the answer I can give. The proper place, of course, to discuss the matter is under item 45, major irrigation and reclamation projects in the prairie provinces.


John Horne Blackmore: If the minister cares to have the discussion then I will be perfectly happy.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it is better to do that, because after all we have been accustomed to having a sort of general discussion on the first item in the estimates. To start a particular discussion on a particular subject, such as is suggested here, would perhaps depart from that idea.
I should like, therefore, to make some general remarks concerning the discussion of the agriculture estimates. In the first place, I may say it is a rather new experience to have the agriculture estimates coming in on the last day or two of the session. In the twenty sessions I have been here it has been customary to introduce the agriculture estimates at the first or almost the first of the session, I suppose because the word "agriculture" begins with the first letter of the alphabet. The discussion on these estimates usually takes place during the session and is completed on the last day or two of the session. But on this occasion we are introducing the estimates for the first time today.
I think that is largely due to the fact, Mr. Chairman, that on the first day of this session we found it necessary to introduce a special bill which made it possible for us to discuss almost everything that had to do with the handling of farm products. We were talking about the marketing of livestock products of all kinds. From that time until now we have been discussing, either in the house or in committee, those matters which we usually

discuss at the beginning of the session. I hope it will not be necessary, therefore, to give as full consideration to some matters at this time as it might otherwise have been.
I wish to point out at this stage that the total estimates for this year, as indicated in the main estimates, amount to $60,168,475, which is just $7,373,438 less than the total estimates for last year. We are now in a position to do what we have not usually been in a position to do when we introduce the agriculture estimates, in that we have the supplementaries before us. Those supple-mentaries amount to $14,379,042. When that amount is added to the main estimates, the total amount is considerably more than the estimates for last year. In going through the estimates from end to end, I think it will be found that a considerable part of that increase is due to the increases in salaries which have been made. Some of the increase is associated with the fact that we have undertaken to pay the freight on feed grain again this year, and the amount in the estimates this year for that purpose is more than a million dollars higher than it was last year.
There are other items which we will come to as we go through the estimates which will account for any increases which have been made, but generally speaking it was our intention this year to hold the estimates at about the same level as a year ago. The difficulties which have arisen as a result of certain diseases afflicting our livestock have made it necessary for us to change the items somewhat to provide more money in certain directions. Nevertheless the general objective was to have the estimates this year about the same as a year ago.
Some of the discussion which has taken place up to the present time in connection with agriculture has led me to give some thought, in the early stages of the discussion of these estimates, to the surpluses we have had in Canada during the past year. Those surpluses are pretty well limited to our exports. I have before me a table of the value of agricultural exports. It does not exactly indicate the volume of the different commodities, [DOT] whether they have increased or decreased, but generally speaking the fact that there have been increases does indicate that there has been an increase in the quantity as well as an increase in the price.
In order to place the picture before the house with regard to surpluses, I should like to point out that the total exports of farm products in 1951 amounted to $1,018,644,000. Out of that total, $950 million is accounted for through the export of grains and fodder and the export of animals and animal products. The first accounts for $735 million,
Supply-Agriculture
that is grain and fodder, which only leaves $215 million to be accounted for by all the livestock and livestock products exported. This only leaves $68 million to cover all other exports. It is correct to say, therefore, that in so far as exports are concerned they are related largely to our cereals, our grains and our livestock products. I suppose I could even go further and say that by far the greater part of the production on our farms is related to the same commodities.
I wanted to say that in the beginning in order to emphasize this fact, that the federal department has not had any troublesome surpluses during 1951 or 1952 down to the present. The main trouble we had with our wheat had to do in the first place with the wheat that we were carrying over from 1950, which was largely a frozen commodity and therefore had to be sold as feed whereas we are accustomed to selling it as human food. Last year our main difficulty was the season during which we had to harvest our grain crops in the western part of Canada. It was a wet season, and we found it most difficult to have our commodity harvested and stored in the usual manner and at the usual time but we did not experience any real difficulty in finding a place to market it, that is other than the difficulty that arose through the fact that it was frozen and was feed instead of being a commodity which human beings could consume. My information is that in due course we will succeed in having all that commodity marketed. I think we are having exactly the same experience we had in 1928 when we had a frozen crop. It is taking us about two years to market the crop as feed, whereas we would have counted on marketing it in one year as a commodity to be consumed by human beings.
Apart from that difficulty, we have not had any serious difficulty in finding markets. So far as the other farm products are concerned, the big one is cattle. We had a very ready market throughout all 1951 for our cattle. Fortunately we were marketing them at the highest price at which we have ever marketed cattle. That market was to be found in the United States. We marketed some
404,000	head of cattle either as live animals or as processed meat in some form or other. Therefore no difficulty was experienced in connection with the marketing of our cattle. Again, no difficulty was experienced in connection with the marketing of our hogs. A moment ago I stated that we marketed our cattle and beef at a comparatively high price, as compared with other years, in the United States. However, we marketed practically all our hogs in Canada. Throughout the whole of 1951 we marketed our hogs in Canada at

Supply-Agriculture
a higher price than that which United States farmers were obtaining for hogs in that country. Throughout the whole of 1951 we marketed our hogs at a price which was at least 2 or 3 cents higher than the United States price. That would also be a statement of fact with regard to the early weeks of 1952.
We are now passing through a period in which the United States price is about the same as our own, and I think would take care of the cost of getting our pork commodity down to the United States. In other words, if we were able to sell the hogs in the United States at all, we could do just about as well in the United States as we are doing in Canada. The point I wish to make is that we have not been in the position in which we have had to make any complaint about the fact that we were not able to market our staple commodities other than wheat in Great Britain.
During last year and during the early part of this season we have heard comments to the effect that we were suffering because of the fact that we have not a market in the United Kingdom at present, or did not have such a market throughout 1951. I just wish to repeat that, with regard to cattle and hogs, we had a market for all those we produced throughout the year, and that we had a market at the highest price we have ever experienced for our livestock in any year in our history. The fact of the matter is that we were not experiencing any difficulty until the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic came upon us. For some little time after that occurrence we experienced some difficulties. Those difficulties were altogether associated with the fact that an embargo had been placed on livestock which prevented them from going across the United States boundary line. Our livestock and livestock products were therefore not permitted to cross the boundary. For a time we also had great difficulty in finding storage for the meat that was created by the number of animals which were coming on to the market.
We had about 33 per cent more hogs in 1952 than in the same period in 1951. Even if we had not had the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic, it is obvious that we would have had to seek markets other than those we had a year ago for hogs. The Canadian market would not have taken all of the hogs that came to market during the first three months of 1952.
The market we had counted upon was in the United States. We figured that we would be able to market about 50 million pounds of our pork products in that country. This quantity would not have gone to the United States in the form of live hogs because of the higher prices in Canada; at least not much

of it would have done so, if any. It would probably have gone in the form of cuts of pork. In the early part of the year the price for live hogs in Canada was higher than it was in the United States; but there were certain cuts of pork which could be sold in the United States at a higher level than that at which they could be sold in Canada. The reason for that is obvious. Their market is much greater than ours, and there is the possibility of selling foods of certain qualities at prices which are higher than those for which the same qualities of foods can be sold here. Whereas the whole hog would not bring as much money in the United States, there were parts of it which would bring more. We had a possible market in the United States for some 50 million pounds of those pork cuts. That market was, of course, shut off when the foot-and-mouth epidemic came upon us. That amount was all thrown back into our own market.
We have experienced more difficulty with that part of our surplus meat than with any other; and the dealing with it has been rather costly in the sense that we have had to put it in cans at costs which brought the price of the product to a figure which we cannot obtain in any part of the world that we know of. While we can sell some of it in the United States, we cannot sell it at a price representing the cost to us.
Time after time the statement has been made that this pork which has gone into cans has cost us about 64 cents a pound. I think the exact cost was 63-8 cents; and recently that figure has been reduced to 61-8 cents, which is about 2 cents lower. The costs are still going down slightly. But there is no place we know of where we can sell the commodity at that price. I am quite sure none of it can be sold in Canada at that price. I am also quite sure it cannot be sold at a price even approaching that figure in the United States. Nevertheless we have made up our minds that the commodity must be sold, and that the government will take some loss in connection with its sale. It is our intention and our hope to be able to put that commodity on the market either here or in the United States at ? fairly early date; and we will be putting forth an effort to put as much of it on that market as possible.
As to beef, in the beginning our difficulty was in getting rid of 'it at all. We had something in the neighbourhood of 400,000 head of cattle which might have come on the market in the twelve months of this year, to be sold somewhere outside Canada. Some of it had gone before the foot-and-mouth disease came upon us, but there would be at least 250,000 head of beef cattle to be sold

outside Canada during the remainder of this year after the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. We at once put forth an effort to find a place to put that meat. As has already been announced to the house, we finally found a market for it in Great Britain, through arrangements which we made with New Zealand and the United States. That meat is now going forward to that market. My information is that up to the present we have taken delivery of about 30 million pounds to be delivered under that arrangement, and that about half of it or a little better has already gone forward. The remainder is in position to be shipped from day to day to the British market.
This has resulted in the market pretty well adjusting itself to I think as favourable a position as any of us had any right to hope for, say a month or two months ago. During the last few days the market has been from a cent to two cents lower than it was when the foot-and-mouth epidemic came upon us. I repeat that that is a more fortunate position from the point of view of the producer than most of us anticipated at the time that situation developed.
The meat is moving out and the amount left on the market is not giving any serious trouble. I want to express the appreciation of those who have been attempting to meet a rather difficult situation to those who have been holding their cattle off the market. During the early stages at least 25 per cent of the cattle which usually come on the market were held off. That made it easier for those who were handling the problem while negotiating the contract which was eventually entered into with the British through contacts made with New Zealand and the United States.
We were asked at the beginning of the experience to place a floor price under cattle, and we did place a floor price of 25 cents under good steers basis Montreal and Toronto. It was suggested at the time that we should have set a price of 28i cents for choice steers, but we chose to set a floor price of 25 cents for good steers. I think I am correct in saying that a check of the market today will indicate that the price for choice steers is almost if not quite at the level that was asked for a month or a month and a half ago as a floor price.
I submit that it is better for everyone concerned that the difference between 25 cents for good steers and 28 or 29 cents which has been offered on the market in the last few years for choice steers should have resulted from activities on the market rather than from the government having
Supply-Agriculture
said, "Well, that is the price that is going to be assured; that is the price everyone is going to obtain." In any case we considered it better to have the price set, as we have set all floor prices that have been arranged, as a saviour against loss rather than as an incentive price which might bring about greater production of the commodity. So in setting it at 25 cents we put it on a basis for the time being which we considered would safeguard those who required to market their animals and make it possible at the same time to bring about a better price level if the marketing conditions warranted. I am pleased to note that the marketing conditions have warranted it, and the situation is going along much better than we anticipated it would at the time.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more at this time. As we go through the estimates and consider the different items I shall attempt to answer any questions which may be asked and give fuller information, both with regard to the matters I have been discussing and any others that may be brought up. In the meantime I ask the committee to consider these different items.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the minister when he says it is rather unusual to have the estimates of the Department of Agriculture presented at this time in the session. Ever since I have been here these estimates have been the first introduced in the committee, or nearly the first. It does seem strange to have them introduced in what we hope are the dying days of this session.
The minister pointed out that the total vote this year for his department was $60,156,475 as compared with $67,541,913 in 1951, but he pointed out also that there were supplementary estimates of some $14 million, which would bring up the total.
The minister dealt at considerable length with surpluses and gave figures as to what had been exported from this country in the way of agricultural products. Then he referred to the sale of meat in this country as the result of the foot-and-mouth disease. I notice in this afternoon's press a report of a speech made by the minister to the agricultural institute at their annual meeting, where he stated that the western cattle plague had cost Canada $20 million so far. I do not know just how the minister arrives at that figure. There was a press release some weeks ago by the dominion bureau of statistics which stated that the cattle producers of Canada had lost $39 million in the three months following the United States embargo. There seems to be quite a difference in the two figures.

S upp ly-A griculture
I presume it would be in order to make some reference to the report of the standing committee on agriculture which dealt with the foot-and-mouth disease, because reference was made to it by the Minister of Agriculture. The report has been tabled in the house, although it does not appear in print. We held many meetings and I think it would be in order for me to refer to the report adopted by that committee. The third report reads as follows:
On April 29 your committee was instructed to inquire into and report on the subject of the prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease in the province of Saskatchewan and its attendant ramifications. Since that date, your committee has held 17 meetings and has heard the testimony of the deputy minister of agriculture, the veterinary director general and other senior officers of the department, stationed both in Ottawa and in Regina, regarding the circumstances surrounding the outbreak and spread of the disease and the measures now being employed to bring it under control.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not sure that it is in order to discuss the activities of the committee, and I should like to have a ruling from the chair on that.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Has the report been tabled in the house?


James Arthur Ross: It was tabled.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the report has been tabled and it deals with agricultural matters, I think it would be in order to discuss it. I understood the minister made passing reference to it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not make reference to the report, I made reference to the fact that we had foot-and-mouth disease in Canada. I did not discuss the report at all.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the report has been tabled it would be in order.


James Arthur Ross: The report has been tabled and it deals with the administration of the Department of Agriculture. It continues:
Having considered the correspondence and records submitted together with the evidence adduced, your committee is of the opinion that the officials of the health of animals division, Department of Agriculture, followed the well defined plans laid down through long experience gained working in cooperation with their counterparts in the United States bureau of animal industry to diagnose and combat stomatitis and foot-and-mouth disease. As a result of this action, foot-and-mouth disease in Canada is definitely under control and appears to have been eradicated.
Your committee recognizes that it was and is most important that practices in Canada be similar to those in the United States so that Canadian livestock and other agricultural products may be permitted to re-enter the United States market at the earliest possible date, and commends the officials of the livestock branch. Department of Agriculture, for having adhered to those practices both with regard to diagnosing and combating the disease.
Your committee recommends continued and extensive research into all methods of diagnosis and control of animal contagious diseases in Canada.

A copy of the minutes of proceedings and evidence in relation thereto is appended.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
During the discussion an amendment was moved by the hon. member for Brant as follows:
Your committee is of the opinion that the evidence available to it discloses that there has been laxity and gross negligence with respect to the carrying out of the responsibilities of the office of the veterinary director general of Canada.
That the failure of the Minister of Agriculture to assure competent performance of duty by those responsible to him has cost the Canadian fanner a serious loss in export and domestic markets.
Your committee regrets the fact that the taking of evidence was restricted to federal government employees only and feels that the scope of the inquiry should have included independent witnesses from the area of foot-and-mouth infection.
Your committee strongly recommends the urgent need in the Department of Agriculture for greater co-operation between, and utilization of, facilities at its disposal for the diagnosis of animal diseases, and as evidence of the benefits to be derived by such co-operation would cite the excellent work accomplished since February 16, 1952, to eradicate this serious threat to the Canadian livestock industry.
I would point out that there was very little difference among members of the committee as to the manner in which this problem had been handled by the officials of the health of animals branch after February 18, but there was considerable difference of opinion as to how it had been handled from the first outbreak at the end of November and early December. Then many members of the committee were dissatisfied over the fact that we were not allowed to call independent witnesses who had first dealt with this outbreak, more particularly private veterinarians and certain R.C.M.P. officials.
Dr. Christie was before the committee on the last day, and although he had been in town several days we were allowed to question him for only two hours. The result was that many members did not have any opportunity to question Dr. Christie. It had also been agreed that certain other witnesses would be recalled, but that was not done. In my opinion there was considerable confusion as a result of the evidence we heard. A difference of opinion was expressed by certain veterinarians of the department, and in my opinion the investigation carried on by this committee was most unsatisfactory.
It was not a thorough investigation. As I say, several of the members desired to ask further questions of Dr. Christie but were not allowed to do so. It was my desire and the desire of other members that other witnesses should be recalled for further examination. Much of the evidence up to our last meeting could not be proved or disproved. There was a difference of opinion about there being gross negligence on the

part of the Department of Agriculture and the department of immigration.
It is only speculation, but it is thought that this disease was brought in from infected areas in Europe by an immigrant coming to this country. True enough this immigrant was brought to Hull once the disease was diagnosed and his clothing was tested, but that investigation did not prove or disprove anything at that date. This chap had been working on a farm in Germany where the entire herd was infected with foot-and-mouth disease. He then came to the Waas farm near Regina where the outbreak first occurred. There is a certain amount of circumstantial evidence as to where the disease came from. But as I say the investigation by the committee was such that many facts could not be proved or disproved.
No regulations were enforced to check immigrants from Mexico or other countries where this disease is so prevalent. I learned from questioning one of the veterinaries that since that date regulations have been put into force whereby immigrants coming to this country are now thoroughly checked, disinfected and so on to prevent the carriage of this dreaded virus into this country.
Much evidence was given as to what happened during December, January and past the middle of February. In my opinion there was carelessness on the part of the field supervisor in not issuing instructions and having them carried out during the months of December, January and the early part of February when new outbreaks of this dreaded disease occurred. Probably there is not much use crying over spilt milk, and no doubt it is only speculation to attempt to estimate what that carelessness during those three months has cost the cattle producers of this country.
True enough it is said that probably we were better off by the embargo riot being imposed earlier, but in my opinion the quicker this situation is cleared up the earlier the embargo will be lifted. Not even the minister can tell us when this embargo will be lifted. Under United States regulations a period of 60 days must elapse after the infestation is cleared up. Following our experience with the United States in past years, I believe there will be some trouble in having this embargo lifted before the 60 day period has elapsed.
It is certainly most important to the people of this country. Not only does it affect the western livestock producer; the cattle producers of the maritimes and eastern Canada have lost a wonderful market for their dairy cattle.
Supply-Agriculture
Probably there should have been a motion to debate this report, but I repeat that a discussion of the report is in order under this administration item. There are many people in this country who are desirous of getting information on this foot-and-mouth disease and as to how the virus might have got into the country. That is why I have made these remarks at this time.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
James Arthur Ross: Before the dinner recess I had been dealing with the report tabled in the house with respect to the investigation of foot-and-mouth disease in Saskatchewan. While I have read the report tabled and have also read the proposed amendment, to make the situation clear I think I should state that the amendment was defeated in the standing committee on agriculture by a vote of 21 to 12, if my memory is correct as to the figures. The report tabled did not mention the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Brant -Wentworth at all. In my opinion the report simply whitewashed the whole inquiry into the foot-and-mouth disease.
I should like the minister to clarify certain details with regard to the floor prices on beef and pork of which he spoke. In particular he referred to pork costing approximately 64 cents a pound in the can. The top price paid at Toronto this morning for grade A hogs was 26 cents, and I think the floor price is somewhere in that neighbourhood. I understood it was announced that the floor price would apply to A and B hogs. We had some discussion with the Minister of Trade and Commerce in which he assured us the floor price applied on all hogs, dressed sows, heavy hogs and all those grades. If that is right I should like the minister to tell us what those prices are.
With respect to the floor prices on cattle, I realize that they apply to choice steers and all cows including fat cows and heifers, but I should also like to know whether that policy is carried through with regard to other grades of cattle. Is there a floor price on veal calves and lighter cattle? I think it would be beneficial to the producers at large if the minister would put on record the entire scale of floor prices as they apply to both hogs and live cattle at the present time, and explain how it is handled.


James Garfield Gardiner: I might answer those points. The floor price has been on A and B hogs until this week. I am not certain whether or not it is applicable on the others yet, but
3796

Supply-Agriculture
instructions have been issued to have similar control exercised with respect to other hogs.


James Arthur Ross: Would the minister say what grades are required for the canning of pork? Does that include hogs of any grade or only the top grades; because the quoted price today for dressed sows at Toronto was 16 cents while the price for A hogs was 26 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not expected sow meat will be put in cans.


James Arthur Ross: Or heavy hogs?


James Garfield Gardiner: Or heavy hogs, either; that is, not what is usually graded a heavy hog, that brings a lower price. There will be some hogs that are heavier than the usual A's such as were delivered during the period when we were encouraging the production of heavier hogs.


James Arthur Ross: Is there any guarantee on other grades of cattle such as choice steers, fat cows and fat heifers?


James Garfield Gardiner: The floor price of 25 cents is on good steers but there are comparable prices set for the different grades of beef that we buy which are related to the price of the cattle.


James Arthur Ross: Does that apply to veal calves?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not to veal calves, but to other cattle.


James Arthur Ross: They must be of a certain weight.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mr. Wright:: The minister gave us what I thought was a rather optimistic report of marketing conditions in Canada during 1951. He indicated we had been able to market all our major products at what he considered to be satisfactory prices, and that we only got into difficulties this year because of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I cannot agree with the minister, and I know there are many producers in the area I represent who found they were in considerable difficulty last year when the price of hogs dropped by approximately 30 to 33 J per cent between July and September, leaving many producers in a rather serious position.
I have in my hands the Statistical Review of April, 1952. It indicates that between the months of January and July of 1951 the price of animal products in Canada dropped by 61-6 points. That was before the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, and that drop created a serious position so far as the producers of animal products were concerned.
(Mr. Gardiner.)	_
Pork was the major product that dropped during that period, but other products also dropped. If the costs of the farmer had fallen in anything like the same manner it would not be so bad, but on page 22 of the Statistical Review there is a reference to living costs in Canada and it indicates that the index of farm living costs, which stood at 99-5 in 1939, had risen to 198-6 by January of 1951 and in January of 1952 stood at 215-8, an increase of 18-7 points.


James Arthur Ross: An all-time high.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is an all-time high as far as farm costs are concerned. In my opinion many farm costs are entirely too high, and I think the government has to assume some responsibility for that situation. In 1947, for instance, when the government was disposing of certain war assets, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture made representations to the government that they should retain one of the fertilizer plants built by the government during the war. We had some assurance from the then minister of reconstruction that one of those plants would be retained. However, they were both sold. At that time the figure we were given in the house as to the cost of production of fertilizer in the Calgary plant was $19 a ton. Today that same fertilizer is selling in western Canada at $106 a ton. I think that is entirely beyond reason, and if the minister wants to do a service to agriculture he should confer with the Minister of Justice and have the combines investigation people make some inquiry into why the farmers of this country have to pay the price they are paying for fertilizer today. I think it is entirely too high. I do not believe there is any reason for it being sold at that price, and I think it is essential that we have cheaper fertilizers in Canada, cheaper than we have had them up to the present time.
The minister has indicated that while we have large grain production our production of dairy products and of livestock in some cases has dropped seriously. I am sure that is not good as far as the agricultural industry in this country is concerned. If we are to have prosperous agriculture there has to be some greater production of the products which return something to the soil. One has only to look in eastern Canada at Ontario, Quebec, the maritimes, and see the number of abandoned farms, that fifty years ago supported families, raised families and educated families. Today they are abandoned and the same thing is occurring on a lesser scale in western Canada.
There again we find the policies followed by the government leading to the restriction of the products which would eventually

build up soil fertility and make for a more prosperous agriculture. I do not think it is good and I believe it is largely the result of the policy followed by the Minister of Agriculture over the last few years in failing to place reasonable floor prices under agricultural products. Not only has he failed to place these floor prices under agricultural products, decent prices from year to year; he has also failed to lay out any long term agricultural program as far as Canada is concerned. He has indicated that our market has been satisfactory. Well, I am saying to him that our market is not satisfactory at the present time.
If we are to have our maximum production of dairy products, of pork, of apples and of cheese, we must have a market for those products other than just our own Canadian market. The only other market I know of is the market in Great Britain. We have had no indication from the minister as to the permanent steps he or the government propose to take to get this market back and to keep it for us. We had a market there during the war. It was not expected by any of us that we could retain the complete market in Great Britain, but I do not think there was a farmer or anyone else in agriculture in this country who felt in 1945 that in two or three years we would have completely lost our market in Great Britain for dairy products, cheese, and apples. I would suggest to the minister that he give some indication to the house and the country of the permanent policy the government is going to follow to win back that market.
I had not intended to say anything regarding the matter of foot-and-mouth disease, but it has been raised and I think I should put on the record something I said at the last meeting of the standing committee, because no record was kept of that meeting. It has to do with the reputation of one of the veterinarians in western Canada who I suggested should be called before that committee. I feel that the Minister of Agriculture in his evidence or in questions and answers before the committee certainly did no good to the reputation of that particular veterinarian. I believe that man should have been given an opportunity to appear before the committee to answer some of the insinuations, if not charges, that were made against him. Dr. Hewitt has been a member of the veterinarian association in the province of Saskatchewan for a great many years. For ten years, since 1940, he has acted on the executive of that association. For two years he was secretary and for two years he was president; and certainly a man does not attain that position while his reputation is 55704-240J
Supply-Agriculture
such that he should not be called as a witness before any inquiry we may have here. If the minister will-


James Garfield Gardiner: On a question of privilege-


Percy Ellis Wright: If the minister will wait he can answer all the questions he likes.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The Minister of Agriculture is raising a question of privilege.


James Garfield Gardiner: At no time during the sittings of the committee did I say anything that was at all detrimental to Dr. Hewitt. Appearing in the Regina Leader-Post which came to hand this evening there is a full statement of what I did say. I think Dr. Hewitt fully understands what I said. Any misrepresentations which were put in the press by my hon. friend and some others is not getting anywhere in relation to Dr. Hewitt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Chairman, I would ask for the withdrawal of the statement regarding misrepresentations-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Percy Ellis Wright: I want the minister to prove that I put any misrepresentations in the press.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are just proceeding to do so now.


Percy Ellis Wright: I placed no comment in the press whatsoever except a letter written by Dr. Hewitt to myself and, Mr. Chairman, I ask for the withdrawal-


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not withdrawing. My hon. friend is just proceeding now to give the press some more of it.


Percy Ellis Wright: Just a moment.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I have listened to the remarks by the hon. member for Melfort and to the question of privilege as stated by the right hon. Minister of Agriculture. I do not think the Minister of Agriculture should say that the member for Melfort has communicated to the press certain misrepresentations which were published about whatever transpired in the committee on agriculture and colonization. Even if in the opinion of the minister the member for Melfort is proceeding to do that, I do not think the member for Melfort should be accused of something which he has now on his honour declared that he has not done. I would ask the minister to reconsider his stand on the matter.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, of course I will stand by your ruling whatever it is and if you rule that I should withdraw anything I have said, I withdraw it; but I would like

Supply-Agriculture
to know what it is you are asking me to withdraw. I have stated that the hon. member for Melfort is responsible for some of the reports going into the press in western Canada which might give the impression to Dr. Hewitt that I had taken a certain attitude with regard to him in the committee. All I am stating is that at no time I took any attitude against Dr. Hewitt in the committee, and the records of the committee will demonstrate that.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am quite prepared to stand by the committee proceedings. I think any unprejudiced person reading those reports will come to the same conclusion that I came to. Now that the minister has raised the matter I want to say, with regard to the proceedings in the committee, that in my opinion a very fine whitewash job was done or attempted by that committee in the investigation of what took place in the first two and a half months of the outbreak in western Canada. I think any fair-minded person reading the proceedings of the committee will agree with me.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would suggest that the hon. member read the editorial which appears in tonight's edition of the opposition press.


Percy Ellis Wright: We read many editorials in the papers, and I refer the minister to an editorial from the Saskatoon Star-Phcenix which bears out what I am now saying- if he wants editorials. I do not happen to have it with me but if he will just look over the editorial in the Star-Phoenix, which is by no means a C.C.F. paper, he will see they advised the minister that he should call before the committee Dr. Hunter, a young veterinarian from the province of Saskatchewan, so he could express his opinion on what took place in Regina during December. I do not think the minister has anything to be proud of in what he himself contributed to the committee or in what the government members on the committee contributed to the committee's investigation.
I do not intend to take up much more time of the committee. There were some questions I wanted to ask the minister, but I think part of them are covered by the questions which were asked by the hon. member for Souris. I should like to know how much pork and pork products are presently in the possession of the agricultural prices support board and what other farm products are presently in their possession, which they have bought under the floor price legislation or under any other legislation or orders in council. I should lilre also to ask the minister if he will give some further consideration to lowering the weight that

applies to the floor price for beef. I believe it is presently set at 500 pounds. I had several people come to me while I was in the west recently, showing me the returns they had received from baby beef. One man in particular had been approached by one of the shippers who was going to send a carload of beef to the Edmonton market. It was just after the floor price legislation had come into effect, and he was assured that the Edmonton market would absorb the shipment at a fair price.
This man shipped four baby beef to that market, and his net return was something in the neighbourhood of $337 after the freight and other expenses had been paid. He assured me that the year before he had shipped four animals of the same weight and quality and had received a return of something better than $1,000. That certainly does not represent a satisfactory marketing situation. I am told, and I believe from the reading of press reports, that the spreads between the various grades of beef and pork under the floor price legislation presently in effect are not working out to the advantage of many producers in this country. There is too great a spread between the grades under which the government has floor prices and some of the lower grades.
It is all right for the minister to say that no farmer should ship an animal until it reaches a certain weight, or that he should raise an animal which will make a certain grade. Unfortunately many of our farmers have not the right type of stock. While these spreads may be an incentive towards obtaining better stock, nevertheless there are some farmers in serious economic difficulties because of the failure of the government to establish reasonable spreads in the floor price legislation, and to see that the packers and others who are buying these products pay the farmers reasonable prices for the lower grades.


James Garfield Gardiner: In answer to the first question concerning pork holdings, I may say that surplus pork in various forms, arising out of increased hog runs this year and the United States embargo, may be summarized as follows: storage stocks, 30,339,000 pounds; Wiltshire sides, 15,255,000 pounds; canned pork, 35,714,000 pounds. Of that quantity, the Wiltshire sides and the canned pork are held by the government, that is about 50 million pounds or about the quantity which I stated this afternoon would otherwise have been sold in the United States.


Mr. Quelch:: I was very interested in the speech the minister made before the recess, especially his reference to the fact that in

1951 we had been able to market our farm products at fairly satisfactory prices. I am wondering what the prospect is for the immediate future, because I recall that when the minister spoke before the food and agriculture organization he stressed the fact that we had quite large supplies of feed grain on hand and we were, therefore, in a position to expand our production of livestock. On the other hand the minister did not think the farmers would be likely to expand the production of livestock unless they had greater assurance with regard to markets for that increased production.
Then when the minister spoke before the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in reply to certain questions he pointed out that Britain lacked the dollars to buy our pork, cheese and eggs, and therefore he was not going to ask any farmer to expand his production of those products. There is no doubt that we could expand our production of livestock, cheese and various other commodities. There is no doubt that there is a very real need for that increased production in the world today. We have been told time and again by the officials of the FAO and other bodies about the urgent need for food. We have been told by the Secretary of State for External Affairs about the need for food. It is not very satisfactory, therefore, for us to have to say to our farmers that we are not going to ask them to expand production of food because if they do there may not be a market for it.
It is not good enough to say that we can market the food we are producing. The question is, can we expand our production so as to produce all the food we can, and if we do will there be a market for it? I saw an article in the Albertan which stated that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture had asked for a food plan which would make it possible to get the surplus to the needy nations. Reference was made to the fact that the international commodity clearing house idea had collapsed as a result of many nations not being prepared to support it. The federation also requested that some kind of board be set up to assure that if we expand production in this country there will be a market for our products.
What I should like to ask the minister is whether or not anything is now being done to set up the mechanism by which increased production of livestock could be marketed. I realize, of course, that the foot-and-mouth disease, for the time being, has made the problem more difficult, but the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, to which I referred, was made before the out-
Supply-Agriculture
break of foot-and-mouth disease. Evidently, therefore, at that time-that is at the end of last year-he foresaw difficulty in marketing our farm produce. I can believe that this is not really a problem for the Minister of Agriculture. His main problem is to get production. The problem of marketing surpluses, I presume, rests with the Department of Trade and Commerce and more especially with the Minister of Finance, because the whole question of marketing our surpluses of farm produce is largely a monetary problem.
I do not doubt for one minute that if the Minister of Finance were to find ways and means of financing the sale of farm products to other countries, the Minister of Agriculture would be very pleased to see that that expanded production took place. I am wondering whether or not the Minister of Agriculture has received any assurance from his colleagues that if he tries to step up production of agricultural products in this country there will be a market for them.


James Garfield Gardiner: In answer to what has just been said, I might say that the hon. member has not gone back far enough in order to find the beginning of the suggestion that we should not produce in Canada all that we could produce of certain commodities. I think I might say that does not apply to agricultural products alone but to some other things as well. It will be recalled that in this country we were producing at our peak in 1943 and 1944. I do not need to go over the quantities; they have been mentioned in this house so often one does not need to repeat them. Production was at the peak at that time.
The British took the trouble to send a man over here to tell us what was in store for us in the future. He went right across this country and appeared at every farm organization meeting that was held. I appeared with him in Regina and listened to what he had to say. He told us definitely that we would not be able to sell the quantity of bacon that we were then selling in Britain once the war was over. He told us the reasons for that. He said that when the war was over Britain was going back to trading bicycles, for example, for certain products in Denmark. He used that as one illustration, and went on to point out that they had made definite agreements following the 1932 conference here in Ottawa concerning what they were to buy from other countries, not only before the war but afterward. We are going along as best we can under that arrangement now. These agreements have been re-established with all the countries in

Supply-Agriculture
the world, from which Britain gets food. She has not established any position with us in relation to food.
What I said this afternoon was that we had no great complaint to make because during part of the time we had been able to sell in the United States all the beef we did produce, and for twice as much as we could get for it in Britain, and we have been able to sell in Canada all of the hogs we have produced. I do not say "all we could have produced". What I say is that we have sold all that we have produced in Canada at a higher price than we could in the United States. It was suggested a moment ago that the problem of marketing farm products is the responsibility of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That statement is not true at all times. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has nothing whatever to do with the marketing of farm products in Canada. That is not trade and commerce.


Victor Quelch: I am talking about marketing externally.


James Garfield Gardiner: All our hogs were marketed in Canada last year.


Victor Quelch: We have a few million pounds in cans right now, have we not?


James Garfield Gardiner: That has all come along within the last two or three months; but up until February this year we were having no difficulty in marketing our hog products. We would not have had any this year had we not had the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. We had in the United States a market for the 50 million pounds that is now either in cans or in Wiltshire sides had we not had the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease; and I am not too sure that we have not a market for it in the United States in spite of the fact that we have had that outbreak.


Victor Quelch: The minister told the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that he would not ask the farmers to increase the production of hogs, cheese or eggs because Britain lacked the dollars with which to buy them. That is the thing I was referring to.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I did not put it quite in that way. What I stated was this; I have stated it over and over again and I will repeat it now. I have said that I would not ask the farmers to produce more of certain products because Britain has said that she has not the dollars with which to buy them.


An hon. Member:: That was good advice.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a little bit different from saying I am convinced that Britain did not have the dollars.


Victor Quelch: Well, the minister took their word for it.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact Britain spent in this country last year $200 million more than she spent the year before. I should like to know why she did not spend some of it on some of these food products we have been talking about, but that is not my affair. In answer to the question that was just asked me as to why we did not do something about it, I should like to know what we can do about it in this country.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Buy more from Britain.


James Garfield Gardiner: We can take care of the situation which exists in Canada, and we do that. We provided conditions under which hogs were marketed in Canada at a better price than could have been obtained for them elsewhere. If we had produced 50 per cent more hogs and had sent them over to Britain and taken the price that we could get for them our farmers would not have obtained as much for the increased number of hogs as they obtained last year for what they did produce. After all, farmers as well as other people have a little bit of common sense. Usually they make up their own minds as to what they are going to do. I do not need to tell them what to do.


Mr. Spence:: Mr. Chairman, as this is my first opportunity to address this honourable chamber, and as it is my privilege to speak in my native tongue, I propose to speak in the French language.
(Translation):
Agriculture being the most important industry in the constituency I have the privilege to represent in this house, I wish, Mr. Chairman, to make a few remarks in connection with the debate which is now taking place on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, whose responsibility it is to find! markets for our farm products, and if need be, to grant subsidies in order to fill the existing gap between the present sale price of these products and the processing or production costs.
We are now faced, in certain districts of the province of Quebec, particularly in my own district, with a rather awkward situation. While the civil and religious authorities encourage my compatriots to settle on farms; while the provincial authorities spend large amounts of money in order to facilitate their establishment in new areas; while those same authorities make considerable efforts to open new districts to colonization and agriculture, it so happens that those who are already

settled on farms, those who derive their livelihood from the soil, have in the past six months been going through a period of very-alarming difficulties. There seems to be no solution in sight without prompt and efficient action on the part of the Department of Agriculture.
I have no intention, Mr. Chairman, of turning this speech into a plea for agriculture. I would nevertheless like to say that this branch of our economic life has always been and always will be our society's basic industry. When agriculture is prosperous, the workers' position in the towns is improved. Other classes are equally better off for it. A large number of industries are dependent upon agriculture. These are processing industries, manufacturing industries for equipment used in agriculture, transport companies and a great many others.
The agricultural industry deserves our particular attention for another reason.
Let us not forget that the agricultural worker is among those whose professions are exceedingly hard and risky. We all know that the agricultural profession does not lead to a quick fortune. It requires solitude, long working hours from the crack of dawn to sunset. It does not afford the pleasures and comfort of the big city; even holidays are denied to the farmer and on Sundays he still has work to do.
In order to succeed, the farmer must call upon the help of his entire family, regardless of age or even sex. The mother herself must do her bit on the farm, besides her household chores. Many a farmer has told me that he would never have mustered enough courage to remain on his farm had it not been for the heroic help of his wife; and yet, in spite of the concerted efforts of the whole family, the farmer's income is uncertain, for he is at the mercy of the weather, rain, drought, frost, hail, as well as of economic conditions.
Mr. Chairman, when members of a social class as important as our farming class willingly accept such sacrifices in order to achieve success the leaders are duty bound, I think, to grant them very special consideration.
I want to point out that during the last war, when the forces of evil represented by the fascist dictatorship were struggling against the forces of light for which we stood, our farmers and dairymen were called upon to sell their products such as cheese, butter, eggs and bacon at prices they considered inadequate. They willingly made the sacrifices known to the hon. members of the house. They readily agreed to them not only because they understood that they were
Supply-Agriculture
sacrificing themselves to a noble cause but because they were confident that the countries which they had helped to save from starvation would, once victory had been won, recognize their indebtedness and continue to buy our agricultural products even if, owing to somewhat different economic conditions, our producers were compelled to sell these products at a slightly higher price.
As a result of production costs today and the closing of foreign markets, our farmers are suffering serious losses in the marketing of their products, ranging from 10 to 25 per cent.
In support of this statement, I would like to read, if I may, a letter I have received recently from a farmers' co-operative of my county. I shall dispense with the congratulations the letter has for me since I presume they would be of no interest to the majority of this house. I quote:
Chambord, May 31, 1952
Mr. Paul Spence,
Member of Parliament for Roberval,
Mistassini, P.Q.
During your electoral campaign, you probably came to realize how very precarious is the marketing situation for our products, and for cheese especially, which is not selling at all. However, la Federee is reported to have succeeded in making a sale this week at 27 cents. This price is still much below production costs in view of the price of farm machinery, feed and labour.
Computations have been made, and at $4 a hundredweight for milk, a farm must be well run if is going to yield its owner 50 cents an hour. Moreover, in our district, where almost the entire production is converted into butter and cheese, the producer gets about $2.25 a hundredweight for milk; which is a starvation wage.
If the government fails to do something to raise the prices of agricultural products, the farmers will not be able to produce at a loss indefinitely; the result will be a shortage of foodstuffs which may produce many other shortages.
I am forwarding you a copy of a letter I sent this very day to the Minister of Agriculture; please read it and intercede on our behalf with the minister.
Yours truly,
Marie Brassard, secretary Co-operative Agricultural Society (S.C.A.) of Chambord-West
I now read the letter to which Miss Brassard has just referred:
Chambord, May 31, 1952.
The Hon. J. G. Gardiner,
Minister of Agriculture,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:
I have been requested by the board of directors of the Chambord West Agricultural Co-operative Society, to inform you that the directors strongly

Supply-Agriculture
support the representations of the Catholic Farmers' Union (UCC) in connection with the decrease in the price of dairy products.
The situation greatly affects farmers of our district, since dairy farming is the basis of the agricultural industry.
The farmers' task is to produce and they are doing their duty, but they will be unable to keep on if they have to produce at a loss. There might be a shortage of foodstuffs then. It is your duty to prevent and avoid such a situation.
Respectfully yours,
Marie Brassard, secretary Chambord West Agricultural Co-operative Society.
Now, at Chambord, in the constituency of Roberval, dairy farmers, who must sell their milk at $4 per cwt. in order to earn a salary of 50 cents an hour, are receiving only $2.25. That means that not only do they not earn any salary at all, but that they are producing at a loss. Other important agricultural organizations have made representations to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).
Thus, on the 1st of June of this year, a Montreal newspaper, La Patrie, published an account of a meeting held at Sherbrooke, from which I want to quote a few excerpts which show clearly the deep feeling of apprehension and dissatisfaction which prevails among our agricultural class in the province of Quebec. I quote:
La Patrie
Sunday. June 1, 1952.
Sherbrooke-Thirteen hundred farmers from the eastern townships gathered in the parochial hall of the Immaculate Conception, have approved the following recommendations which have been forwarded to the federal Minister of Agriculture.
Whereas, out of sixteen billion pounds of milk produced in this country, six and a half billion, or 40 per cent, are made into butter; whereas in the province of Quebec alone butter production is the main source of income for 80,000 farmers out of 125,000, it is therefore resolved that a protest be registered against the Honourable J. G. Gardiner, federal Minister of Agriculture, who, on January 23, 1952, stated that "strictly speaking butter producers are not dairymen".
Whereas imported butter competes against our product and tends to reduce its price; whereas Canadian butter would be in a better position to meet this competition were not imported butter, whose flavour is different, "reprocessed" and mixed in with our own, it is therefore resolved that the government be requested to legislate so that any imported butter be sold unchanged in its original condition, and be so designated.
Whereas the price of cheese and butter affects the price of other dairy products; whereas we have imported 11,800,000 pounds of cheese at a time when it was to be expected that Great Britain would not renew her agreement with Canada; resolved that the federal government be asked to flx a support price of 30 cents per pound.
Whereas the western farmers are granted, under various forms, financial assistance of not less than $100 million by the dominion government, resolved: first, that federal members from eastern Canada be asked to defend our interests with an energy comparable to the energy shown by the western members in defence of their wheat producers; second, that
the Hon. Mr. Gardiner, federal Minister of Agriculture, be asked to show eastern farmers the same consideration as is given western farmers.
Mr. Chairman, the farmers in my province are under the impression that the Minister of Agriculture denies them the same measure of protection he extends to farmers in other parts of the country. They are not opposed, it is to be noted, to the assistance provided to the wheat producers of the western provinces. They only wish to receive the same consideration from government authorities. I support them in their view that part of the taxes they pay in order to cover the cost of administration of this country be returned to them under the form of financial assistance or subsidies when lack of foresight on the part of the leaders of the country is the cause of a crisis in the field of marketing such as the one the farmers are now undergoing.
The farmers in my riding are so dissatisfied that they chose to express their dissatisfaction in no uncertain terms, a few weeks ago. That is why they have sent me here to protest against the neglectful manner in which they are treated by the government. I wish to point out, by way of digression, that I would have obtained a larger majority if I had been faced only with the official candidate because nearly three quarters of the supporters of the independent candidate profess the same feelings as my own supporters.
(Text):


Mr. Casselman:: I would ask the hon. members to keep quiet for a moment.


Frank Exton Lennard: It is getting awfully noisy.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am just translating as he goes along. You fellows don't understand.
(Translation):


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member for Roberval.


Paul Henri Spence: The reason for the situation which prevails in the farming industry is quite evident when we compare our export statistics for the past few years. Thus, our exports of pork reached, in 1944, a total of
717,700,000	pounds but decreased year after year to a mere 31,300,000 pounds last year.
In 1945, we shipped 135,400,000 pounds of cheese. This item of our agricultural production has also decreased considerably. Last year, we sold on foreign markets less than a quarter of what we sold six years ago, namely 30,700,000 pounds.
The dairy farmers fail to understand why the government, under the circumstances, still allows the importation into our country

of foreign cheese. Thus, according to a report produced in this house on the 5th of May last, our imports of cheese for the first three months of this year amounted to more than
5,300,000	pounds.
Dairy farmers and hog breeders of Quebec are clearly under the impression that the government does not take any interest in their problems.
Therefore I believe it is my duty to let the Minister of Agriculture know and to beg him to give as much consideration to their requests as to the representations of wheat producers of the province represented in the house by the minister.
(Text):


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few words to say and suggestions to make to the Minister of Agriculture. We have heard rumours that there is a possibility of losing the great experimental farm here in Ottawa. I would be absolutely opposed to that farm being given up to any housing project. Not only are the people of Ottawa and those who live in the immediate vicinity proud of this farm; it is worthy of the pride of all Canadians. I am sure if the farm were advertised more it would be a great attraction to United States visitors.
Recently we were invited by the Halifax board of trade to visit that city and on that trip I saw the damage that has been caused by the tides. If this condition is allowed to continue over the years many acres of land will be lost. They are trying to protect this land now, but if other means are not adopted it will all be washed into the sea. Cement walls should be erected near the mouths of these washes which have been caused by tidal action so this land may be saved. If a little country like Holland can keep out the sea in order to protect its farmland, we in Canada can do the same thing.
A great deal has been said about the high prices of farm machinery. I submit that a full-scale investigation should be held to see whether these prices are out of line with the prices of farm products. They are certainly out of line with the prices of some farm products. If such an investigation were held and it was found that there was no reason to reduce the prices of farm machinery, our farmers would be satisfied. Certainly at the present time when you go in to have a small repair done on a piece of machinery you find that it runs into many dollars. Many types
Supply-Agriculture
of farm machinery are being sold in the United States at much lower prices than they can be obtained for in Canada.
Reference has been made to the cost of fertilizer. I shall not elaborate on that because we all know how high it is. But I think something should be done about the prices of commercial feeds, such as hog starter, chicken starter, turkey starter, laying mash and calf meal. All these feeds are very high in price. Farmers are getting as low as 18 cents per dozen for eggs, and many of them are wondering whether they should stay in business. I was talking to some folks a week or two ago, and they told me they had sold all their chickens because they were not making money.
There should be a proper floor price under eggs. I was talking to a poultry inspector, and he told me the producers are not getting sufficient benefit from the floor prices. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will dig into this a little more and develop something which will enable these chicken raisers to stay in business.
I am told that our farmers would like to see the floor prices on cattle applied to the lower weights. I understand that with an animal weighing 500 pounds the floor prices do not apply, and that some have been selling calves for as low as 10 or 12 cents a pound. If the floor prices were applied to the lower grades it would help the farming community.
I think the revolving fund should be used to a greater extent. The drain on agricultural labour has been considerable because of recruitment into the armed forces and the young people who are leaving the farm to work in defence industry. The farmers are finding the cost of labour so high they cannot meet it with the prices they are receiving for what they produce. If this revolving fund were used to a greater extent it would help to keep the boys and girls on the farm and thus make possible a greater agricultural production.
Anyone who has not lived on a farm cannot realize how parents are worrying today. I know one farmer with a son about 17 or 18 years of age. That boy does not want to stay on the farm at any price. He claims he can go to the city and get good wages in an industrial plant, along with three weeks' holidays with pay, sick leave, other holidays and no work on Saturdays or Sundays. That is why 20 per cent of the population of Canada are drifting into the cities. This situation must be rectified even though it costs $200 million or $500 million.

Supply-Agriculture
This trend is noticeable all through Canada. If the government will take the necessary steps to correct this situation, not only will the people on the farm be benefited; it will benefit those who live in the cities, because these farm boys and girls are coming to the cities to steal their jobs. Every possible means should be adopted to keep the boys and girls on the farm.


Mr. Fair:: Mr. Chairman, I am going to
take only a few minutes because, as the Minister of Agriculture has said, this department has been discussed on many occasions since the present session started. Certain elections have also provided an opportunity to discuss these matters, even though that discussion did not take place here. Therefore I am not going to take much time tonight. I was glad to hear the minister state at the beginning of his address that A stands for agriculture and that his department is usually discussed first when estimates are under consideration. He should perhaps have gone further and stated that agriculture is our first and basic industry. I think it is now recognized by people all over Canada that without a prosperous agriculture we cannot have a prosperous Canada. It is in the interests of labour, organized and unorganized, to see that agriculture is kept in a prosperous condition. Otherwise they will have difficulty finding markets for the things they produce and without the production of which they cannot have employment.
We have heard many statements over the radio, have seen them in the press and have also heard politicians say that agriculture is in a very prosperous condition at the present time. I am not ready to agree entirely. Figures given us by the bureau of statistics a few months ago show that a little over 20 per cent of the population of Canada live on farms and receive only 9-95 per cent of the national income. In my opinion that is not sufficient compensation for those who work on the land. If farmers go ahead and produce a lot, as they are at all times willing to do, then they find they are cutting each other's throat because of a lack of markets, and the prices of their products go down.
So far as secondary industries are concerned, all they have to do is close their factories for a while, let their stocks go down and create a shortage. If the farmers were to do that by going on strike we would immediately have an outcry against them. A few weeks ago I had a letter from one of my constituents at Dewberry, Alberta. It is
[Mr. Sinnott.l
dated May 17, 1952, and is addressed to myself at the House of Commons. It is written by a storekeeper for one of the farmers in the district. The letter reads:
Mr. Ernest Gamier, farmer, Dewberry, has asked the writer to mail you the attached cheque amount 21 cents with his compliments. It is his wish that you use this cheque in any manner you wish, going even as far as buying the Hon. Mr. Gardiner a cigar or a couple of chocolate bars.
The cheque is endorsed to me, and I have endorsed it and am going to send it to the minister with my compliments as well as those of the farmer at Dewberry who sent it. The letter continues:
This cheque is in payment for a hide shipped to the Honourable Company of Adventurers in Edmonton (HBC here before). The hide brought $1.71 for 38 pounds.
I might say the gross weight of the hide was 43 pounds and there was a dockage of 5 pounds, so the fellow who processed it would not be out anything. The letter goes on to say:
The Canadian Pacific Railway Company (who have also been in the country and -know their way around) got $1.50 out of the deal and the cheque which you hold for 21 cents is the net return less we should say the price of the gunny sack in which it was shipped, plus two or three hours of work skinning and the trip into the railway station to ship the hide. We trust and hope-we will leave this matter to yourself.
In case there should be any doubt about the matter I have the invoice here.


Mr. Wood:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Was that hide a glue?


Robert Fair: It was a green cow hide.


Robert James Wood: Was it a glue? Was it becoming ripe?


Robert Fair: It was not graded. It was simply one green hide, 43 less 5, 38 pounds at 4| cents per pound, $1.71.


Robert James Wood: It must have been a glue.


Robert Fair: That amount was less freight of $1.50 leaving a balance of 21 cents that the farmer received, and the word "thanks" is at the bottom of the invoice. I am simply reading this letter tonight so hon. members may have some idea of the return the farmer receives and the returns paid to some other people. The farmers of Canada are prepared at all times to produce immense quantities of various kinds of farm produce, and the world today is in need of all that can be produced. I think it is the government's business to provide markets for those goods. I am not going to say any more now. I may have a little more to say on some of the items, but since I have a date with the redistribution committee I must leave and look after my business there.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Mr. Chairman, it is not very often that I agree with what the hon. member for Springfield says in the house, but tonight I can agree with everything he had to say. I should like to elaborate a little on what he said about eggs. It is true that the price of the feed you have to give hens to make them lay is far too high, and also the price of mash of different kinds; but grade A eggs that were selling a week or two ago for 30 cents a dozen at the farm were retailing to the consumer in the cities at 55 cents. That is almost double the price the farmer got for his eggs. Everybody knows the farmer is entitled to more for producing eggs than the dealer gets for handling them. There is certainly something radically wrong when you look at the difference in price, to say nothing about the cost of feed. I heard the minister say this afternoon-and I wrote it down so I would not forget it-that the beef market was only about 2 cents lower now than before the foot-and-mouth disease appeared in Canada. I do not know how far you would have to stretch your imagination to think that statement was correct.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will put the figures on the record.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Anyone who had beef lost at least 10 cents a pound. I think the price now is perhaps 2 cents higher than it was at the time foot-and-mouth disease appeared in Canada, but I am sure it is at least 8 cents a pound lower than it was then. In addition the floor price that the government put under beef varies by anywhere from one to three cents a pound depending on who suggests what the grade is. There was no definite grade set except "good steers". What I would call a good steer, what the minister would call a good steer and what somebody else would call a good steer could easily result in a variation of two or three cents a pound. I think the floor should have been set in such a way that people would know what the grade meant. If the floor was 25 cents, or no matter what the price was, it should have been stated definitely what the grade was. A good steer is no particular grade. There is a variation having regard to different people's opinions of what a quality steer is.
I hope that when Hansard comes out what the minister had to say will appear as it was heard in the committee. I am not suggesting that the speeches are not reported correctly, but I know that I once went to Hansard to find out some of the things the minister had said that did not appear at all. I know we have the privilege of correcting our grammar and so on, but I do not think we should have the privilege of deleting full sentences from Hansard.
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: On a question of privilege, a little while ago you were after me, Mr. Chairman, for a statement I made. I should like to ask you what you think of this statement.


An hon. Member:: He is right. I have seen it myself.


James Garfield Gardiner: As the hon. member suggests, there are times when words are changed in Hansard, not because they change the meaning at all but simply because they express the meaning more effectively than the words used. That is done by members all over the house and that is as much as I ever do, as Hansard will indicate to you.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: True. I agree with that; but that is not deleting whole sentences out of Hansard which detract from the meaning.


James Garfield Gardiner: Hansard would not delete whole sentences even if I tried.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I am not accusing Hansard of doing that; but I know the minister has been correctly reported by the reporters in the newspapers although in Hansard there were omissions. I hope when this committee report comes through we will have the Hansard as we heard it in the committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no way I can
guarantee that my hon. friend hears what I have said. I notice him over there carrying on a conversation while I am speaking, and I doubt very much if he knows what I am saying half the time. I am not going to guarantee that my remarks are going to appear in Hansard as he thinks he hears them, but I will guarantee that they appear in Hansard as they were said.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I hope so, and that is all I am asking for.
I do not want to repeat what others have said, but I agree with what the member for Souris said this afternoon. I agree with everything he said and I do not intend to repeat it because I think that is a waste of time. I will, however, direct the committee to something that happened during the investigation which I think should be repeated in this house. It is that when Dr. Hall was on the stand most of the questions that were asked of him and the answers that he gave were framed before coming into the committee. I want the minister to deny that if he can.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member is asking me to deny it I just want to say to him that I had not any knowledge of either the wording of the questions before they were asked or the answers that were to be given, none whatsoever. All the

Supply-Agriculture
questions were asked in the committee by a member of the committee and answered by the doctor himself; and I think the insulting remarks made just now were made in the committee at that time. They were properly dealt with there and I think they ought to be deleted from Hansard. That one sentence should certainly be stricken from Hansard.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: It was not an insulting remark and I was not insulting anybody. I was only stating a fact; and the answer the minister gave me in the committee was not an answer at all. I asked whether the questions had been framed beforehand. I asked the minister if he had had a caucus meeting with the Liberal members before they came in.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was about an entirely different matter. It had nothing to do with this.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: No, it wasn't.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it was quite different.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: He said he often had a caucus meeting with the Liberals and he would be glad to have one with the Conservatives, but he did not answer the question at all.


Mr. Mutch:: Did you ask him?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I just wanted that to be on Hansard.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is an entirely different matter.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: With regard to something that was said a while ago about British markets, I can tell the minister there is one way to sell more to Britain and that is by buying more from her. There is no reason in the world why we could not have sold more foodstuffs to Britain if she had had the dollars to buy them. We bought a great deal from other places that could have been bought from Britain, but that was entirely government policy and I think the government will have to take responsibility for it.
I do not think there is much more I want to say at this time.


Mr. Charlton:: Mr. Chairman, I listened quite attentively to what the minister said in his statement this afternoon. He said there had been no troublesome surplus in 1951 or so far in 1952, and that we had no difficulty whatever until the foot-and-mouth disease was diagnosed in this country. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister what he considers the difficulty the cheese producers are having in this country, and which started sometime last fall.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would just like to make this correction to what my friend has just said. He is going to be checking Hansard, and he states that I said there was no troublesome surplus so far this year. I made no such statement at any time.


John Alpheus Charlton: The words used were "so far in '52"-"in '51 and so far in '52", and if that is not so far this year I don't know what it means.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that we had no troublesome surplus in 1952. I outlined the troubles we had with foot-and-mouth disease and the resulting surplus.


John Alpheus Charlton: Cheese was not one of them, and I am asking the minister what he considers the trouble they are having in the cheese industry at the present time. It so happens that last year the minister told the cheese producers that he could only get from Great Britain 28 cents a pound for cheese. Rightly or wrongly the cheese producers themselves consulted with Great Britain and procured a better price than 28 cents. In view of that fact I would take it the minister was a little put out at not being consulted regarding the matter.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was consulted.


John Alpheus Charlton: The Minister of Trade and Commerce stated in this house that a price of 36 cents was charged Great Britain for cheese, but that was absolutely false. It was not 36 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


John Alpheus Charlton: The Minister of Trade and Commerce made the statement in the house that we had charged Great Britain 36 cents for cheese. That was absolutely wrong; the fact is that we did charge Great Britain 32 cents for some cheese. But what does the government do? It permits one large importing company to import cheese from New Zealand and have it laid down in Montreal for 31J cents a pound. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that promotes good relations between Great Britain and ourselves. We charge Great Britain 32 cents for cheese and we allow importation of cheese into this country for less than we charge Great Britain. Is it any wonder Great Britain does not want to buy our cheese today, after such a thing happening?
It is of course a fact that the cheese producers were practically told to get out of the market or else they would not get a floor price. They have accepted a floor price of 24 cents, which is not even near a cost of production price for cheese. The minister knows that. If he wants to destroy the

cheese business in this country-to destroy an industry that has maintained the only good market for our surplus milk products- that is the best way in the world to destroy it, because you will certainly not get much cheese production at 24 cents a pound. I would also like to ask the minister if he has any cheese on hand at the present moment in government stores.
The hon. member for Souris this afternoon brought up the question of foot-and-mouth disease. I hope I do not repeat too much of what the member stated but I think I should say something. I want to make it quite clear that none of us in this party has ever, at any time, criticized anything that has taken place since the diagnosis of foot-and-mouth disease was made public; never at any time. As a matter of fact I have nothing but commendation for those men in the field who have made a marvellous job after a very bad start, because they did do a good job of getting the disease cleared up. I want that made quite clear; that commendation of those men should be made at this time for that very good job. We have been accused in the committee, by the minister and others on the opposite side of the house, of playing politics with this very important matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Alpheus Charlton: I just want to say this, Mr. Chairman. If putting the facts before the taxpayers of this country is playing politics, I am going to be playing politics as long as I sit in this House of Commons. Certainly that is all this party has ever tried to do, to place the facts before the public and let them know just what did happen.
This afternoon the hon. member for Souris read the report of this committee. I intend to repeat only that part of it which is so important. It is the second paragraph, and reads as follows:
Having considered the correspondence and records submitted together with the evidence adduced, your committee is of the opinion that the officials of the health of animals division. Department of Agriculture, followed the well defined plans laid down through long experience gained working in cooperation with their counterparts in the United States bureau of animal industry to diagnose and combat stomatitis and foot-and-mouth disease.
In the first place, Mr. Chairman, it has never been proven that stomatitis did exist. Of course, on the other hand, it has never been proven that it did not exist; I must be lair. But why did stomatitis have to appear in that report? It was to cover up. It is stated in the report that the department followed the well-defined plans laid down through
Supply-Agriculture
long experience gained working in co-operation with their counterparts in the United States bureau of animal industry. I have here the 1942 year book on agriculture, "Keeping livestock healthy" put out by the United States department of agriculture. Speaking of foot-and-mouth disease at page 270, it says this; and I want to quote this complete paragraph:
In making a diagnosis the facts just discussed are used to determine which of the three diseases an infected animal has. The procedure is to inoculate swine, cattle, guinea pigs, and horses with material obtained from the sick animal. The diagnosis of foot-and-mouth disease is clear and can be made unhesitatingly if the typical vesicles, preceded by a rise in temperature, developed in all these animals except the horses. When all the injected animals including the horses develop vesicular lesions, the disease would be diagnosed as vesicular stomatitis. When lesions are produced in swine, less frequently and to a milder degree in horses, and not at all in cattle or guinea pigs, the condition is typical of vesicular exanthema of swine.
In view of the statement in the report that they had followed the well-defined plans as set out by the United States bureau of animal industry, and in view of the completely contradictory statement in this book which is sent out by the United States department of agriculture, I believe the report contains a misstatement of fact. In view of that, I certainly cannot agree with it.
As I mentioned before, I do not know why stomatitis was written into that report, other than to cover up, because some of the top officials insisted-I say "insisted" advisedly -that it was stomatitis. We had considerable evidence and a number of statements in the committee that it was important to follow the United States method of diagnosis. I am a good Canadian, Mr. Chairman, and I have so many times heard statements made about how much better the United States is than Canada. In many cases it may be true, but I do say that we have something in Canada that we are very proud of and should brag about. I hate to see it belittled all the time by the Department of Agriculture, and especially by the minister under whose department it comes. I am referring to the animal diseases laboratory in Hull. We have a lab there for the purpose of diagnosing animal diseases as well as human diseases. Why should we not use it? Why should we not be proud of the fact that we have it? On the last page of the last committee report the minister attempted, with one of the committee witnesses, to belittle the Hull laboratory.
Now, the disease was diagnosed in Hull, though the minister says not. It was diagnosed there probably more or less by accident. As I said before it has been the policy of the department, and especially of the minister,

Supply-Agriculture
to try to maintain that the procedure followed was the correct one, regardless of the accuracy of that statement. Later in the committee we found that the officials from Saskatchewan were told at the start by a private veterinarian that this disease could be foot-and-mouth disease. We realize, Mr. Chairman, as much as anyone that it is important not to throw around the term foot-and-mouth disease as if it were nothing at all. We realize the necessity for being a little bit discreet about the use of the term. The minister said something in the committee the other day-fortunately it is not in the record because I would hate to see it there-intimating that it was probably a good thing this disease had not been diagnosed for two and a half months, that we would have lost a great deal more had it been diagnosed at the proper time.
The men working in the field for the health of animals branch have taken a great deal of criticism. The veterinary profession as a whole has taken a great deal of criticism as a result of this foot-and-mouth episode. It is unfortunate that just because of the stubborn attitude of some of the top officials of the department-


Mr. Ferrie:: Is that all you've got?


John Alpheus Charlton: I shall let the hon. member make a speech any time he desires to do so. He made a lot of speeches in the committee, but I never heard him say very much.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: You never did either.


John Alpheus Charlton: In view of the very serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Europe early in the fall and the subsequent outbreak in Great Britain, it is my theory that the Department of Agriculture and the department of immigration should have taken cognizance of the fact and been guarding against the transportation of the disease here by way of immigrants or any other means by which it could be carried. Some people may have the mistaken idea that the disease can only be carried by livestock. Mr. Chairman, that is very wrong. It is not a proven fact, and could not be proven at the time the immigrant Willi Brunt jen was brought to Ottawa, but it is my personal opinion, whatever it may be worth, that there can be no doubt that is how the disease arrived in this country. Seventeen days from the time he was on a farm in Germany infected with that disease, he was on the Waas farm in the Regina area. Strangely enough, he had left the employ of Mr. Waas before the disease was recognized. In the committee reports at page 53 Dr. Childs, the veterinary director general, made a statement that in my estimation is rather peculiar.

I do not want to repeat too much, Mr. Chairman, but I want to bring this one paragraph before you:
We know right well how it would affect international trade and affect the whole national economy.
He is referring to foot-and-mouth disease. To continue:
We know that well. However we did not suspect there would be foot-and-mouth disease up there. It was absolutely preposterous-2,000 miles from anywhere that you would expect it. You would expect it at some of our coasts or at our quarantine stations, but not out there.
I think it is rather too bad the veterinary director general should make that statement, because in this day and age it is not preposterous to find any disease any place to which it can be carried by human beings.
As I have said before, we have not criticized anything that has taken place since the diagnosis was made. What we have criticized-and we feel that the criticism has later proved to be justified-is the lag in diagnosis of the disease. At page 92 of the reports of the committee we find that Mr. Wright apparently made a statement, and then the Minister of Agriculture made a statement of which I want to read just a part:
In this case, if there Is anything at all about it that one can criticize, it is that they did not make a proper diagnosis, a correct diagnosis, earlier. Now, that happens right along, both in the practice of medicine and in veterinary practice; but there might be some reason for criticism there, but if there is any reason for criticism it is just as much the business of the provincial department as it is of the federal.
The minister has admitted that there might be some criticism for lateness or delay in diagnosis. We are therefore together on that point. With regard to the statement that it is just as much the business of the provincial department as it is of the federal department, may I say it is absolutely incorrect. As the minister later admitted, the responsibility with respect to any contagious disease in Canada rests with the federal Department of Agriculture.
Another thing I should like to bring out is the fact that one or two of the witnesses before the committee were so sure it was vesicular stomatitis that they could not see the forest for the trees. At page 205 of the reports of the committee we have Dr. Childs giving evidence in reply to questions by Mr. Cardiff, and we find the following:
Q. Is that not similar to foot-and-mouth disease, very closely related to it? A. It has some similarity,
Q. Well, if you were not absolutely sure, would it not prompt you to take a test and be absolutely sure that you were dealing with a very contagious disease?

Here is Dr. Childs' answer.
A. I was satisfied that we were dealing with simple vesicular stomatitis or we certainly would have gone further, and quicker, with the tests.
Later on at page 267, in giving replies to questions asked by myself, as a matter of fact, Dr. James said this:
Q. And you injected the horses? A. Yes.
Q. So that you would have preferred to have been able to get young horses from premises away from those on which the infection was suspected? A. Yes. Dr. Christie mentioned that at one time; but the unfortunate fact was that we just thought it was stomatitis and not so very important and that was not done.
Then at page 273, in answer to questions by Mr. Wright, Dr. James said:
Q. It would not indicate anything more dangerous, that was not the reason why you inoculated the horses-to determine whether there was anything more dangerous than stomatitis? It was simply to determine whether there was stomatitis or not? A. It is a quite common thing.
Q. In other words, there was no discussion between yourself and Dr. Carlson and Dr. Christie as to the possibility of this being anything dangerous? This was the first field test that would be made? A. No, the idea was we agreed that to satisfy ourselves we would inoculate horses.
Q. To satisfy yourselves? A. That they had stomatitis. We could prove stomatitis by producing a reaction in the horses.
Then again at page 277 we And this in answer to questions by Mr. Harkness:
Q. The thing you wanted to establish by injecting these horses was that it was stomatitis but, if it were not stomatitis it must have been in your mind that it was foot-and-mouth disease? A. No, it was not.
Q. Why inject the horses at all if you were certain it was stomatitis? A. Well, when you are sending an official document down to the head of government you do not want to play around with it. You want to have something to show you know what you are doing-to back up your judgment. To back up my judgment I inoculated the horses with the advice and instructions of my superior officers-not to satisfy myself about foot-and-mouth disease.
Earlier, in answer to a question by Mr. Harkness we find this:
Q. If you were not suspicious why did you inject these horses on December 3? A. To satisfy myself as to the type of virus we had.
Q. Is it true that the only thing an injection on the horses will do is to satisfy you that it is stomatitis or foot-and-mouth disease? A. I was not bothered about foot-and-mouth disease. I wanted to satisfy myself that we had stomatitis.
That is the evidence given by one of the veterinarians who appeared before the committee. Again at page 335 we have this evidence given by the assistant veterinary director general, Dr. Hall, in reply to questions by myself?
Q. And when you speak of a vesicular disease the first thing that comes to your mind is that it might be foot-and-mouth disease, is it not? A. Yes.
Q. Dr. Childs went out there on the 14th and he assured you; how could he be so sure that it was nothing else but stomatitis although he did not say
Supply-Agriculture
it was-of course, you cannot answer that-after he had been out did he state to you any reason for saying he was so sure it was stomatitis? A. I believe that was due to the fact that he had been in the stomatitis outbreak in 1938 and 1939; he had dealt with stomatitis.
Q. He had dealt with stomatitis? A. With stomatitis, more than I ever had.
Q. But he had not been out and seen this? A. He went there.
Q. But he did assure you that it was stomatitis and there was nothing to worry about? A. Nothing to worry about, that is correct.
The next thing I should like to discuss is the sending of samples. There was a great deal of discussion in committee regarding the sending of samples. It has been said on various occasions that it is very dangerous to send these samples from one part of the country to the other. Much more dangerous material is being sent every day from Chalk River. There are diseases that cannot possibly be diagnosed in any other way than by sending samples to Hull. Therefore 1 cannot see any justification for that statement. On page 224 of the report Dr. Carlsqn was being questioned by the hon. member for Lake Centre, and he made answer as follows:
By Mr. Diefenbaker:
Q. Just a few questions in regard to what the doctor says about laboratory tests being the only way in which the matter can be determined.
A. That is the definite way-the only proper way.
Q. The only proper way?
A. Field tests are used but they can kick back on you-at least that is my professional opinion; but I may be wrong.
On page 292 Dr. Mitchell gave evidence before the committee, and at the beginning of his evidence he made this statement in part:
Vesicular diseases are treacherous and the only sensible thing was to get specimens in as soon as possible and because we have a virus unit all the necessary work can be done perfectly safely. Therefore the logical step was to send those specimens in. Dr. Hall agreed with that and four days later the specimens arrived.
On page 414 Dr. Christie, in giving evidence in answer to a question by myself, replied as follows:
Q. Now, Dr. Christie, you said that the department policy with regard to the sending of samples in to the lab at Hull has been against sending any samples since you have been in the department. That is a true statement of what you said, was it not?
A. More particularly since 1945.
Q. More particularly since 1945?
A. Yes.
That in effect meant that since Dr. Childs, who is now the incumbent of the office of veterinary director general, took over a ruling was put into effect that it was dangerous to send the samples in. In giving evidence at page 153 Dr. Childs himself-


James Garfield Gardiner: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that Dr. Christie had said

Supply-Agriculture
something which indicated that this decision had been reached since Dr. Childs became the director general?


John Alpheus Charlton: Since 1945.


James Garfield Gardiner: The decision not to send in samples?


John Alpheus Charlton: Apparently. Does the minister want me to go over that again?


James Garfield Gardiner: Will you let me read what he actually did say-


John Alpheus Charlton: It is to be found on page 414. If you will look at that page you will find it is in the report, and that is all I can say.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read what he said at the top of page 409.


John Alpheus Charlton: I know that Dr. Christie was not in favour of sending samples. I agree with the view that at that point Dr. Christie was not in favour of sending samples, but the fact is that he said-


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says Dr.
Christie gave the reason that the order was made in 1945 for the first time. Here is what Dr. Christie said:
I would like to say here that this rather amazed me, certainly surprised me, for after years of schooling in the danger of forwarding specimens of a virus nature, I did not look very kindly on forwarding specimens but they were the instructions.
He says that years of schooling in the danger of it had brought him to believe that it was not the proper thing to do, and if left to his own volition he would not have done it.


John Alpheus Charlton: I was simply quoting what was on page 414, and the answer was: "more particularly since 1945". I repeated the question to him and his answer was "yes". Those were Dr. Christie's own words. They were not mine.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is Dr. Christie's own opinion.


John Alpheus Charlton: Some statements were made in the committee during the hearings which absolutely astounded a past veterinary director general, because he had been veterinary director general previous to that time, and he himself wrote a bulletin to the effect that that was the way to diagnose the disease. Does the minister think that after writing the bulletin that man would go against his own ruling and have the ruling in the department that it was dangerous to send samples, particularly after instructing officials in the field to do it? I think it is rather unreasonable even to think so, because that past veterinary director general always stuck to the fact that it was important that any vesicular disease should be diagnosed in that way to be sure of the diagnosis.

The minister can say it is dangerous to send samples; he can say anything, as a matter of fact. Unless it is contradicted, nothing else is going to be said, but when he makes statements that are not facts then I consider it my duty to correct them.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not the minister's statement; it is the statement of Dr. Christie who is in charge of the district surrounding Regina.


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes, I know; but the minister has maintained that right through. Of course he would be expected to do so, in view of the fact that his top official had maintained it and had done it in that way; therefore you would expect the minister naturally to protect that official.
Here is the astounding thing. Since the disease has been diagnosed nothing different has happened in the east, nothing at all, as far as the disease is concerned. There have been no outbreaks here, thank goodness. Here is a very strange thing. The hon. member for Acadia on page 153 put a question to Dr. Childs as follows:
Q. Well, it is in the light of that that I cannot understand the order you gave, carried on page 4 (session paper 169-F), dated February 29, which I will read:
Memorandum to district veterinarians:
Supplies and equipment for collecting material for laboratory examination obtained from cattle or other animals suspected of being infected with foot-and-mouth disease are going forward to your office from the animal diseases research institute, Hull, P.Q.
When there is the least suspicion that foot-and-mouth disease may be present samples from the affected animal or animals should be immediately collected and sent forward to the A.D.R.I., Hull, P.Q., by air express or the most rapid method of transport available for laboratory examination.
Why was that change in policy put into effect after the disease was diagnosed? That is the peculiar point. It is all right to try to keep the thing quiet. That is perfectly true; but why is sending a sample across the country in a sealed package in an unbreakable container going to let out the idea that there is foot-and-mouth disease in the country?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member is asking why this, why that, and then repeating over and over again what was said in the committee many times, and what was corrected. He says, "Why worry over the suggestion that there is some danger with it when you can put it in an unbreakable parcel and send it?" That is not the point at all. After you have taken it out of the unbreakable parcel and put it into the animal the animal can spread the disease. That is what is done with the virus after it is brought down here. It is not kept in an unbreakable bottle; it is injected into an animal.


John Alpheus Charlton: Has the minister ever visited the institute at Hull?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: To see how this is done?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: Are you sure?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have heard otherwise.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am often at places when some people do not know I am there.


John Alpheus Charlton: There is not much good going at night when nobody can see you. I have visited that laboratory and in my opinion, if it is worth anything at all to this committee-the minister does not think it is, but somebody else might-there is absolutely no danger through handling animals in the laboratory in Hull. There is a double fence right around the area that no animal could possibly get through or contact another animal at least half a mile distant. How could the disease be carried under those conditions? The animals are kept in an absolutely closed place and every bit of refuse, and the animal itself after the disease is diagnosed, is burned right on the spot. There is absolutely no danger. I would suggest that the minister go there again and have it explained to him. He would not be so fearful. Then to continue the question by the hon. member for Acadia as reported on page 153:
Well, I should have thought by then that you knew for certain that it was foot-and-mouth disease that it would be even more dangerous to send the samples by air, because you had already countermanded the order as it might spread the disease had the samples been broken. Yet when you ascertained it was the foot-and-mouth disease you then gave the order to send samples by air.
A. Yes, once we knew the disease was established we had another problem on hand, in connection with animal inoculation in the field. To do this we would have to go well away from the affected area, secure suitable animals, bring them to some place where we could certainly isolate them and carry on the test. This takes considerable time. In the meantime, a serum has become available for making tests on this material, and we have better equipment.
I do not know whether better equipment was purchased between the time the disease was diagnosed and February 29. The answer continues:
Then we had unbreakable tubes and so on, so in the interest of making, verifying, diagnosis as rapidly as possible and getting infected animals into the ground, we had to give way on that point.
That is the evidence as set out. The hon. member for Regina City seems quite intrigued with all this; he seems to think it funny. If he wants to make a speech following mine I shall be glad to listen
Supply-Agriculture
to him. He made some rather personal statements in the house on previous occasions and I would like-


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I shall renew them at the first opportunity.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is your privilege.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I think I am right.


John Alpheus Charlton: You may think you are; somebody else may think otherwise.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: That is what is worrying you.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is not worrying me one particle.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: The uncharted sea.


John Alpheus Charlton: As I said before, the field tests as carried out were not, as is stated in the committee report, in accordance with the procedure in the United States. Three tests were made previous to February 18; two horses were injected on December 2, one horse was injected on December 12 and one on February 12. Of those four horses, one alone reacted to the test. That in itself should have been sufficient evidence to prove the existence of foot-and-mouth disease. In the case of the one horse which did react, it did not react until five days after the injection was made. I contend that it may not have been the injection that caused the vesicles, it may have been the toothbrush which they used to transfer the material. Almost anything could have happened.
One veterinarian was given the complete responsibility of making the injections and reading the results. I contend that is a dangerous procedure. No matter how good the veterinarian is I do not think he would want to have that responsibility. He would want somebody else along to consult with and to see that the work was done in accordance with the principle that two heads are better than one. However, that was not done. Dr. Childs, in answer to the hon. member for St. John's West, made this answer as reported on page 212:
Q, And if your message to Dr. Carlson had got through in time these specimens would not have come?
A. They would not have come, no. I would have been out there making field tests.
On February 18 the veterinary director general did go to Regina and make field tests according to the United States department of agriculture standards, except that they did not use guinea pigs. That actually was not necessary, he did use young animals from outside the area. Injections were made into two each of young cattle, pigs, and horses in the presence of the veterinary director general.

Supply-Agriculture
The fact is that those tests did not prove anything. The inoculations on February 18 proved to be a flop. That is further evidence to show how difficult it is to get a complete and accurate diagnosis in the field. The field tests made in the presence of the veterinary director general and according to the United States department of agriculture standards proved absolutely nothing.
There is a wire on the record from Dr. Wells asking for permission to run another test in view of the fact that that one was not satisfactory. The minister took up almost one complete page of the record in questioning Dr. Christie in an attempt to prove to us there in the committee and to the country at large that this had been diagnosed before the complete and final diagnosis had been issued from Hull. He spent considerable time directing questions to Dr. Christie in an effort to bring out the evidence he desired. It is quite justifiable in committee to try to bring out the answers that you want. Here are one or two questions by the Minister of Agriculture that I should like to quote. The passage reads as follows:
Q. In other words, you were convinced that the foot-and-mouth disease was there before either the Americans arrived or before this test was made down in Ottawa?
Dr. Christie's answer was, "yes, sir." Then there is the following:


Mr. Argue:: That was after the samples were
sent?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but before they
were tested. And as a matter of fact, the whole diagnosis of the disease was made apart from what the tests tell us.
Is the minister now going to say that the whole method of testing is unnecessary, that they diagnosed the disease without tests, that the disease was diagnosed on the 17th of February when the veterinary director general went out there, before he had heard from the laboratory in Hull and before the inoculations were made on the 18th of February? Is the minister saying that?


James Garfield Gardiner: All I have ever said at any time is that the method of diagnosis followed in connection with this case is the same method that is followed in the United States. I do not say that every veterinarian who took part in any of the activities in connection with it did everything that happens to be in a book, but I say the method that was followed in diagnosing the case was the same method that is followed in the United States in connection with all such epidemics. It was eventually shown to be foot-and-mouth disease, but that does not indicate that anyone made any mistakes. Naturally there are mistakes made by persons in dealing with a situation of that kind; but to say that the
fMr. Charlton.1
mistakes were a matter of negligence on the part of the veterinarians is, I think, a wrong interpretation to put on it. You have asked me what I think about it, and the fact is that the method used is the method which the Americans think is the right method. After all, even if it took a month or a month and a half or two months in order to carry it right through to a conclusion-


John Alpheus Charlton: Three months.


James Garfield Gardiner: -the important thing is it has taken that long in the United States on occasion. In fact it has taken longer on some occasions than it took here. The other important fact is that they now say that everything that was done was the proper thing to do, was done in the proper way, and achieved the results they would have got themselves had they been doing it.


John Alpheus Charlton: Of course the minister can say they say this and they say that or something else, but we have never heard any of the profession from the United States make these statements. The minister tried to stop one of the members of the committee from reading a letter from a veterinarian, and I want to say something about that before I sit down. That was an actual signed letter. The minister would not let it appear on the record, but now he tells us that they say this and they say that.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend objected to a document published by the department in the United States being put in as evidence, which said that very thing.


John Alpheus Charlton: Was that a document or a letter?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was not a letter. It was published by the department in the United States.


John Alpheus Charlton: No one objected. As a matter of fact we asked that it be put on the record, but the minister did not produce it. We asked that the original be produced, but the minister never produced it. We would have liked to have the original. I have quoted from the United States department of agriculture year book.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was lying on the table and was produced, but it was not admitted as evidence. It was objected to as evidence. It was said it was hearsay.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is an absolute falsehood, because no one would object to an official document.


James Garfield Gardiner: If you are going to talk like that you should be more careful.


John Alpheus Charlton: It was a copy of that document which the minister wanted to place on the record of the committee. As I said, I have read from the United States department of agriculture year book.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not want to place anything on the record. One of the witnesses was reading it and he was stopped because it was hearsay evidence. I had nothing to do with it.


Mr. Rowe:: You are putting hearsay on the record now.


John Alpheus Charlton: I think I will let the people who are really interested be the judges of the whole matter. I do not think the judgment of those on the other side of the house is so important. We will let the people who count judge whether or not this thing has been carried on properly. I pointed out the evidence placed before the committee and the minister now states that these methods are followed in the United States. If the minister wants to stick to that in the light of the paragraph I read from the United States department of agriculture year book it is perfectly all right with me. It is not necessary for me to say anything more if the minister sticks to that. As a matter of fact the minister is stuck with the argument that the disease was diagnosed by his officials in the field on February 17 or 18 without further examination and without further clinical inoculations. The inoculation that was done on the 18th proved nothing. That admission is in the committee report, but the minister wants us to believe now that the diagnosis was made in the field and that the diagnosis made in Hull had nothing whatever to do with it.
Dr. Mitchell had advised the officials of his department on February 18, two days after he received the sample, that he was very suspicious that the disease was not vesicular stomatitis. The minister knows that. A wire could have gone to Regina and somebody else could have taken advantage of it; but to say that the disease was diagnosed in the field at Regina on February 18 without any word at all from Hull is utter nonsense. What was the difference between February 12 and February 18?
I want to say something about the private veterinarian whose name has been mentioned on various occasions. It is very unfortunate that the name of a private veterinarian should have been brought into the committee hearings and the reports of its proceedings if he was not to be given a chance to come to Ottawa and clear his own reputation. I want to make that very plain. It is unfortunate. This matter was brought up by the hon. member for Melfort, and the minister said he
S upp ly-A griculture
had not said anything in the committee detrimental to this veterinarian's reputation. I have the committee report here. I expect the minister also has it, and if he wants to follow me he can turn to page 437 of the committee proceedings where he will find the following:


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, on both a point of order and a question of privilege: the hon. member is putting evidence on the record from a witness whom this committee refused to call. I do not think that is proper ... As far as I am concerned, I have no knowledge of it. Respecting the other matter, as to whether he should be called or not, the committee decided not to call him, and I submit that we should not now have a written statement from him put on the record.
It need not have been said in the committee that this witness was not to be called. Why should it be brought up at all if he was not going to be called? That is my attitude. The minister went on to say:
Reasons were given as to why he should not be called.
That very statement implies that there were reasons why he should not be called. I think it is only fair to that practitioner that the reasons should be given and that he be given a chance to clear his own reputation. It was stated later that he had a disagreement with the association. It is in the committee report. It is not private now. It is open to the public so there is nothing wrong in repeating it again. The minister says he did not say anything detrimental to this man's reputation but here the minister states: "He had a disagreement with the association out there, and I understand he was up before the board of the association and they gave him a talking to as they do in most cases." When the minister says he said nothing in the committee that would be detrimental to his reputation, that is not true, Mr. Chairman. I think this man has been done a great injustice, a very great injustice, and I think it should be corrected in some way.
It was also said in the committee that the chairman was supposed to have contacted the veterinary association with which this veterinarian had had this difference of opinion. I asked the chairman on various occasions whether he had done so or not. I asked him at the first meeting between eleven and one o'clock and finally between four and six o'clock, I believe it was, I did get an answer after a considerable amount of probing.


Louis-René Beaudoin: No, I did not.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, that is a question
that can be answered yes or no. Did you consult the veterinary association, and which association did you consult?


Louis-René Beaudoin: No, I did not consult them
directly.


John Alpheus Charlton: You did not consult them directly?


Louis-René Beaudoin: No.

Supply-Agriculture
In other words, Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the committee did not consult the veterinary association at all; yet it went on the record of that committee that he was supposed to have done so, and it was intimated that he had received some information from that association that would make Dr. Hewitt an unreliable witness before the committee.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is another matter I would like to mention. It is that we have had a considerable amount of discussion recently regarding one particular man's accusations against the United States government in relation to germ warfare. It is a subject we do not want to talk about and I realize it is a subject we do not want to think about. We have to face the facts; we have to face realities that concern everyone in this country. I hope there is not, but if there ever is bacteriological warfare in this country, this is the very thing we can expect any day of the week in any part of the country regardless of whether or not it is in a coastal area. Now, for goodness' sake let us make use of those facilities we have. Thank goodness we have them, let us make use of them and not belittle them any more.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is right or proper to let this pass. We have in this country a billion dollar industry, a livestock industry that is one of the greatest in the world. It is an industry that has taken a lot of time, hard work and trouble to get to the position it is in today. In Canada we have 8 million cattle. When you come to consider it, 8 million cattle in this country have to suffer because of the things that have happened in this house during the last three or four months. Three or four members of that committee-one of them more especially, though I do not blame him so much as he is a lawyer and I cannot say he should understand the cattle business

made definite statements, and they knew what harm they were doing to the cattle industry.
Let us take this episode tonight. What has happened? Tomorrow morning or tomorrow at noon the United States press will come out with this story of what has happened here tonight. If a man there is interested in cattle, what will he immediately do? His fears will be aroused at once. He will say: They've still got that disease up in Canada; they are still fighting over it.
Mr. Chairman, I think it has gone beyond all common sense and all reason to think that a member would get up in this house here and discuss this after it has all been talked over in the committee. I am sure if the
hon. member has any cattlemen in his district-and by the way he talks he should have lots of them-those cattlemen will surely show him some time in the near future just what they think about his speech here tonight.


An hon. Member:: He will not be elected again.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: If there is anything that has done harm to the cattle business it has been this long weary talk about what is going on in the Regina district. In thinking about the diagnosis of these cases out in Regina I want to commend the veterinary department. They gathered seven veterinaries together. Those seven veterinaries went out to the Waas farm and looked it all over. Not one said there was foot-and-mouth disease. Those seven men kept track all the way through.
I will agree that hindsight is always better than foresight, and of course the hon member for Brant-Wentworth has had lots of hindsight. But he did not have much foresight, because if he had the foresight and the ability he says he had he would have flown out there and told them it was foot-and-mouth disease. He did not do that, but he started on a political proposition. He started it in the house, and then he started it in the committee. That is what we have had to put up with. The cattle industry in Canada, a real industry and the second largest in Canada, has had to put up with this kind of nonsense.
If you want to look the situation over what do you find? You find that they have had to kill thousands and thousands of cattle in the old country. They slaughter thousands of them, and you do not see one word about it in the press. All you see is that they have slaughtered cattle. They do not have it in committees, they never have arguments in the house, but we have had one or two men in this house trying to condemn our veterinarians who are doing their best. They have done their best; they say they are satisfied that they have cleaned it up; and they have done what they should have done since the 18th of February. Why can't these hon. members say they did a good job before that and help the industry out?
I say to this house and to the people of Canada that I know quite a lot about livestock; and I say the veterinarians did a thorough job all the way through, a thorough job. In the first place they did not let us down by crying "foot-and-mouth disease!" before they were absolutely sure. In the second place they carried on and they left the disease in such a way that they could

handle it. They quarantined all around. They handled it, and they proved that they have handled it. They also proved that they knew their job. I want to say to the member who has just spoken that whether he thinks so or not, and whether he likes it or not, we were very, very fortunate that the disease was in a very weakened condition and that those men did not find it as quickly as they might have found it if it had been stronger. If it had been as strong in the early part of November and December as it was in February they would have found it at first; but let me tell him that we would have still had the cattle we exported at that time. We would have lost the millions and millions of dollars that came from the United States for those cattle. I want to say we should be thankful that it was in that condition. After all, I am sure a lot of the hon. members know that in that part of the country it is the middle of May before the frost goes out of the ground, and quite often it will be June before all the ice goes. It was easy enough to say it was impossible to get that cleaned up. It is only now that they can say they are going at it in order to be sure that it is cleaned right up. They have put stock in there, and they are looking after it. I say in all sincerity and in all seriousness, for the betterment of the livestock industry of Canada, let us forget this thing. Let us leave it to those who know something about it. Let us carry on and help the trade, not hinder it.


John Alpheus Charlton: Will the hon. member permit one question?


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Certainly, go ahead.


John Alpheus Charlton: What did you mean by the remark that you were very thankful that the disease was not diagnosed at the start?


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: I did not say that. I said we should be thankful that it was in such a weak condition that they could not diagnose it.


John Alpheus Charlton: That statement, Mr. Chairman, should never appear in this record. It will do more harm to the lifting of the embargo than any other statement that was ever made.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I did not intend to speak tonight, but having heard the drivel that has been put forward by the hon. member, the pseudo-veterinarian, I could not keep quiet in my seat.


James Arthur Ross: We should have some medical drivel now.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I know you cannot take it.


James Arthur Ross: We shall sit right here and take it.


Mr. Drew:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has a perfect
Supply-*Agriculture
right to carry forward such brief as he sees fit, but he has no right to refer to the remarks of another member of this house as drivel.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I withdraw the remark and say the most serious remarks coming from the Tory party.


George Alexander Drew: Does the hon. member withdraw that remark?


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I withdraw the remark and exchange therefor, "the most serious observations coming from the Tory party". I shall say instead, having listened to the most serious observations coming from the Tory party, from the most skilled of veterinarians.
In the early days of this session there was an agreement that in order that they could remunerate the men whose cattle had suffered from this disease, a bill would be put through in short order. The first one who reneged on that agreement was the hon. member for Lake Centre, and he was followed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar-


Arza Clair Casselman: Order.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I am sorry; the hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar are not in the house. If there are any doubts as to what parties they belong to, I shall correct those. In this election in Saskatchewan, we could not tell which was which. There was an agreement on March 3 that a bill should go through quickly to provide for the remuneration of those farmers whose cattle were suffering from this disease and had to be slaughtered. You will remember that the debate lasted three days, and every effort was made to show how negligent the veterinarians were.
You will remember that at that time-I hate to repeat myself-I told you how difficult it was to diagnose the disease. I think you will all agree today that there are attenuated viruses that cause disease, and it is only after they have passed through a series of animals that they become virulent enough to demonstrate the characteristics of the specific disease so it can be easily diagnosed. It was in that state that we found ourselves in the autumn. My friend the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth at that time read, as he did tonight, from the veterinary books and probably the encyclopedia. I do not know which he was reading from.


John Alpheus Charlton: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I have never quoted from the encyclopedia in this house at any time. Tonight I said-


Emmett Andrew McCusker: The hon. member stood up, and he read-
3S16

Supply-Agriculture


John Alpheus Charlton: I told the hon. member what I was quoting from tonight. Certainly if he had been listening he would have known it was not the encyclopedia but the United States department of agriculture year book. That is the only book I had here.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Had the hon. member been listening, I said he quoted from the encyclopedia or from a veterinary magazine. I mentioned the two. I gave him his choice.


John Alpheus Charlton: It was neither one.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: He quoted that night and read to us at length about the symptoms of the disease. You will remember that I told him it was dangerous to travel uncharted seas; that he was an armchair veterinarian. Those men who were in Saskatchewan were working with the real problem, and on account of the atypical disease they had to study it carefully before they committed themselves.
Some years ago in Saskatchewan we had vesicular stomatitis, and we were cleared of the disease without denying ourselves outside markets and without any embargo. These men thought that this was the disease we had last year in Saskatchewan, and they pursued the same cautious steps to diagnose it. I know my friend is getting advice from the hon. member from St. John's West who knows all about every disease.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Joseph Browne: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not see any reason why the hon. member should make a reference to me.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: You are advising my friend, are you not? Are you not acting in your judicial capacity?


William Joseph Browne: I can have something to say when you are finished.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: We shall let that go by, but my friend at that time got up and he read from-


William Joseph Browne: May I ask
the hon. member a question?


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Sure, you can ask me any question as long as it is an intelligent one.


William Alfred Robinson: I do not think the hon. member for St. John's West raised a proper point of order. If he wishes to ask the member who has the floor a question, he can only do so with the consent of the member.


Some hon. Members:: He gave consent.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Certainly he has it.


William Joseph Browne: Did you
read the report that the Minister of Agriculture had the veterinary department issue in 1937 dealing with vesicular stomatitis, and which was referred to in the committee?


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I have only been in this house a short time, but I have lived in western Canada a long time and I know what has taken place there. I know the difference between a disease affecting humans and one affecting cattle, and I know how difficult it is at times to diagnose them. I do not want to reproach you, as I am so sorry for you, but tonight I am going after this scientific man, the veterinarian.
You will remember that the last time you quoted from a learned report-as to how easily you could diagnose this disease according to learned veterinarians, but the practical ones were out in Saskatchewan at that time, assisted by the veterinarians from the United States, attempting to diagnose and control that disease.
I am going to leave you for a minute, and refer to an hon. member who is not here, the member for Lake Centre, the father of the bill of rights who states that no man should be accused or condemned until he has the right to be heard. He condemned and hanged them in this house without ever giving them a fair trial. One of them was so distraught with that treatment that he committed suicide, harassed as he was by the members of parliament who should have been defending him. All that time you have carried on, knowing that you know nothing practical about the disease. All you know is what you have read. You will remember that I told you: "He who studies patients without books travels an uncharted sea; and he who studies books without patients does not go to sea at all." I told you that. You have never been to sea. I called you a jetty admiral. You never denied it.


An hon. Member:: Address the chair.


William Alfred Robinson: May I ask the hon. member to address the chair.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Certainly I will address the chair. The chair is much more handsome than anyone I have seen over there across the floor. You will remember when I spoke I said our veterinarians had done everything within their power to diagnose that disease as early as they could. I said that our Department of Agriculture did everything in its power to reimburse these people who had suffered losses from that disease. They have done that well. You will remember the hon. member bringing up the danger about the deer spreading the disease. We discussed that matter. I pointed out at that time that

the cattle were in winter feeding lots, that they were not on the pastures and that there was no danger of the deer becoming infected and spreading the disease. I think my observations have been proven correct.
I made another observation then, and 1 think the hon. member from Ontario should take heed of it. I made an observation then, and I am not claiming any great credit for what happened in Saskatchewan at the last election. But I made an observation then that those who were pursuing this foot-and-mouth disease scandal would be wiped out in Saskatchewan. Here is the great Tory party, with the whole of Saskatchewan to draw from for support, and they obtained less than
9,000	votes.


George Harris Hees: How did you do in Ontario? Let us have an answer to that question. How did Walter Thomson do in Ontario?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I may tell you right here tonight, Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Call Thomson from Ontario.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I know you do not like to hear about this.


George Harris Hees: You do not like to hear about Walter Thomson.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: -and you can inform those not-so-handsome gentlemen as yourself that the Liberal party obtained 30,000 more votes in Saskatchewan than they did in the last election. The percentage of improvement was much greater than for the C.C.F.


An hon. Member:: What about the picture with regard to yourself?


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I was not running.


An hon. Member:: Wait until next time.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I am just telling facts. I wish to say that the people of Saskatchewan are fed up with talk of foot-and-mouth disease. The reason I feel free to speak of this matter tonight is that my constituency is surrounded with this foot-and-mouth disease. The Tory members who ran in Saskatchewan lost their deposits and Hamilton saved his by a few hundred votes. That is how popular an issue it is there. We are fed up with this foot-and-mouth disease issue in Saskatchewan, because it affects my constituency and is postponing the day we can ask for the opening of the United States market. I do not know what they are building up here. I do not know what they are trying to do in this house in trying to show
Supply-Agriculture
where the fault lies. Surely it is difficult to diagnose the disease. I have told you why. You get an attenuated virus that takes months to build up to the point where it gives you the full characteristics of a disease, and you will admit that.


John Alpheus Charlton: No, I do not.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Then if you do not, you are not a veterinarian.


John Alpheus Charlton: On a question of privilege,
Mr Chairman, may I say that I never admitted-


Emmett Andrew McCusker: The hon. member may ask all the questions he wishes to ask.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am not asking questions.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member is rising on a question of privilege, as I understand it.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am rising on a question of privilege. I never made the statement that an attenuated virus could not be diagnosed and the hon. member knows very well that is not true. Maybe he thinks I do not know what 1 am talking about.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: So that the matter will be clear, I made the statement that an attenuated virus may be introduced into an animal and it will not produce typical symptoms of the disease. You get an atypical disease that is difficult to diagnose. It is only after the virus has passed through one, two or three animals that it gains sufficient virulence to produce typical disease symptoms easily diagnosed. I say that was the situation in Saskatchewan, and I blame no veterinarians.


John Alpheus Charlton: Did you read the reports?


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Listen! I have done more than read. I have practised. Mr. Chairman, there were two salient features that surrounded the origination of the disease. Those were the facts that surrounded the introduction of the disease into Saskatchewan. Surely Willi Bruntjen came in from Germany or somewhere. But how can you tell whether Willi Bruntjen brought that disease with him or not?


Arza Clair Casselman: Why try?


Emmett Andrew McCusker: You try. You blame the government for this. We have not had foot-and-mouth disease in this country for a hundred years. We would not suspect it. We had the great big protective belt of the United States on one side. On the other side we had the Atlantic ocean. Can you blame our immigration authorities because they were not inspecting every man's clothes for foot-and-mouth disease? There are a

Supply-Agriculture
great many diseases that you can inspect them for. However, Willi Bruntjen came into Regina and he went out to the Waas farm. After he left they found this attenuated disease which they diagnosed as vesicular stomatitis. Had they immediately said, "this is foot-and-mouth disease" and had they quarantined the whole country, and then had it turned out later that it was not foot-and-mouth disease, just consider the economic harm that would have been done to our country.


George Harris Hees: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Emmett Andrew McCusker: No. Sit down.


An hon. Member:: He is afraid to answer a question.


George Harris Hees: He is just like Walter Thomson.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member may not be interrupted without his consent.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I do not mind when I am interrupted by an agriculturist, but the hon. member knows no more about agriculture than he does about military matters.


George Harris Hees: Stand up and answer the question if you have any guts.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


George Harris Hees: He is just like Walter Thomson.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: These men went about their work in Saskatchewan and diagnosed the disease; and when they finally learned that it was foot-and-mouth disease they went [DOT] about their work and did the most marvellous job that has ever been done in any country in clearing it up. That disease has been eradicated. What we want to eradicate today is-


An hon. Member:: The Tories.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: -or what we want to get rid of today is the embargo on our livestock which prevents their going to the United States market. I am asking my hon. friends over on the other side of the chamber how they are helping us-


George Harris Hees: Sit down and you will help the whole thing.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: -in removing the embargo when they are getting up here and saying that our veterinarians, our most skilled people in Canada, have bungled. They know in their hearts that they have not bungled. The only men I have heard raise a voice in opposition to what our veterinarians have done is the armchair veterinarian over there on the other side of the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[Mr. McCusker.l


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Are we to listen to that sort of thing? Are we to allow our markets to be closed? Are our papers to be full of suggestions with regard to bungling when: we have done the best job any country has ever done in eradicating a disease like this?
I had not intended to speak tonight, but this matter affects my constituency. I live in Regina. My constituency was surrounded with this foot-and-mouth disease. I told the critics what would happen to them there, and I am going to tell them that if they pursue this course it will happen to them elsewhere.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Riley:: Are you a judicial veterinarian?


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for St. John's West has the floor.


William Joseph Browne: I am not a
farmer, Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Joseph Browne: -and the
majority of the members in this chamber are not farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Joseph Browne: And the hon. member who has just sat down is not a farmer.


An hon. Member:: Yes, he is.


William Joseph Browne: I understood he was a doctor.


James Arthur Ross: A farmer of the farmers.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Mr. Chairman, I should
like-


William Joseph Browne: I only just started-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, in this house-


Emmett Andrew McCusker: On a question of privilege-


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member has risen on a question of privilege.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I want to inform the hon. gentleman that I went to Regina in-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: The hon. gentleman said I was not a farmer. I went west in 1903 to live on a farm, and I still own and run a farm.


William Joseph Browne: I have been eating meat, eggs and poultry all my life. That is what we are talking about.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Mr. Chairman-
The Depuly Chairman:	Order. I wonder
whether hon. members of the committee would allow the hon. member for St. John's West to proceed with his speech on agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Joseph Browne: Now, Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: He has pin feathers.


William Joseph Browne: I presume that remark is helpful. I should like to say, Mr. Chairman, in the first place that we are here in this house as legislators; and every hon. member, whether he is a fisherman, a farmer, a doctor or a lawyer, has an equal right here in passing legislation. If a lawyer sits on a committee dealing with agriculture, fisheries or finance he has as much right there as any expert.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: He has not as much
knowledge.


William Joseph Browne: I should think he should be judged by the intelligence he displays in dealing with the subject under discussion. The hon. gentleman who has preceded me is a doctor. I believe he is a distinguished doctor. He happens to be a distinguished parliamentary assistant to the lawyer who is head of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I should like to have the hon. member's opinion of his chief, who is a lawyer in charge of the health and welfare of this country. But, sir-


Emmett Andrew McCusker: The best minister of health I ever worked under.


Arza Clair Casselman: And the only one, too.


William Joseph Browne: The hon.
gentleman is a medical man, and I take it that it is his duty to keep up with modern research in medicine. I am quite sure he is aware of all that has happened since the time of Jenner and Pasteur.


Mr. MacKenzie:: Oh, dear!


William Joseph Browne: Yes; these gentlemen discovered-


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Gone far beyond that.


William Joseph Browne: -what bacteria and germs do. I am sure that if he was treating a patient in Regina, one of his constituent's children, and he noticed something yellow or whitish in the mouth, he would suspect diphtheria or typhoid and would say: "I will take a swab and send it to the laboratory and have it tested immediately".
Supply-Agriculture


Emmett Andrew McCusker: May I inform the hon. gentleman-
The Depuly Chairman: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.
The Depuly Chairman: Order. The hon. member who has the floor may not be interrupted without his consent.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: On a question of privilege, when the hon. member is classifying me, his classification is much too low. I am an eye specialist.


William Joseph Browne: Although the hon. gentleman is an eye specialist, I am sure that he has had sufficient scientific training to know that today doctors take advantage of all the discoveries of science, and veterinarians should do the same. It is idle for the members on the other side of the house to pretend that we can go to the expense of keeping a laboratory over in Hull for the special purpose of analysing and diagnosing diseases of cattle and not use it, as happened between the 1st of December and February 16 when, contrary to the wishes of the veterinary director general and without his knowledge, the specimens were sent to that laboratory, and only in that way was the disease detected to be foot-and-mouth disease.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Mr. Chairman-
The Depuly Chairman: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: No; sit down.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: He lets you ask questions.


William Joseph Browne: The right hon. Minister of Agriculture told us in the committee of his experience in 1937. He said: In 1937 I was new to the department. They came to mS and said: Look, we have got a disease out there, a contagious disease. It is better not to say anything about it. Keep it quiet. No one will ever know until we publish the report in about a year's time.


An hon. Member:: Open the book.


William Joseph Browne: I have the book here. And that was done. Nothing was said about it. Nobody knew anything about

Supply-Agriculture
it. It was kept a secret between the head of the department and his officials.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Let us see how well you can read.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


William Joseph Browne: But at the
end of the year when the report was made here is what we find:
Vesicular stomatitis of horses and cattle-


Daniel Aloysius Riley: What page?


William Joseph Browne: At page 67.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: British encyclopedia.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. gentleman is not fair to himself tonight. He is not displaying the intelligence for which I gave him credit previously.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: You are not, either.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


William Joseph Browne: I am sure that I have not that credit with the hon. member who has interrupted. This is the annual departmental report of the Department of Agriculture for 1937. At page 67 this is what we find:
Vesicular stomatitis of horses and cattle appeared in epizootic form coincidentally with equine encephalomyelitis. The occurrence of this disease causes alarm as its clinical symptoms closely resemble those of foot-and-mouth disease.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Oh, oh.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman-


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Alfred Robinson: I must ask the members of the committee to co-operate in allowing the hon. member for St. John's West to complete his speech.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I asked his permission to ask a question.


An hon. Member:: Sit down, you jumping bean, you.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: What is an epizootic form?


William Joseph Browne: I do not
suppose you want me to read it all over again.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Go ahead.


William Joseph Browne: I continue: "The virus"-


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Start right at the beginning.


William Joseph Browne: I should like to point out to the members on the other side of the house that this is not a laughing matter;

it is a very serious matter, as an hon. gentleman to my right points out, involving a billion dollar industry. I do not think it should be treated with ridicule. I am not treating it with ridicule.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: It is not the subject that is being treated with ridicule.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member for Saint John-Albert can speak after I have finished, if he wishes to.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Thank you.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Why don't you pick up your marbles and go home?


William Joseph Browne: I know hon. members do not want to hear this.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Tell us what it means.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, I wish I could have silence while I read this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: The hon. member wants to read it in silence. Pray allow him to.


William Alfred Robinson: I must again ask hon. members of the committee to co-operate with me in maintaining the decorum of the committee.


William Joseph Browne: It continues:
The virus was obtained in specimens taken from affected animals by the chief pathologist and brought to the institute, where the disease was experimentally reproduced and the properties of the virus studied.
What I am pointing out is that the veterinary director general, with the approval of. his chief, said that you could not bring in specimens of this disease and should not send them in because it was too dangerous, and here in 1937 the minister is saying that the very procedure was followed. I wish hon. members would listen to me seriously. This is a subject that should be above party politics. I suggest that in the future there should be an immediate departmental inquiry into a disease of this kind, and advantage should be taken of all the facilities in the institute to determine as quickly as possible just what is the disease.
There is one other thing I should like to say before I sit down. If the Minister of Agriculture is not going to carry out the law he should have it amended, because the law says that when a contagious or infectious disease is discovered in cattle it must

be reported immediately to the minister. There is a penalty on everyone; there is a penalty on the owner of the cattle and everyone else in the country who knows of the disease and does not report it. The minister said, "We do not speak of foot-and-mouth disease." He seemed to put the seal of his approval upon the conduct 'of everyone who had broken the law. If he does not think it wise that-


Emmett Andrew McCusker: On a question of privilege. The hon. member for St. John's West has suggested that the people of my constituency consciously broke the law. I wish that remark withdrawn.


An hon. Member:: He never said that.


William Alfred Robinson: As I understand it, the remark made by the hon. member for St. John's West was not about any member of parliament and therefore I do not think I can ask that it be withdrawn.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: It was a remark against my constituents whom I have the privilege to represent. A member of parliament has no right to accuse the citizens of this country of wilfully breaking the law. If he wishes to get up and say that the citizens of Regina wilfully broke the law-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. As I apprehend it, questions of privilege that may be raised are questions affecting members of this house. I do not think the hon. member for St. John's West has violated any privilege.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I want to be corrected on this. Have I not the right to defend my constituents when a member from Newfoundland says they are breaking the law?


William Alfred Robinson: I think the question of privilege has been disposed of.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member knows I am not reflecting upon the character of his constituents. His constituents whose cattle were affected by this disease reported it to the federal officials or to the doctors in the neighbourhood. It was their duty to report it, and they did report it.
I should like to point out that in answer to a question put by me at one of the earlier meetings of the committee the deputy minister admitted that he had not informed the minister until February 18, I think it was. The minister can correct me if I am wrong. The veterinary director general did not do anything about reporting it to the minister. A contagious and dangerous disease was in existence without the knowledge of the min-55704-241J
Supply-Agriculture
ister during the months of November, December, January and up until February 15 or February 18. It seems fantastic to me that when a disease of this sort was detected it should not be reported immediately to the minister.
I confess that I am no farmer, as I said in the beginning, but I did do some research on the law relating to this subject. I looked up the original act, and it was the intention of the legislature that the minister should be informed right away. It was a matter of high policy as to how the disease should be dealt with. It should not be left to any minor official in the Department of Agriculture.
It was brought out in evidence that the veterinary director general maintained that he did the right thing in not reporting this and not having a diagnosis made in Hull. And the minister says, "We do not talk of foot-and-mouth disease; we do not mention it. Yet the fact is that in every report of the veterinary director general, and I looked at them for several years back, he is always reminding the veterinary doctors in the country to be on the watch for foot-and-mouth disease because there is nothing so dangerous for cattle.
In the face of that evidence it seems to me there is something to be said against the officials of the department. They did not take advantage of the facilities that were at their disposal; and indeed they may be considered to be negligent, as the opposition contended in the minority report.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Mr. L. Philippe Picard (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, may I have permission to revert to routine proceedings so I may table the second and final report of the standing committee on public accounts?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-Philippe Picard: I table the second and final report of the standing committee on public accounts.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: If I may be permitted to revert to motions, I should like to table the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the year 1951-52, in English and in French.

Supply-Public Works


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will copies be available to hon. members before the estimates of the minister's department will be up for consideration?


James Joseph McCann: They are all ready in the distribution office.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will take up Bill No. 391, to amend the Eastern Rocky Mountain Forest Conservation Act. I think we can finish with that bill as it is not very long. Then we will give first reading to the bill to readjust the representation in the House of Commons. If the house is in the mood later in the day probably with unanimous consent we could give that bill second reading. We would then consider the estimates of agriculture with the hope of concluding them at an early hour.


An hon. Member:: What day?


Alphonse Fournier: Then we shall take up the estimates of post office, national revenue, legislation, citizenship and immigration, finance and a few other items remaining. If we finish those we will get through tomorrow night.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
340.	Ontario (other than Ottawa), $6,458,000.
341.	Manitoba, $1,025,000.
342.	Saskatchewan, $1,000,000.
343.	Alberta, $1,045,000.
344.	British Columbia, $2,820,000.
345.	Yukon and Northwest Territories, $350,000.
346.	Unforeseen improvements, $1,200,000.
Engineering branch-
347.	Braflch administration, $472,221.
Engineering services-[DOT]
348.	Salaries, surveys, inspections, etc., $1,669,456.
349.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $171,800.
Dredging-
350.	Maintenance and operation of plant and contract and day labour works, $3,077,989.
351.	New plant, $1,089,000.
Graving docks-
352.	Maintenance and operation, $344,486.
Locks and dams-
353.	Maintenance and operation, $355,562.
Snagboats-
354.	Maintenance and operation, $113,178.

Roads and bridges-
355.	Maintenance and operation, $321,230.
356.	Towards international bridge over the St. Croix river between St. Stephen, N.B., and Calais, Me., the state of Maine to pay a like amount (revote) , $10,060.
357.	Towards interprovincial bridge over the Ottawa river between Pembroke, Ontario, and Allu-mette Island, Quebec, the provinces of Ontario and Quebec each to pay one-third cf the cost and maintenance thereof (revote), $50,000.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended upon individual listed projects-
358.	Newfoundland, $2,341,300.
359.	Nova Scotia, $3,401,000.
360.	Prince Edward Island, $1,950,000.
361.	New Brunswick, $2,755,000.
362.	Quebec, $5,165,600.
363.	Ontario, $5,609,000.
364.	Manitoba, $123,000.
365.	Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories, $148,500.
366.	British Columbia and Yukon, $6,992,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-
367.	Repairs and upkeep for the maintenance of services, including reconstruction and replacements, and to authorize commitments against future years in the total amount of $660,000, no new works to be undertaken, $2,975,000.
Generally-
368.	Fraser river-50 per cent of the cost of investigations to be carried out by the dominion provincial board Fraser river basin, $137,500.
369.	Protection works generally, $300,000.
General-[DOT]
370.	Miscellaneous works not otherwise provided for, not more than $10,000 to be expended upon any one work, $440,000.
371.	National capital planning service, $52,400.
372.	To supplement, on approval of the treasury board except where less than $1,000 is required, any of the appropriations of the Department of Public Works, $400,000.
373.	To provide for balances required to complete any projects undertaken in previous fiscal years and for which no specific provision is made in the fiscal year 1952-53, $250,000.
Architectural branch-
741.	Ottawa-Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, including repairs and upkeep, rents, furnishings, heating, etc.-further amount required, $645,000.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amounts required-
742.	Nova Scotia, $1.
743.	New Brunswick, $1.
744.	Quebec, $625,000.
745.	Ottawa, $589,000.

746.	Ontario (other than Ottawa), $583,000.
747.	Manitoba, $260,000.
748.	Saskatchewan, $241,000.
749.	Alberta, $116,000.
750.	British Columbia, $409,000.
Engineering branch-
Dredging-
751.	Maintenance and operation of plant and contract and day labour works-further amount required, $121,000.
Graving docks-
752.	Maintenance and operation-further amount required, $14,100.
753.	Prince Rupert dry dock and shipyard and appurtenant works-To provide for operating losses and essential repairs in the period from January 1, 1952 to March 31, 1952, in accordance with the terms of order in council P.C. 95/6770 of December 15, 1951, $20,000.
Roads and bridges-
754.	Maintenance and operation-further amount required, $100,000.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may
Supply-Public Works increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended upon individual listed projects- further amounts required-
755.	Newfoundland, $235,200.
756.	Nova Scotia, $814,000.
757.	Prince Edward Island, $12,000.
758.	New Brunswick, $190,000.
759.	Quebec, $750,000.
760.	Ontario, $1,163,600.
761.	Manitoba, $84,000.
762.	Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories, $14,000.
763.	British Columbia and Yukon, $1,028,500. Harbours and rivers generally-
764.	Repairs and upkeep for the maintenance of services, including reconstruction and replacements, no new works to be undertaken-further amount required, $200,000.
Generally-
765.	Protection works generally-fdrther amount required, $300,000.
General-
766.	Miscellaneous works not otherwise provided for, not more than $10,000 to be expended upon any one work-further amount required, $150,000.
767.	To provide for balances required to complete any projects undertaken in previous fiscal years and for which no specific provision is made in the fiscal year 1952-53-further amount required, $165,000.

wmim

*m(
[Stage Direction]

Friday, June 27, 1952