1953-02-10

Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On Friday night, in the course of the debate, I made a remark which was brought to the attention of the Prime Minister who replied as follows, as reported at page 1712 of Hansard:


Mr. St. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the Prime Minister has other things to do than to listen to the hon. gentleman-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising on a point of personal privilege with reference to that remark, because that is the Prime Minister's privilege, although I might say that what I had to say was related to the business of parliament rather than that of listening to an individual member. We all heard the Prime Minister say that, sir, and the Hansard reporter as well as the gallery heard the Prime Minister make that remark.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to raise a point of privilege affecting all hon. members, and it is this:	While all hon. members, myself included, have the right to see our text of Hansard and make alterations therein, alterations which make more clear the sense of that which we have to say, that rule does not extend to permit an hon. member to make alterations which alter the sense of what he has said. The point in this connection, Mr. Speaker, is that the Hansard report contains words which were not heard either by the Hansard reporter, by hon. members of the house or by the gallery, so that-


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Speak for yourself.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -the report now reads, with the Prime Minister saying this:


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the Prime Minister has other things to do than to listen to the hon. gentleman, when he is using that tone.
My point, Mr. Speaker, is that that addition changes the sense of what the Prime Minister said. I dealt with what the Prime Minister had said, what I had heard him say and what is all that he had said on the
basis of what he had said; but the sense of his remarks is now altered. I know we are all exposed to temptations to make alterations in the sense of what we have said. The Prime Minister, like others, is exposed to those temptations and has yielded to those temptations.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think I
should allow the hon. gentleman to continue further. If the Prime Minister wishes to make a statement he should be permitted to do so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I might complete the point of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think it is in order for me
to say this, Mr. Speaker. With respect to any inconsequential alteration I would not be raising the point, but when the experience is repeated and we recall the occasion when "kicked out" was changed to "left out" I think matters have gone to the point where it should be brought to the attention of the house that on another occasion the Prime Minister altered the sense of what he said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
has brought his point to the attention of the house. If the Prime Minister wishes to. remark on it I have no objection.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, since the hon.
gentleman felt that it was his duty to bring before the house what he has said this afternoon I must first of all tell him that I appreciate his courtesy in not doing it yesterday when other duties prevented me from being in the house at this hour. But when the hon. gentleman says that I added to the report something that I had not said in the house he is quite wrong. It is quite possible, and no doubt true, that the Hansard reporter and the hon. gentleman did not hear that remark. The hon. gentleman will recall that while I was speaking applause broke out in several parts of the house, and it may be that that is what prevented my additional words from being heard by him; but I got the transcript a very few minutes after leaving the house and I remembered-and I remember now-quite distinctly having used the words that I inserted in the report, or possibly-I would not want to be positive

House of Commons
about that-it may have been "when he is speaking in that tone", though I rather think that it was "when he is using that tone". But in any event the sense was exactly the same, and I added to the report the words that I clearly remembered having used in the house.
Now, this contretemps is perhaps another illustration of the reason for remarks that have been made to me on several occasions, that when applause breaks out I should cease speaking. But when I am speaking I am more concerned with what I have to say than with any applause that greets it.



REFERENCE BY MR. SPEAKER TO PREVIOUS RULING RESPECTING MOTION TO GO INTO COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTION

Mr. Speaker:: A matter has arisen as to what was said in the house on Friday. May I refer briefly to the debate which took place on that day. I have no hesitation in saying that, in view of that debate, I am quite concerned about the ruling I made in 1952 with respect to standing order 60.
Hon. members will recall that at that time, after consideration, I gave my views on standing order 60, which reads as follows:
If any motion be made in the house for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the house thinks fit to appoint; and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon.
From time to time there have been discussions in the house as to whether Mr. Speaker should leave the chair without question put when the motion is called on the second day. A ruling was given by Mr. Speaker Glen a number of years ago, to which I referred in my ruling. Mr. Speaker Glen said, in part, that the debate should be directed to the negative of the motion, and should be general, with no reference to details. I made a similar ruling, in which I concurred in Mr. Speaker Glen's findings, and also ruled that the debate at that time should be directed to the negative of the motion, and should be general.
During the course of the argument, when I intimated that that might be my decision, a number of members reminded me that I would have great difficulty in enforcing it. In fact some hon. members took the attitude: "Either have a full debate or do not have a debate, because otherwise you will not be able to enforce the rules."

Well, I felt I would be able to enforce my ruling and said, at the close of my reasons, that I would ask the co-operation of all hon. members in enabling me to enforce it. I have had the co-operation of all hon. members. But frankly, I must admit that I do not think the decision is workable; I doubt very much if I can enforce that ruling.
On several occasions during the debate on Friday I endeavoured to direct the debate in accordance with what I thought was the proper interpretation of my ruling. However, when I did so I realized that an hon. member could say, "Yes, but I feel this is one reason why Mr. Speaker should not leave the chair", and the hon. member could say, "Therefore I am directing my remarks to the negative."
Also during the debate on Friday the act, which it is proposed by the resolution to continue, was read almost fully into the record. It would have been very difficult for me to have prevented that. If I had said it was an unnecessary detail the answer would have been, "Oh, yes, but that is one reason I think you should not leave the chair; therefore I am directing my remarks to the negative."
There was a very wide debate that day. If hon. members will read Hansard for Friday they will see it was a complete debate on the whole subject of the resolution. Added to that, there was a very long debate on the interpretation of my ruling-and I have no reason to believe that, with a similar resolution, there would not be a similar debate on the interpretation of my ruling.
I think probably we all agreed at that time that the motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair was debatable. I now am not sure that we were correct-although we all agreed. The motion, when it is first put, is that at the next sitting of the house Mr. Speaker will leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the resolution. That is a decision of the house- that Mr. Speaker will leave the chair at the next sitting.
If the house has reached that decision, then how can the resolution be debatable with the Speaker in the chair when that second day arrives? The house has reached that decision. I think that was a point which was not brought up on previous occasions when this matter was being considered; and it is certainly a point which was not raised on the last occasion.
I am satisfied that the ruling I made in June of 1952 should be revised. When I cannot put it into effect, I do not think I should be asked to let it stand as it is. I

do not think a Speaker should be put in that position. It seems to me it would make for more orderly procedure in the house if, when the motion is called on the second day-that is, the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair-the resolution at that stage were not debated. I am not making a ruling at the present time; I am just expressing a view. It seems to me that no member's rights would be injured in any way. If the Speaker left the chair the resolution would then be before the committee and hon. members could discuss it from every angle with the minister in charge in his seat ready to answer questions and to give necessary information.
I would appreciate it if hon. members would give this matter some consideration. Probably in a few days you will be good enough to give me your views. My only reason for bringing this matter to your attention at the present time is to point out that I have come to the conclusion that I cannot enforce my ruling, that it is not workable or practicable. I think it would be in the interests of the dispatch of business in this house if the Speaker did leave the chair on the second day without question put.
Hon. members may suggest to me that it might be left to the rules committee. I have given that some consideration. This matter has been before three committees at least and no unanimous decision has been arrived at. As Speaker of the House I feel it is my duty to interpret the rules as they are at the present time. If hon. members want to change the rules, then that should be done by the committee; but my task at the present time is to interpret the rules as I see them.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that you propose to set time aside to consider this further and to hear argument in regard to the point, since I understood you to say that you were not giving a ruling at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: I hardly think it would be fair for me to make a ruling without hearing the views of experienced members of the house. I feel that this is an important matter. I was imping that I could sustain the ruling that I gave in June, 1952, but I am satisfied that I cannot do that. So I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) that I should hear the views of other hon. members before I make a ruling.


George Alexander Drew: Would it be appropriate if this matter were discussed at the time that the subject matter is again before you and when we return to the motion which was under discussion on Friday?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: That would be agreeable so far as I am concerned. Even if I did come to the conclusion that debate on the resolution should not be allowed on the second day, I do not think I would interfere with the debate on the present resolution now that it has gone as far as it has.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There are several other resolutions on the order paper and perhaps on the first occasion when a fresh resolution is called it would be appropriate to discuss the matter and then Your Honour could make a ruling that would apply to that resolution.


Mr. Knowles:: That is better.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 112, to amend the Criminal Code (racial, religious or class hatreds).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to restrain the activities of individuals and organizations, such as political parties with communistic ideologies, or other groups, which use prejudice in an attempt to set class against class, religious group against religious group, and race against race to further their own ends.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: I
should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he is now in a position to say that Canadian strategic metals are finding their way surreptitiously into the U.S.S.R. and what is being done to prevent it?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there is not
much I can add to the previous reply that I gave to my hon. friend on February 4. It is known of course that metals and other materials and equipment of a strategic nature are under export permit control here and have been for a considerable time.
A number of governments are in continuing close association in this work of controlling the movement of such strategic material. These governments agree on the materials to be controlled and the degree of control to be

South Saskatchewan River Project exercised. They have established a system of exchange of documents between importing and exporting countries for assurance to export licensing authorities that goods will reach the destinations indicated. There is a continuing exchange of information on many aspects of the whole problem.
Generally speaking, Canada does not license the export of strategic materials to European destinations unless applications for licences are accompanied by an import certificate issued by the government of the recipient country. This assures that the government of the importing country assumes responsibility for the shipment reaching the declared destination. Further, a verification of delivery is subsequently required in these cases. The greatest care possible, then, is taken with all destinations in assuring that consignees named in export permit applications are acceptable.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: I
should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if the detailed account of the proposed production of the new type of bomber contained in this morning's Globe and Mail, a copy of which I sent to the minister, represents a leakage of secret information that may be of interest to the enemy, and, if so, what action is being taken?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: The answer is no and none.



IRRIGATION-SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER DAM

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, February 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) that the house go into committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Wright.
Mr. J. J. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, last evening just before the house adjourned I was dealing with the subject of the South Saskatchewan dam and was discussing a private conversation I had had with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) having to do with the dam. I indicated at that time that I tried to suggest to the Prime Minister that all we were interested in as members of parliament was the actual money that it would cost to build the dam. I think I said, but will repeat now, that he reminded me that after all funds would have to be raised for the cost of irrigation and that we 

must give that matter some consideration. I appreciate that point. I shall be a taxpayer for this project to both the federal and provincial governments, as will most, if not all, the people in my constituency.
I realize that the provincial government of Saskatchewan has said that they are prepared to pay their share of the cost of irrigation under the project. Well, I presume that is the case. But at the same time, even if the dam is built, as I hope it will be, there will be no irrigation in the province for some ten years. At that time the present government may still be in office. We will not debate that at the moment. However, whether it is that government or another, if the province of Saskatchewan finds that the load is too heavy for it to carry out. its obligation, then whatever government may be in power provincially may say to the federal government that the load is too heavy for them to carry and that the federal government will have to carry it. I am not saying that will be the case but it could happen.
I do not want to get too far away from the subject, but there are certain projects that have been carried on in Saskatchewan with the help of the federal government, and I should like to refer briefly to our hospitalization scheme. The load is getting very heavy. While the baby was small we in the province of Saskatchewan carried it quite easily, but now that the baby is growing up and getting heavier we in Saskatchewan would like the federal government to assume that responsibility. I hope that that will not be the case when the irrigation project is built.
That is all I am going to say on that point, and I am not going to go into the details of the report of the commission except to say, as I said last night, that reports of commissions do not impress me too greatly. Having said that, however, may I say that I am one of those from Saskatchewan who cannot agree with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) when he says that the government should gather together all copies of the report of the commission and throw them in the Saskatchewan river. I would agree that when we start to build the dam we should put them at the bottom of it.


An hon. Member:: It will be a long time before the dam is built.


John James Smith: That may be, but that remains to be seen. In any event, what I am interested in at the moment is not so much what is contained in the various reports. What I am interested in is where we are going from here. If I might be allowed to make a suggestion, I hope it will not be necessary to have any more royal

commissions or commissions. When the Prime Minister spoke last night he put his position before the house. I appreciate his position and I believe most people in the Dominion of Canada and in the house, including members of the opposition, although of course they may not admit it, also appreciate it. Coming to the house on the bus this morning I noticed an item in one corner of the morning Citizen-I did not have one

referring to the South Saskatchewan dam. The reference was to "this big project" and suggesting more study was needed. I am all in favour of more study. In the other corner of the Citizen it said "more investigation".
If more investigation means another commission, then I am absolutely opposed to it, and I want to go on record as saying so. I am going to make a suggestion as to what might be done. Surely we have enough data now as a result of the investigations of the commission and other reports; and let me say that I think their report should be given a good deal of consideration. Some of us do not like the wording of it in certain parts, and in that respect it is like another report with which we were dealing not too long ago. A proper examination and explanation of it indicates that there is some very valuable information provided we use it in a non-political way. Instead of another commission I suggest that we might well have some kind of committee or referee. I would suggest a non-political committee representing all parties in the house.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: How do you do that?


John James Smith: The hon. member for Souris says "how do you do that"? It has been done before, and I might add that it has been my experience since coming to the House of Commons that there is much more work done in committees, and in a far less political way, than in this chamber.


James Arthur Ross: Which committee?


John James Smith: Any committees of which I have been a member. I think such a committee could well take a look at the evidence we have. In my opinion there are three things that must be done. The Prime Minister indicated last night that he was not too greatly worried about the cost of the project. I was glad to hear him say that. I am sure he has given that matter some consideration, as all of us must. We must know what kind of isoil there is in the area that is to be irrigated. Surely we do not need to send a commission to Saskatchewan to investigate the soil. We must know the elevation of
South Saskatcheivan River Project the land, and we do not need to send a commission to Saskatchewan to ascertain that. We must also know the rainfall. I am sure that no one would suggest that we should send someone to Saskatchewan to stand outside with a measuring cup for two or three years to find out what the rainfall is. That information is all available in Ottawa. I made it my business to find out from the different departments this morning if this information was available and could be obtained quickly. I was informed that could be done. The committee that I am suggesting might be a small one or a large one. It would have the privilege of calling government officials from the different departments to supply the necessary data. I do not see why we should spend any more money on commissions when we have government officials already on the payroll who can give the information required.
It may also be necessary to obtain the views of the premiers or the ministers of agriculture of the governments of the three prairie provinces. Then let us decide on this matter. I want to say in all sincerity that I hope that another election will not roll around before a decision is made. If it is favourable to us in Saskatchewan, that will be fine. If it is not and if we are going to have to sink, then let us sink with the ship. There is one thing about it. We can only get trimmed once on the issue if a decision is arrived at.


An hon. Member:: You have been trimmed for years by your government.


John James Smith: That is
what you may think. Speaking yesterday the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) said, if I heard him correctly, that all candidates in the last federal election pledged themselves to the building of the South Saskatchewan dam, or had indicated that in their campaigns. Well, if the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) was never wrong before, he was certainly wrong that time. I was in that last federal campaign and never on any political platform in my constituency was the South Saskatchewan dam mentioned. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) spoke at my convention and it was not mentioned. Another senior minister of cabinet, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), spoke in Estevan and the matter was not mentioned. In all of the campaign carried on in my constituency, and I was at all of the meetings, it was never mentioned.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what will happen in the next campaign I do not know.

South Saskatchewan River Project


Mr. Ferguson:: You will be running on the Conservative ticket.


John James Smith: I am not
too sure that there will be enough Conservatives in my constituency to elect me and I do not think I could take that chance. However, if this becomes a political football we will have to deal with it then; but I am interested to see that we do not make it a political football at the present time. I wish to say to the government:	Let us
have a decision on this quickly-just as soon as possible. I said last night that I did not think the government could give us a decision right away after the report had become available, but at the same time I would hope that before this house adjourns we will have a decision one way or the other.
I am going to make a plea to the mover of this amendment which may be useless.


John George Diefenbaker: We are giving you a
chance.


John James Smith: I will
answer that if you will give me a minute.
The hon. member who moved the amendment to the motion rose in his place and said that he was taking that opportunity to bring this very important subject before the house. He said that it was very dear to his heart and very dear to the hearts of all the people in Saskatchewan. Well, with that there is no dispute. He went on and made what I thought was a very good speech. I pay him the compliment of saying that he made a very good speech and, as a matter of fact, I compliment him on bringing this subject before the house-although the Minister of Agriculture says it could have been brought up in the discussion on his estimates. However, I am with the member for Lake Centre in thinking that we should have had a discussion on this subject as soon as possible-and we have had it. He did not say why he moved his amendment but I presume, and if I am wrong he can correct me, that it was to give other members who were anxious to speak on it, like myself, a chance to speak. Had he not moved the amendment we might have got off on fish, or wheat, or something else and possibly I would not have had an opportunity to speak at this time.
The hon. member went on to say that he was anxious to keep politics out of this, and I am trying to convince myself that was so. I want to say to him:	If he wants to make
it a political issue, what is the hurry; because as far as I know there is no election in the offing at the moment. Why get started on it now? Why play it out now rather than wait? I suggest, as far as timing is

concerned, that it might be better to wait. From a political viewpoint it will have more effect.
From his remarks and actions I take it that the hon. member has no notion of withdrawing his amendment. Before the vote is taken, and while the hon. member has raised a grievance, I will say that I think that moving the amendment has served a good purpose. I am sincere when I say that, but I cannot see any good purpose pressing a vote at this time.
The hon. member and other members have called on the Saskatchewan members to get up and give an independent vote. Someone has suggested that we should press the government for that. I am going to be honest and say that I have not pressed the government for an independent vote on this and I will tell you why. I am satisfied in my own mind at the moment, although I suppose my friends to the left of me will not agree, that if we had an independent vote on this at the present time, regardless of parties to which we belong, the majority of members would not be in favour.


John George Diefenbaker: There would be some Liberal members against it.


John James Smith: If my hon. friend would not be so political at the moment we would be able to get somewhere.


Mr. Gardiner:: Tell us where you are going to run.


John James Smith: There is no difference between the members in the province of Alberta and the province of Manitoba with-


John George Diefenbaker: Let us have the vote and find out.


John James Smith: All right, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member is more interested in the vote than he is in the dam. As soon as this report was received some people suggested: Throw it in the scrap; burn it; throw it in the South Saskatchewan river. Well, that cannot be done. If we had an independent vote, in my opinion, whether the hon. member for Lake Centre agrees with me or not-and I have a right to state my opinion-I do not believe this vote would carry. I have been talking to other members as I have been interested in knowing how some of the Liberals are thinking. I spoke to many of them this morning-they were not from Saskatchewan but from other parts of eastern and western Canada-and they would not like to be called upon at the present

time to get up and make a decision about whether this project should be gone ahead with.
Now, they indicate they are in favour of it. I do not think that a vote serves any good purpose. There is only one good purpose it could serve and that is to bring in politics, which the hon. member from Lake Centre says he is trying to keep out. I am therefore trying to convince myself that is a fact.
My final plea is to ask what good a vote is going to do. Some of the C.C.F. members from Saskatchewan have indicated, for some reason or other, that we are only using this as an excuse for not voting for the amendment or the subamendment. If the hon. member for Lake Centre would take the lead I do not know but I think the other boys would go along and withdraw the subamendment.
A moment ago I think I heard the hon. member for Lake Centre say: Well, we gave you a chance. Let us take a look at that chance. I am not going to admit, Mr. Speaker, that I am any rubber stamp although we have been accused of being rubber stamps and having no independence. I am not going to admit that, but if we just assume it for the moment I would like to say to the hon. member for Lake Centre that two wrongs do not make a right. His amendment serves no purpose other than having a vote at the present time for political purposes. Well, if he wants a vote there will be lots of chance to get a vote and find out just exactly where all members stand later on. I think that he would be doing a great service to the Conservatives left in Saskatchewan if he withdrew the amendment.
The other evening the hon. member said: We want this dam. I will go along with the hon. member for Lake Centre there. We want this dam, but I beg him to keep politics out of it at the present time. If he would do that he would probably make some history in this country. He raised a matter that was very important to himself and all the rest of us in Saskatchewan, and he says that he is trying to keep politics out of it. I do not know whether he would agree with what I have suggested as far as a committee is concerned, but I think he would agree with me that it would be better for us not to have a vote at the present time. I say, and I repeat, that I think that is important at the present time. As far as a vote is concerned, whether it would hurt Liberal members from Saskatchewan or not is, I think, incidental because we either get the dam or we don't and that will be the issue, not how we voted here. If he would
South Saskatchewan River Project follow my suggestion I would be very grateful, and I think it would be helpful.
If I may be allowed to speak for the Conservatives in my constituency, and there were 2,500 in the last federal election, they are very interested in this project for Saskatchewan, and I think they would be very grateful to the only hon. member of their party coming from the province of Saskatchewan if he followed my suggestion. If he does not do so, I am going to have a hard time to convince them, if I should wish to try, that he is not stooping to political manoeuvres. Now, I think that is important.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member could even suggest that.


John James Smith: Pardon?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that an hon. member should suggest that another hon. member is stooping to political manoeuvres.


John James Smith: Possibly I should not have said that, but what I was saying was that I was going to have a hard time convincing people in my constituency that it was not the case.
Now, this is the end of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and I do not know but what the hon. member, who has spoken twice on the amendment and on the subamendment, might like to take part of my time, since I have a few minutes left, and tell us why he will not do that. I am prepared to give him part of my time, but if he does not wish to have it then we can take the vote.


Mr. Hodgson:: Will you tell us why you
won't vote as a member, rather than for party?


John James Smith: That is not
a very intelligent question, Mr. Speaker.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Perhaps I should not speak on this subject, being the representative of an Ontario constituency, but I have had the great pleasure and honour of travelling up and down this great country over a period of years and observing the lack of development of the natural resources. I have associated with the people from Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. I lived out west for a number of years. Out there the feeling was always present that the effete east was a handicap to the west. When I came to this house I felt in my heart that I represented the whole of Canada, and that Canada could not really be great unless all the cogs in that wheel were functioning. No person would dare to say that the province of Saskatchewan was not a necessary cog in the wheel of Canada, for to do so would be absurd.

South Saskatchewan River Project
For almost as long as I can remember I have heard irrigation problems and drought discussed. I have seen with my own eyes the effects of these conditions in Saskatchewan. I am fed up with the lack of vision indicated by the present government, and this lack of vision is not something that is limited to this particular subject. It is a continuation of the desire, for some reason or other, of not wishing to give the facts and figures regarding this project, and an inability to make up its mind as to whether or not we should proceed with the project. In part of his address the member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith) advocated the building of this dam, thus giving to the province what I believe in my heart it is absolutely entitled to. In this way the whole Dominion of Canada would be benefited. In speaking thus, the hon. member spoke as a Conservative would speak on this subject, and as all Conservatives in this party will vote if permitted to vote on the question of whether or not the people of Saskatchewan should get their just deserts.
In the latter part of his speech, the hon. member for Moose Mountain was excusing himself for not wanting to vote as his people would want him to vote or as his conscience dictated. He dragged more herrings across his trail-


John James Smith: Than
you are?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Well, I do not mind a
remark of that kind, because I just accept that as a remark from a gentleman who is trying to excuse himself for not doing his duty towards his constituents. From a man like that, you could expect almost any kind of remark.


John James Smith: From you.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You have had your opportunity, and there were times-


John James Smith: You did not
seem to like it.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: -when there were spots of intelligence. Now, you have sat down and if you will just keep your remarks for some other- time when you want to amuse parliament, that will be all right. When your constituents read your address, and read how you beat about the bush on this subject, they will certainly not even want you on the Conservative ticket.


John James Smith: That is
mutual; I do not want to be there.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am afraid there will be lots of them trying to scramble onto this ticket at the next election after the shemozzle this party has made of things.


John James Smith: Talk about
the St. Lawrence seaway.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I know more about it than you know about your proposition out there. The hon. member for Moose Mountain said he was sick and tired of repeated commissions. He said he had gone to a lot of trouble, and I am sure he has, in proving conclusively that this project should be proceeded with immediately.


John James Smith: I said no such thing.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I do not doubt that his information was accurate and came from the best sources in his government.


John James Smith: I said no such thing.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You are going to make this house believe you did not say anything, and I am going to make this house agree that surely you have said nothing.


John James Smith: If you are
going to quote me, quote me correctly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It would be better if both hon. members addressed the Chair.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: As I said before, whether or not the hon. member for Moose Mountain agrees with me, I am still firmly convinced that the people of Saskatchewan need this project. I should like to see this country get its just deserts through an increased population, an increased development of the natural resources. We have the iron development in Labrador and Quebec; we have the oil in Alberta. We still have tagging along the province of Saskatchewan, which undoubtedly is a great asset to the people of Canada. With all the facts my friend could bring us from the sources in his own government, there seems to be no doubt that this project is worth while. I am a Conservative from the province of Ontario-


Some hon. Members:: Shame. Do not brag about it.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I do realize that we must develop this country as a whole, and that one or two provinces cannot go along alone. Saskatchewan is an integral part of this country and we need it. The taxpayers in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec can do little but contribute willingly and wholeheartedly large sums of money to the development of the other provinces which are not as fortunate. Surely this government has had ample time to make up its mind and say to the people of Canada, "We have now sufficient information to permit us to declare that we are going to start this project, and that completion is expected within a certain

time". I, as a member from Ontario, am one hundred per cent in favour of this project being undertaken immediately. I am sick and tired of the procrastination of this gover-ment day after day in delaying something the people of Saskatchewan need. The hon. member for Moose Mountain cannot mistake my attitude in the matter.


Mr. Irvin Sluder (Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, in this debate that has to do with the association of water and the land, and the production thereof as a result, those of us who have been only too familiar with a situation that has been otherwise over a great number of years, would like to associate ourselves with those who have spoken on behalf of the South Saskatchewan river development. We do so in order that we will not be placed in a position, as we have in the past, of having to learn by dire experience the things that we should do in advance to prevent certain conditions recurring. History has shown us that things that have happened in the past will, over a period of years, happen again. History has an unfortunate way of repeating itself.
In order to eliminate that situation, and place ourselves in a position where the people of Saskatchewan and the other parts of Canada can look forward to the future with a greater degree of confidence, I should like to lend my assistance to the government and to the people of the Dominion of Canada so that an effort will be made to initiate in the province of Saskatchewan the only method that I know of that can prevent similar conditions occurring in that province. One of the fundamental problems since mankind has been on this earth has been that of dealing with famine. We read in Genesis that at the time of Joseph the land was covered with famine, and that famine was caused by nothing less than a drought. In the year 1516 before Christ it was a problem of the people, and it has been associated with them ever since. In order to eliminate the conditions that existed at that time-they were unaware of what irrigation could do for the people of the world-they used one method, namely, providing in good years for the bad years. In good years they stored up corn for the bad years. The Lord instructed Joseph and they did that during the good years. During the seven good years they stored up sufficient for the seven bad years that were going to be inflicted upon the people, because, as I mentioned before, they had no other solution for their trouble. It is written in Genesis that famine was all over the face of the earth during that period of time. We in this House of Commons must do what lies within our power so that not again in the future at any
South Saskatchewan River Project time, irrespective of what anyone may say about overproduction in this day and age throughout the length and breadth of the land, with the population increasing in the world, shall it be written of us that we contributed to famine in the world.
I should like to say in as few words as possible what I think about this subject of irrigation. It is our hope that we may eliminate what has been a problem over such a long period of years. We read that in the early days the Nile river was used for irrigation purposes so that food could be supplied to the people of that time. During the time of the Roman empire Egypt was the granary of the world. They tried to devise ways and means so that the water would co-operate with the soil to provide the essential of life, which is food. This came to be a continuing problem in the world. We should consider it from that angle if from no other.
Canada is great in the eyes of the world. It has not been too great in its ambition to make provision for the future in connection with irrigation. Last week I checked up on some figures on irrigation in the world and I found that Canada has approximately a million acres under irrigation. The United States, another supposedly advanced country, has 2,200,000 acres under irrigation; Mexico has 5,700,000 acres; Cuba, 50,000 acres; Dominican Republic, 24,000; British Guiana, 100,000; Colombia, 30,000; Peru, 2,400,000; Brazil, 2,200,000; Chile, 3 million; Argentine, 2 million; Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 8 million; France, 5,700,000; Italy, 4,920,000; Spain, 3,740,000; Morocco, 1,500,000; Algeria, 400,000; Greece, 600,000; Syria, 620,000; Hungary, 40,000; Lebanon, 74,000; Pakistan, 30 million. It was only a few years ago that we had its Prime Minister in our country. China has 47,500,000 acres under irrigation; Japan, 7,600,000; Thailand, 1,800,000; the Philippines, 1,120,000; India, 35 million; Ceylon, 400,000; Indo-China, 1 million; Java, 8 million; Australia, 2,700,000; New Zealand, 250,000, making a total of approximately 180 million acres of land of the world under irrigation. Without these 180 million acres of land under irrigation famine would stalk the face of the earth. Therefore I submit, Mr. Speaker, that irrigation is a good prospect. Wherever irrigation has been instituted it has neither been abandoned on any large scale nor reduced to any great extent in any country of the world. In any country where there is water and suitable land, if they are not brought together it is wastage of the soil and it is wastage of lives, because production on that soil results in giving people the opportunity to live somewhere in the world.
1792	HOUSE OF
South Saskatchewan River Project I have lived in the constituency of Maple Creek for 35 years, and most of those years have been spent in hoping for rain, in hoping and searching the sky for the clouds which might bring rain, and in only 6 of those 35 years have I in my particular area had a crop that was a paying crop. Most of my life, along with the other people in that area,
I have spent in searching for rain. The first thing I did on awakening in the morning was to scan the heavens to see if there might be the prospect of a cloud in the sky, and the last thing at night was to look at the reddish horizon and the way the sun would set to see whether there was any hope for rain the following day. Too often have we suffered for lack of water, the result of the nonapplication of water to the soil. Just imagine what water would have brought to the people who were suffering and in despair during the thirties, those people who were the salt of the earth. Just imagine what they went through during that period of time, and yet we hear people in this country say that we should let the water flow as nature intended it, water that could be utilized to save lives in the world, and to save not only their lives but their spirit and their morale. Just think of the contribution that they could make to the country that we are trying to build in this Dominion of Canada, to make it even greater?
We had mothers gazing at their children in that period of years to which the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) made reference yesterday in a nice way when he was speaking on this subject. It is not often that I agree with him, but he explained to us yesterday what happened to those people during those years. Their plight has also come to the attention of people right here in the city of Ottawa, because the mayor of that city was out through the constituency of Maple Creek in 1932 and 1933 when a committee was set up by the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett to investigate conditions out in Saskatchewan and particularly in the southwest corner of that province. That is part of the Palliser triangle that reaches down to Mexico, and comprises all the boundary east of the Rocky mountains. That has always been dry and always will be dry. Let us do something about that so that people may live there in the future.
The last record I have shows that there are 2,800 people there who have an application in to the P.F.R.A. people to move to another area somewhere in the province to establish themselves in connection with their farming operations. Twenty-eight hundred people have applications in that are unfilled because there is no room for them elsewhere. There

is no room in the irrigation districts in Alberta; there is no room in any part of western Canada. We want to establish those people because the southwestern part of Saskatchewan was settled in the beginning by people with unlimited hope in that country. They could not bring those hopes to fruition because it was a dry country, and it took us a generation to learn that. Since we have learned it let us adapt ourselves to it and unite our experience with the experience of people throughout the whole world, and utilize the waters that flow that were given to us for that purpose as well as for other purposes. Water has been utilized since the beginning of time for that purpose and will be utilized for that purpose until the end of time. Let it not be said of Saskatchewan that for some reason, or from some motive, we are not utilizing the water that is there. The first essential is to impound the water. Without that nothing can be accomplished. It is the duty of the federal government to impound the water. After the water has been impounded, then the province can take it and utilize it to the best advantage of all the people who may benefit from it.
Many people ask me, why do you not move away? Well, we are not moving away. We came to that country with the idea in our minds that we could carve a home for ourselves in that country, and we are going to make a home for ourselves in that country. Under certain conditions we can create enough wealth there for the people of Canada, because of production in that area, to just overwhelm them and the people of the world. That can be done under ideal conditions and we refuse to abandon homes and land that hold that promise. But it takes us a while to learn, and it takes the government a while to associate itself with what is happening in this country, and to learn what the needs are. After they have learned about those needs, I hope they will be doing something about it.
Our only solution in the southwest area is water. There is no other solution. The practice of summer fallowing was initiated and has been continued over the years. The cost of summer fallowing in this country would have built a dozen South Saskatchewan river developments. The cost of summer fallowing over the years, where you let the land lie idle and hope that it may accumulate water from rainfall, so that you can seed it in another year, has cost a great deal of money. The cost, year after year, of letting all that land remain idle has been so great that, as I have said, it would build a dozen South Saskatchewan river projects.

That is what P.F.R.A. was initiated to do- to have that land brought into operation, and to eliminate the conditions which made it impossible to bring the area to a point where it could make its contribution to the national life of the country. That is why it was initiated; that is why it was introduced; and if it cannot complete that purpose or complete those efforts for which it was intended, then it is of no further use to us.
Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) placed a considerable amount of history on record. He put on Hansard all the facts surrounding the establishment of P.F.R.A. When hon. members understand that one acre of irrigated land will stabilize forty acres, then they can begin to visualize what a million acres of irrigated land would do. It would stabilize about forty million acres of agricultural land in the province of Saskatchewan. That would continue on, year after year. There would be production in that area, irrespective of rainfall; and the area affected could thus make its contribution to the national wealth.
Take the national wealth created by the production of wheat and other grains out of western Canada, and what do hon. members think would happen to the economy of the whole country? Anything that you have of any value is directly affected by the economy of western Canada; and so I say it is in the interests of all Canada to make the west productive.
What is going to be the position ten years from now? I would ask hon. members what would happen if history repeats itself in western Canada. And does anyone think that we will not have periods of drought again? Does anyone think we can stand idly by after suffering from drought over the years, without giving the people of the southwest any evidence that preparations are being made on the part of the government in respect of what it will do in years to come? I would not be a party to any policy or support any government that takes the position that it will not utilize what has been shown necessary by evidence through the years, or that will not accord the people their rights. Because the people have a right to live. They have a right to produce, and they shall not be restrained therefrom by an inoperative government.
So I am wondering what is going to be the position ten years from now. We know that P.F.R.A. was brought into existence to assist in these areas. It was brought into existence by a leader of the Conservative party-one who took a much different attitude from some
South Saskatchewan River Project Conservatives who have been talking in the House of Commons in the last few days. They should follow the example of one of their earlier leaders.
Another thing P.F.R.A. was supposed to do was to eliminate the necessity for P.F.A.A. The Minister of Agriculture told us yesterday that $140 million has been spent on P.F.A.A. from our national wealth and economy throughout the years it has been in operation -and I believe that is about twelve years.
Incidentally, let me say that in the constituency of Maple Creek we have a greater number of small projects than are to be found in any other constituency in Canada; so I know what these irrigation projects will do. I know, of course, that at various times they involve some cost-not the projects themselves, but what happens when the water overflows and thus handicaps effective efforts.
However P.F.R.A. was brought into existence, one of its purposes being to eliminate P.F.A.A.-the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. From that act farmers received a certain amount each year when they suffered from crop failures. It was just to keep them alive, to eliminate relief, so that they could continue in succeeding years, in the hope that they might reap crops at some later time.
Are we going to have P.F.A.A. for the rest of our lives, or is something going to be done to eliminate that condition? I am speaking about the southwest corner. Incidentally, I receive no benefit from the proposed South Saskatchewan river project, because the elevation of my land is too high. We are too far away. I am not too hopeful about the power prospects. We can get along without that power if we have to, but we cannot get along and produce the necessities of life with a land that is dried out.
So we wish to augment P.F.R.A. and eliminate as much as possible of P.F.A.A. How are we going to do it if we adopt the attitude where we are going to wait another ten years, or perhaps longer, until someone completes the South Saskatchewan river project?
I am not one who looks to other governments to do things. I would like to see them done by this government. I would ask the people of Canada to give consideration to what has happened out in Saskatchewan. I would ask them to give consideration to what is contained in the report that has recently been presented to parliament. If there is one thing in that report that has been eliminated and that, in my opinion, has not been considered, it is the fact that there has not been sufficient distinction

South Saskatchewan River Project between dominion-provincial cost, consideration of what the province would have to pay and what the dominion would pay.
I do not think there would be any question in the minds of any of us as to the attitude we should take when P.F.R.A. representatives, engineers who have been associated therewith, and others, have stipulated that at the very outside it would cost the Dominion of Canada no more than $84 million, over a period of ten years. That $84 million is spread over a ten-year period- and that is what we are asking the people of Canada to consider, so that we can establish ourselves out in that country and thus eliminate relief costs and relief measures over the years.
That is what we want the government and the people of this country to do. I would associate myself with what has been said by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith). I would say sufficient commissions have been appointed. However, I would disagree with the hon. member in one respect, because I think there should be one more commission, and it should consist of only one member of the former Meek commission, one member of the Cass-Beggs commission and one member of the Hogg commission, as well as one member from among officials of P.F.R.A., who know more about this subject than anybody else. They could determine what would be the best policy for Canada to follow.
They would not need to make any further investigation at all, because they have their reports. Let us have this committee appointed to investigate committees-commissions to investigate commissions. They could do it all in a month. And if those four people were not enough, then let us add a few farmers. Because the farmers of western Canada, with the dominion Minister of Agriculture, could make a decision on this matter within thirty days. It would be a valuable decision and one that the Dominion of Canada could support.
I would offer one word of caution, however: Do not put any lawyers on that commission, because if they act as some opposition lawyers are acting in the House of Commons that commission would continue until the crack of doom.
Do you know what there should be in connection with this House of Commons? In addition to the house, and the other place, there should be an intermediate place where we could put all these lawyers, these people who make their living by their mouths. In that way they could talk the year round, and it would permit us farmers to go back home and do something for the national well-being of the country.
[Mr. StuderJ
Put them all in that intermediate place, a place that has been described in the Bible as the limbo. Put them in there, but do not overlook the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) because, he being the sixty-sixth edition of Beauchesne, he could keep them all in order. So the opposition come before the House of Commons with what they know is a ridiculous situation. In the first place they are asking us to vote for subamendments and amendments to convince the government that the dam should be built. Whom are we going to convince with any vote? They cannot even convince themselves. The originator of that amendment, if he has been convincing people in Saskatchewan with votes over these last fifteen years, has certainly done a good job of it because only two per cent of the population in Saskatchewan have voted for his party. So if he is convincing people, he is convincing the Tory party right out of existence by voting.
You do not convince anyone by voting. You can vote for something the rest of your life but you do not convince a soul. You convince people by logical, common horse-sense argument. I do not know anyone who is better at that kind of argument than the farmers of western Canada and all over Canada.
Let them have a little chance to operate here in this House of Commons without having to apply for admission within the ranks and only be accepted on the terms "we will listen to you but we are wasting our time by doing so". All the time that has ever been wasted in this country has been wasted by lawyers talking. All the difficulty that people get into is caused by some lawyer getting them into it or by some other lawyer trying to get them out. So I suggest that the farmers could settle this with much less discussion. If the opposition think we can convince anyone by voting, they do not do that in the province of Ontario through their legislation or they do not do it in the province of Saskatchewan. In order to persuade people you have to convince them that something should be done.
They are telling us to do in this House of Commons exactly what they refuse to do in their own provincial governments. They definitely will not vote against their budgets. They definitely will not vote against their speech from the throne because it would be considered a non-confidence vote. They definitely will not vote against the bringing in of supply because that is a vote of non-confidence. They will never do that, yet they ask us to do it in order to convince the government. The government does not need to be

convinced. Convince the rest of the people of Canada by sound, logical argument, convince also the western farmer and that is all you need to do because the government will not go against the wishes of the people as a whole. I was not sent here by the people of Maple Creek to vote non-confidence in this government because, when things are done, they will be done by this government, not by somebody voting this way or that way in a political sense. This government does the right thing because it is the right thing to do, and for no other reason. When we convince this government and all the people of Canada who have to be convinced that it is the right thing to do to build this dam, then it will be done. No political discussion will ever change that because you would be in the same position if you ever were the government, which God forbid.
So I would like to conclude by again bringing to the people of Canada the necessity of giving consideration to this South Saskatchewan river project. I hope that we can look forward to an early favourable decision on the part of the people of Canada represented by the government for the building of this dam. In that way we can do our part in this world to prevent a recurrence of what has only too often happened in the past, drought conditions which make it impossible for people to live in the various areas and put forth their full productive effort, which would prevent the wastage of land and the wastage of public moneys that are used as an alternative means of supporting the people in these areas during such years.
I claim and repeat along with other members that we should go forward in this young and virile country, which boasts of being one of the leading countries in the world, and make the greatest possible use of our productive efforts to provide a greater utilization of our resources and create a condition in this country which our children, when they replace us, will look back at and realize that in this day and age we provided, not only for themselves in plenty, but for many other peoples throughout the world.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I did not intend to take any part in this debate because it does not practically concern the part of the country from which I come, but certain statements have been made during the debate to which I have listened carefully with which I must take issue. Several members of the opposition who have spoken have said that they would like to see a free vote on this issue. I have sat here for two days wondering what is a free vote.
South Saskatchewan River Project


An hon. Member:: There ain't no such animal.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: During the eight years that I have been in Ottawa I have never been asked to vote in a particular way. I can say in all sincerity that I have never been asked to vote on any issue in any particular way. I have used my own judgment. I recognize the fact that I was sent here as a Liberal member of parliament. No doubt it is pretty well taken for granted that I will support Liberal policy. I will admit that to a great extent I have done that, but I have not been driven, I have not received any suggestions. I feel that I am as free as any member in the House of Commons. I do not like this suggestion of a free vote because I will vote o'n any issue the way I feel I should vote.
Other statements have been made with which I take issue. When the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) was speaking yesterday he suggested that the project under discussion had been supported by the leader of his party inside and outside the chamber at all times. To me that seems to be a most irresponsible statement, to say that a man should be prepared to support a thing before he knows it is economically sound. I could not sell that in the maritime provinces. The people who know me and who have been with me eight years know that I have never voted against anything that would be for the benefit of the general public in this country.	I have always
supported them.
I should like to put on the record what was said yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when he was asked a question by the hon. member for Lake Centre. This is what the Prime Minister said, as reported on page 1770 of Hansard:
The government is not prepared to go ahead, without further information, to recommend to parliament the expenditure of the amounts estimated by the commissioners, and will not take it upon itself to do that until it has further information.
I could not support this type of thing when I am convinced in my own mind that there is not sufficient evidence so far to prove that it is economically sound. There is one more thing I should like to mention at this particular point which has been very noticeable to me. Another report was brought into this chamber recently and it was suggested that the investigator did not need to be investigated. It went before a committee and the people who are talking here today did not ask one single question in the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot allow a discussion of that matter at this time.
1796	HOUSE OF
South Saskatchewan River Project


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am finished with that matter, Mr. Speaker. This report came in, but this report is all wrong. We are prepared to accept one without any discussion, but the other one is all wrong. There is no foundation for the information that is in this report that is being discussed here now. I fail to understand why those two attitudes should prevail. I cannot understand how you can take one for granted and condemn the other one when so far as I can understand from the discussion that has taken place everyone is convinced that the men responsible for these reports were the most reliable men to be found in. that particular type of work. But one is condemned completely.
It has been suggested that some of the members of the cabinet and the Prime Minister might have been playing politics with this issue. If I have ever seen politics played with any issue, it has been played by those who have spoken in the last two days when men stand up and say that they will support this wholeheartedly when they do not know it is economically sound. They are prepared to support it anyway because it might mean votes for them. I want to tell these gentlemen something. There is an old story about the dog that reached for the shadow and lost the bone completely. Be careful that that very thing does not happen and that this does not boomerang on you. You may gain a few votes somewhere but in other places you may lose a whole lot more than you gain. I am sure that the discussion that has gone on here in the last two days would not appeal to the people of the maritime provinces. If I am convinced that the project is feasible and economically sound, I can stand up and vote for it and explain it to the people of my constituency; but on the basis of the report that has been made and the information contained in it it is impossible to do so.
I should like to bring one matter to light in that connection and then I will sit down. In the section of the country from where I come there is a project that has been under discussion for twenty-five years, the Passa-maquoddy tidal power project. It would mean much to that particular part of the country because we are very short of electrical energy. It would mean everything to us. It has been under study for a long time. We all get impatient. I am impatient at the present time. I should like to know what is to be done. Engineers of great experience tell us that it is feasible so far as the building is concerned but they are not convinced that it is economically sound. In other words, they are not convinced that power 

could not be produced more cheaply from other sources than by the construction of this project.
I am sure that the people of Ontario, Quebec and the western provinces would not want to pour money into such a project if electrical energy can be generated more cheaply by steam. The same considerations exactly apply to the South Saskatchewan project. If I can be assured that it is economically sound after it has been investigated, then I am prepared to support it, but I do feel that it is playing politics to the fullest extent for men to stand up in this chamber and say they are prepared to support it regardless of whether or not it is economically sound.


John George Diefenbaker: Nobody ever said that.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I wanted to place the views of a maritimer on the record. That is the position I am in and that is the attitude I will take. When it comes time to vote there is no one on that side of the house and no one in this group who will tell me how to vote. I will decide for myself how I will vote just as I have for the last eight years.


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


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Certainly.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member mentioned the fact that he had never known anything else but a free vote in this house. How would he interpret the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) at the time the milk subsidy was under debate when he said, as found at page 5431 of Hansard for August 27, 1946:
Nevertheless the government has no objection to an expression of opinion from the members of the house. I suggest that the vote should be a free expression regardless of party.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am pleased to answer that question. I have no knowledge of what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said at that time. I have no knowledge of what he had in mind, but so far as that particular vote is concerned I can say again that it was not suggested to me by any member of the cabinet or anyone else as to how I should vote. I voted to suit myself and it is so recorded in Hansard. As I state'1 before, never in the eight years that I have been here have I been asked to vote on any issue in any particular way.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The party is so well trained that they follow. They do not have to be told.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Speak for
yourself.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Speak for yourself.


An hon. Member:: Fergie, old chap, don't say that.


Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker,
I enter this debate with some timidity, being primarily an urban type representing an urban riding and also representing an Ontario riding. Since the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) has spoken, I am even more timid because I am a member of the legal profession. However, he did mention that sometimes we are able to get people out of trouble, and perhaps I can suggest something that may be of some use to the people from western Canada. It has been my observation generally that property and civil rights, such as are involved in this case, are always under the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces, and in my own province of Ontario these matters are usually looked after by the province. I should like to suggest that so far as Saskatchewan is concerned the province has a legitimate claim. First of all, when the province was formed, which as I remember was some time around 1905, the resources were reserved to the federal government and were not returned to the province until many years later.
During that period much of the immigration to and settlement of the now arid area of southern Saskatchewan took place, and the federal government, both parties at one time or another, had the control of it. Therefore I suggest that the federal government, having been in a sense responsible for that settlement, owes a duty to Saskatchewan by reason of the improper, inefficient or unknowledgeable administration during that period. I would suggest that their duty is to try to remedy the defect, to try to remedy what took place. One obvious remedy would be to remove these people and place them elsewhere, but such a remedy is never simple of accomplishment. If another remedy is to provide irrigation to permit the land on which these people were settled to become properly arable, then I would suggest that is a suitable solution.
The report of the commission has been made and it indicates to a certain extent anyway that the project may not be economically sound. In that event, since I believe that the federal government has a duty to the province of Saskatchewan, I would suggest that the government study earnestly what can be done in the way of irrigation It may be that the P.F.R.A. engineers have a proper solution or it may be that they have not. Nevertheless I suggest that in fairness to the province of Saskatchewan-and I think this feeling is held generally by those in
South Saskatchewan River Project Ontario-a proper study should be made reasonably quickly. The information is now available, and a decision should be made as to what should be done so far as irrigation is concerned.
I do not think any person from Ontario feels, as some of the Saskatchewan members sometimes suggest, that Saskatchewan is something that is outside the pale. Nor do we ever feel that we do not need Saskatchewan. We regard it as a most valuable part of our national economy, and obviously it is only by the complete integration of all natural resources in the total economy of Canada that we can achieve the greatness which is necessary to this country. When people from Saskatchewan make comments about the rather indifferent attitude of those from the east I think they are sometimes expressing opinions in which they do not really believe. It would be silly for any hon. member of this house to try to write off Saskatchewan or any other province and suggest that when something is due to them they should not receive it. Therefore, acknowledging that we possibly owe a debt to Saskatchewan, my only suggestion is that a study be made of the problem as soon as possible using the large amount of information available, and that a solution be reached and action be taken.


Mr. John M. James (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks following what has been said by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) and the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Hunter). First of all I am not a lawyer, and that may be of some help to me here. But I do want the people of Saskatchewan to know, and especially members of this house from Saskatchewan, that we in Ontario are right behind them as far as we can go. I do not think there is any doubt about that. That feeling is not the monopoly of a couple of Conservative members. It is held equally by every Liberal member of the house from eastern Canada. We are most sympathetic to their cause.
At this point I should like to pay a tribute to the wonderful sales effort put on by Liberal members from Saskatchewan in connection with this project. They have visited our offices, they have talked to us on every and all occasions on which we have come in contact with them. They have tried to explain the difficulties they have had and the necessity of something being done. I pay tribute to their work and I want to let their constituents know what wonderful work they have done and are doing on their behalf. There is no monopoly there as far as the Conservatives
1798	HOUSE OF
South Saskatchewan River Project are concerned-or the other parties. The Liberals from Saskatchewan have done a wonderful job.
Going further, I must say I admired the attitude the Prime Minister has taken about this, in comparison with the attitude of the other parties concerned. It was one of responsibility-responsibility that has been evident in his actions since he has been our Prime Minister. I say to the people of Canada and of this house in particular, Mr. Speaker, thank God we have a Prime Minister and a cabinet who must be convinced of the right way before they will go ahead and spend $2 million, $84 million, $350 million or whatever it may be. They must be convinced they have the answer before they will go ahead on any project, be it this one or be it any other. They will not be pressured into building the South Saskatchewan dam or anything else until they are convinced it is right to go ahead, to take the taxpayers' money and go ahead with that or any other project. Thank heaven we have that cabinet and that Prime Minister with us.


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: I just want a minute of the time of the house because I too have been visited by the Liberal members from Saskatchewan who have taken my time and their time to explain and re-explain to me the South Saskatchewan project and its benefits. Perhaps the views of a member who is not elder but who has grey hairs would be useful.
We should let the people of western Canada know that we in eastern Canada want to be helpful. We have long ago realized, if we have not expressed the view, that we in eastern Canada can be neither healthy nor prosperous without western Canada; that we appreciate that the metropolis of Winnipeg, and Regina in the heart of the wheat belt, and the great city of Vancouver, which has a twelve-months port, are dependent on the wheat belt.
As I understand it, and as simply as I can put it, we are trying to build a lake in the centre of the prairie provinces. In eastern Canada we have much water. We have too much water at times but you in western Canada lack water. We cannot bring you our water; there is no way of doing that; there is no way of our sharing it with you. But we can share our wealth with you in order that wealth may provide water for you.
We in eastern Canada look upon the South Saskatchewan project as being in the interests of all the people of Canada and not of any particular part of it. As for myself, I was very disappointed that some doubt was cast upon this scheme, but it has been; and that 

is something that you people from Saskatchewan will have to overcome in some way. Remove the doubt; that is your immediate task.
Much more progress can be made if all of us in this house would devote ourselves to removing as quickly as possible that doubt which has been cast upon the project by the report. I assure the members from western Canada that we shall support the project willingly and anxiously.


Mr. Romuald Bourque (Outremont-St. Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of speaking on this matter but after hearing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), and the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer), whom we heard a while ago, I thought I might add my contribution.
We know that these gentlemen who are from Saskatchewan are very anxious to have this dam built and we also know that, as a member said a moment ago, Canada can only be prosperous provided the whole country is prosperous. If all of the provinces are not prosperous Canada cannot be prosperous.
I am sure that we have great admiration for the people of the west who have done a wonderful job in building that part of this country. We have great admiration for those men who have fought the battle to have this dam built. But if we stop to think for a moment, we will all agree that up to now Almighty God seems to have been pretty good to the people of Saskatchewan. The farmers seem to be getting their fair share of prosperity and we are glad they are getting that fair share of prosperity because they deserve it. We hope they will continue to be prosperous for many years so that we may enjoy that prosperity with them.
The government, however, has a duty to perform which cannot be limited to any one section of this vast country, nor to any one province. It is the duty of the government to find out and investigate closely just where and how money received from the taxpayers can be spent most judiciously. It may be all right for the members from Saskatchewan to concentrate all their efforts on forcing the government to act immediately on this dam. I have already said before that I admire them for that, because if they can get this dam for their province it will no doubt add to the great prosperity of Saskatchewan and, eventually, of Canada. We would all benefit from that. But, Mr. Speaker, the government must, before spending the taxpayers' money, look forward and see what the best results can be for the country as a whole. Until it has investigated every means of irrigation I

think it would be foolish at the present time for the government to endeavour to build this dam until it has further information. I base my views on the report of the commission. Some people have said-


An hon. Member:: That is not the Currie report you have, is it?


Romuald Bourque: -that the commission should not have gone into all these things. To me, however, the commission was a commission duly appointed by this government and I am sure that its members endeavoured to do their duty as they saw fit. They have had expert advice and they are looking to the prosperity of Canada as much as we are.
I would refer to page 6, "Findings and Recommendations":
1.	The commission finds that at present the economic returns to the Canadian people on the investment in the proposed South Saskatchewan river project (central Saskatchewan development) are not commensurate with the cost thereof; though the project would yield social returns which, while they cannot be measured for the purpose of this report, would be of great value to the region in which it is situated.
2.	The commission recommends that, when the time comes that the project represents the then best use of water for irrigation, the present finding should be reviewed in the light of changing conditions . . .
3.	The commission finds that the available data, which are by no means complete, indicate that the said project does not represent the most profitable and desirable use which can be made of the physical resources involved . . .
5. The commission finds that the future demand for water for irrigation could be such as to exhaust the available flow of the South Saskatchewan river, and recommends, therefore, that without delay a comprehensive, long-range program be developed that would result, over the years, in the most beneficial use being made in the interests of the people of Canada of the waters of the Saskatchewan river from its head waters to the sea.
I therefore concur entirely with the remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on Monday evening when he said, as reported on page 1770 of Hansard:
The government is not prepared to go ahead, without further information, to recommend to parliament the expenditure of the amounts estimated by the commissioners, and will not take it upon itself to do that until it has further information . . .
The further information is as to whether or not this is the best use to be made of that great national asset. Personally I think that it is a good use to be made of it, and if I can be convinced to the extent where I can honestly say that I believe it to be the best I will recommend to my colleagues to make the recommendation to parliament. But I want to be sure that if this asset is used in this way it will not be apparent shortly afterward that there was a better use to which it should have been put.
As a businessman, Mr. Speaker, I say this is not the proper time to go ahead with this project because the commission has stated that there might be other plans in the
South Saskatchewan River Project future that would be cheaper. Since we have to spend the taxpayers' money judiciously, I think it would be a good idea to have further investigation. If we find at a later date that this is a bona fide project, then we could go ahead with it. I would then be entirely in favour of that project.
I heard an hon. member state a few minutes ago that he had never been asked to vote in any particular way. I can say that since I have been in this house-it is only a short time-no one has ever asked me to vote in any particular way or told me to do anything I did not want to do. I should like to tell the gentlemen who have spoken, and who have told us that we have to vote in a certain way, that I shall vote with the government because I am convinced that the government is right. I am proud of the words used by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) the other night. Like a good father with a family of ten children, he wants to see that the money the government is spending is spent fairly and for the good of the whole of Canada. It is for that reason that I shall vote with the government, because I am convinced that the Prime Minister has the welfare of Canada at heart and it is for that reason he is delaying this project. He is not sure that it is the best way to spend the taxpayers' money.


Mr. A. M. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I did not
intend to take part in this debate, but after hearing the remarks of the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer), I believe I would be remiss in my duty as a member of the New Brunswick bar if, at this stage, I did not take up the cudgels and say a few good words on behalf of the lawyer members of the government and the House of Commons. The hon. member suggested, when speaking on this amendment, that the house should be divided into three sections, and that the lawyers should occupy the limbo section. If we were to follow the pattern set out by the hon. member and had one section which was not very interesting, then a heavenly section, a purgatory section and then limbo, in what section would the hon. member for Maple Creek like to see himself?
There have been many things, mostly bad, said about lawyers throughout the ages. One definition which has always struck me as being very much to the point, Mr. Speaker, was coined by a great British jurist when he said that lawyers were comparable to a pair of shears in that they cut everything that comes between them but they never nick one another. May I remind the hon. member that all these unfriendly, uncharitable, sometimes witty but often "corny"-to use a modern expression-darts which have been thrown at us have always been blunted on

South Saskatchewan River Project the Canadian lawyers' armour of professional solidarity and dignity. We are strengthened in the realization that most of those who criticize us most, severely deserve nothing but the divinely inspired words:
"Father forgive them; they know not what they do."
Before resuming my seat, may I ask the hon. member for Maple Creek where he would find a cabinet in his government today were it not for the thirteen able lawyers who make a good part of the 20-member cabinet of the present government?


Pierre Gauthier: They are good
lawyers.


Albany M. Robichaud: I said that.


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: I should like to say a few words on this subject because the real roots of my very existence stretch down into the dry, droughty soil of Saskatchewan. I recollect quite vividly what the lack of rainfall meant to many people in Saskatchewan. I should like to say also that, coming from the province of British Columbia, no tirade of abuse has ever been levelled at me because I voted in support of additional payments to the people of Saskatchewan for grain. Further than that, I should like to say that we are representatives of Canada, and not just representatives of one constituency in the dominion. I feel, therefore, that on this occasion it is necessary to speak about unity in Canada. I am not going to devote one instant while I am on my feet to speaking about the merits or demerits of the South Saskatchewan development. The whole carcass, if I may use that expression, of the subject has been gnawed over in this house for a couple of days. I do not think anything I could say with respect to that carcass would be edifying to any member of the house.
I should like hon. members to allow their minds to go back to the days of Upper and Lower Canada to see what great advancement the Canadian nation has made in unity, not provincial unity, not parochial unity, but in national unity for the general welfare of the Canadian people. It is that point about which I am most concerned. In that connection, sir, may I say that some of our great prime ministers of the past, the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the late Right Hon. R. L. Borden, the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, and our present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) have added tremendously to the national unity of Canada, compared to what it was at the turn of this century. Therefore, sir, rather than delay the house unduly in connection with what I consider to be a proper appraisal of national unity, I should like to quote a citation from

the life of Lord Rosebery as written by Lord Crewe. Before I do that may I say that there are certain phrases in the quotation I shall read that deal with Scottish union as they apply to the United Kingdom and also unity within the United Kingdom, and wherever the phrase occurs in what I am about to quote we can substitute the word "confederation" or "confederacy" as it applies to the Dominion of Canada. I should like to put on record the words of Lord Rosebery with respect to unity as they appear on page 49 of this volume. As this quotation was applicable in his day, so also is it applicable today in Canada:
Our ancestors put their hands to a mighty work, and it prospered. They welded two great nations into one great empire, and moulded local jealousies into a common patriotism. On such an achievement we must gaze with awe and astonishment, the means were so adverse and the result so surprising. But we should look on it also with emulous eyes. Great as that union was, a greater still remains. We have in our generation, if we would remain a generation, to effect that union of classes without which power is a phantom and freedom a farce. In these days the rich man and the poor gaze at each other across no impassable gulf; for neither is there in this world an Abraham's bosom of calm beatitude. A powerless monarchy, an isolated aristocracy, an intelligent and aspiring people, do not together form the conditions of constitutional stability. We have to restore a common pulse, a healthy beat to the heart of the commonwealth. It is a great work, the work of individuals as much as of statesmen, . . .
I should like hon. members to pay particular attention to this phrase. I continue:
. . . alien from none of us, rather pertinent to us all; each in his place can further it. Each one of us-merchant and clerk, master and servant, landlord and tenant, capitalist and artisan, minister and parishioner-we are all privileged to have a hand in this most sublime work of all; to restore or create harmony betwixt man and man; to look, not for the differences which chance or necessity has placed between class and class, but for the common sympathies which underlie and connect all humanity. It is not monarchs, or even statesmen, that give to a country prosperity and power. France in 1789 had a virtuous monarch and able statesmen. But the different classes of the community had then become completely estranged, and the upper crust of society was shivered to dust by the volcano beneath. In this country the artificial barriers which separate class from class are high enough, but, thank God, they are not insuperable. Let us one and all prevent their becoming so. A great page records the bloodless and prosperous history of the Scottish union. A greater page lies vacant before us on which to inscribe a fairer union still."
That is the crux of my remarks, Mr. Speaker. As Canadians, let us determine to continue the great work of bringing about a greater national harmony in the Dominion of Canada. That has been exemplified by other members here this afternoon, one from the maritimes and also from Ontario and Quebec. Let us agree that if the economics

of this project are such that they warrant the expenditure of the amount of money called for either by the commission report or in the estimates of the cost by the federal government, we shall see to it that through our voice in this parliament we shall bring about, as the closing words of the quotation I have just given say, a greater and more lasting harmony and unity than we have had.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the subamendment.


Mr. Cruickshank:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis).


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Argue:: I wonder if you could call it five o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the main amendment has been lost?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Graydon:: The main amendment has been carried.


Hazen Robert Argue: I want to speak at this stage of the debate, but I see it is five o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. gentleman spoke on the subamendment and I think it

Mercantile Bank of Canada is the practice in the house on the motion to go into supply that hon. members shall speak just once.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Otherwise an hon. member could speak three times on the motion to go into supply.


Gordon Graydon: If he has something to say let him speak.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I point out that the hon. member for Lake Centre-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I point out-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think he did it quite properly, but the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has already spoken twice in the debate. He spoke to the main motion, moved an amendment and then was permitted to speak to the subamendment. I submit that in the same manner the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), who spoke on the subamendment, has the right to speak on the main amendment, and on the main motion as well, if he wishes to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: I recall that the hon. member for Lake Centre did speak twice. However, it is five o'clock and I shall consider the matter between now and eight o'clock. It being five o'clock the house will consider private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILL


Mr. Alan Macnaughlon (Mount Royal) moved: the second reading of Bill No. Ill, to incorporate the Mercantile Bank of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill not going to speak to it at this time?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: It will be a pleasure to say a few words on this bill to incorporate the Mercantile Bank of Canada. The incorporators are five well-known gentlemen, three of whom are extremely well known to Canadians. The first is Mr. J. B. Carswell of Vancouver, who during the war was director general of the department of munitions and supplies in Washington. He of course is a well known consulting engineer and at the present time has considerable to do with the Kitimat construction and other big projects in British Columbia. Mr. Arthur Cross is also one of the Canadian incorporators, and he was a senior partner of P. S. Ross and Sons of Montreal, chartered accountants. He is a past president of the Dominion Steel and


Coal Corporation and a past director of the Royal Bank of Canada. Senator Bouffard is of course well known to most of us. Aside from being a lawyer, he is president of La Banque d'Economie de Quebec, Quebec city.
Then we have the last two directors, C. J. Endert and H. E. Moquette, both of whom are managing directors of the Dutch bank, Nationale Handelsbank N.V. of Amsterdam, Holland. The capital is $3 million divided into 300,000 shares of the value of $10 per share. I understand $1,500,000 will be subscribed if the House of Commons allows this bill to go through. The head office is proposed for the city of Montreal, and as soon as possible thereafter a branch will be opened in the city of Vancouver because one of the purposes of this incorporation is to supplement the international trading services of the existing banking system of Canada. This charter, as hon. members will see from section 5 of the bill, if passed and accepted by the house will continue in force, as will the charters of all other banks of Canada, until the decennial revision, namely July 1, 1954.
I am prepared to give further details but the bill has been considered in the other place, has been given third reading and passed. I suggest that it should be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce where we are prepared to give any and all explanations, to call any witnesses that the members may desire, to expose the plans and the necessity, purpose and reasons for the passing of the bill and the application in further detail.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
Mr. Speaker:: The business under the heading "private and public bills" having been completed, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



IRRIGATION-SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER DAM

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) that the house go into committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Mr. Speaker:: Just before five o'clock the hon. member for Assiniboia rose to speak on the main amendment to the motion to go into supply and I raised the question whether a member, having spoken on the subamendment, could speak on the main amendment. It has been brought to my attention that the hon. member for Lake Centre has spoken on the main amendment and the subamendment. It would therefore appear that a

member who has spoken on the subamendment may speak on the amendment. I would be glad to hear the views of any hon. members with respect to that point.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Speaker, as one of those who has done a lot of listening, I was thinking that enough has been said.


Mr. Speaker:: That may be the opinion of the hon. member, but I am only concerned with the rules. On giving the matter further consideration, it seems to me that an hon. member can speak on the subamendment and on the amendment. Of course he could then speak on the main motion. I will not make that a firm ruling, but will allow it to stand for the present.


Gordon Graydon: You had better make it permanent. I think you are right.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I think the vote taken just before five o'clock constitutes a very severe blow indeed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot allow that. There has been a vote and the house has come to a conclusion on the subamendment. That vote must stand. I think I should be firm and require the hon. member to speak to the main amendment.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the main amendment was moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the following terms:
This house regrets that in the estimates presented to this house no provision has been made for immediately proceeding with the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam.
When the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) began his speech yesterday he attempted to convince hon. members that the very small item now in the estimates for further surveys in relation to this project is an item that in fact could be used for the construction of the project. The minister went to great lengths to attempt to show the house that this vote could be used for construction. He even went so far as to say that somebody had made a mistake, that the vote should have been $1 million instead of $500,000 as appears in the estimates.
I have seen the government make a lot of mistakes during this session, but I do not imagine the treasury board let half a million dollars go by without realizing it. I noticed that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) did not say that the item of $500,000 in the estimates should have been $1 million. It is a case once again of the Minister of Agriculture attempting to say in another way that the people of Saskatchewan can still expect that the project will be completed.
A lot has been said in this debate about members of parliament having a free vote.
South Saskatchewan River Project We have heard the hon. member for Outre-mont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque) and the hon. member for Durham (Mr. James) get up and say that votes are always free, that there is never any pressure put on Liberal members-


John Mason James: On a point of order, I do not believe that the hon. member for Durham ever said any such thing.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, I am sorry; that is correct.


John Mason James: Although I would agree with it heartily.


Hazen Robert Argue: It was the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart). The hon. member for Durham agrees, so we have three of them saying the same thing. That being the case, I suggest that members on the government side of the house from the province of Saskatchewan have no choice, if they really want the South Saskatchewan dam built, and should say not only by voice, which is important, but by vote, which in my opinion is of equal importance, that the project should be gone ahead with. The hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) said: Well, in this place it does not matter how you vote; it only matters how you talk. I wonder how the member for Maple Creek got his seat in the House of Commons. Was it by the way the people in his constituency talked or was it by the way they voted?
Speaking in the House of Commons is important in that we can bring issues to the attention of members, and we can plead that members should support certain issues. The vote is of extreme importance and any vote which has been taken against the amendment asking that the dam should be built is, in my opinion, a very distinct disservice to the people of Saskatchewan who are anxious that this project be gone ahead with.
I have been saying that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is attempting to dangle a carrot on a stick before the people of Saskatchewan in the coming election. He is trying to keep the door open and to say that perhaps that small item in the estimates may be sufficient to start construction of the project. Well, it is a carrot on a stick, but the carrot is getting smaller as the years go by. I notice that the estimates for this project for the year 1949-50, in other words the 1949 election year, were $2 million. The estimates for 1950-51 were divided into two categories. Both estimates that might have been used for this project and were used no doubt for certain surveys on the project totalled $1,775,000. The next year's estimates were again reduced, to $1,545,000. The 1952-53 estimates for this project were once again reduced, being down to $1,245,000. The
1804	HOUSE OF
South Saskatchewan River Project 1953-54 estimates that were recently tabled for this project total only $636,438.
We had a $2 million estimate in 1949-50, the last federal election year, and this year, another federal election year, the estimate is one-third of that $2 million. That estimate, taken in conjunction with the royal commission's adverse report, together with the stand taken by our own Saskatchewan Liberal members, suggests to me that the chance of getting the dam now is just about one-third the chance we had in 1949-50.
Well, the Minister of Agriculture was attempting to keep the door open, attempting to say there is a little item in the estimates and that there might be a little hope yet for the project. I notice that he said there was no division in the cabinet-there should not be, either-and so when the Prime Minister stated the cabinet's position we got the record straight. The Prime Minister said at page 1770 of Hansard:
The government is not prepared to go ahead, without further information, to recommend to parliament the expenditure of the amounts estimated by the commissioners, and will not take it upon itself to do that until it has further information.
The Minister of Agriculture says the door may still be open. The Prime Minister says the government is not prepared to go ahead. We have had members from Saskatchewan saying they could not vote in favour of the dam at this time, in favour of the amendment or the subamendment, because such a vote might defeat the government. They would not want to do 'anything that would defeat the government. Apparently if they have a choice between supporting this government, with its colossal majority, adding one more vote to a very large and unessential majority in any given vote, they prefer to do that rather than to vote for a project that is essential to their constituents and to the people of Saskatchewan.
We were not asking any of them to do anything that would vote the government out of office; though mind you, I imagine we will be leaving here in a few weeks and will be out fighting a federal election. It does not matter at all to me; in fact it would be just fine if the election were called now and we could get out a little bit sooner. That has nothing to do with their proposition. They would not vote for it because it might defeat the government and they would not want to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not entirely convinced that the hon. member has the right to speak again at this time. Citation 293 of Beauchesne's third edition reads as follows:
After an amendment has been moved and seconded, the question on the amendment is pro-


posed, and any member who speaks after that question has been proposed speaks to it and not to the main question. When the amendment has been disposed of and the main question is again proposed, any member can speak who has not already spoken on the main question, whether he spoke on the amendment or not.
I would ask hon. members to notice carefully the following words:
The mover and seconder of the amendment having spoken to the main question cannot speak again to it. The same rule applies, of course, to the case of an amendment to an amendment.
The original amendment to the main motion was moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). The subamendment was moved by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) and seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). Is not then the hon. member for Assiniboia prevented from speaking to the main amendment? Unless any hon. members have arguments to the contrary I am afraid that I shall have to rule accordingly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to try to argue to the contrary but I would like to point out two things. The first is that the citation you have just read from is not from any standing order. It is one of those many citations and precedents which I sometimes think cause us more trouble than they do us good. The other point I would draw to Your Honour's attention is that although those words have been there in that paragraph for all these years I have never known them to be applied. Time and again seconders of amendments and seconders of subamendments have been permitted to speak at the succeeding stage of the debate.
I would suggest that we should hardly be changing a practice that has been followed down through the years, particularly when the suggestion to do so is on the basis not of a standing order but of a paragraph known as a citation tucked away in the book.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, there are many citations in Beauchesne-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: -to the effect that if an hon. member moves an amendment or, having seconded an amendment, speaks to the amendment he is then prevented from speaking on the main motion. I think I would have to apply the same ruling to a subamendment. I am afraid I will have to rule that the hon. member for Assiniboia has not the right to speak at this time.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is it on a point of order?


Gordon Graydon: On a point of order. I am not an expert on the rules but in that respect I find myself very much at home with the great percentage of members in the house. However, I do think that there must be some common sense applied to a matter of this kind. If I may, I should like to bring what I believe is an element of common sense to this decision. It seems to me that when there is a main motion before the house, then the house membership has a right, while that motion is before the house, to speak. There is no doubt about that, and no one will deny that position. When an amendment is introduced I should think no one would object to anyone in the house speaking whether or not he has spoken before, because when an amendment is introduced a new subject is injected into the debate. For this reason the membership of the house has a right to discuss it and state their point of view.
Then when a subamendment is introduced, surely the same thing applies. Another new subject has been injected into the debate, and surely no one will suggest that the house membership has not the right to speak on that subamendment. Those three divisions having been properly established, then surely the reverse applies. After all, because a member does not speak at one of these stages surely he is not denied the right to speak when that stage is again reached by the house. I am not referring to a question of rules or anything technical, but I believe if you think this over, Mr. Speaker, you will see there is some injustice done if that common sense approach is denied to the membership of the house. I leave that to you, because your acknowledged fairness in matters of this kind will take that point into consideration. If a member has a right to speak at some stage of the debate, surely he has not denied himself that right by not having participated at that time.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Just to complete the picture, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I was most interested in the argument of the hon. gentleman. What is the main motion before the house? It is that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply. That is one stage where any member can speak, move an amendment or a subamendment. No one ever discusses the main motion that Mr. Speaker do or do not leave the chair. Usually they add some regret or ask some redress.
When the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoke, he spoke about the South Saskatchewan matter. In his amendment he blamed the government for not proceeding immediately with these works. His amendment was seconded by the Leader of
South Saskatchewan River Project the Opposition (Mr. Drew). Later on the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) moved the subamendment, and if I recall correctly the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) seconded the subamendment. In his speech he covered the whole amendment and the subamendment, and to my knowledge he did not forget anything.
Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that this citation has some good foundation? If you want to follow the other citation that says speeches should not be repetitious, I am sure all this will be a repetition of things that have been said many times. In the interests of orderly discussion in the house, once we have said everything we have to say, repetition cannot help our case. You say that this does not come under a standing order, but it is a consequence of standing order No. 43 which reads:
No member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his speech . . .


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is another question.


Alphonse Fournier: Which one, the South Saskatchewan?


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is now the amendment of the hon. member for Lake Centre. In connection with the subamendment of the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), the Speaker raised a different point. That is not being argued now.


Alphonse Fournier: I thought we were discussing the South Saskatchewan project or development. Perhaps 1 am mistaken and do not know enough about it. That is what has been discussed for two days. The hon. gentleman is now repeating himself because Mr. Speaker let him go on a second time and speak on the amendment. I would not apply the rule too strictly, but in the name of common sense 1 think we have discussed this at length and repetition would not enlighten the members of parliament or the public.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not an authority on the rules. In my experience in this house, I have never seen Your Honour rule a member out of order because he may have spoken on the subamendment and then wished to speak on the main amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman in that statement, but the difficulty in which I find myself is that the hon. member for Assiniboia seconded the subamendment. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) has raised a very interesting question, and I am inclined to agree with his viewpoint. 1 gather from what he said that hon. members who had not spoken on the main amendment should now have the

South Saskatchewan River Project opportunity of doing so. I agree with him. That is in accordance with the rules of the house, as he has stated.
However, the rule also is to the effect that an hon. member who moves or seconds a subamendment and speaks, not only speaks to the subamendment but also speaks to the amendment.
In the latter part of citation 293,1 find these words:
The mover and seconder of the amendment having spoken to the main question cannot speak again to it. The same rule applies, of course, to the case of an amendment to an amendment.
My ruling is that the hon. member for Assiniboia, having seconded the subamendment and having spoken to the subamendment, is prevented from speaking to the amendment. This does not, however, prevent other hon. members who have not spoken to the amendment from speaking to the amendment at this time. The hon. members who moved and seconded the subamendment along with the hon. member who moved the main amendment cannot speak at this time.


Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: would ordinarily hesitate a long time, Mr. Speaker, before entering a debate which might more properly be had on the occasion of the budget or at some other time. However, I think possibly I can make some slight contribution to this debate, and that is why I rise at this time.
I come from our most westerly province, and I think I will be understood when I say that we and the three western provinces enjoy something of a community of interest. I should like to think that all the people in British Columbia would be as anxious to see this project go ahead as are the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan. This is one of the great national projects upon which this government has embarked; and I think the great national projects upon which we have embarked constitute probably the finest contribution of this twenty-first parliament. It would be a fortunate circumstance if these projects could be by climatic and economic necessity spread equally all across this country, because a project of this size, or a project of the size of the St. Lawrence seaway, must be of benefit to all Canada as well as to the area in which they stand.
In connection with this amendment I am deeply concerned about the reported remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) when he was recently in the west, and I am equally concerned about statements made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue).

As far as I can see they take the stand: costs be hanged; let us build it anyway.
We have had members on the other side of the house endeavour to embarrass the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) by suggesting that he is now tarrying over a thing which his people want immediately.


Mr. Cardiff:: You cannot embarrass him.


Arthur Laing: Well, probably it is a good thing for Canada that he cannot be embarrassed. I would say this, that if he is embarrassed in his own province of Saskatchewan-and I do not think he is, very much-I should like to think that the taxpayers in the other provinces of Canada would thank him and the government for having the moral courage to take the position they did.
Irrigation farming, I have learned after considerable study, is the most hazardous of all types of farming. I know some of the history of irrigation in the areas represented by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie) and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). It is a type of agriculture that, after the water is available, involves a very great cost in preparing the land for the irrigation. I have seen in that area those big land planes, as they call them, in which the land has to be shaved down to make a gradual slope so the water can be economically used. When the water is put in this particular area of Saskatchewan, as undoubtedly it will be some day, you are going to revolutionize Saskatchewan to this extent, that you are going to cease having the monoculture that is at present practised there. I am of the opinion that as soon as the water is put on the land, that land will have a value of $150 to $200 an acre. Farm production is dependent upon soil resources, sunshine and water. On the prairies today two of these essentials are under control. The third is not under control. The proposal to bring irrigation to that area is to bring the third essential under control.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that Saskatchewan was a grain-growing province. I do not believe grain would continue to be the primary product grown on that irrigated land. I do not for a minute believe that. They would immediately have to get into, on account of the cost value of the land, the specialized crops for which Alberta is making a great name for itself today.
In our province of British Columbia we have a situation not dissimilar to that projected in the South Saskatchewan scheme. We have areas where the water has to be raised to the benchlands in our Okanagan for

the production of fruit. The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones) will bear me out when I say that in that area the gross production from some of that land-I mean gross production to the farmer-is of the nature of $2,000 an acre; yet they find that the maximum limit to which they can raise water effectively is something under 200 feet. That is something that should induce us not to cast aside advice but to use all the advice that we can possibly obtain.
The P.F.R.A. engineers in Saskatchewan, and indeed in all the prairie provinces, have in recent years done a magnificent job on soil and water conservation on relatively smaller projects. This is a very large project. I have no doubt that for years the P.F.R.A. engineers had been thinking in terms of this larger project; but I am equally convinced that they have not given the thorough study and inspection to the costs which would warrant the approval of the government of the scheme as a whole.
The government employed a commission. Two of these men I do not know, but I remember reading the late Dr. Widtsoe's writings fifteen years ago. I am informed that he was the best irrigation engineer on this continent, which might make him one of the better irrigation engineers of the world. The commission made a suggestion that the cost was excessively high. When I go to a doctor and he tells me something I do not like to hear I do not say, "Off with his head." They are doing that in Russia today, but I hope we will not do it in Canada. I think we have arrived at a position where we need additional information. Surely this project is of sufficient size to warrant all the information we can collect.
We are not an overly cautious people, and I would not be too cautious in this regard, but I do not want to be like the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Lake Centre or the hon. member for Assiniboia, and throw all caution to the winds; because the effect of this amendment is that regardless of cost we shall build it anyway.
As a taxpayer in another province I have said that we in British Columbia are just as interested in the building of that dam and the bringing of irrigation to the province of Saskatchewan as the people of that province, and we want to see it. We were as cruelly disappointed by the findings in this report as were the people of Saskatchewan, but at the same time to take the stand that regardless of cost we must proceed at once is to take a stand that I do not think should
South Saskatchewan River Project be shared by the people of any of the provinces, including Saskatchewan, and that is why I propose to vote against the amendment.


Mr. F. H. Larson (Kindersley):: I do not
pose as an authority on the constitution, but to my knowledge there are three qualities a government must have to stay in office. It must be able to carry the speech from the throne; it must be able to carry its budget, and it must be able to go into supply in order to vote money. At page 1591 of Hansard the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) moved:
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house regrets that in the estimates presented to this house no provision has been made for immediately proceeding with the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam."
When the suggestion was made as to its being a vote of want of confidence in the government the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) rose in his place and said this should be a free vote. Now, possibly Liberal members from Saskatchewan could vote with the opposition in this matter, and it is possible that the amendment might not carry. But if the house had divided evenly and ten or twelve members had voted in that way, I can imagine the hon. member for Lake Centre and the Leader of the Opposition pointing the finger of scorn at the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), demanding his resignation and that we go to the country, because the house could not go into committee of supply.
The principle is the same. The house, composed as it is now, is probably different from what it would be if it were evenly divided. But I repeat that the principle is exactly the same; and I respectfully suggest that this would be a vote of want of confidence in the government.
There is only one other matter I should like to discuss. The report on the project was made and concurred in by P.F.R.A. authorities and by their consultants. In November of 1949, in a private conversation I had with the premier of Saskatchewan, he told me that the power possibilities of the South Saskatchewan were not nearly what had been anticipated when the previous estimates were made. At that time he was foreshadowing the appointment of Mr. Cass-Beggs so that he could bring in a report; and subsequently that report came in. The first doubt was then cast on the feasibility of the proposition as set out by P.F.R.A.
We now come to the next step. Since the federal government had a great deal of responsibility in the matter, and taking into

South Saskatchewan River Project consideration the doubts expressed by the premier of Saskatchewan, in view of the fact that there was some division of opinion it was considered necessary to arrive at a proper conclusion in the matter.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he know that the premier of Saskatchewan is prepared immediately to sign an agreement that the dam be proceeded with?


Frederick Hugo Larson: I am speaking of what happened in 1949, in private conversation with the premier of that province. As a result the Hogg commission was appointed and produced a report in which it did not negate the benefits of the project. Its main point was that the costs were so high as not to be economically sound.
A second point of confusion has been introduced into this matter. At the present time the people of Canada do not know whom to believe, and many members in the House of Commons are in the same position. During the debate many members from other parts of Canada have risen and said that while in principle they support the project, they do not know exactly what the present position is in respect of these varying and conflicting reports.
On top of this it is suggested that we should have a free vote. While I am not well versed in constitutional law, I do not see how the Prime Minister could have a free vote in the matter. The amendment is a vote of lack of confidence, and one either votes for or against the government. I feel this government is the only one that will ever build the project, if it is built; so I do not see why one should vote against it on this occasion.
I do not see what the advantage of a free vote would be, other than that a certain segment of members would vote to build the dam while another segment would vote against it. In my opinion the expression of opinion in the house this afternoon would indicate that such a motion could be lost, and if it were lost it would drive another spike into any possibility of success in the venture, so far as building the dam is concerned, and thus negate the whole proposal.
I do not see anything to be gained by the kind of vote suggested by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I think this afternoon we have done that which was absolutely necessary. As was pointed out by the Minister of Agriculture, the confusion that now exists has not had time to be cleared up. In my view this whole discussion is premature, and the investigation suggested this afternoon should have taken place before this debate.


The confusion that has developed in respect of figures, and other matters now beclouding the issue, should be resolved.
After the investigation has been made- and I hope it does not take too long-we will have arrived at the proper time to carry on our discussions and make decisions in the matter.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I shall detain the house for only a moment or two, but I am bound to say a few words in view of the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing).
I have listened with interest throughout the debate, and feel it has been a most unusual one. We have heard lectures on Canadian unity; we have heard the suggestion by the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) that thirteen members of the cabinet should be placed in limbo, and we have had other Liberal members from Saskatchewan stating that this subject is being treated as a political football. I have noticed, however, that they have been kicking the football around very gingerly.
I have risen particularly to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart), I am sorry he is not now in his seat. I am always interested in listening to what he says because usually his observations are valuable. I believe he is a sincere member of the House of Commons. However, on occasions when he gets going under the full sail of his enthusiasm he goes a bit off course, especially when he deals with subjects such as smuggling and free votes in the House of Commons.
When the hon. member was speaking I asked him a question, when he had observed that so far as he was concerned he knew of nothing but free votes in the house. I drew his attention to the fact that in August of 1946 the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said, as reported at page 5431 of Hansard:
Nevertheless the government has no objection to an expression of opinion from the members of the house. I suggest that the vote should be a free expression regardless of party.
That statement was made in the debate on the milk subsidy. I questioned the hon. member because I thought the statement made at that time by the minister indicated clearly that there are votes which are not free expressions of opinions of members in the house.
The hon. member replied to my question with some ambiguity and, if I heard him correctly, stated, "I never heard of anything but a free vote. I voted"-and he was referring to this milk subsidy-"as I saw fit". Let

me draw the attention of the house to the fact that, according to Hansard of that date, August 27, 1946, the hon. member did not vote at all. I suppose he showed this usual independence and freedom of expression in not being present when the vote was called because even with a free vote there might have been some irritation on the government benches.
I am not personally acquainted with the area under discussion, with its physical features and the problems which must be solved. When it comes to a vote on this amendment I must base my decision upon what I have heard during this debate. I have heard all members from Saskatchewan in all parties suggest that this project should be proceeded with. I think if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) really told the house what he thought he would say that the government should proceed with this project.
That does not necessarily mean the government is restricted to proceeding in this way or that way. I think the whole tenor of the debate has been that the people of Saskatchewan throughout the years have been led to believe that some action was going to be taken in this respect by the government. In speaking in favour of the amendment I am not going into details or suggesting that it should be done exactly in this way or in that way. We want to see the government satisfy the people of Saskatchewan by taking some action in this respect. Even though that action is limited action, it should be indicated by an item in the estimates.
This amendment simply states that there is no provision in the estimates for the building or the commencing of the South Saskatchewan river dam. Surely that is a most reasonable proposal. If all hon. members from Saskatchewan voted in favour of the amendment there would be no danger of the government being defeated. Therefore I shall support the amendment, because I believe the people of Saskatchewan have this action coming to them.


Mr. J. S. Sinnott (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) said he was going to reply to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing).


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Pardon me, on a point of order; as usual, the hon. member for Springfield has misunderstood what is being said in the house. I said that I was moved to speak by the hon. member for Vancouver South speaking previously.
South Saskatchewan River Project


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I accept the humble apology of the hon. member. It' is quite evident that he has retracted what he indicated was his intention when he got up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How far off can a member
get?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You should know. I do not intend to take very long speaking on this matter as I know hon. members are anxious to have a vote on the main amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). It comes to my mind that a serious attempt is being made by the Conservative and C.C.F. parties to force the government to say that they are going to go ahead with the building of this South Saskatchewan dam regardless of whether it is feasible. There are good reasons behind their attitude which I shall divulge in a minute or two.
We all know that only a few days ago a terrible disaster struck in Holland. Dikes which had been constructed for centuries were torn down by a terrific storm and people by the thousands were drowned. I believe the government of today is much concerned about a similar thing happening to the city of Saskatoon. I am not an engineer myself, but I think I can rely on the experience of the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson). If you are going to have a wall of water 190 feet high you must have a very good base to hold back that water. Every precaution must be taken before a project of this kind is taken on.
I imagine that in Holland they had the services of the best engineers in the country; nevertheless disaster overtook them. We must see that everything possible is done before this undertaking is started. I suggest that a committee of this house be set up with power to call engineers from different countries who have had experience in the building of similar dams. This afternoon the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) told us of what had been accomplished in different countries by irrigation projects. It seems to me that before $100 million or $150 million, whatever the amount is, is spent, another few hundred dollars should be spent to bring engineers to this country who have had experience in this sort of thing.
There was a whisper on the wind some months ago that the Conservative party was looking for a new leader.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Why don't you apply?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am more concerned that the rumour or the whisper on the wind that was going around seems to be true, because over the waves of the radio today we heard that

South Saskatchewan River Project this great member for Lake Centre is going to abandon Saskatchewan and seek a seat in Toronto. It is quite evident that his motive in moving the amendment in connection with the South Saskatchewan dam-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Where are you going to run?


An hon. Member:: You are out of a job.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The remarks of the hon. member are not relevant to the amendment now before the house.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Thank you. May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner adjournment I made the statement that the official opposition and the C.C.F. party were making a determined attempt to force the government to construct a dam on the South Saskatchewan river. I should like to read a short paragraph to be found at page 23 of the commission's report in the section dealing with recommendations and general considerations. It shows the magnitude of the construction that is required. Paragraph 52 reads as follows:
The four large earth structures-the main dam, the Coteau creek dam, the third meridian dam and the railway crossing-would require a total of
57.500.000	cubic yards of material, most of which can be obtained in the vicinity. The dam would be 205 feet high with a crest length of more than
8.000	feet from bank to bank. It would impound about 8 million acre-feet of water, of which
2.650.000	acre-feet would be live, or useful storage. The reservoir would extend 140 miles upstream on the South Saskatchewan river and thirty miles down the Qu'Appelle river valley to the third meridian. The reservoir would have a surface area of 116,000 acres and a shoreline of almost 500 miles. It would inundate about 70,000 acres of land of which 11 per cent is under cultivation.
To say the least, Mr. Speaker, that is a considerable undertaking. I hear the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) laughing. To him it is a laughing matter-


Hazen Robert Argue: I was laughing at you.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: To him it is a laughing matter if he can get the government of the country to spend $150 million which would not serve a useful purpose.


Hazen Robert Argue: As long as it was on the dam it would be all right.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: So far as I am able to gather, the dam would not be of very much value


to the hon. member for Assiniboia. The only value he is getting out of it is a little bit of political value. It would not make any difference whether the country spent three or four billion dollars as long as he was elected in his constituency. That is all he is worried about. I am going to ask him a sincere question. From his own standpoint as the operator of a farm, does he take the advice of men with practical experience or does he just throw their advice to the winds in the same way that he wanted to throw all copies of the report of the commission into the South Saskatchewan river? It does not make a particle of difference to him whether or not the project is economically sound.
I hope the government will consider seriously a suggestion I should like to put forward. I suggest that a committee of this house be set up to hear further recommendations and to call for persons who have had experience in building such dams in other countries. I am sure that the experience of men who have built such projects in other countries cannot help but be of value to us and at the same time, if it is at all possible to build the dam, it would pave the way toward doing that at an early date. We would also be sure of what we were doing.
As I said before dinner, not very long ago there was a terrific storm which smashed dikes in several places in the countries of Holland and England. I am told these dikes were not more than 40 feet high, but in the paragraph of the report which I quoted it is pointed out that in one place the dam will be 205 feet high. It will certainly require a solid structure and much engineering work to hold back that amount of water. I suggest to the hon. member for Assiniboia that if he has any respect for the dollars of the people of Canada, if he has any respect for the people who reside in Saskatoon, he will agree with me when I say that if the dam is built every possible step must be taken to make sure that the same conditions will not be created that were brought about in Europe a little while ago, which resulted in the drowning of several hundred people.
I am given to understand that the proposed dam will be about 60 miles almost directly south of Saskatoon. If that wall of water should be let loose we all know what would happen to the people of that city. Therefore the government or whoever builds the dam will have to be very careful that the dam is sound in structure, and make sure before starting that it is economically possible.


Hazen Robert Argue: What did the P.F.R.A. engineers
say?


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner recess I listened with interest to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) discussing this project. He mentioned that as the member for Yale I could tell the house something about irrigation. However, I am afraid from the statements he made that he arrived at the wrong conclusion. As the member for Yale, which is an area possibly more advanced in irrigation than any other part of North America, I can say from my own experience that I think the South Saskatchewan river project should be proceeded with regardless of the cost. I say that because my memory goes back 30 years to the time we faced a similar problem of whether or not to go ahead with an irrigation scheme. I remember well that some papers opposed the scheme. They said it was impractical and that the cost would be too great. They said that a cost of up to $30 an acre for irrigation would break the farmers.
Looking back over those 30 years I well remember the type of land that was involved, covered with sagebrush and in some cases not even capable of sustaining that sagebrush. It was being sold or offered for sale for $5 an acre. A lot of it was bought at that price and some at $10 or $15 an acre. Last summer I was in that same district. It has been irrigated now for about 20 or 25 years. Orchards with young trees on land that was formerly worth only $5 or $10 an acre are selling at $2,000 an acre. That has all been brought about by the application of natural water to good land.
The same condition prevails in the area of the Palliser triangle. I believe that if good water can be applied to that land at a reasonable figure the same success can be achieved. I know that in some cases our irrigation cost ran from $15 to $25 an acre, which may be considered high. But as the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) pointed out, the average income per acre on our land is $1,000, so we could well pay that cost. However, if the crops on the prairie are not so lucrative or do not return such a high figure, I claim that alfalfa, beets and crops of that type could very well bear the cost of the figures stated here today, $6 or $7 an acre.
I am satisfied that this scheme would well repay the government in five, ten or twenty years. As it is that life-giving water, that wonderful stream is emptying itself into the ocean and is of no value. You cannot recover next year or in twenty years what you miss this year. It is a matter of taking steps immediately to apply that water to the land to make the central part of Saskatchewan a prosperous area, giving those farmers who 68108-116
South Saskatchewan River Project are now applying to leave the district an opportunity to make a livelihood.
I am speaking now from real experience because I have seen worse land, covered with sagebrush, brought into production and bearing crops second to none on the North American continent. I heartily approve of the scheme, and 1 would like to point out that practically every member from British Columbia, knowing the experience we have had, would give full support to any steps the government care to take to implement this scheme.
I realize that the cost is great and that the government hesitates on that account, possibly because of the fear of repercussions from the rest of Canada; but I can assure them that as far as British Columbia is concerned we will give full support to any scheme the government may deem fit and proper, and that it would be prepared to undertake.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I intend to take only a very few minutes-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: I don't believe it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have found that is one way of getting applause, by making that announcement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My purpose in rising at this time is to make one more appeal to the government to follow the course which would make it unnecessary to divide the house on this amendment. It is not my amendment; it was moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), but I believe it should be passed. During the course of the discussion it has been made clear that there is support for the substance of this amendment in all parts of the house and in all parts of Canada. I feel that the government would be well advised, despite the wrangling debate we have had during the two or three days this matter has been under discussion, to decide now to accept the amendment, let it pass, and then move again that we go into committee of supply and get on with the business of the house.
Several of us, Mr. Speaker, have made reference during the course of this debate to the incident of August, 1946, when a free vote was permitted on an amendment to a motion to go into supply.


Mr. George:: What is a free vote?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. George) wants to know what a free vote is. I ask him to consult the Minister

South Saskatchewan River Project of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) who, on that occasion, announced to the house that it was the wish of the government that the vote on that occasion be a free vote. I may tell him, since he was not here on that occasion, that the result of that announcement that it was a free vote was that some Liberals voted one way and some voted the other, and the final result was that the amendment carried. Nevertheless the government was not defeated. It was not a vote of confidence or of non-confidence because the minister, speaking on behalf of the government, had stated that it would not be so treated.
Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to review again the circumstances surrounding what happened in 1946 but for the interjection that came a moment ago. Rather I rose to remind the house of what happened more recently, namely on June 12, 1951. On that occasion when the motion that the house go into committee of supply was made, as is so often the case, by our genial friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) moved an amendment. It was an amendment which had to do with a proposal that a select committee be set up to consider the rules of this house. It was an amendment preceded by the usual preamble:
That all the words alter the word "that" to the end ol the question be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor:
Immediately after the Leader of the Opposition spoke to that amendment, a speech that occupied about four pages of Hansard, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) rose and said, as reported at page 3966 of Hansard of June 12, 1951:
Mr. Speaker, the government, and I am sure most members, if not all members of the house, welcome at least the substance of the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew).
The Prime Minister went on to say:
Before declaring expressly that we should be glad to accept it, I should like to see the exact language that is used.
Then about a page further on the Prime Minister said:
I have now had an opportunity of reading the language of the motion submitted by the Leader of the Opposition. I take it that the Leader of the Opposition does not intend this motion as one of no confidence in the government.
Then Hansard records this line:


George Alexander Drew: Oh, no.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, it having been made clear on that occasion that it was not intended by the Leader of the Opposition that that motion was to be regarded as one of nonconfidence in the government, the Prime Minister in the name of the government accepted


the motion. So, after a few more members had spoken, we find on page 3971 of Hansard of that same date this notation:
Amendment (Mr. Drew) agreed to.
Mr. Speaker, the government did not fall. It had already been made clear on both sides that this was not a motion of non-confidence, that this was something concerning which there was general agreement throughout the house. Instead of the government falling, Hansard goes on to say:


Alphonse Fournier: I move that this house do immediately resolve itself into committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Alphonse Fournier: I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself again into committee of supply.
After a bit of debate that motion was carried. We went into supply and went on with the business of the house.
Now, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that although there is one difference between that situation and this, there is also an element of great similarity. The difference is that on that occasion the debate was quite harmonious and on this occasion there has been a fair amount of acrimony. But the similarity is also there, namely on that occasion it was pointed out from both sides that there was general agreement on what was asked for in the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition.
The same thing holds true now. There is agreement in all parts of the house. There is agreement on the part of members representing all parts of Canada that we want this project gone ahead with, that we want the dam on the South Saskatchewan river to be built. It has also been made clear by the hon. member for Lake Centre, who moved the amendment, that he does not desire it to be regarded as a motion of non-confidence in the government. He desires rather that it should be treated as an amendment dealing with the subject matter of that amendment itself, and that the question of confidence in the government and the right of the government to go into supply be dealt with immediately thereafter.
So, Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising is to express the hope that the Prime Minister will at this stage catch the mood of the house, as it were, and realize that there is support in all parts of the house for-and I quote his words of June 12, 1951-
-at least the substance of the amendment moved by-
-the opposition. If he would be prepared to do that, obviously the house need not be divided. The amendment can be accepted and it can be, thereby, an expression of

South Saskatchewan River Project
opinion by the house in favour of the substance of the amendment, in favour of going ahead with the South Saskatchewan project. Immediately after that has been dealt with in that way the Minister of Public Works can get up again, as he did on June 12, 1951, and move that we then go into committee of supply.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that members and supporters of the government cannot have it both ways. On June 12, 1951, they claimed that if there was something upon which they were all agreed, it could be treated as a motion that was not a want of confidence motion. But today, in February, 1953, they try to claim that a similar motion must be regarded as a want of confidence motion. If the government insists, Mr. Speaker, in regarding this as a motion of non-confidence, in the light of that precedent of June 12, 1951, it simply means the government is really against the immediate construction of the dam as requested in the amendment that is now before the house.
I submit that any attempt on the part of Liberals, such as we have had during the course of this debate, to find an excuse for voting against this amendment on the ground it has something to do with confidence, is put out of court by the precedent to which I have referred on June 12, 1951. I made an appeal yesterday to the backbenchers on the Liberal side to ask for a free vote such as we had in August, 1946. They have not seen fit to do that, so the possibility of such a free vote being announced is, I take it, rather slim.
Therefore, since that course has not been followed, I now make this appeal to the government, that they treat this subject in the same way as they treated the question of a committee on the rules in 1951. It is a different matter, I know. The scope of this motion may be much greater; but there is this similarity, that on that occasion we were all agreed and so the motion was allowed to pass. On this occasion we are all agreed, so the amendment should be allowed to pass so the house can express its general support of this proposition and get on with the business of going into supply.


Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
(Text):



AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND CUBA

Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambion West):: I rise because of the emergency now facing the sugar beet growers not only in Ontario but in the three provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec. Another reason for my rising tonight is the recent announcement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) at Havana, Cuba, within the last few days, as reported in the press. I shall quote briefly from the press report, as follows:
Right Hon. C. D. Howe, Canada's trade minister, said yesterday that Canada and Cuba may be able to work out a new sugar agreement when the current one expires soon, but it would have to be one based on an understanding of "our respective problems and difficulties."
The main point there is the fact that this sugar agreement between Canada and Cuba does not expire until the end of this year, and unless an agreement is arranged between these two countries on a satisfactory basis r.ow there will be no sugar beets grown in any province of Canada, nor will there be any refinery operating in Canada this year.
That is the reason for the urgent endeavour to again present this matter which concerns so many people in Canada, not only the sugar beet growers but also the people in the cities, towns and villages, as well as new immigrants who have come to this country and got their start in the sugar beet fields with a hope of continuing in that line of work in the future.
In order that we might bring this matter up to date, without going into too long a review I would say that in May of 1951 Canada and Cuba entered into an agreement whereby Canada was to take 75,000 tons of raw sugar a year for the years 1951, 1952 and 1953, and in return Cuba was to take more seed potatoes, wheat flour and codfish. I think it is fair to say that every member in the House of Commons desires to promote


trade with other countries; but I do not think it would be the wish of anyone in the house that we should enter into an arrangement of this nature which would prejudice people in our country, or in the country with whom we are dealing.
The month of February is now one-third over, and we know that farmers across Canada who plan producing sugar beets in the coming season are wondering whether they should buy fertilizer and sugar beet seed, and whether they should sign contracts with the processors for the production of sugar beets. I have been in several sugar beet producing areas and they are very much upset, particularly in the last few days, as a result of this announcement; because since the agreement was entered into between this country and Cuba we find that, for the first time since 1931 or 1932, Cuba delivered to the Canadian market in the first eleven months of last year slightly more than 31 million pounds of refined sugar.
I wish to be fair by stating that I do not think it was the intention of this government or of officials in the Department of Trade and Commerce, when they entered into an agreement with Cuba to take 75,000 tons of raw sugar, that we would be subjected to importations of such enormous amounts of refined sugar. True enough, as I pointed out when I spoke a few days after the opening of the session in November, the department had been warned by the growers' association in 1948 and 1949 that as soon as the sugar control was over the growers might be subjected to pressure from Cuba, especially if, by chance, there was overproduction in that country.
It is a matter of record that in 1952 Cuba had a record crop of about 8 million tons of sugar. As we know, she is the greatest sugar-producing country in the world, and her record crop in that year placed her in a position where she wanted to get rid of her surplus. While for the current year her quota has been set back to some 5,500,000 tons, nevertheless there is enough held over from 1952 to stand as a threat to this country by reason of the fact that at the moment there is nothing to prevent her shipping refined sugar into Canada.
I think we must regard the agreement as one that was entered into in good faith. True enough there have been people throughout Canada who have said that our government blundered and that the sugar beet growers were sold down the river. Let me say here that the sugar beet growers of this country, in an industry now 52 or 53 years old, have not had the tariff changed on sugar since about 1922 or 1923. Since that time the two old parties have been in power, and seven

parliaments have come and gone without any change in that tariff. So there may be some reasonable excuse in the minds of those who negotiated the agreement with Cuba for overlooking the possibility that Cuba, facing a crisis in her country because of that overproduction, would endeavour to find an outlet for that production in Canada.
The situation we find today is that Cuba finds in Canada a potential market for refined sugar. Let there be no mistake about that. I still say that when the agreement was entered into I think it was done in good faith. It was a contract between two countries. In order to stimulate trade we agreed to take 75,000 tons of raw sugar, and that was a new market for Cuba. She was very anxious indeed to obtain an outlet in Canada for her crop, and we were in the position that we wanted to expand our trade not only with Cuba but with other countries.
We must look at the problem in true perspective. I am not one who advocates tariffs, or high trade walls. I think hon. members will agree with me that in these days it is necessary for governments in different countries to negotiate trade agreements around the conference table. We have seen the United States avail herself of provisions which to our minds are not fair and which, as a matter of fact, have been unfair to Canada. I say one way to come to a satisfactory agreement with Cuba or with any other country is by the officials of Canada and that country sitting around a conference table and entering into a contract that will not prejudice the farmers and producers of either country.
Here we find an industry that has stood on its feet for 52 years. It has faced two crises and is now facing a third. The first was in the thirties when Cuba was shipping into Canada about 40 million pounds of sugar a year. The next crisis was when we were at war. Because of the small production of sugar beets in Ontario at that time the leader of this party, who was then premier of Ontario, gave the sugar beet growers in that province three-quarters of a million dollars in order that Canadians might have a little larger sugar ration. During that time boats loaded with sugar were sunk off our shores, but the sugar beet industry overcame that particular crisis and made a terrific contribution during that war.
I contend that we should never put ourselves in the position, whether we are in a cold or hot war, where we must depend upon any foreign country for our supplies of a necessity such as sugar. It should never be the policy of any government to crucify or sell any industry down the river. I said
Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement in November, and I say it again, that when you crucify any segment of our primary producers it affects the economy of the whole country.
This industry has meant a great deal to this country in many ways. It has established many new Canadians and has room for more. I do not want any member in this house to say that we are at the limit of our production. Our refineries are efficient and are capable of refining more sugar than is grown in Canada today. Just offhand I would say that the modern refineries in this country-one of the most modern in the world is in Alberta; the ones in Chatham are older but are quite efficient-have a capacity of about one-third more than is now being produced.
This is the crucial time for sugar beet growers in every province throughout Canada because they must plan ahead. They cannot wait until the end of this agreement, until the end of 1953; they cannot wait until March. If they are going to put in sugar beets this year in any province they must make their contracts now. They have not made those contracts with the processors. I say tonight that because of the agreement with Cuba, as far as these contracts are concerned there will not be any sugar beets grown in Canada nor will there be a refinery operating in this country.
Last fall just before navigation closed some 30 million pounds of refined sugar came into Canada. Between January 19 and January 26 some million and a quarter pounds entered London and Toronto, the markets usually supplied by the processors in Chatham and Wallaceburg.
I do not want to be provincial in this matter, but I am concerned about the people in Ontario. There are nine counties representing some 12 or 14 ridings in Ontario where sugar beets are produced. The farmers have a huge investment. They have equipment and machinery which is good for nothing else but sugar beet growing. If they cannot be assured of some reasonable market for their product they will not grow sugar beets and then we might well be dependent upon some foreign country for our requirements.
I want to make it plain that we in this country over the years have taken raw sugar from empire countries, and a certain amount from other countries as well. We entered into a contract with Cuba in good faith and then we find Cuba selling not only the quota provided for, but unloading on the Ontario market some 30 million pounds. Just as soon as navigation opens Cuba will make

Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement more sugar available and ships will be going to the head of the lakes and the western market will be flooded.
We know that today enough sugar beets are produced in Manitoba and Alberta to nearly take care of the requirements of Canada west of the great lakes. There will not be a sugar beet grown west of the great lakes unless we come to an agreement now. We cannot wait until March or April, much less until next year, as that disturbing article seems to indicate to the people of this country.
Cuba was quite aware of what she was doing. She is not averse to protecting her own economy. I saw an article which appeared in a Cuban newspaper commenting upon the speech I made in November. The important part of the whole speech as far as I was concerned was the determination by that country to consolidate her gain. I said in November that Cuba's refining capacity was sufficient to supply Canada's needs twice over.
We want to be fair with Cuba. We are ready to tell Cuba tomorrow that we will take her raw sugar in any quantity that is fair and reasonable, but if her refined sugar is sent in our primary producers will be crucified and sold down the river. I think Cuba entered into the agreement in good faith, but found a way out. She found a vulnerable market in Canada. Most of her production goes to the United States.
Let me say here that we have increased our exports to Cuba of some articles in short supply, including copper. We must remember that today the United States has a huge rearmament program. She has an entree into Cuba that no other country in the world has because of her preference duty. Cuba supplies the United States with about half of her production of sugar. She also supplies some refined sugar, but both the refined and the raw are on a quota basis. There is no misunderstanding about the arrangement between the United States and Cuba. She ships in her refined and she ships in her raw sugar, but the growers and processors in the United States know how much is going to come in from Cuba each year.
Let us emphasize the fact that last year Cuba had a record crop. We must recognize also that she wanted to get rid of that crop. She wanted to sell it for dollars; she did not want to sell it for sterling. Canada was the vulnerable market, and she got in here. I do not for one minute suggest that we should avail ourselves of tariff protection. I want to emphasize and I want hon. members to understand that I think the way to increase

trade between nations today is for the responsible people in various governments to sit around the conference table and negotiate trade agreements. Let it be done in no other way.
We want to expand our trade. I am happy the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is making a trip to South America. We want to expand our trade with those countries. They have many products that we need. In our great industrial development we can use many tropical and semi-tropical products. It is quite apparent that our trade with many of these countries has increased a great deal. We are on the eve of a great industrial development in this country, greater perhaps than we have ever dreamed of. We will require many of the products of these tropical and semi-tropical countries.
There is no reason in the world why Cuba should not sit down at the conference table, because she did turn over 75,000 tons of sugar a year for three years. We did not take it all in 1951, but what we did not take in that year we took in 1952. In addition we took in refined sugar in 1952. As I see it, the picture that is developing is most dangerous. The minute navigation opens there will be boatloads of Cuban sugar coming into Montreal and great lakes ports, and the refineries in the maritimes, Montreal, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta, will not open their doors this fall.
I think it is time there should be some understanding and some assurance given by the government rather than Liberal members going around the country and saying "What is 2 per cent? The amount we get from Cuba is only 2 per cent of our requirements." It is true enough that the amount of refined sugar that came into Canada from Cuba is 2 per cent of our requirements. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie), the hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Huffman) and the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin) have all said in speaking to various growers in the different areas that it is only a small detail, that it is only 2 per cent of our requirements.
It is only 2 per cent per capita, but that 2 per cent comes into the Ontario market where we have been shipping our own product from the refineries in Wallaceburg and Chatham. We know today for a fact that the big buyers of these products from these two refineries have told the processors that they will not want their product again unless there is a strike or a war. That is the situation in which we find ourselves, and that is the situation that is going to be found all across Canada. It is not enough for private

members to go around making statements. This is a matter for government deliberation, and now.
By the end of this month these farmers will want to know whether or not they should prepare their soil and make contracts for sugar beets. The people with whom I have come in contact are determined that they are not going to grow sugar beets until there is some assurance that there will be a reasonable market. They have competed over all these years. They have competed with sugar at $3 and some odd cents a hundred f.o.b. Montreal. They have competed when it was $10.50 f.o.b. Montreal. They have competed against raw sugar from any country in the world, but they are not in a position to compete with refined sugar. When it means crucifying that industry why should that be expected?
We can make a fair contract with Cuba by taking raw sugar. Cuba says it does not want our flour, that it will take our wheat and refine it. We say to Cuba: All right, we too have the capacity to refine sugar. You keep your refined sugar and send us the raw. It has been suggested that if necessary we should take an extra 15,000 or 20,000 tons of raw sugar. All well and good. Let the agreement be signed, but signed now. We cannot afford to wait. What is disturbing to some of the growers are the statements that have been made by some members who have been belittling their efforts and who probably do not realize the situation in which the growers find themselves. Some have said that all this protest is promoted by someone else.
After I spoke the last time I think it was the hon. member for Lambton-Kent who was kind enough to say that Cuba surely had lots of sugar and had such a tremendous crop that it tried to unload a few boatloads in Canada. The few boatloads that were unloaded in Canada disturbed the sugar beet growers in these areas in western Ontario.
A great deal can be said on this subject. In the main I do not intend to repeat what I said last November because that speech was followed by several others that dealt quite effectively with the serious situation facing the primary producers of sugar. What disturbs the growers today is the uncertainty. They are more or less disappointed, and are on the brink of bankruptcy because they do not know what the policy of the government is. We have government spokesmen going around saying that the government is going to take care of them. That statement applies to the members to whom I referred a few moments ago. I should like to refer to an article that appeared in the Windsor Daily Star of February 6 dealing with certain
Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement remarks made by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent when speaking in the city of Sarnia. The hon. member is reported as saying:
I know the present situation is unfortunate for the growers, but I don't know what the future holds.
The article continues as follows:
If nothing can be accomplished, Mr. MacKenzie said, "I think we should try to tide the industry over, for we want to save the beet industry and we won't let it be thrown to the wolves."
The hon. member objected to my statement in November when I said that the industry was being sold down the river, but he does not mind saying that the industry is being thrown to the wolves. The article continues as follows:
He pointed out that duty charged on the importation of refined sugar is $1.89 a hundredweight, plus, if such is the case, a dumping duty of 75 cents a hundredweight.
There is no dumping of Cuban sugar into Canada; let that be understood. I hope the press of this country will not again say that when the representatives of the industry were here in October to see government officials, they suggested there was dumping by Cuba. When the hon. member for Kent, Ont., spoke last fall he was dismayed at my reference to this statement, but I should like to refer him now to the Montreal Gazette of October 24. As a matter of fact, I think the report was in practically all papers in Canada as well as in the New York Times of that date and the day after. In fact it was in the New York paper before the deputation even arrived home. I want it understood without any doubt now that when the delegation came to Ottawa not one delegate referred to the dumping of Cuban sugar into Canada.
As we know, dumping means that Cuba would sell to Canada at a lesser price than she was selling for home consumption. Cuba today sells all her refined sugar through one single administrator, a quasi-government official, and there are three prices. Cuba sells in New York at 2 cents a pound or $2 a hundred more than the price at which they sell to Canada, and they have a lower price for their domestic consumption, which only amounts to about 2 or 3 per cent of their total production. Therefore we would never be in a position to impose any dumping duty.
But I say that is not the solution to the problem in any case. Many responsible people * of the area of western Ontario about which I have been speaking have been members of the association for years. I can refer, for instance, to Eugene King of Kent county. I think he was president of the sugar beet growers' association. I can refer to Cameron

Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement McTaggart, who is a director of the association. They say that the situation is alarming. These are responsible men. One is in the county of Kent and the other is in the county of Middlesex. Some of these people have grown sugar beets for 35 or 40 years. They say they have never faced such a crisis before.
They are hoping they will not lose their huge investments, and that their routine of producing sugar will be carried on without any interruption through government action or inaction. I have great respect for men like King, McTaggart and others who have followed the progress of this industry for the past 35 or 40 years. They are greatly disturbed.
I should like to refer now to an editorial in the Detroit Free Press of Monday, February 2. I think I expressed this idea in a different form a few months ago, but it sums it up. The editorial is on page 8 and carries the heading "National interest should determine tariff action". It reads in part as follows:
At the same time this country-
The reference is to the United States.
*-would not be the gainer if industries vital to its security were sacrificed and we again became wholly dependent on foreign sources for critical goods.
Mr. Speaker, if I did not say anything else tonight and quoted only that paragraph it would be, after all is said and done, the gist of my argument here. Let us not sacrifice an industry that is so important to our economy, that may mean so much to us in the future as it does today. It may mean more in the event of a shooting war. We are in a position today where we can supply at least part of our requirements.
That being the case, Mr. Speaker, with the gradual development of our country, with the hope these people have for making a livelihood and making their contribution to Canada, let us not at this time through action or inaction, intentionally or otherwise, sacrifice an industry which has meant so much to the economy of this country.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, I very much regret the fact that this discussion has been brought on by my hon. friend from Lambton West (Mr. Murphy). The agreement to which he has made reference is the only agreement I know of that has been made in the last few years under which we in the maritime provinces could look forward to any beneficial results. I believe that the New Brunswick members will agree with that statement, as will other maritime members.
This agreement was made by the minister and the government in the belief that it


would provide some markets for salt fish. The hon. member for Lambton West mentioned that. It was to cover not only salt fish but included canned fish, potatoes, smoked fish and many other products of the maritimes. At that time we found it very difficult to obtain markets in other parts of the world. This scheme was arranged, and it has been of great benefit to our fishermen. In the northern part of the province, in that part which my hon. friend for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) comes from, there are a great many producers of salt cod. The same applies to Newfoundland, the same applies to Nova Scotia, and the same applies to Prince Edward Island. This scheme has been a great help.
Only a few months ago the hon. member who has spoken, and many of his colleagues who sit with him, were condemning this government for its lack of interest in so far as the cost of living was concerned. They said the government was not doing anything at all to try to stop the rise in the cost of living. I believe these same members must agree that the price of sugar today has dropped. Surely they are not advocating at this time that the consumers should pay $1.50 or $2 a hundred more in order to protect these few sugar beet growers. In other words, the hon. member for Lambton West has suggested that 2 per cent of the sugar consumed in Canada is all that is involved in this agreement.


Joseph Warner Murphy: No, no, not in the agreement.


An hon. Member:: The consumption.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That is what I said, 2 per cent of the consumption of sugar in Canada. If 2 per cent of the sugar consumption in Canada is responsible for prosperity or otherwise in the maritime provinces, surely we should expect to receive some consideration. This agreement has been helpful to each and every maritime province. It has been an encouragement to the producers down there.


Joseph Warner Murphy: On a point of order, I know the hon. member would not want the record to be left as he is giving it. I want to make it clear that we have never complained about the agreement for the 75,000 tons of raw sugar. What is disturbing the market today is refined sugar coming on it, and the likelihood of that sugar taking care of all of our requirements, which would thereby sacrifice and crucify our industry. The price of sugar is determined by the world sugar price in New York.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I might add to that a suggestion of my own. If they can send refined sugar in here at prices lower than

we can refine it in Canada, then there is something wrong with our refineries at home.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I believe, if you look into the situation, that a great deal of the difficulty lies with the refineries we have in the Dominion of Canada. They could sell a lot cheaper, and they will get the price down when they are forced to it; but so long as they get the protection which the hon. member for Lambton West would like to see they will take advantage of that protection and the consumers of this country will pay the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am one who takes a pretty strong stand on this particular question, as members of the house know. I will make one other statement. During the last ten years this continent has pumped billions and billions of dollars into other countries to try to rehabilitate them, to put them into a position where they can stand on their own feet and live the way we believe people should live. Already there is the idea in this country of sticking up tariff walls. In other words, you give with one hand and take away with the other.
Well, I cannot subscribe to that kind of doctrine and I hope members of this government cannot be convinced that it is a proper course to follow. What we need in this country and in every democratic country in the world is a freer movement of goods back and forth between those countries. I want to suggest that if we ever hope or expect to have world peace in this world it will never be brought about by tariff walls. When you set one part of the world against another, and when one country says that its country must have protection, then it will hang itself.
I think we have to make it clear that if a business cannot stand on its own feet it should not exist. That might be a pretty broad statement, but if an industry cannot survive without subsidies, then there is something wrong. I realize that people in this sugar industry are very much concerned, and that they are very much interested in their own livelihood; but I wonder whether, if it were gone into carefully, we might not find that the answer to this problem does not lie with the sugar beet producers but rather with the manufacturers in our factories. I believe we are in a position in this country to refine sugar as cheaply as they can do it in Cuba. If that is not so, I would like to have some explanation why it costs more to refine sugar in this country than it does down there.
Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement
Again, I want to say that all the maritime provinces-and I will include Newfoundland because now we have four maritime provinces-as I have said on many occasions in this chamber, are most dependent on these American markets. Take them away from us and our economy is completely wrecked. The hon. member who just spoke used these words, and I jotted them down: "sold down the river"; "thrown to the wolves" and "crucified". We would be all three if these markets were taken from us.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Your own member said
"thrown to the wolves".


Mr. MacKenzie:: On a question of privilege, I said this government did not want to see the beet industry thrown to the wolves.


Joseph Warner Murphy: That is what I said.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: No, the hon. member for Lambton West said the sugar beet growers had been sold down the river, quite a different thing.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I do not know just what description would fit but, as I said before, if this agreement were interfered with in any way it would certainly mean selling those in the maritime provinces down the river. We do not get very many subsidies down there, and we do not get very much financial assistance. We are quite an understanding people, and we try to stand on our own feet. We are willing to produce what we have to produce in competition with any part of the world. If we cannot produce fish as cheaply as someone else, then let us eat someone else's fish. If we cannot produce sugar as cheaply as we can buy it somewhere else, then let us give the consumer the advantage of cheaper living.
We have heard right in this chamber, and I have sat and listened to it day after day, that the government was inactive as far as the cost of living was concerned; but the very first time the consumer is able to buy a little cheaper there are hon. members on their feet wanting protection.
I had not intended saying very much when I got up tonight, but I could not refrain from saying what I have said and I hope that my friends from New Brunswick will do likewise. I see the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery) and the hon. member for Gloucester are both in their seats. Those counties are producers of potatoes which are sold to Cuba and other countries to the south of us. I do not believe those hon. members will get on their feet and support the suggestion made tonight by the hon. member for Lambton West. They talk about putting government members on the spot, and we

Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement were supposed to have been put on the spot this afternoon; but I should like to see some of the New Brunswick members, who are in the same situation I am, get up and honestly express their feelings with regard to the agreement we have with Cuba.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Certainly.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Are you aware that two of your own members, the hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Huffman) and the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie) asked for quotas when they spoke?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That is not a question, that is a statement, Mr. Speaker. So far as quotas are concerned-


Joseph Warner Murphy: We would like to know what government policy is.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: -if we can buy
sugar cheaper in Cuba than we can buy it somewhere else, why not give the Canadian consumer the advantage?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I rise tonight, Mr. Speaker, because I am a producer and always have been. I am getting rather fed up with members getting up in this house and requesting that the primary producer bear the brunt of the burden in reducing the cost of living.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Can it be done any other way?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: That is all very well, but if you take profitable production away from the primary producer what are you going to have left? As soon as the primary producer cannot produce at a profit, then of course the manufacturer gets tied up. He cannot sell his goods and his labouring staff is cut. These employees are then sent back to the country, where a lot of them should have remained in the first place.


Arthur Laing: Let us hear you bring it down.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing), following a speech by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) last fall, got up in this house and said that the cost of living was coming down. At whose expense did it come down?


Mr. Gibson:: He did a good job.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Who bore the brunt of that reduction in the cost of living? It was the primary producer who bore every cent of it. You believe that the burden of reducing the cost of living should be borne by the primary producer in this country.
[Mr. Stuart (Charlotte) .1


John Lambert Gibson: Lumber and fish are cheap.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I got my first training in a county council, and I am going to read you a resolution passed by the council of the county of Huron, of which I was a member. The resolution reads:
Resolution passed by the Huron county council in January session, January 23, 1953
The council of Huron county wishes to point out to the Canadian government that growers' returns for sugar beets and other payments made by the processors to factory and weigh station workmen, railways, truckers, etc., are a valuable source of revenue in the integrated economy of our community. In the last three years this industry has contributed, on the average, $11 million per year in southwestern Ontario.
Our urban and farmer citizens understand that the Ontario beet sugar industry which has thrived for half a century, will probably not operate next year unless some measures are adopted to stop the flood of foreign refined sugar which has deprived the Ontario made product of its traditional home markets of Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor.
Without the menace of foreign refined sugar, the domestic beet sugar industry heretofore has had a surge market within its own country. In these days of international instability this is the only market we can control. There has never been a surplus of beet sugar, and until now growers have been assured of a cash return for every ton of their crop harvested.
Besides the stability of this domestic industry, the part it played during food-short war years will never be forgotten. Ontario grown beet sugar was badly needed by Canadian consumers when submarines effectively stopped inbound boats carrying cane sugar from the tropics. The war emergency need for this domestic source of supply may occur again.
For these reasons, which are a few of many, we the council of Huron county unanimously beseech the government to take whatever steps are necessary in stopping foreign refined sugar produced by cheap native labour from ruining Ontario's beet sugar industry.
There is a resolution which comes from the county of Huron, one of the best counties in Ontario or the Dominion of Canada. I have another resolution which comes from the town of Exeter, so you can see that all the representations are not from the primary producers. These people realize that if the flow of money to the primary producer is cut off, then of course they suffer. There is no man, woman or child, I do not care where they live, who is not dependent entirely on the primary producer. Anyone who gets up in this house and says that the primary producer should bear the brunt of the reduction in the cost of living is just crazy.


Arthur Laing: You want 2 cents protection on sugar?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: No, I just want a fair deal on sugar.


Arthur Laing: Tell us what it is; how much
protection?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I shall tell you in a minute if you will keep quiet long enough. If the importation of Cuban refined sugar were stopped, Canada still would have excellent trade relations with Cuba on the basis of her raw sugar imports of 75,000 tons a year, without buying a single pound of refined sugar from Cuba. The current raw sugar concession to Cuba is a valuable one, as Cuba could not have sold one pound of raw sugar to Canadian refiners if the government, this government you are talking about, had not arranged to rebate to the refiners, at a cost to the public, a sufficient amount to equalize the laid-down cost of Cuban raw sugar with that of empire raw sugar which comes into Canada under preferential tariff rates. So it follows that our trade relations with Cuba could have been maintained on the basis of the 75,000 tons of raw sugar annually. Not one single pound of refined sugar from Cuba need enter Canada.
I have only about 300 growers in my section of the country, but I am sure the rest of the population in that section would not want those 300 growers to absorb the shock of the difference in the price the consumer would have to pay for sugar. There is no other industry that is in competition with the sugar beet industry. It does not interfere with anybody else. We only produce about 20 per cent or less than 25 per cent of the country's requirements. Sugar beets do not interfere with any other crop. Why penalize an industry that has flourished for the last 50 years for the sake of allowing Cuban refined sugar to enter this market? It will put these fellows out of business. I think it is ridiculous. I do not know whether anything can be done about it.
I introduce this subject now, but I hope it will not get into the same position as the Saskatchewan dam did during the last few days. The only reason I have spoken tonight was to help our friends on the government side of the house. I am trying to present a case in their favour.


Arthur Laing: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware that Lethbridge, Alberta, which is the sugar centre of the west, pays the highest per capita income tax in the Dominion of Canada?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Why?


Arthur Laing: If I may be permitted to answer, Mr. Speaker, I think it may be because sugar is a very productive crop and a very profitable crop.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Did you ever grow sugar beets?


Arthur Laing: No; they do not grow in my area.
Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement


Lewis Elston Cardiff: If you had to grow and take care of one-half acre of them, there would not be very many sugar beets grown. I have grown sugar beets. I know how much work is involved. It is for that reason I want to read you part of another resolution, a copy of which I received from some of our new Canadians. It reads as follows:
We, the new Dutch and Belgian immigrant farmers who soon will become Canadian citizens of the parish of Parkhill, wish to tender our support to your government and particularly to the Hon. C. D. Howe, whom we hope and pray will intercede on our behalf when on his mission to the Cuban government, in order to give us some protection from the influx of Cuban refined white sugar which has been so detrimental to the beet sugar industry of Ontario, with a resultant drop in the price of beets to the producer.
These fellows came from Europe. They are hard workers. They are about the only labourers you can get to go into the sugar beet fields. Those of you who know anything about growing sugar beets know what a strenuous job it is. The job does not last for only a week or two. It starts as soon as the beets are ready to be thinned out. You have to get down almost on your hands and knees to thin them out, because they will not thrive if there are two in the one place. They have to be thinned out so that there is only one in the one spot. Then you have to keep the weeds out. It is a strenuous job all summer. Then you come to the fall, and if you happen to get a dry fall and good weather you do not have too much difficulty, but very often they have to take the sugar beets right out of the mud; they have to take them out of the snow, and under adverse conditions.
The growers of sugar beets are not interfering with anybody else, and the beets do not interfere with any other crop. Why the government would not protect the primary producer in this regard is something I cannot understand. It is typical of this government, of course. Perhaps I should not condemn them yet because the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has not returned. He may come back with a very favourable solution to the whole problem. I should not say that the Cubans have been sending in this sugar thoughtlessly. It has been coming in legitimately. They have paid the tariff on it, and we cannot very well stop it coming in. But surely there is some way of stopping it. I know that not so very long ago when shirts were dumped- in this country by Japan that was quickly stopped. If the primary producers wanted a few of those shirts they could not buy them. It is terrible when the sugar producers want some protection for their commodity.
1822	HOUSE OF
Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement
I do not intend to go over the ground that was covered by my good friend the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy). Perhaps I have said enough about sugar. The fact remains that the sugar beet growers are not the only primary producers of this country who are being affected at the present time. There are the dairymen; they are primary producers, too. They have been having a tough time, due in part at least to the fact that cheap oils were allowed to come into Canada. Something should have been done about that before we lost all our markets. Last year our cheese men were almost put out of business because they could not sell any cheese, and we imported more cheese than we exported. We had tons of it here that we could not sell. I do not know what kind of policy that is.
I turn from there to the hog policy that we have had to work under for the last four or five years. We have not had a hog policy at all. If it was the policy of the government to put the hog producers out of business, they certainly made a good job of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Don't get too far afield from what you are talking about.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I should like to tell the minister a few of the things that are happening.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are wrong in all of them.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I am not wrong in all of them.
I am going to quote a few.


James Garfield Gardiner: Pigs are 25 cents higher now than they were before Christmas.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Keep quiet and you might learn something. A year ago a primary producer of hogs in Ontario had 34 brood sows; today he has 12.


James Garfield Gardiner: The way the price is going now he will wish he had them all back againi


Lewis Elston Cardiff: If the price had gone the way you wanted it to go it would have been down to 23 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; I kept faith.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Then we have another hog grower out in Alberta who a year ago had 67 hogs. Today he has none. That is typical of what is happening all over the country. Let me take an example a little nearer home. Down in Quebec there are three parishes that took a survey a year ago, and I can name them.


James Garfield Gardiner: I thought you were talking about sugar.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: That is all right; I am talking about primary producers now. They had 

364 sows in those parishes a year ago. They took a survey the other day and they had only 34 sows left. If you can tell me how we can get pork by acting in that way I shall be happy. Right now the shelves in the dealers' stores are almost empty of bacon. They cannot get enough bacon to supply the ordinary trade. They are having great difficulty. It will not be very long until we will be importing corn-fed hogs from the United States to satisfy our domestic market. If you call that a good hog policy, I do not. I do not think we have had a hog policy at all. As I said before, if it was a policy to put the producer out of business it certainly succeeded.
There are a few other things I wanted to say, but I do not think there is any necessity for me to carry on. I may tell the Minister of Agriculture something else. He was supposed to have put a floor under beef. He put a floor under beef at 26 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: What is the debate on, anyway?


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I did not want to interrupt the hon. member. A moment ago he was talking about hogs. I must tell him that he must speak to the subject under discussion, because if he changes the subject, then some other hon. member might be prevented from discussing the sugar beet industry, which is the subject being discussed.


Mr. Blackmore:: What about the hon. member for Charlotte?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: What he said related to the sugar beet agreements that were referred to by the hon. member who first introduced the subject. That is all the hon. member for Charlotte discussed. As long as the hon. member for Huron North was discussing the situation of the primary producer with reference to the sugar beet industry and related other matters, he was quite in order. I should like to suggest to him that if he gets further away from the subject he may find himself out of order.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: If Your Honour decides that I cannot talk about the primary producer in any other industry than sugar beets, then I shall quit. I should like to tell the Minister of Agriculture just what effect his 26-cent floor under beef has had.


James Garfield Gardiner: Do that on my estimates. Let us get into supply.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: In the first place we lost 10 cents a pound directly on the beef. I asked the minister a question in the house one day as to what the floor constituted; was it on red brand beef or what was it on. He

said it was on a good steer, but a good steer would vary three or four cents a pound for that matter. But that is not what I started out to tell him. His floor under beef actually turned out to be a ceiling for the packers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. For the
information of hon. members generally who may take part in the debate perhaps I should quote citation 345, which has reference to the debate that may take place on the motion to go into supply. It is the citation which says that a subject once introduced is the one that has to be debated until that matter is disposed of. If any hon. member introduces a new subject, them others who follow are prevented from discussing the one that was originally introduced. The last four or five lines of the citation read:
Members may discuss various matters on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair without any amendment being proposed; but once debate is stopped on one matter and another matter intervenes, members cannot again discuss the former.
Of course the hon. member for Huron North-and perhaps others-will say that he was discussing the former matter. I suppose he will have to submit himself to my interpretation and agree that the subject that was introduced was not the whole agricultural policy of the government, but the beet sugar situation at the moment. The hon. member may now continue.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: All right; I will not refer to the Minister of Agriculture's floor on beef any more, because it was not a floor anyway. I should like to quote a few figures to show the money paid out annually to the farmers for sugar beets. It amounts to $5,500,000 a year.


Joseph Warner Murphy: That is in Ontario.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Yes, and almost an equal amount for labour, material and supplies. The sugar beet industry is worth at least $11 million a year to the people of Ontario. Annually the farmers buy $220,000 worth of fertilizers and $100,000 worth of sugar beet machinery. If these men are put out of business all that machinery will be useless for anything else on those farms. It is entirely different from any other kind of farm equipment. Then, 32,000 acres of sugar beets are grown in Ontario each year. We have here an industry that has no worries from the standpoint of competition because, no matter how much they produce, we can absorb it.
It will be recalled by hon. members that during the war years sugar was rationed. If it had not been for the fact that we had some sugar refineries in Canada we would have
Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement had no sugar at all, because our supplies went to the bottom of the ocean. We were rationed because we had not sufficient in this country to go around. That condition could come again, and very soon, if this shooting war should ever develop. We know it could develop, and if it did we would be in the same position we were before. Our sugar industry would be lost, and we would have no sugar whatsoever.
For that reason I claim something should be done for the industry, if it is at all possible, to keep these sugar beet growers in business. They do not affect any other industry in this country; they are doing a good job for Canada, and we need their sugar.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I feel I should make a few remarks in connection with the sugar beet situation, because the subject was introduced tonight by my good friend from Lambton West (Mr. Murphy). He made reference to the fact that while in Sarnia I had made some comments about sugar. I went up there the other night to make it a little easier for him politically, and I did make a brief reference to sugar.
The newspapers do not always quote one correctly, because I did not have notes to hand to the press. I was speaking more or less off the cuff, because I have always felt that I know something about sugar beets and the problems of sugar beet growers in this country. However, I feel more or less an amateur here tonight in listening to so many professionals who have spoken on the subject.
I did say in Sarnia that I was sure this government did not want to put any primary industry out of business. I said I was sure that the government did not want to see the sugar beet industry in Ontario thrown to the wolves. My good friend from Lambton West has said that I had said they were being thrown to the wolves. Well, I did not say that at all. The hon. member said in his speech that the sugar beet growers had been sold down the river; and when he refers to being sold down the river I assume he means through the trade agreement that was made with Cuba. I have said before and I say again-


Joseph Warner Murphy: On a point of order, I am sure the hon. member would not want to leave a wrong impression on Hansard. I did not say they were sold down the river because of the agreement. I think I emphasized that it was because of the importation of refined sugar that they were being sold down the river.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I would have to read the speech again to be sure, and I want to be
1824	HOUSE OF
Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement fair to the hon. member. However, I understood him to say that the agreement we had made with Cuba, whereby we take raw sugar, was the cause of our difficulty, through getting refined sugar. If I am wrong, then I am sorry.
The hon. member also made reference to the fact that at the conference which was held here last October between the growers, the refiners and officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Finance, the question of dumping was not discussed. He said that dumping was never mentioned at all. Well, the question of dumping was mentioned. No one said they were dumping sugar. All I said in Sarnia, and all I had said previously, was that the dumping duty is a potential protection, and that is all a dumping duty is for at any time. In some cases, if an article is selling in this country at a reasonable price and is not underselling the home market product, it is of course difficult to apply a dumping duty.
Again, reference has been made by the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Cardiff) -who I am sure is as interested as I am in the sugar beet industry-to the fact that the government paid out of the consolidated revenue fund enough money to make up the difference between the cost of Cuban sugar, with duty, so that it would be the same as British empire sugar. Well, the fact of the matter is that British empire raw sugar or, to be more exact, United Kingdom sugar, comes in at a rate of approximately 29 or 30 cents a hundredweight. The duty on raw sugar coming in from Cuba is approximately $1 more per hundredweight. The British government, or British traders, are pretty shrewd dealers, and they take advantage of that extra protection from Cuba. The result is that they absorb 85 cents out of every dollar in the price of sugar bought from empire countries.
So what happens in connection with bringing in Cuban raw sugar is that the refiners bring the raw sugar in and pay $1 per hundredweight extra duty into the consolidated revenue fund, and the government has only to pay about 15 cents in order to have it cost the same as British empire sugar. So actually it does not cost the consolidated revenue fund anything. As a matter of fact a question in this connection was asked on the order paper, and the answer indicated that under the three-year agreement there was almost $6 million in revenue that had accrued as a result of this Cuban agreement.
World prices of raw sugar have dropped. On December 12 I said that from 1951 the price of raw sugar had dropped by approximately $1.85 a hundredweight. According to
[Mr. MacKenzie.l

deliveries now being offered from Cuba, that quotation has now dropped another 70 cents a hundredweight. So that actually there has been a drop from 1951 to the present time in the world price of raw sugar-and I do not care whether it is British empire or Cuban sugar-of almost $2.50 a hundredweight. So it is pretty difficult to know just what the answer is in regard to the importation of refined sugar.
Let me say that I did not say at any time, as some hon. members have said, that 2 per cent was only a trivial thing. I never said that at all. On December 12 I did say that it was a trifle over 2 per cent of our annual consumption and that, in itself, I said was not disastrous. I pointed out, however, that if it continued it could lead to a great deal of trouble. However, I never said it was a trifling thing or a small thing at any time. It means a lot to bring that much sugar into any area that produces sugar, and has always had the home market. I am not too sure that if importations of refined sugar from Cuba are stopped you are going to eliminate completely importations of refined sugar from the Philippines, from Santo Domingo and from Haiti. I am not sure about that, because refined sugar costs must be lower in those countries. I should like to have the figures on that in order to be sure.
There was one thing I was rather amazed at tonight when the hon. member for Lamb-ton West (Mr. Murphy) brought this up. He mentioned that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) had made a statement to the press. When the delegation met him in October the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that he would be making a trip to South America and would make a point of going to Cuba early in February to discuss with trade officials there the sugar agreement and the whole Cuban treaty, and see if some amicable agreement could not be reached.
On January 20 the hon. member for Lamb-ton West made his speech in St. Thomas. He dealt with sugar beets, and he advertised that pretty extensively. I was pleased to note that in some of the advertisements he said to come early to get a seat, as there would be no admission. I was glad of that because I was sure that would be a good inducement.
In his speech the hon. member suggested to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he make a trip to Cuba to discuss with the trade officials this very agreement we are discussing tonight. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has not been in his place here to make a statement. Why should we

Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement
not wait until he gets back before saying anything further on the sugar beet industry? After all, all we have is a press statement. We have nothing direct from him. Why not wait until he comes back, when he will probably have a statement to make regarding the Cuban situation and the Cuban treaty, regarding refined and raw sugar.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: The press statement was made two days before the meeting with the Cuban authorities.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: Knowing that the minister will be here tomorrow or the next day and be prepared to make his statement, why not wait until he makes that statement before we condemn the policy as a whole?
I was quite interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart). The sugar beet industry has played a most important part in the economy of this country. When you run into a condition where you have depressed selling of sugar, where there is a surplus of that commodity, I do not think it is fair that one industry should bear the brunt of that situation. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce understands that quite well, and I feel satisfied that we will reach a solution of this in the near future.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I agree entirely with the previous speaker that we should necessarily wait for the return of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I say this because the sugar beet industry in Canada has more ramifications to it than could be covered in an interview by the minister with Cuban authorities in respect of the importation of Cuban sugar. Because the sugar beet industry of Canada has those many ramifications I think it appropriate that we should discuss it at this time.
I have many notes here and I cannot conclude what I have to say in three minutes, so may I ask you to call it ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -that I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ernest George Hansell: All right; I can fiddle around here for three minutes.


An hon. Member:: How do you spell that?


Ernest George Hansell: It is obvious to me that hon. members opposite would like to close the debate on this particular subject.


An hon. Member:: Why should you close it?


Ernest George Hansell: I was not going to close it. We still live in a free country and we still operate in a free parliament, we hope. Members are sent down here to represent their constituents and to voice their grievances. It happens that some of us live in areas where they grow sugar beets and refine sugar. Because we believe that industry has a grievance, we are going to debate that matter here.
On motion of Mr. Hansell the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the business for tomorrow I do not think I need repeat what I said last night; it will be the same program tomorrow as we had today.


Mr. Fleming:: When is the government going to afford the house an opportunity to resume consideration of the motion to set up the special committee on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? It is two weeks since that was up for discussion, and the committee should be working now. The days are slipping by.


Alphonse Fournier: No one is more anxious than I to see that debate resumed, but we cannot have two debates going on in the house at the same time. We are dealing with sugar beets right now, and I think we should conclude this debate. Hon. members have a grievance and they are entitled to debate this matter. What am I to say to these hon. members?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister had a quite different excuse when I asked about this two weeks ago. He said there was another debate that was going to take one day.


Alphonse Fournier: I have no excuses; I am trying to follow the rules of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister state when we will have the debate on external affairs?


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member does not know how anxious the minister is to proceed.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 11, 1953