1953-04-07

COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in releasing in November last the report of the combines commissioner relating to the fine paper industry, I stated that the matter would be referred to counsel for opinion and I would make a statement later as to prosecution. The matter was referred to Mr. Norman L. Mathews, Q. C., of Toronto who has advised that in his opinion the evidence justifies prosecution of some or all of the manufacturers and some or all of the merchants mentioned in the report. The exact parties will be determined as the evidence is further examined in detail in the course of preparation for trial. Mr. Mathews has been instructed to proceed with prosecutions.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 317, for the relief of Joyce Elizabeth Purves Jones.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 318, for the relief of Marjorie Euretta Adams Mattinson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 319, for the relief of Myrtle Norma Epps Stewart.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 320, for the relief of Joseph Alexandre Hyppolit McLish.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 321, for the relief of Taschereau Pierre Charles Joseph Rodier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 322, for the relief of Berniece Gertrude Doran.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Florence Mildred Fine Crelinsten.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 324, for the relief of Gerard Richer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 325, for the relief of Thomas John Rivet.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 326, for the relief of Dorina Perelroizen Wallerstein, otherwise known as Dorina Perlraizen Wallerstein.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 327, for the relief of Gabriele Laure Josephine Girard Steinbach.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 328, for the relief of Reine Cesarine Berthe Laborgne Deyglun.-Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State if he will please have inquiries made to find whether he can expedite the tabling of a return to an order of the house passed on February 11, as noted on page 237 of Votes and Proceedings for that day, which had previously been requested and asked for by myself, with regard to the maintenance of private lists. The order has been outstanding since February 11 and I would appreciate it if it could be expedited.


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: I shall be glad to do all I can to get the order for the hon. member as quickly as possible.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: May
I direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Claxton). Will the same general conditions apply to the agreement between Canada and the United States of America with respect to the use of Torbay airport as outlined in the minister's statement of December 5, 1952, relative to Goose Bay airport?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Acting Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Since the hon. member sent me notice of this question this morning, I have looked at Hansard for December 5, 1952 but so far have not found any reference to Goose Bay or Torbay in its pages. However, a statement was made by me in the house on November 28, 1952, and perhaps that is the one to which he refers. It appears on page 174 of Hansard. I believe the answer to the hon. member's question is to be found in a statement made by my colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, then acting as Secretary of State for External Affairs, which appears in Hansard for December 16 at page 741. In the course of that statement he tabled an agreement between Canada and the United States regarding the lease of land at Goose Bay to the United States. This agreement, and the conditions contained in the agreement, apply only to Goose Bay and not to Torbay. As I understand the question, and in the light of my explanation, the answer would be no, because the lease to 68108-226
Inquiries of the Ministry which I have referred, which governs conditions existing between Canada and the United States regarding Goose Bay, does not apply to Torbay.


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I ask one supplementary question? Are there to be any similar conditions to apply with respect to Torbay?


Brooke Claxton: No, the conditions are quite different. The lease at Goose Bay is for a period of 20 years and covers a fixed portion of land on which the United States is authorized to erect buildings, subject to certain conditions. In the case of Torbay no lease has been entered into, but there has been an arrangement under which the United States air force occupies certain buildings belonging to the government of Canada, on the conditions agreed to from year to year.



THE CORONATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. June 2 having been proclaimed a statutory holiday, will the government intimate to the management of industries that June 2 is intended to be observed as a statutory holiday in Canada and that wage earners should not suffer the loss of a day's pay?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Mr. Speaker, the law with reference to the proclamation of statutory holidays is to be found, as the hon. member knows, upon the statute books. That is the law of the land and presumably various organizations, business and otherwise, will govern themselves accordingly. I do not know of any penalty for the infraction of this statute.



FERRY SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: desire to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, but since he is not in the house I shall direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government or the Minister of Transport refused permission to the Northumberland Ferries Limited to operate a third boat on the Wood Island-Caribou route in order to provide an interim service pending replacement by a new boat which is to be constructed by the federal government? If this statement is correct, as reported in the press, we should know why permission was not granted.

Position of Agricultural Industry


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Acting Prime Minister):: In the absence of the Minister of
Transport, I would suggest that this be taken as notice of a question which will be answered later.



INTERNATIONAL WHEAT CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or possibly the Minister of Agriculture as Acting Prime Minister. Would he say whether the government is in a position to make any report as to whether or not the international wheat conference in Washington has arrived at an agreement?


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I would like to take the question as notice.



AGRICULTURE-UNCERTAIN POSITION OF FARMING POPULATION

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: rise to support the amendment. I believe that it will be essential, I think it has been essential as a matter of fact for a long time, that every attempt should be made to achieve some relationship between the costs of production and the prices received for farm commodities in this country. I have always believed that that cost price relationship, which we sometimes call parity prices, is one that will be of tremendous interest to producers in this country, not only in the immediate future but in the days to come.
Over the past year we have seen the costs of production on all our farms of every type rising, and at the same time we have seen the prices of many farm commodities decreasing more rapidly than even farm costs have increased. As a matter of fact the study of the farm prices index for the past year issued by the dominion bureau of statistics indicated an almost startling decline in farm prices generally. From the beginning of 1952 to the end of the year the decline in farm prices was no less than 14 per cent, taking all farm commodities produced in Canada, and at the same time the cost of production of our farms as well as the cost of living on the farms was increasing. The composite index, for example, of farm costs, exclusive of August, 1951, was 237-8, and the
[Mr. McLure.)

living cost as of August, 1952 was 243-4. The index of farm prices at December, 1951, stood at 286-2, and at December, 1951, it stood at 244-0. Of course, the index is in some ways deceptive because it is based on a period when farm prices were unusually low prior to 1939.
We can see these costs of production I think rather clearly if we stop for a moment to examine the 1939 taxes on land and buildings owned in Canada, that is land and buildings largely on the farm. They totalled $19,200,000 in 1939, and by 1949 they had increased to $39,100,000. In 1950 they had risen to the tremendous total of $58,500,000, an increase in taxes on farm land and buildings of over 200 per cent. I think that in a general way that is indicative of the difficult taxation problem on the farms.
Then, if we look at the cost of farm machinery we find tremendous increases as well. The high cost of farm implements in this country has been a matter for discussion in this house over a long period of years. We had an investigation into the high cost of farm machinery in 1936 and-1937. Recommendations were made to the government of that time, but nothing worth while has been done to control the tremendous costs of these machines. In 1945, jumping to the last year of the war, a ten or twelve-foot self-controlled combine could be purchased for $2,800. Today the same combine costs approximately $6,000. Now, one can see from this example, taking the cost of one farm machine, the extent to which farm costs of production have increased over the last several years.
A week ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), speaking in this house, indicated rather clearly that agriculture was fairly prosperous; yet in the same speech he told us that not more than 10 per cent of the farmers of eastern Canada made enough money to pay income tax and not more than 15 per cent of the western farmers made enough money to pay income tax either. As a matter of fact, his figures were rather high. A check of the figures indicates that the number of farmers paying income tax, east and west, will be considerably below the 10 per cent and 15 per cent mentioned by the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may be permitted just
to correct one word, I should like to do so.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think I contended that the farmers were prosperous. I said that they are better off than they had been before; that is all.


Major James William Coldwell: I will take that phraseology from the minister, that they are better off than they had been before. But from what the minister said I think the inference was that they were in a pretty fair shape just now. However, I will take what the minister says, namely that they are better off than they have been. As a matter of fact, is that not an admission that over the years we have regarded agriculture in this country as a depressed industry, when we talk about the returns of the farmers today and when all we can say is that they are better off than they have been in bygone years?
That brings us to the purpose of an amendment of this description. As I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is to urge the government and this House of Commons-because I am not placing the responsibility wholly on the government-to endeavour to promote in this country policies that will give more stability of income to our farmers. Over a number of years I have watched the policies that have been put into effect in some other countries and I have come to the conclusion-and it is a conclusion that I came to some time ago

that we shall never have a prosperous agriculture in this country until we had something more than floor prices, some system of guaranteeing to the farmers that over a period of time they will receive certain minimum prices for the products they were producing or, in other words, some form of forward pricing for farm commodities. As a matter of fact, we have had a floor price on butter now for two years. That is good. That is a step on the way to a wider policy, I should hope, as time goes by.
Over the last year we have seen the fluctuations in the prices of beef cattle. Of course in the marketing of cattle there is not the same type of orderly marketing as there is in the marketing of grain. I readily admit that the difficulties are greater. Grain can be stored but when a beef animal is ready to go to the market, that is approximately when that animal must go to the market. I readily admit that there are perhaps greater difficulties in connection with cattle marketing, but I believe that a policy could be produced-at least a board of livestock commissioners could be set up-Which would give to our livestock producers a better guarantee of stability of returns for a stated period of time than they have had over the past number of years.
If we are going to give this stability to farm prices, and if we are going to find a relationship-as ultimately we shall have to- between what it costs to produce farm commodities and what the farmer gets for 68108-226J
7, 1953
Position of Agricultural Industry them, then of course we have got to think also in terms of marketing those products. This afternoon I am not going into the marketing problem except to say this. An examination over a period of years indicates that the policy we have been pursuing over the past few years-that of relying to a greater extent than in the past on the American markets-is one that is going to cause our farmers and this country a great deal of difficulty in the near future.
Before I came down to the house this afternoon I looked over some extremely interesting figures, showing the percentages of trade during the period from 1920 to 1952, and I found this fact to be exceedingly interesting. Immediately after the first world war in 1920 we find the United States taking from us a fairly high percentage of our farm products. We find exactly the same thing after this second world war. But when we get between the two wars, and particularly in the depression period, we find that the relative positions of the United Kingdom and of the United States were most marked in this way: the United Kingdom took a fairly high percentage of our farm and other products and the percentage of our farm products taken by the United States dropped drastically during those years.
If we examine the whole story of the attempt to market Canadian products abroad, we find that the only stable market we have ever had is the one we had for a large number of years in the United Kingdom and in western Europe. Consequently the resolution moved the other day by my hon. friend is a resolution calling for more stability in farm prices; and if we are going to achieve that stability in farm prices, we have to have some stability in the markets in which we shall dispose of our farm products. It seems to me that this house has got to reconsider this whole problem of international marketing, and that we have got to consider ways and means of enabling our customers in those markets that we have had throughout the years to earn a sufficient number of dollars in our country to buy those basic supplies upon which they must depend both now and in the years to come.
This afternoon I am not going into tariffs and all that kind of thing, but it seems to me that one of the problems we have to consider is how we are going so to lower our tariffs that those countries that will buy our farm commodities will be able to get sufficient dollars in our country in order to buy those commodities. After all, I know that in the last few years a great deal of stress has been placed on the development of our minerals, on
3560	HOUSE OF
Position of Agricultural Industry the high returns we receive by the export of our forest products and so on. Yet I venture to say that minerals gradually become depleted and oil wells gradually peter out and forests are denuded; but if we take care of the top six inches of soil and farm that soil properly, we shall have a permanent resource that will bring to this country, both from our own domestic market and those abroad, returns for generations yet to come.
It seems to me that there is no more important problem facing this country than that of achieving stability of the agricultural industry. These fluctuations over the years have been a bugbear to our farmers. A week ago we were discussing an amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It was an amendment designed to continue that board until 1957. That is good. The farmers of the prairie provinces for many years fought for a wheat board and for some stability in the marketing of their own grain, and finally they achieved success. Today there is not anyone, I think, who is informed who will dare to suggest that the prairie farmers want to go back to the old hit-and-miss system of the open market and the grain exchange. They want to continue the stability thus obtained, but of course they want a fair return for their labour.
When we talk of stable prices we want something like uniform prices both in the domestic market and in the overseas markets. One of the most unfair features of our wheat marketing problem over the last number of years is the fact that our farmers have got less on the domestic market for wheat to be consumed in Canada than they might have got had that wheat been sold beyond our borders. But in spite of the criticism that can be levelled against the manner in which the marketing of grain in Canada has been carried on, there is no doubt whatsoever that our farmers expect that every attempt will be made to continue long-term international agreements for the wheat growers, and I believe that similar long-term agreements should be attempted as soon as possible and whenever possible for other basic farm commodities.
You only have to look at the situation regarding pork, bacon, and particularly cheese and dried and condensed milk at the present time to realize how essential those markets are, and what difficulties the loss of overseas markets creates not only for the agricultural producers, but indeed for the whole of our country and the whole of its economy. I want to emphasize again that the agricultural industry is and must remain a basic industry in this country. That has been the story of Canadian development over the years. With the high costs today there is a danger that

COMMONS	_
many young men and women who would like to take up farming, not only as a means of life but as a way of life provided that they could see sufficient returns, are unable to do so. One of the evidences of this instability in agriculture is the number of deserted farms we see here and there, and in the prairie provinces the loss of our rural population, particularly in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and to an extent even in the province of Alberta where tremendous development is going on at the present time. That also accounts for the consolidation of the farms into large units which are being established. Because of the high price of farm machinery, farmers must have enough land to provide a profitable unit to maintain the machinery that is necessary today to replace the labour of other days. Therefore I join with other hon. members in this house in support of the amendment. It is an amendment along the lines of many that we in this party have moved in the house over the years. We believe of course in planned trade. We believe even that when we cannot get dollars for the farm commodities that we could ship abroad and other people could use, we might take the sterling that they have and re-invest it in the backward areas of the sterling region and wait until we can get dollars or goods, in the meantime using our own financial machinery to pay decent and proper prices to the producers of this country. That is being done in some other parts of the world, and I believe that it could be done here provided that we had the will to do it.
I thus want to say both on my own behalf and on behalf of those associated with me that we give very warm support to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, we have had much talk of objectives in respect of stable agricultural prices, but very little talk as regards techniques. There must be some way of doing things, but nothing has been said about how these things can be done.
Broadly speaking, we have to decide whether we shall expand production in accordance with our resources and then devise an effective method of getting our surpluses into *yie hands of the needy of the world, or whether we shall restrict production in conformity with our own people's financial consuming power, giving only incidental consideration to the wants of less fortunate peoples of 'the world. In either case, we must aim at stable prices and markets.
Various techniques are being experimented with today. As an example, may we contemplate the United States methods in respect of her sugar industry?

What are some facts about the sugar industry of the United States? How much sugar does the United States require annually? About 100 pounds per capita, about 8 million tons. Where does the United States obtain her sugar? From mainland production through beets, 1,700,000 tons; through cane, 500,000 tons; from offshore United States' areas, namely, Hawaiian islands, Puerto Rico, Virgin islands, altogether about 2 million tons; from Cuba and the Philippines,
3,700,000	tons; from other foreign countries, small lots.
How has this apportionment of supply to the different sources been arrived at? It is by reference to special circumstances that surround the United States. Cuba is peculiarly an American problem. Some details to make this matter clear I will set forth later in this talk. The Philippines, too, are a special American problem. In the Philippine Independence Act of 1936 it was provided that the Philippines would be guaranteed a quota of not less than 982,000 tons of raw sugar a year. The Hawaiian islands, the Virgin islands, and Puerto Rico are looked upon by the United States as domestic cane areas, though not part of the United States mainland.
When, and by reason of what events, did the United States begin to deal with her sugar supply problem in an orderly manner? We are dealing with ours in an unorderly manner! The question can perhaps best be answered by reviewing certain facts about Cuban history in respect of sugar. What are such facts? Here they are: Cuba from before 1776 was an important supplier of sugar to the United States. Cuba, historically, has been a one-crop, a sugar economy, 90 per cent of her exports being sugar. Up until 1930 Cuba had always exported more than 70 per cent of her sugar to the United States. Even before her gaining independence from Spain, Cuba had geared her economy to the markets of the United States of America.
There were, resulting from the Spanish-American war, unique political ties between Cuba and the United States.
The Platt amendment to the army appropriation bill dictated by the United States in 1901 as a condition of United States military evacuation of Cuba after the Spanish-American war, permitted the United States to:
Exercise the right to intervene in the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of government adequate for the protection of life, property and individual liberty.
In addition to these there were special economic ties between the United States and
Position of Agricultural Industry Cuba. The United States and Cuba in 1903 ratified a reciprocal treaty which decreed:
That the duty on sugar from Cuba should be 20 per cent less than the full duty rate.
This measure has been in effect continue ously ever since. Finally, American investment in the Cuban processing industry, as well as in the Cuban plantations, is very large.
Cuba suffered a most unhappy experience after world war II. There was agricultural depression in the twenties, as in the thirties, which caused the United States to raise her tariffs on sugar three times, presumably to protect her own continental cane and beet sugar industry. This caused the development of an expanded sugar industry in United States offshore possessions-the Hawaiian islands, Puerto Rico and the Virgin islands. This development was greatly at Cuba's expense. From 1902 to 1929 Cuba had supplied almost one-half of the sugar requirements of the United States, averaging
3,832,000	tons, from 1926 to 1929. During the years 1930 to 1933 Cuba's proportion fell to less than 30 per cent, averaging 2,287,000' tons during the period 1930 to 1932.
There developed an overproduction of sugar. World production averaged in the period 1923-25 the amount of 26-1 million tons. In 1928-30 it was 31-3 million tons. The world price of raw fell from 4 cents per pound, New York price minus duty, to less than 2 cents per pound. In 1932 it fell to less than 1 cent a pound. The Cuban price in 1932 averaged -7 cent per pound.
The development of overproduction of sugar in the years 1925 to 1937 is indicated by the annual carryover each year. From the 1939 brief of the eastern Canadian cane refineries I quote the following tabulation, as it is set out in section 47 of that brief:
1925 , 5,320,398; 1926, 5,766,898; 1927, 5,689,749; 1928, 6,124,050;	1929,	7,500,794;	1930,	8,881,086;	1931,10,740,024;	1932,	10,896,824;	1933,	9,888,462;	1934,9,468,861;	1935,	8,128,421;	1936,	7,352,179;	1937,
7,172,779.
Cuba, as I said in my speech on March 16, had a settled policy of reducing her production "costs" far enough to permit her always to enter the United States market. Cuban prices lower than 1 cent per pound, and sales disastrously reduced, brought her economic ruin and revolution in 1933, with the expulsion of President Machado, followed by extremely unsettled political conditions.
These occurrences were cause for much concern in the United States.
Then there developed a Cuban refining industry, and the many troubles resulting therefrom. Concerning the development of

Position of Agricultural Industry the Cuban refining industry from 1926 on, may I read again from the 1939 cane refiners' brief, section 85, where it says:
For years prior to 1926 there was a refined sugar industry in Cuba which supplied a portion of the home market but was a negligible factor in export trade. In 1926, however, a series of causes operating together brought about a rapid expansion. Production rose from 50,000 tons in 1925 to 427,000 tons in 1931 and exports grew in the same period from 4,000 tons in 1925 to over 380,000 tons in 1931. During that period there was little change in the figures of home consumption in Cuba.
Then the United States Department of Agriculture stated "By 1933 it had become evident that the tariff was no longer adequate to ensure either a healthy domestic industry or a dependable source of foreign supplies".
May I now deal with what the United States did about the Cuban sugar situation, to remedy it? First, in respect of Cuban raw sugar: From 1930, on, various agencies of the United States government studied the sugar problem with great earnestness. The federal farm board called a conference of continental sugar producers. Resulting from this conference the federal farm board established a sugar beet and sugar cane advisory committee. This group met with the board on several occasions during 1930 and 1931. The Agricultural Adjustment Act was passed on May 12, 1933. Under the A.A.A. auspices an industry conference was convened in Washington in June of 1933. Within three weeks this group presented a draft marketing agreement which became known as the sugar stabilization plan.
This sugar stabilization plan (1) allocated a quota to each of the areas supplying sugar to the United States; (2) provided for establishing a minimum price for raw sugar, such price to be determined by formula; (3) called for an increase of production in homegrown sugar, both beet and cane. Disagreement among interested parties caused action to be deferred, but everyone learned that there was, in respect of sugar, a real problem, difficult of solution.
On February 8, 1934, the president sent a message to congress asking for legislation to achieve certain objectives. From the statement of two of these objectives, I quote the following:
1.	To maintain the existing acreage of sugar beets in the continental United States;
2.	To increase returns to domestic growers.
This message became the basis of orderly management of sugar in the United States. There followed the first of three sugar acts, the third of which is now in force and will be until 1956.
[Mr. Blackmore.l
The first of these was the Jones-Costigan act, approved on May 9, 1934, and often called the sugar act of 1934.
This sugar act did the following:
1.	Defined both sugar beets and sugar cane as basic agricultural commodities-and it is high time this was done in Canada!
2.	Required the appropriate governmental official to determine upon a national consumption estimate as a basis for arriving at quotas.
3.	Provided for a quota to be allowed United States domestic producers of both beet and cane sugar, greater than the production of any previous year, except 1933, the record year of United States sugar production.
4.	Provided for a quota to be allowed to Cuba, the Philippines, the Virgin islands, the Hawaiian islands and Puerto Rico.
5.	Provided for giving payments to participating growers.
6.	Imposed a half cent per pound processing tax on all sugar consumed in the United States and its territories.
Then came the sugar act of 1937. It embodied the main provisions of the sugar act of 1934, with some elaborations and modifications. Instead of the half cent per pound processing tax, this act had an excise tax of one-half cent per pound.
And then came the sugar act of 1948, which has since been extended to December 31, 1956. It set out the following quotas:
Continental beets increased from 1,550,000 tons in 1934-1937 to 1,800,000 tons in the 1948 act. It will be noted that provision was thus made for an expansion in the beet sugar industry.
Then, secondly, continental cane increased from 260,000 tons in 1934-37 to 500,000 tons in 1948. And it will be noted again that there was a provision for expansion! And it is time something like that was done in Canada! Then came Hawaii with 1,052,000 tons; Puerto Rico, 910,000, increased to 1,080,000 for 1953; and the Virgin islands at 6,000, increased to
12.000	for 1953. The total for 1953 equals
4.400.000	tons. The figure for the Philippines is 982,000 short tons raw value. Including the Philippine quota the total for 1953 therefore equals 4,400,000 tons plus 982,000 short tons raw value.
Cuba's quota equals 98-64 per cent of the total United States consumption requirement after the 4,400,000 United States domestic quota and the 982,000 short tons raw value Philippine quota are subtracted from the total United States consumption requirement determination.

It is provided, however, that Cuba's share of the total consumption requirement of the United States must not fall below 28-6 per cent as was stipulated in the sugar act of 1937. Foreign countries other than Cuba and the Philippines were to get 1-36 per cent of that total. The sugar act of 1948 provided for payments of about $2.50 per ton in the case of beets, and a little over $1 per ton in the case of cane but there were several considerations upon which payments were based. The following is to be found in Lamborn's "Highlights of the Sugar Act of 1948, and 1951 Amendments" at page 14:
The base rate of payment shall be 80 cents per 100 pounds of sugar or liquid sugar, raw value.
We now come to what the United States did about the Cuban sugar situation to remedy it in respect of direct consumption sugar or refined sugar. All of the acts have severely restricted imports of direct consumption or refined sugar. In the 1934 act Cuba was limited to some 418,000 tons of refined, about 22 per cent of her total quota. Hawaii was limited to 26,000 tons, Puerto Rico to 133,000 and the Philippine islands to 80,000, all of which tends to show how careful the United States is about letting refined into her gardens to destroy them.
In the 1937 and 1948 acts Cuba received
375,000	tons as a quota and the Hawaiian islands and Puerto Rico about the same as in 1934. The quota for the Philippine islands in the 1948 act was set at 59,920 tons.
In the 1937 act it was provided that the refined quota provisions would expire one year before the act itself. The refined provisions did expire in February, 1940, and for some months there was a free flow of refined sugar into the United States, limited only by the total quota. However, when later in 1940 the act was extended, the limitations of refined sugar imports were again imposed. That should be a warning to us!
What might be safely recognized as being the achievements of the quota system as embodied in and applied through the United States sugar acts of 1934, 1937 and 1948? The following accomplishments must, it seems, be conceded:
1.	The sugar acts have defined both sugar beets and sugar cane as basic agricultural commodities.
2.	They have lent stability to sugar prices to the advantage of both producers and consumers.
3.	They have tended to increase domestic production of sugar from both cane and beet.
4.	They have improved the general economic position of Cuba.
7,	1953
Position of Agricultural Industry
5.	They have provided some stability to the economies of the Philippines, the Virgin islands, the Hawaiian islands, Puerto Rico and other lands.
6.	They have enabled the United States to reduce the tariff on sugar 1J cents per pound without prejudice to her own economy.
7.	They have enabled the United States to prevent Cuba from sending into the United States economy enough sugar, raw and refined, to deprive all other countries of the privilege of sending in any of their sugar and so sharing in the United States market.
8.	They have made government sugar policy more acceptable to all concerned than has been the case under any other system of management.
Now what of the matter of price? Listen to this quotation:
While prices to farmers producing beets and cane are more than double those of the pre-war years, they have lagged behind the rise in the prices of almost all other farm products.
Then, another quotation:
. . . sugar prices have lagged far behind the rapid upward movement of the index of all food prices.
As a result of the deep and concerted study of the whole situation affecting sugar, United States representatives formed some settled convictions of importance to Canada. Certain of these are:
1.	No nation can afford to permit its domestic sugar industry to be destroyed, impaired or even threatened.
2.	No nation can afford to permit unregulated importation of refined sugar into its economy.
3.	The means most useful and fair in regulating the sugar situation of the United States, and presumably in Canada, is the quota system as illustrated in the United States sugar acts of 1934, 1937 and 1948.
I think the general conclusion that all careful thinkers will come to might be expressed thus, that Canada would probably be best able to encourage her producers and protect her consumers of both beet and cane sugar by the use of the quota system determined and administered under a sugar act, like the United States sugar act of 1948, regulating by statute the amount of sugar, both raw and refined, permitted to enter her economy from each indicated source of supply.
There is one matter that does need attention before we leave the general aspect of the whole question. During 1952 a number of marketing irregularities developed into which I do not propose to go. For those who

Position of Agricultural Industry may wish to examine this matter scientifically, these irregularities are discussed well in an article entitled "Competitive Practices Sharpen in Sugar Industry Marketing" in the February 13, 1953, issue of the Journal of Commerce. These marketing practices have rendered it impossible for the United States to keep out certain sugar shipments which have been sent to her shores, in a satisfactory way. Thus there has been an amount of interference with stability of prices in the United States during 1952.
It looks as though, if one were to have an ideal act, one would have to have a sugar act similar to the one of 1948, and also have associated with it the essential features at least of the Canadian order in council P.C. 181 under which it was possible for the government to fix for tariff purposes the minimum price of sugar in the land of origin at a certain set price. Under it the set price was $2.30. The order in council, as hon. members will recall, was passed in January, 1932.
I think perhaps hon. members would be interested in certain quotations concerning the working out of the sugar acts of the United States. I have a quotation from the article by Mr. C. F. McCarthy to which I have already referred and in which he reports a speech made by Philip E. Jones, sugar branch official of the department of agriculture of the United States at a recent meeting of the national federation of beet sugar growers in Billings, Montana. I quote from Mr. Jones' remarks as quoted in Mr. McCarthy's article:
The sugar act of 1948 and the predecessor acts have operated to the benefit of many groups which participate in the production, processing and consumption of sugar. Incomes of sugar beet and sugar cane growers have been substantially increased, as have wages of field workers ini all United States areas. Sugar prices paid by the consumer have remained moderate. Increases in domestic production have been restricted but domestic production has not been permanently reduced. Foreign supplying areas have benefited from increased prices obtained for those quantities of sugar marketed under United States quotas and they have shared in our expanding total sugar requirements.
Growers now obtain a much larger proportion of the consumer's sugar dollar, largely because of the more stabilized conditions under which the industry operates, and because of the continued efforts on the part of sugar mills and refineries to improve their processing efficiency. As a result of these conditions, mill and refinery costs have not reflected the full impact of the general price inflation which has occurred in the last fifteen years. Processors generally have operated profitably and at the same time have been able to increase substantially the proportion of total sales income paid to growers for sugar cane and beets.
I give a number of quotations now from a work which I hardly feel free to name. It is


an unpublished study by an eminent Canadian authority of the conditions in the United States under these acts. It is a study made in 1952, not yet available generally but I have access to it. Here are some of the quotations:
During the operation of the Jones-Costigan act the duty on Cuban sugar was reduced from 2 cents to -9 cents.
I quote again:
While one could expand at length the history of the 1948 sugar act operations, it may suffice to note finally that the tariff was again reduced in this period. Under the general agreements on tariffs and trade the duty on Cuban sugar was reduced, effective January 1, 1948, from '75 to -50 cents per lb. The full duty rate was reduced from *9375 to -6785 and later to -6250 cents per pound.
And:
... it seems most improbable that any substantial reduction in tariff could have been achieved in the absence of specific alternatives such as the sugar quota system.
Again I quote:
After three years of the Jones-Costigan act the consumer paid only from one-tenth to two-tenths of a cent more per pound for sugar than at the beginning of the operation.
And:
Further, the quota system continued to raise the American price from one-half to one cent per pound over the price which would have prevailed in the absence of quotas.
I continue:
Until mid-1950 the quota system yielded the U.S. price of sugar up to 1-6 cents (generally less than one cent, however), higher than the world price due to quota effect alone. With the world' price of sugar rising rapidly from about $4.50 per hundred early in 1950 to nearly $8.00 in mid-1951, the quota premium situation was reversed and rendered into a quota discount. This protection for American sugar users extended almost continuously from July 1950 through 1951. While it was generally in the neighbourhood of one-half cent a lb. it did reach more than two cents per lb. in the midsummer of 1951.
And again:
Sugar prices during this period gave unmistakable evidence that the quota system could be employed to the advantage of the American consumer.
And:
... in terms of price, certainly not in other ways, however, the American consumers and industrial users have generally been brought closer to world sugar price levels than they were before the introduction of the quota system.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make just a comment or two in a general way on this quota system. Not very long ago one of the members of the house, and I will not name him, made a statement to the effect that the quota system was a restrictive system. He said that quotas were the most restrictive of all trade measures that could be practised. Well, it is evident from the account I have

given of the quota system in the United States under the 1934, 1937, and 1948 acts that the quota system has not been restrictive to trade in that nation in relation to sugar.
One can obtain an illustration from the green and red lights on the street. When you come to a red light it means stop-and it does mean stop. That, however, does not restrict traffic. That actually makes it possible for traffic to be more free and more rapid than it could possibly be without red lights.
I suggest that a quota system, which might look like an absolute prevention or an absolute measure forbidding trade, actually, under the circumstances which have obtained in the United States, has been a measure making for freer trade.
We might also talk about lower tariffs. We have a number of men in our government offices who have a sort of craze over trade and low tariffs. They will be greatly comforted to discover that, under the quota system and these three acts in the United States, they have lowered the tariffs in a way that might have been impossible if it had not been for the quota system.
There are a great many people who talk about non-discrimination in trade. Some statements have been made by certain members in this house to the effect that they want trade to be just as free as the wind. They did not use just those words, but if there were other words to describe anything freer to express the thought they would have been using those other words.
I ask hon. members how long trade in respect of sugar in Canada will be free if we have Cuban sugar entering unrestricted into our market. I have already referred to that in my speech.
If we let Cuban sugar come in here, refined sugar, there will not be another nation on the face of the earth which will send one pound of sugar into Canada. Anyone who sees non-discrimination in trade in that prospect must have coloured glasses of a kind that I have not yet seen.
I do not hesitate to recommend to those who have authority in respect of sugar in Canada that they should give most careful thought to this matter of the quota system as it has been used and applied in the United States sugar acts of 1934, 1937 and 1948.


Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brant-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in support of the amendment which was moved by my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) on March 23, and I think it would be well if the amendment were read
Position of Agricultural Industry to the house now, because it was moved over two weeks ago. The amendment reads:
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question he struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to provide floor prices for agricultural products at such levels as to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship."
Now, to use an oft-quoted, slang term, Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has been viewing the whole situation from a little pink cloud through rose-coloured glasses. I realize, however, that there is probably a good reason for this ultraoptimism and arrogant attitude. We are told that there is going to be an election before the snow flies; and probably the minister is just getting wound up for the campaign. At page 3225 of Hansard for March 23 the minister, in referring to farm prices, had this to say:
I am not going to try to guess what they will be ten years from now, but I am going to make the statement that so long as this government is in power, and so long as the policy we have been following throughout the last ten years is continued, prices will go down less than they would under any other kind of policy that could be established in this country by any other government.
I have always been taught that no one is so good that he can never be replaced. History is very interesting but it is only interesting when told truthfully and when facts are stated. It is rather tiresome for those of us on this side of the house to hear members from the government side keep repeating and repeating what happened in the 1930's and how this government has improved the situation since that time. I want to remind members on the government side of the house that the depression or crash, as they called it, occurred in 1929 and the election at which the Liberal government was defeated did not take place until July 1930. Anyone who suspects that the Conservative government in power between 1930 and 1935 was the cause of the depression is certainly not conversant with the facts.
On page 3218 the Minister of Agriculture in referring to parity and I will quote his words:
The only objection I have to the word "parity" is that I seldom know what people mean when they use it.
There is an interjection:


An hon. Member:: They don't, either.
And then:


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not understand what they are really talking about when they use the word.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is rather odd to find that the minister himself, when speaking to
3566	HOUSE OF
Position of Agricultural Industry the federation of agriculture in Victoria on January 27, makes use of the word "parity". If he cannot understand what other people mean, why would he want to use the word himself?


James Garfield Gardiner: I explained what I meant before I used it.


John Alpheus Charlton: The explanation was rather dim. I was there and I heard the minister. Even if that is the case, the minister uses the word "parity" in his own speech, even though he claims he does not understand what other people are talking about when they use it.
Referring to this speech I want to say something which is rather beside the point for the moment. There is a mistake in the figures the minister used in this speech and that mistake was transferred to Hansard of March 5, 1953, page 2663. The minister used the average annual volume of production for cheese as 20,023,000 cwt. I believe he has added a zero which should not be there.
Following up the use of this word "parity" we find that when the Liberal government took over in 1935 farm prices were said to be then about 20 per cent below parity. Now, after all this bragging we have heard about what the Liberal government has done in this country we find that in 1940, after five years of Liberal government, the parity was reduced to 23 per cent for farm products. Then, in 1941, when this government froze the prices of farm products, parity had dropped to a low of 30. Now, Mr. Speaker, that condition does not agree with so many of the statements we have heard in this House of Commons during the past several years.
It is often the case that pre-election statements are quite different from post-election statements. In 1935, I believe it was, the Minister of Agriculture had a famous dodger that he used before the campaign. I should like to quote what was on that dodger. It reads:
Dollar wheat will give you a job and enable you to own your own home. Dollar wheat will pay for your light and water and give you a telephone. Dollar wheat will pay your grocery bill and buy boots, shoes and clothing for the whole family. Dollar wheat will provide a surplus for a rainy day. Vote Liberal.
Now, what happened? In 1935, before the Conservative government was defeated, the price of wheat was 87-5 cents. In 1938 the Liberal government announced a price for wheat of 60 cents a bushel. There was so much concern out west about the price going so low that the government was forced finally to pay 70 cents. The fact still


remains that the announced price in 1938 was 60 cents. The price in 1935, Mr. Speaker, was 87-5 cents.
In addition to that, before the 1935 election the Liberals boasted that they would increase the export market tremendously. What are the facts? During the period 1932 to 1935, the export of wheat was 832 million bushels, and from 1936 to 1939 it was 707 million bushels, showing quite a reduction in those years. I have taken the trouble to look up the figures for exports to Great Britain. I have a list here of all the exports from 1920 to 1950, showing the exports of each product for each year. I am going to use the years 1929, 1934 and 1936. I think they are very fair. The 1929 figure would be while the Liberals were in power; the 1934 figure would be after three years of Conservative power; and the 1936 figure would be after the Liberals were back in office. This list is as follows:
Product	Year	Quantity Bbls.Apples-Fresh 	1929	866,0031934	3,057,8971936	2,202,053 Lbs.Apples-Dried 	1929	32,7501934	988,1251936	399,100 Cwt.Beef and Veal, Fresh 	1929	661934	76,763Bacon and Ham, Shoulders and	1936	24,420Sides 	1929	329,7541934	945,5971936	24,420Cheese 	1929	1,025,3871934	714,1331936	528,781Milk Powder, Whole 	1929	36,6311934	40,0741936	33,083Milk, Condensed 	1929	16,2951934	11,2181936	3,633 Lbs.Honey 	1929	346,2711934	1,853,0931936	1,542,807 Cwt.Pork, Fresh, Chilled and Frozen	1929	4,7071934	8,2331936	15Pork, Dry Salted 	1929	9,3241934	8,4211936	2,128Pork, Pickled in Barrels 	1929	1411934	1,0271936	275
That last figure was the result of two years of Liberal regime, so I hope we have heard the last of the boast that the Liberals have done so much to keep British trade.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just because my hon. friend goes a long piece back he must not suppose that people have forgotten that we were not in power for two years in 1936. We only came into office about November 1, 1935.


John Alpheus Charlton: Of course, the Conservatives had only been in power for about that length of time but you blamed them for having a depression on their hands. Are you not taking credit for anything within the first two years?


James Garfield Gardiner: You just got through saying that we had been in power for two years in 1936, but we had not.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am sorry; it was the second year.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact, we were still suffering from what the Conservatives did for five years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Speaker, before tbe last election in 1949 a great many statements were made by the minister and some were made by his parliamentary assistant. But as I said before, pre-election statements are generally quite different from post-election statements. I have here in my hand copies of Canadian Press releases of statements made by the minister. For instance, here is one of December 8, 1948:
In Ottawa today Agriculture Minister Gardiner announced that the United Kingdom has agreed to purchase next year (1949) 160 million pounds of Canadian bacon, 50 million pounds of cheese and 1,530,000 cases of shell eggs.
On April 11, 1949, another statement from a Canadian Press release:
Agriculture Minister Gardiner said Saturday that because Canadians were eating 100 per cent more pork products than in the prewar days Canada would be unable to fulfil her 160 million-pound bacon contract with Britain.
Again on May 19,-


John George Diefenbaker: Of what year?


John Alpheus Charlton: -1949, is another Canadian Press release which reads:
"The cheese contract with Britain was reduced to 50 million pounds after production in Canada had dropped following the war when dairy farmers found it more profitable to sell their milk for canning." Mr. Gardiner said Britain was prepared to take more "but we realized we might not be able to meet even this amount", Mr. Gardiner declared.
On May 30, 1949, again just previous to the election:
"Every country in the world, and particularly Britain, could take more of our food products if we had them to sell and particularly if these countries could pay," Mr. Gardiner said over the C.B.C. network.
Position of Agricultural Industry On June 23, 1949, just previous to the election:
Agriculture minister Gardiner said tonight, "There is no evidence" to support the contention of C.C.F. leader Coldwell that Canada is losing the British food market. Mr. Gardiner said "the evidence is quite the opposite."
Then again on June 6-and this is another Canadian Press release of June 7 of a statement by the minister-we find this:
When critics of the government claim Canada is losing its overseas markets they don't know what they are talking about.
On May 20 of the same year, 1949, the parliamentary assistant had this to say, and I am quoting another Canadian Press report:
Our opponents would indicate that United Kingdom food contracts are going by the board. This is far from the truth. The United Kingdom would ask Canada to provide more bacon in 1950.
What was the statement after the election? This is interesting, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that on December 10, 1949, as reported at page 3087 of Hansard, we have the minister making this statement:
When we met with them-British government officials-in the fall of 1947-
And mind you, before all those other statements that I just read.
-they said they did not want our food products except wheat. The second time they visited us, in 1948, they included cheese,-
That they did not want.
-but they did not include cheese in 1947.


James Garfield Gardiner: They included cheese that they did want, not that they did not want.


John Alpheus Charlton: Would the minister allow me to quote his own figures?


John George Diefenbaker: No; he does not want to hear them.


James Garfield Gardiner: Those are not figures.


John Alpheus Charlton: The quotation continues: They said:	We prefer not to have these products. As a matter of fact, at certain stages they said they would not take these products, and at certain stages we said other things which induced them to take the products.
Then as reported at page 3221 of Hansard of March 23, 1953, in his speech the minister had this to say:
Since that time we have not been marketing food products in Britain because Britain told us in so many words that she was not going to buy from us.
A little farther down in the same page, in the same column we find this:


John George Diefenbaker: What did they say?


James Garfield Gardiner: They said they did not want any of our food products except wheat.

Position of Agricultural Industry And over in the next column on the same page we find:
We were told quite frankly that they preferred not to have them.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is exactly what the other statements were, if the hon. member will read the speech.


John Alpheus Charlton: Am I asked by the minister to repeat what he said on December 10 after the election back in 1949 and the statements the minister made about our being wrong when we said we were losing the British market? Does he want me to read that all again? Did he not catch it?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not necessary for the hon. member to read them. I could give them to him in less time than he could read them.


John Alpheus Charlton: It is not much wonder that the minister has not been able to sell our food products to Britain after making those statements. Apparently the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), who has not those statements to his credit, can sell his products. Four and a quarter million pounds of salmon have been sold by the Minister of Fisheries.
Mr. Speaker, I say that this government has no floor price policy. It is only a hit-or-miss program of expediency. For instance, the floor price on hogs last fall was $26. About October 1, the minister announced that the price as of January 1 would be dropped to $23. Now, we mean either one thing or the other. Do we believe in the fact that we can produce food here for the hungry nations of the world and thus aid in the defeat of communism or do we believe that we want to restrict production here and supply just our own needs? It would appear that during the last couple of years the Minister of Agriculture has had that particular policy. What other reason would there possibly have been for announcing, three months ahead, a drop of $3 in the floor price of hogs? Then we come to the floor price of beef. The promise was made that the floor price for beef would be maintained until the export market was opened to the United States. Was it, Mr. Speaker? No, it was dropped a week previous to that date.
The minister attended the federation of agriculture meeting at Victoria and should have ascertained the feeling of that meeting. With reference to it, here is a press article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of March 6 and which reads in part:
Meat Price Probe Urged by Farmers The government was asked today by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to institute an investigation into the spread in meat prices between farm and market basket.
The federation said: "It has been apparent that the lower prices being received by our farmers for livestock have not been reflected in the price of meat to the consumer".
[Mr. Charlton.)
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand sessional paper No. 165B which contains an answer to a question put on the order paper of Friday, March 20, 1953, wherein I asked several questions. I shall have to read them in order to convey the meaning that I want to bring out. I asked:
1.	How many pounds of canned pork were bought by the government during each of the months since January, 1952?
2.	From whom were these purchases made, and what was the price and quantity in each case?
3.	What were the total sales of canned pork, giving quantity and value, by the government, during each of the months since January, 1952?
4.	-
And by the way, this question was not answered, Mr. Speaker.
-Through what agencies were these sales made, indicating volume and commission paid in each case?
5.	What quantity of canned pork is presently held by the government?
In a discussion with the minister last year in the house he said that 50 per cent of the hog put into the can by the packers consisted of bone and fat. I disagreed with him on that occasion and I have since found out from sources that I believe to be accurate that anywhere from 35 per cent to 38 per cent of a grade A or a grade B hog would be bone and fat. Let us take the 38 per cent figure and apply it to 100 pounds of warm dressed pork which cost the packers $26. When you take the 38 per cent of bone and fat from that 100 pounds of dressed pork you have left 62 pounds of pork meat for which they were paid 62J cents a pound. That came to $38.57. The canning, as stated by the minister on that occasion, cost 12 cents a pound. I take it that that would include all the costs. When you multiply 12 cents by 62 you arrive at a figure of $7.44, making a total of $31.13. The difference between their cost of $26 and $31.13 would be $5.13 per hundredweight.
The packer or the canner was paid a commission on the sale of some of the pork. On lots of 450 cases or more they were paid $2.98 a hundred. On less than 450 case lots they were paid an additional $2. That would make $4.98. So we will suppose that on less than 450 case lots they had a total profit of $10.11 a hundred, which comes out to 32-8 per cent on their original investment of $26 plus cost of canning.
Strange as it may seem, an answer to a question I asked in respect to commission contained the following:
On these sales a brokerage fee of 2i per cent is allowed any Canadian firm acting as an agent of the board. This covers all selling expenses incurred by the board.
Now, the $2.98 allowed was on lots of 450 cases or over, and it gives a percentage of

4-8. If less than 450 case lots were sold the percentage came to 8. And yet this is a statement which says that the total costs to the hoard would be 2J per cent.
The minister has stated recently that there were no troublesome surpluses besides canned pork and beef held in the United States. There are other surpluses. I have figures here from the weekly dairy produce market report for the week ended March 14. This is a report put out by the Department of Agriculture marketing service. It shows that in the week ended March 14, 1953, the total production of cheese was 3,157 boxes. That was just 144 per cent more than the amount produced in the same period the year previously. Yet the minister continues to say that there is no surplus. I wonder where this cheese that is produced is going. The minister claims, as he has claimed in the house before, that we could eat it all here, and that even Ontario, producing that much cheese, could eat it all here, or maybe a few pounds would be eaten in the west, but most of it could be eaten in Ontario. At page 3220 of Hansard the minister said:
Food production is the highest in our experience. The reason lor the increase is to be found in the fact that the only part of the Dominion of Canada that produces more food than it can eat is the prairie provinces.
Then a little further down he said:
One product that in the past was not consumed in the province was cheese but in the last year Ontario ate practically all the cheese it produced too. They do not eat quite all of it; they ship some of it west and we help them to eat it; but certainly it can all be consumed in Canada and consumed easily.
I happen to know that there is quite a surplus of cheese at the moment. With these figures of 144 per cent more production than there was a year ago it is presumed that there will be a considerable amount of surplus cheese in a very short time.
During 1952 this country imported a considerable amount of cheese, as set forth in an answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Tustin) on March 4, 1953. According to that answer the total amount of cheese imported into this country in 1952 was 12,086,764 pounds. In the face of a surplus of cheese this government permitted the importation of 12 million pounds.
In the case of powdered milk, the minister knows that there is a surplus of powdered milk, both skim and whole powdered milk. He knows that. If he does not know it then I advise him to get in touch with his officials who do know.
7,	1953
Position of Agricultural Industry


James Garfield Gardiner: We have a surplus now, but we had no considerable surplus when the speech was made.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am not speaking about last year, I am speaking about now, and there is a surplus of powdered milk as the minister must know.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have it. Of course
we know.


John Alpheus Charlton: The situation is most embarrassing to this government. When the minister was speaking to the dominion-provincial agricultural conference last fall, he said, as reported in the Ottawa Journal:
Price problems of farmers up to provinces says Gardiner.
He does not want to face the responsibility now that prices are getting bad. He wants to hand it back to the provinces as their responsibility.
The responsibility with respect to vegetable oils was handed back to the provinces on top of a reduction of 13 per cent in the tariff on oils coming into this country. Another very peculiar thing the minister said the other day was that, on top of the rosy picture he was painting, the farmers were better off now than they ever were and they knew it.
I think he would be advised to speak to some of the people he is talking about before he makes that statement again. He said, as reported at page 3220 of Hansard:
If one really wanted to make out a table which would indicate what the relationships are as between the farmers of the east and the farmers of the west, I think one would be able to show that about 90 per cent of the farmers in the eastern part of Canada do not make enough to pay income tax at all.
For the Minister of Agriculture of the Dominion of Canada, which is an agricultural country, to make a statement of that kind is almost unbelievable.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is it not correct? I am accustomed to making correct statements, and that statement is correct, as the hon. member knows.


John Alpheus Charlton: Either one or the other of the statements is not correct. Either "90 per cent of the farmers are not making enough to pay income tax" or "they are better off now than they were before, and they know it." Both statements cannot be right.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes, they can.


John Alpheus Charlton: We will let the minister have his fun.


James Garfield Gardiner: When your party was in power they did not have any income tax to pay, in most cases.

Position of Agricultural Industry


John Alpheus Charlton: Oh, the minister can have his fun. It is just previous to an election. If he wants to make those statements we will see how many people believe them.
I presume it is the western wheat crop that is bolstering the average farm income across Canada, and in that connection the minister makes this statement as reported at page 3223 of Hansard:
You can still see practically every bin the farmers have on their farms filled with wheat. In other words the farmer has practically a whole crop still to market.
And farther on he says:
-but five million tons-more food to send out to the world, because of growing surpluses-
Now, 5 million tons sounds like a great amount of food; but if the minister would take the difference between an ordinary wheat crop I think he will find it is nearer twice 5 million tons of extra food produced in the west in the year 1952.
It takes 166,666,666 bushels to make 5 million tons; and the wheat crop in the west last year was far more than that above the average. So in that instance the minister is low. But he is taking that figure of the added wheat crop as bolstering the average farm income across Canada.
At this point I should like to quote from the Current Review setting out agricultural conditions in Canada. This is the issue of March, 1953, volume 13, number 4. At page 2 it says:
The higher income from field crops because of the harvest of a large part of the 1951 grain crop in the spring of 1952 and the unprecedented 1952 crops, did much to balance the lowered income from livestock and their products.
That is the answer to the reasonably high income across Canada which, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said this afternoon, is 14 per cent below the 1952 figure. The income of livestock producers is down 30 per cent from 1951.
Twenty per cent of the population in Canada received around 11 per cent of the national income. The farmers must have a realistic floor price policy. It is as important to the consumers as it is to the producers, as a means of stabilizing production and assuring a reasonable supply of food. The floor price policy is actually a Conservative policy brought out in 1942 by the then leader of the Conservative party, Mr. Bracken. Owing to the pressure exerted by agriculture all across this country, the Liberal government put it into legislative form in 1944.
In closing I wish to say this: Let the government step down from the throne of selfsatisfaction and arrogance on which they

have placed themselves, and accept the responsibility which is rightly theirs.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mi'. Speaker, I wish to add my voice to those who have already spoken in support of this amendment, and I do so partly because I live in an agricultural area and partly because I know, as I believe all hon. members know, that there is no industry in Canada as unstable today as agriculture.
Recently I have received a number of letters from farmers in my own constituency complaining about the deal they are now getting, and have had over the last year, and prior to that. I would remind hon. members including the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that prior to the last crop year, in certain sections of this country, the wheat farmers were either rained out or snowed out. The crop two years ago, in many parts of the country, including many sections of my own constituency, remained unharvested. Last year the farmers had difficulty due to the glut of lower grade wheat in the elevators, which resulted in difficulty in moving the grain.
While we realize that there was an outlet at the Pacific coast, we are now faced with a strike problem there, and this again affects the movement of grain, All these things enter into the problems the farmers in western Canada have faced recently. To my mind the farmer, of all men, attempts to run his farm in the midst of constant uncertainty. If he is a wheat farmer he is uncertain in the matter of harvesting his crop; he is uncertain of the yield; he is completely reliant upon favourable elements in order that he may reap a fair crop with a fair yield. He must face the possibilities of frost; and there is the further problem of hail, which some may suggest can be covered by insurance. Nevertheless it remains an uncertain factor. Then there is the danger of drought and the danger of grasshoppers. There is the danger of rust.
All these things make the farmer's problems great, because he is constantly faced with uncertainty. Even though the elements may be favourable, he must depend upon prices, over which he has no control. If he is carrying on mixed farming, in a small way, and raises chickens so that he may sell eggs, again he will find a fluctuation in the prices of his products. If he is a dairy farmer he must face, substitutes for butterfat. If he raises hogs or cattle he will find the market most unstable.
So I say once again that, of all men, the farmer must attempt to run his farm in the midst of continual uncertainty. He is in a

different position from those in the secondary industries, who can determine the prices they shall receive for their products; and they usually get those prices. They can figure all their cost factors, something the farmer is not always able to do. We might say that most of the farmer's problems are concerned with the uncertainty of the elements and the uncertainty of having a crop. Of course the government might say that it cannot control the elements and cannot say how much rain should fall or how much frost should be kept away. But there is one thing the government can do. It can so legislate as to give and guarantee to the farmer a fair price for his production. That is not dependent upon the elements at all. It is an economic factor which a proper and adequate government policy can provide for the farmer.
Over the years the farmer has perhaps had a greater struggle than any other industrial producer in the country. We all recall the days when the grain exchange had things pretty well its own way. Those who were responsible for the selling of wheat on the grain exchange had certain protection. Whether it was elevator organizations, flour mills or banks, whoever was in the grain selling business, they were always able to protect themselves against great losses. But there once again the farmer was at the mercy of markets and prices and those who sold his grain. The farmers began to take action, and as we all know they began to organize, as was only right, and the wheat pool movement was brought into existence.
Over the years the wheat pools have done a good deal for the farmers, but once again the wheat pools are largely dependent upon prices. We all realize what happened as a result of the 1929 stock market crash which brought about the world-wide depression. The wheat pools found themselves in tremendous difficulty. They faced the difficulty of a falling market, and having already arranged to pay the farmer a certain initial price they had to borrow in order to do so. They found themselves in debt to the tune of about $22 million. The provincial governments of the west came to their assistance, and eventually the wheat pools were able to wipe out the deficit. I relate these facts, Mr. Speaker, to indicate the struggle of the farmer and the fact that in all his struggles he has had in the end to rely upon prices over which he had no control.
The crash, the depression that followed and the crises which the wheat pools went through in those days taught another lesson, and after further struggle another advance was made in the bringing into existence of the Canadian wheat board. I think the
Position of Agricultural Industry majority of the farmers of the west are glad the wheat board was brought into existence. It was an attempt to protect the farmer so far as the selling of his grain was concerned, and to give him a more stabilized price system. But even so the farmer has little or nothing to say with respect to the price that he should get for his wheat.
I was interested to receive the other day a number of resolutions passed at the annual convention of the farmers' union of Alberta last December. I was rather amazed to find that a number of them dealt with prices. For the purposes of the record I should like to read one or two of them. I shall only read those that have to do with prices, because that is what we are concerned with particularly in this debate. The first resolution reads as follows:
Whereas for some years past the domestic price of wheat for Canadian consumption has been fixed at the same level as wheat sold under the international wheat agreement, and
Whereas during this whole period farm costs and the Canadian price level have risen continuously and the Canadian wheat producers of the prairie region have thus been forced to subsidize the consumers of the whole of Canada, and
Whereas there is no just reason why this should continue;
Therefore be it resolved that the domestic price of wheat consumed in Canada should be raised immediately to $2.25 per bushel, basis No. 1 Northern at Fort William, and revised annually in relation to the costs of production.
It has already been mentioned by previous speakers that while there has been a decline in farm prices there has been an incline in the cost of production. Here is another resolution concerning the establishment of floor prices which reads as follows:
Whereas the present wide spread in floor prices between eastern and western cattle markets is a serious injustice to western stock raisers, and
Whereas the present temporary floor price does not allow eastern stock men to plan for the future or stabilize their industry, and
Whereas prevailing prices on lower grades of butcher cattle bear no relation to their true value, and spreads between eastern and western markets are excessive on these grades also, and
Whereas retail prices on meat have not dropped in proportion to the price of cattle, and consequently the increased consumption of meat which should have developed has not materialized;
Therefore be it resolved that the farmers' union of Alberta requests that the dominion government establish floor prices on all western markets at the same level as floor prices in Toronto and Montreal, and that an investigation be held as to why the retail meat prices have not fallen in proportion to the prices of live cattle.
So much for wheat and so much for cattle. We come now to another product produced by the farmer, and here is a short resolution
3572	HOUSE OF
Position of Agricultural Industry on the floor price on eggs to the producer which speaks for itself. It reads as follows:
Whereas the present floor price on eggs is to the packer;
Therefore be it resolved that we recommend that the floor price be set to the producer and not to the packer.
While I am dealing with eggs may I read another resolution that deals with the subject from a little different angle. It is as follows:
Whereas dominion and provincial governments are continually urging the farmer to engage in balanced mixed farming, and
Whereas with farm overhead steadily rising, with price floors on butter and grade A eggs low, and a serious decline in the price of butterfat and lower grades of eggs defeating the purpose of the price floor, which is the giving of reasonable protection to the producer;
Therefore be it resolved that the dominion government be requested immediately to implement an effective floor price on eggs, guaranteeing a fair return to the primary producer.
Well, we go a little further in these resolutions and we find another in respect of parity prices. We have prices again, the thing that concerns the farmer these days.
The resolution reads:
Whereas the farmers' production costs are continually rising, and
Whereas all farm produce is on a sharp decline;
Therefore be it resolved that steps be taken to ensure the farming industries an adequate margin of profit.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think we will have to realize that when it comes to the matter of the prices the farmer gets for his production in relation to the prices he has to pay for the things he buys-and most of those things have to be written into his cost of production-we are in sad need of parity. In respect of that I wonder if I might read just a small paragraph from Mr. Hannam's address, as president, to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. This was given at the seventh annual convention of that body held in Victoria in January last. In dealing with farm purchasing power Mr. Hannam points out that the purchasing power of the farmer has declined, and here is the paragraph I would like to read:
For those who have the erroneous impression that farmers have been enjoying unprecedented prosperity, it would be well to restate the fact that the farmer's income depends not upon prices alone but upon farm prices in relation to farm costs. In recent years farm costs have risen more than farm prices. Based on price relationship, the farmer's purchasing power if represented by the index of 100 in 1948 has been less every year since. For 1952 it stands at 82. Since it is generally agreed that farm prices may be down somewhat and farm costs are expected to hold or go a little higher, this farm purchasing power relationship may well drop to 80 or less during 1953, down by 20 per cent or more since 1948.
I do not wish to detain the house, Mr. Speaker, and it may be that you desire to get


a vote on this as soon as possible. May I conclude by saying that the problem is an economic one, or shall I use the expression "a financial one", because that is what prices are, and there is not much difference in my mind between prices and dollars. Dollars are the medium which causes prices to move and goods to move. You find a number on a price tag and the number means dollars in relation to the value of the goods.
Where a problem is a financial one, then it should not be beyond solution. If our present government is not able to devise a financial policy that is able to solve these problems then the sooner the people of Canada know the better it will be. The government is not going to resign and let someone else jump into the saddle. We know that; so the sooner the people know that they will not get a solution the better it will be, for the people will have to move in order to put someone in the saddle who knows how to handle the problem. Perhaps that day is not far distant.
Now I say two things are necessary and these things can be done by a government if they wish to have a proper financial policy. The first is to bring down proper and adequate legislation concerning the matter of price support. The second thing is to devise a proper and effective financial policy. If that is done, then the problem which the farmer faces today will be solved. If it is not done, then agriculture in this country will have to struggle along in the midst of the uncertainties it has had in the past and still more uncertainties in the future, for we are living in an extremely uncertain world at a time of great uncertainty.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote because of an understanding with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that in the event one of us is out of the city the other will not vote. Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Disaster Relief Fund
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is entitled "An act to incorporate Canadian Disaster Relief Fund, Incorporated" and it has to do with the disposition of the moneys which were voluntarily subscribed for relief purposes as a result of the Red river flood in Manitoba in 1950 but which were not all expended. For the information of the house I might say that the total amount of money subscribed, plus the interest earned on any balance, amounted to $9,216,000, and that there was expended for purposes of relief $7,545,000 plus an amount equal to about $211,000 as the cost of receiving and distributing the relief, or a total of $7,757,000, leaving an unexpended balance of $1,459,000 as the amount of money we are concerned with in this measure, which this parliament is being asked to provide a means of utilizing.
Under other circumstances this money might have been returned to those who had contributed, but in an undertaking of this great magnitude that would have been quite an impossible task. Inasmuch as the money was contributed from all over Canada, from the United States, from Great Britain and from many other countries including, I am told, Greece, those having to do with the collection and disposition of the money feel that this balance should be made available to all the people of Canada and not be retained in Manitoba where the disaster occurred. This sentiment led to the proposal to establish Canadian Disaster Relief Fund, Incorporated.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was paired was the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Wylie:: I was paired with the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


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


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly about one other matter before the question is put.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will take up private and public bills. When the debate on this motion to go into supply is resumed, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) will have the floor.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. W. G. Weir (Portage-Neepawa) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 229, to incorporate Canadian Disaster Relief Fund, Incorporated.
I might add here, Mr. Speaker, that a measure complementary to this bill which is now being considered was passed by the Manitoba legislature. This bill has been passed by the Senate, where it was considered by the committee on banking and commerce, and it now comes before this house.
As hon. members know, the Red river area centring on the city of Winnipeg where the Assiniboine river joins the Red river, has been visited by critical floods of greater or lesser severity over the known history of that area. These two rivers-the Red rising in the United States and the Assiniboine in northeastern Saskatchewan-drain a very large area of relatively flat, level country. The records show that floods have occurred in this area in the years 1852, 1861, 1882, 1892, 1904, 1916, 1948 and 1950. In each instance they have followed a fairly general pattern, namely high fall precipitation, heavy frosts, heavy snow, followed by a late spring break-up frequently accompanied by heavy spring rains. With these natural conditions prevailing, additional contributing factors towards flooding are, I fear, increasing owing

Disaster Relief Fund
to the clearing of more land and the extension of increased drainage resulting in a more rapid run-off.
Another factor which I think most hon. members here realize but which I believe should also be mentioned is that the Red river has its source to the south where the break-up is earlier and its outlet to the north into lake Winnipeg, where the break-up is slower and usually later. If this condition were reversed the hazards from flooding would not be nearly as great as they are under the existing circumstances which nature has established.
I think I should also point out that the flooded area was not confined to the cities of Winnipeg and St. Boniface, although admittedly that is where the greatest damage was done, but included farm lands, towns and villages along the Red river to the United States boundary, and large areas in the United States, even to the city of Grand Forks.
When the flood of 1950 struck the city of Winnipeg early in May, may I say that the people of Winnipeg were not caught wholly by surprise or unprepared. I think it is only fair to say that accurate engineering data was available with regard to the possibility of flooding, and preparations towards meeting such a condition were actively undertaken.
As one of the early steps in connection with that disaster-and this is one of some importance in connection with the matter with which we are dealing here this afternoon -in the early stages when it was recognized that the flood was going to be severe, a committee of Winnipeg citizens known as the "mayor's committee" was set up on May 9 in that city. Two days later this committee was enlarged and became known as the Manitoba flood relief fund committee. Mr. H. W. Manning, vice-president and managing director of the Great-West Life Assurance Company, accepted the chairmanship. This committee was later enlarged to include representatives of the whole area. This is the committee that accepted contributions and took care of their disbursement. Everyone associated with the committee, except perhaps the clerical staff, contributed his time and efforts voluntarily.
The disbursements from the fund were, generally speaking, for the loss of personal property and personal items as against what might be called the rehabilitation of real property. It was limited for the most part to include repairs and the replacement of essential clothing, household furnishings, living expenses for those who were evacuated, livestock, feed, seed, repairs to machinery, and generally those items not likely to be 
covered by insurance. I am told that the cost of this type of relief alone amounted to something over $4 million.
Assistance was also given to small businesses for the loss of stock and fixtures to the extent of $863,000. Payments were made to farmers for damage to machinery, replacement of livestock and for acreage that could not be seeded, to the amount of $948,000. An amount of about $663,000 was paid to voluntary organizations that assisted in providing relief.
These moneys, I might say here, should not be confused with payments that were made by the respective municipalities and governments and which were utilized to rebuild houses, roads, bridges and real property, and in the building of dikes to guard against a future recurrence. This assistance was provided on somewhat the same basis as that which was provided in connection with the Fraser valley flood and the two serious fires that occurred in Quebec. To this type of assistance the federal government contributed 75 per cent and the provincial government of Manitoba, in the case of rural municipalities, 25 per cent. In the case of the cities of Winnipeg and St. Boniface, the provincial government contributed 12-J per cent. As I have already said, this assistance was entirely separate and apart from what was done through the voluntary flood relief fund.
Now, sir, this bill, as I said earlier, proposes to establish Canadian Disaster Relief Fund, Incorporated. As indicated in section 3 of the bill it is proposed to divide Canada, for the purposes of administration, into five separate divisions: The maritime division which includes the four eastern provinces; the Quebec division; ithe Ontario division; the prairie division, including the three western provinces; and British Columbia. The bill also provides for the naming of one member from each division as a member of the board. As indicated in the bill, for the maritime division the name recommended is that of the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley, Chief Justice of Nova Scotia; for the Quebec division, it is the Hon. Philippe Brais, C.B.E., Q.C.; for the Ontario division, James S. Duncan, C.M.G., president of the Massey-Harris Company; for the prairie division, H. W. Manning, vice-president and managing director of the Great-West Life Assurance Company, and for the British Columbia division Mr. A. E. Grauer, Ph.D., chairman of the board of the British Columbia Power Corporation.
The members shall in turn elect from themselves one member to be president and one member to be vice-president of the corporation. All its members shall serve without salary, but may be paid reasonable expenses.

The members shall also have the right to appoint a secretary, who may be paid, as well as other secretarial staff. The corporation shall have its accounts audited by a qualified chartered accountant, and the corporation may co-operate with any association or organization established in any place in Canada for purposes similar to those of the corporation. It is required to submit to the Secretary of State for Canada a report of its transactions and administration of the fund for the year ending December 31 immediately preceding, and the report shall contain a copy of such audited statement of the accounts of the fund.
The corporation may make bylaws necessary for the carrying out of its intentions, and prescribe the duties and salaries and other things essential for any staff that it may be necessary to engage.
In section 7 of the bill it is indicated that the corporation may, for the purpose of carrying out its objects, acquire by purchase, lease, gift, legacy or otherwise any real or personal property. It has been suggested to me that that provision is in there for the purpose of making it possible for the corporation to accept anything by way of gift that may be real property.
In section 9 it is indicated how the corporation may invest its moneys. It can only invest moneys of the fund in bonds or other securities of or guaranteed by the government of Canada or of any province thereof or of any municipality in Canada. Therefore the investments of the fund are pretty well protected by the type of investments that the fund can make.
I think I should mention a word with respect to what this bill provides and with what the directors of this fund may do with the money that is being given to their care. Section 6, subsection 2 of the bill states:
No payment shall be made out of the fund except as authorized by this act.
Subsection 3 reads:
The corporation may make payments out of the fund for the purpose of meeting emergencies and needs arising in Canada from flood, fire, tempest, earthquake, pestilence or other disaster, mitigating loss and suffering caused thereby assisting in the repairing damage resulting therefrom, and rehabilitating persons who have suffered injury or loss by reason thereof, when in the opinion of the corporation the implementing of such purpose is beyond the reasonable capacity of the area affected.
I think an essential part of this bill is how this money can be utilized. I said earlier that the original committee in Winnipeg that had to do with collecting and disbursing this money obtained an act of the Manitoba legislature authorizing them to proceed with the incorporation of this company by federal statute. They have set up all
Disaster Relief Fund
the figures in a carefully audited statement by the chartered accountant company of Millar, Macdonald and Company of Winnipeg; and with the enactment of -this legislation in Manitoba, from everything I can learn, it is perfectly clear that it is logical and reasonable to proceed with the incorporation of this company here.
So far as the jurisdiction of the federal government is concerned, its reports and other references with respect to the corporation are being submitted to the Secretary of State.


Mr. Rene N. Juiras (Provencher):: I should like to say a word on this bill, representing as I do most of the area which was flooded in 1950. The area of the flooding at the time was in the neighbourhood of some 700 square miles, and the only part of the flooded area outside of my constituency was the city of Winnipeg, St. Boniface and suburbs.
I want to commend the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir) on the way he fully explained Bill No. 229. It is quite obvious that there is nothing much to be added about the bill itself. However, I want to take this opportunity to express in this house our very deep gratitude to the people of Canada for the way we were assisted at the time of the flood in 1950. Indeed, the very fact that this bill is before the house is clear proof, if further proof is needed, of the very generous response that we got throughout Canada.
As has just been mentioned, over $9 million was collected in voluntary donations at that time, and now there is a balance of something in the neighbourhood of $1,500,000 which is still to be expended. This money represents gifts from small and big people. We remember how many very young children even emptied their penny banks to give to this fund. We remember also how some very substantial contributions were made to the fund. We in the Red river valley well remember that the gifts ranged from cattle and pigs to very valuable antiques.
Many of the things donated to the fund were of such a nature that they naturally could not be given out equitably, so they were sold and the money was put in the fund. Many other things like animals and so on were distributed directly as equitably as possible. Those donations came from all over Canada, from coast to coast. It is no exaggeration to say that they came from all over the world. As a matter of fact they extended from our neighbours to the south to Ethiopia and Greece. We remember in this house how the messages of sympathy came from all over the world at that time.
3576	HOUSE OF
Disaster Relief Fund
I also want to pay tribute to this parliament, and to the federal government particularly. All hon. members recall how quickly this parliament acted at the time and dealt with the matter in a very generous way.
These voluntary contributions, as has just been explained, were used to pay for the personal belongings of the people. All real property, including buildings, was taken care of by the fund voted by parliament. I think all will agree that this committee set up by the federal government, in conjunction with the province and, in some cases, with cities and municipalities, did an excellent job. I was pleased to note that the leader of the opposition in the other place referred to the job done by the federal government particularly, and stated that, so far as the supervision and contributions were concerned, it was done with 100 per cent of satisfaction. The impression throughout the area has been good.
When the real property factor was removed, contributions from the voluntary fund had to take care of personal belongings of the people generally. So I take this opportunity on behalf of the people in the Red river valley to express again their sincere gratitude to parliament and to all those who contributed, as well as those who wanted to contribute and may not have had the opportunity to do so.
I know the material assistance was beneficial to all, but I know, too, that the expressions of sympathy did much to comfort the people in the flooded area. They certainly appreciated the generous response not only of material things but of sympathy, which gave them courage at a time when the situation looked very dark indeed. Today they look back upon it with deep gratitude.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish simply to say that there will be general support of the principle of giving some continuing statutory authority under which situations of this kind can be dealt with, through a general plan. This bill is to be referred to a committee. We support the principle and express the hope that the provision of a continuing mechanism to deal with cases of this kind may prove entirely satisfactory.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure that I agree with the setting up of a corporation to handle charitable funds, because there already exists in Canada an excellent organization the responsibilities and duties of which are the same as those set out in the bill. I suggest therefore that there would be a duplication of service.


The Red Cross looks after those who suffer from disaster and earthquakes and all those other misfortunes set out in the bill. It maintains both international and national organizations for this purpose. While I listened with keen interest to the remarks of the hon. member sponsoring the bill in the house, and while he has done a good job of showing what was done with the fund, the fact is that the moneys were raised in an emergency to meet a condition that had arisen in and around the city of Winnipeg. The fund was oversubscribed to the extent of $1,500,000. I am not clear as to whether it was actually oversubscribed or whether the claims made against it were underpaid. This is only a matter of conjecture.
The principle of the bill is that we should set up a corporation which would take charge of the $1,500,000 remaining in the Winnipeg disaster fund. As I read the Bill, the corporation it would set up would duplicate the services that are being and can be rendered by the Canadian Red Cross. The setting up of a new organization for the purpose of perpetuating the fund means that offices would have to be established and personnel hired for purposes of administration. This would be a continuing charge on the fund.
We certainly hope that disasters, earthquakes and the like may not happen; but to have a permanent organization paid out of the fund in the anticipation that something like this will happen is in my opinion a duplication of service already provided by the Red Cross. If there is no use for the money in the area concerned, and if it cannot be used properly for the purposes for which it was subscribed, then I suggest it should have been handed over to the organization that has shouldered responsibility in that field, rather than set up another corporation.
Those are my views on the subject.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker,
in common with the hon. member who has just taken his seat I cannot see the need for setting up an organization of this kind. I agree with him when he says that in the Red Cross we have a first-class organization, one with wide experience and with offices in various parts of Canada. It could very easily handle this money in the event of any disaster which might occur. Any corporation which would have to administer the expenditure of this money would have to incur certain expenses, and there is always the feeling that some of the moneys used for administration might be saved if the fund were handled by an organization such as the Red Cross, which already has in existence suitable machinery for this purpose.

We do not feel any useful purpose would be served in setting up a corporation of this kind. Do I understand the bill is to go to the committee on miscellaneous private bills?


William Gilbert Weir: No thought has been given as
to whether or not it should go to an outside committee, because it has already been before the special committee in the other place. I would have no objection one way or another. However, the fact remains that, in addition to having been discussed by that committee, it has been before a committee of the Manitoba legislature.


Mr. Speaker:: Under our procedure, if the
bill receives second reading it will be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. Alan Macnaughlon (Mount Royal) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 280, to incorporate Merit Insurance Company.


George Alexander Drew: Do I understand that this bill, too, will go to one of the committees?


Mr. Speaker:: If it receives second reading this bill will go to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 281, for the relief of Helen Vera Cater Morgan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 282, for the relief of Theresa Hynes Gnatiuk.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 283, for the relief of Anna Kobitowich Gordon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 284, for the relief of Mary Viola Yolanda Decora to Roy, otherwise known as Mary Viola Yolanda Decorato King.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 285, for the relief of Vincent John Laviolette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 286, for the relief of Eileen Arthur Osborne Prescott.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 287, for the relief of Margaret Aziz Salhany.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 288, for the relief of Margaret Parker Graves.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 289, for the relief of Audrey Jane Clements Patterson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 290, for the relief of Roland Masson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 294, for the relief of Clara Doris Jacobovitch Shepherd.-Mr. Winkler.
Private Bills
Bill No. 295, for the relief of Doris Esther Kimel Schwartz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 296, for the relief of Hans (Johann) Mueller.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 297, for the relief of Joseph Henri Jacques Gaston Lareault.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 298, for the relief of Joseph Nagy.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 299, for the relief of Aime Arthur Roy.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 300, for the relief of Sarah Juliet Montgomery Scott.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 301, for the relief of Mary Ethel Flood Harding.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 302, for the relief of Carrie Ruth Morbey Chenoy.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 303, for the relief of Beatrice Sylvia Aston Sutton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 304, for the relief of Irene Toth Nagy.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 305, for the relief of Henryka Ziernicka Bogdan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 306, for the relief of Mildred Ermine Bradshaw Moore.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	307,	for	the	relief	of	Shirley
William Bales.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 308, for the relief of Marjorie Joy Hartley Tanner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 309, for the relief of Thomasine Elaine Mansfield Black.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 310, for the relief of Patricia Mary Kearney Hollett.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	311,	for	the	relief	of	Margot
Fairbanks Duff Pratt.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 312, for the relief of Marguerite Rita Stevenson LaFerme.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	313,	for	the	relief	of	James
Alexander Dougherty.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	314,	for	the	relief	of	Morris
Fishman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 315, for the relief of Yvon Perras.-Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 189, to incorporate Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited-Mr. Larson.-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I had spoken for a few minutes before the committee adjourned on the last occasion this bill was before members of the house. I had indicated that, while it is a private bill, the subject matter is of major public importance and that there is a fundamental issue of very great importance involved in the amendment which the committee will be called upon to consider. As that amendment has already been read into the record I need not repeat it now, and will only say that the amendment to the bill now before
3578	HOUSE OF
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited the committee calls for the construction of a gas pipe line throughout Canadian territory all the way.
In view of certain things that have been said with regard to the discussions that have taken place, I believe it is appropriate to explain our position because there is a matter of very great importance to all Canadians involved in the bill. It is true that if the bill passes it goes no further than to provide for the incorporation of a gas pipe-line company. After that it will be necessary for this company, as well as other companies, to place its application before the appropriate authorities who will consider the whole problem and ultimately make a decision as to which company will have the right to carry natural gas in this way.
In the remarks I made I pointed out that I did not believe that economic factors can be disregarded. I indicated that I thought it would be folly to deny all considerations of cost and economy when considering the course that should be followed. I pointed out that we have many dealings with the United States, and have had for long years, under which resources of one kind and another are sent in certain cases from Canada to the United States and in other cases from the United States to Canada. I am sure that will continue. For example, we have enormous quantities of coal in Canada, but it has been recognized that it is economically sound for the large industries of western Quebec and southern Ontario to import industrial coal from the United States.
This exchange of resources is by no manner of means a one-way traffic. For generations the United States have been receiving from us raw materials which they require for their industrial development. I have no doubt that they will continue to receive raw materials of different kinds. This exchange between the two friendly nations is bound to go on. Nevertheless the point I should like to make is that economic factors alone cannot decide a question of this kind. We must at the same time consider the general welfare of the nation. In making a decision of this kind, it is possible that there might be certain economic advantages in exporting raw materials of a certain kind in a certain way. On the other hand, we must weigh the advantages of retaining certain priorities with respect to these raw materials, and decide what is going to contribute most to the general welfare of Canada.
This is not simply a problem that relates to the advantage of one particular part of Canada. Every part of Canada gains from the development, expansion and greater popu-


lation of other parts. We must look at it in that way. Southwestern Ontario has been a large consumer of natural gas from the United States for a great many years. That area has also been a substantial producer. Until recently the possibility of the export of natural gas from Canada to the United States had not called for serious consideration. Now, however, we find ourselves for the first time in our history with large quantities of natural gas available in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, the main source at present being found in Alberta.	>
As a party we have gone on record as expressing the belief that, subject to our own reasonable requirements, we should not hesitate to enter into arrangements with the government of the United States for an exchange whereby gas would be exported south from the western Canadian fields while gas would be exported north to eastern Canada from fields in the United States. That does not in any way preclude development along the lines contemplated by this bill or another bill that was before the house on an earlier occasion, but obviously there were certain economic advantages in bringing gas directly north in the east and in shipping gas directly south in the west, subject always to Canadian priority in the use of its own raw materials.
The situation before us now is not such as we were discussing on earlier occasions. Under the measure before us we are discussing the advantage of exporting gas from Alberta to eastern Canada mainly for use in Ontario and Quebec. A question has been raised as to whether it is to the advantage of Canadians generally, and particularly the people of Alberta, to export that gas through the United States or by a Canadian route north of the great lakes.
Let me make one comment in that regard. We can be quite sure that if the gas is carried through the United States by a pipe line south of the great lakes we are only deluding ourselves if we suggest that this can be done in bond. We know perfectly well that if gas is carried by a pipe line south of the great lakes it is going to be used in the United States.
One of the reasons that it would be cheaper to handle gas carried south of the great lakes is that it could flow into the Panhandle grid and be distributed to consumers in the United States. I have not spoken to anyone really well informed on this subject who did not admit immediately that if a pipe line goes south of the great lakes, for many practical reasons that gas will be used in the United States.

Now I hope there will be no misinterpretation of my remarks to the extent of suggesting that I am implying there is anything inherently wrong with supplying resources to our friends in the United States.
I am dealing with the question that has been raised, of the advantage of carrying gas to Ontario and Quebec by a pipe line south of the lakes or north of the lakes.
If that is the question, then let us recognize that if the gas is going to be used in Ontario and Quebec, the only way to make sure that it will be used there is for the pipe line to go north of the lakes. I can understand the argument as to the immediate economic advantage of piping gas into, the Panhandle grid and getting a large market; but I submit that if a pipe line that would carry a substantial part of the available supply of natural gas which is going to be allowed to go outside of Alberta-beyond that needed for their own use and for the western provinces including British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba as well as Alberta- is constructed south of the lakes, we may just as well abandon any hope of having a pipe line carry natural gas through northern Ontario, and for that matter into the province of Quebec. It seems to me that the amendment before us is consistent with the best interests of Canada and is, at the same time, consistent with the best interests of the people of Alberta as well.
In discussing this it should also be remembered that when we speak of arrangements between the national governments of Canada and the United States, there are certain factors which we must not ignore. The rights of the individual states to control any property within their boundaries, including pipe lines, are not to be disregarded by anyone who discusses this subject in the house and who assumes that it is possible for the government of the United States to enter into any kind of arrangement we may propose. With the warnings that have been received by the people of the United States of shortages of natural resources, the states are going to become more jealous of their own rights in regard to the use of those natural resources which are of immense importance in certain specialized types of industry. There does not seem to be much doubt that financial returns could be realized by carrying gas into the United States and postponing indefinitely any thought of carrying this gas to eastern Canada.
I suggest, therefore, that the surest way of realizing on any of the surplus gas that may be available over and above the amount properly required by Canadian consumers, either in British Columbia or in the provinces
7, 1953
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited to the east of Alberta, is to dispose of that surplus by the shortest possible pipe lines south to the northwestern and midwestern states of the United States to the extent that sound economy suggests. By following that route gas can be carried into the Panhandle grid which extends that far. But if the movement of natural gas to the east is to come through the Panhandle grid, which supplies such a great area in the United States, then not only Sarnia and southwestern Ontario, but also northern Ontario, central Ontario, eastern Ontario, as well as the whole of Quebec, will be at the end of the pipe line and entirely dependent upon decisions made by the government of the United States on the one hand and, on the other, by the governments of the individual states through which that pipe line will pass.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if the hon.
gentleman will permit a question at this point. I take it from his argument that in this particular bill he favours an all-Canadian route.


George Alexander Drew: If the hon. member will be patient he will find that the points I am putting forward are being made in support of the consideration of the amendment, as I indicated on an earlier occasion. The amendment that is before the house would provide for an all-Canadian route. That was what I read into the record on an earlier occasion, and indicated that this was what we should consider.


George James McIlraith: I did not mean to-


George Alexander Drew: The time is short, and I wish to have that time to enunciate the views that I seek to place before the committee. It is only human nature that the first demand for consumption would be met in the United States. Being at the tail-end of a pipe line has not been a reassuring experience for those who have had that experience, and we have had it. The province of Ontario offers evidence of what occurs under those circumstances. Ontario was at the end of a pipe line from the United States during the war. The demands of extended war industry in the United States at that time resulted in the government of the United States banning the export of gas to Canada in a very substantial measure. Fifteen thousand consumers in southwestern Ontario, with installed equipment, were compelled to discontinue the use of gas because of that ban. Only 5,000 of those customers have been able to renew their use of gas, although in most cases they still have the equipment available for that purpose. The remaining
3580	HOUSE OF
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited 10,000, owing to restricted supplies, have been unable to avail themselves of the equipment they possess.
With that experience so fresh in their minds, with that experience still a very unfortunate reality in southwestern Ontario, it is not likely that the people of that area, or the people of Ontario or Quebec who know what happened there, would be too greatly assured if a pipe line went south of the lakes and carried gas from Alberta into the Panhandle grid.
Arguments have been made that it is not economically sound to construct a pipe line through northern Ontario to Quebec and southern Ontario. I disagree with that most vigorously. Granted that there may be valid arguments about the lower cost of delivery by the southern route, it is important to remember that it is not a lower cost on a temporary basis which the people want. They want an assured and continued supply at prices they are prepared to pay, and prices which are attractive to them.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the price might be less by carrying the gas by the southern route, the fact remains that gas can be sold in Ontario and Quebec at prices that are lower, having regard to the B.T.U.'s of the gas, than the commercial gas now being used in those areas. In fact it is estimated that with the cost of carrying it over the northern route the actual cost of heating units would be about 50 per cent of the price they are paying in Ontario and Quebec for manufactured gas. Let us not be carried away with any thought that there is no large demand for natural gas in Ontario and Quebec. In northern Ontario, in that area between the Manitoba boundary and North Bay, there is a potential demand for 15 billion cubic feet per annum for existing industries which could be served by such a pipe line. This estimate does not contemplate the expansion of heavy industry that would result from the use of this very important fuel, nor the ancillary industries that would be increasing the demand in that great area.
Then may I put forward the estimated potential demand in other areas. It is as follows: central Ontario, 30 billion cubic feet per annum; southwestern Ontario, 15 billion cubic feet; eastern Ontario, 10 billion cubic feet; the province of Quebec, including the mining areas, Montreal, Three Rivers, 30 billion cubic feet. Those are the potential demands, and on top of that is the demand that would come with the new markets created by expanding industry, and also the advantages that would come from the unique storage facilities available in southwestern Ontario.


This last point is of very considerable importance. The storage capacity amounting to 60 billion cubic feet consists of wells which have been used and exhausted over the last hundred years. The gas now stored in those wells could be sold, and gas pumped into them from the pipe line carrying the natural gas from Alberta. This would make it possible to absorb a constant flow of natural gas from Alberta throughout the whole year.
The suggestion is made that it would be necessary to subsidize the delivery of natural gas in eastern Canada. I do not question the earnest attention which has been devoted to the facts by anyone who is putting forward any of those arguments, but I do not agree with them. Assurance has been given in this case, and in the case of a bill which has become law incorporating another pipeline company, that these companies could finance these pipe lines and deliver the gas without any special financial assistance of that kind. Such evidence as I have been able to examine convinces me that the price at which natural gas would be delivered in Ontario and Quebec would be economically attractive in view of the present costs of manufactured gas and the uncertainty of the natural gas supply in that part of Ontario now equipped to use it. As I have mentioned, there are 10,000 people who were consuming it and who now cannot use the equipment they possess.
I believe that this plan for an all-Canadian route is of great advantage to Alberta, as it is to the rest of Canada. I believe this storage capacity is of advantage to Alberta because of the even flow that would result. May I point out also that the very existence of that storage capacity is a warning as well. There were people who thought these wells were inexhaustible. We have that storage capacity, 60 billion cubic feet, because those wells were not inexhaustible; because those wells have been used, and because the best purpose to which they can now be put is to hold gas coming from some place else.


Mr. McCann:: Has that ever been tried in any other country?


George Alexander Drew: It is being done day by day right now. Gas is being stored in these wells at this very moment. They actually are using that 60 billion cubic feet capacity. Today we are buying many things from the United States which are manufactured there and which we could manufacture in this country if our industry had natural gas. It is not just because of the B.T.U. content; it is not just because of the cost of natural gas, but because there are certain advantages in the use of natural gas, because of its quality

and its heating value. There are a number of parts of refrigerators, automobiles and equipment of that kind which could be made by industries in this country if they had that natural gas today. These parts are being made in the United States and imported into Canada.
Those of us who believe in the tremendous development of Canada, those of us who believe in its tremendous expansion in the years ahead, find it difficult to deal with a subject of this kind merely in terms of cold economics or in terms of the quick dollars that can be realized. Those of us who look to the use of these resources for our own future, the future of a country of 50 million or 100 million people, like to think of the long-term use of this gas and its employment in the expansion of industry in every part of Canada. I am sure the people of Alberta are just as much interested in the development of the other parts of Canada as are the people who live in this part of Canada.
I am sure every part of this country recognizes that the problem is that of building a single nation as strong as possible.
If there is more gas than could be employed by this eastern pipe line, if there is more gas than could be used in Alberta itself and more gas than could be used in British Columbia, then by all means, subject to the consideration of economic factors, let us export gas, to the extent that will avoid; any waste of the gas that is actually coming from the ground. Mr. Chairman, I do suggest that to deny Ontario and Quebec the natural gas they are anxious to buy, at the price that it will cost, is hardly consistent with the desire expressed by all of us to build one strong united nation of which every part will benefit from the expansion and increase in population and prosperity of every other part.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if there were unanimous consent I could finish my remarks in about three minutes.


George James McIlraith: I should point out that there are others who will be speaking on this bill.


George Alexander Drew: I understand that. The only reason I suggested it was that I had spoken for a few minutes before and if it is convenient to the members-and only in that event-I would prefer to finish these remarks at this time instead of breaking them up and making another speech on another occasion.


George James McIlraith: That is quite all right.


The Chairman:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
7, 1953
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited


George Alexander Drew: In the past Canada never had
enough gas, oil, iron or some of these resources that we now find we have in such hugh quantities. With these resources, and with the fabulous mineral discoveries that have been made in recent years and months, it seems that we should contemplate anything of this kind with the picture before us of the kind of Canada that can develop from a policy of sound, legitimate self-interest, without at any time adopting a dog in the manger attitude in relation to those resources which can properly be exported over and above our own requirements.
I suggest that it is Canada's manifest destiny to become a great industrial nation. We are now an industrial nation, but we can become one of the really great industrial nations of the world by the employment of the raw materials which can be fabricated with the cheap electricity, the coal, the petroleum and the natural gas that we now have.
As we discuss this subject I think we should have in mind one of the most important documents that has been prepared on this continent for many years. I refer to the Paley report, which was presented to the government of the United States last June. In that comprehensive survey of the resources of that country it is pointed out that 50 years ago the United States had such an abundance of raw materials that they were not only meeting their own expanding requirements but were shipping raw materials elsewhere as well. Now they are actually in a deficit position. The Paley report emphasized the fact that within 25 years that deficit in many raw materials is going to assume serious proportions. With this evidence before us I suggest that we should profit by their experience and decide that in developing our own expanding economy we shall also conserve our resources, always subject to reasonable employment of our surpluses for export, and that our own development should at all times be the first consideration.
When we come to the attitude of Alberta, may I say that this subject was first discussed in Alberta in a comprehensive manner by the Dinning commission which made its report in March of 1949. After pointing out that all representations made to that commission had emphasized the desire that Canadian development should receive first consideration, the report then made this positive declaration on that subject:
The commission therefore supports the application of the principle of priority to Canadian users.
That was the declaration by a commission set up in Alberta, in a comprehensive report which covers this whole subject. If this
3582	HOUSE OF
Strike of Grain Handlers amendment is accepted and the policy of an all-Canadian pipe line is accepted, I believe this may well mean tremendous industrial development in northern Ontario and northern Quebec, and a new type of industrial development, as well as increased expansion in the industrial areas of southern Ontario and southern Quebec.
We are assured that those who make the application in this case and in the other case are able to finance the enterprise. As has been pointed out before, it is not for us to decide which corporation will receive permission to carry out this operation. Whichever corporation is allowed to do it, I strongly support the amendment and believe that it is in the best interests of Canada that we should assure an all-Canadian route for the transmission-to the east in this case-of the natural gas which will mean expanded development and new types of development over great parts of Canada. I approach this subject in a spirit of unrestrained optimism as long as we only see the breadth and brightness of the horizons that now stretch out before us.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At eight o'clock the house will resume consideration of the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) for committee of supply.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I have one matter I should like to place before Your Honour and hon. members before we go into supply, and that is the strike in the elevators in the cities of Vancouver and New Westminster. I do this because ships are lying at anchor in the harbour there. The last dispatch I have reports that eleven ships are lying in the stream. The report also intimates that because of this strike about 15 million bushels of grain have not been shipped from the west coast, which otherwise would have gone overseas. Therefore the strike is a very serious matter for our port. We do not wish to have it spread all over the seven seas that it is impossible to have business carried on from

Strike of Grain Handlers
I do urge upon the government, as strongly as I possibly can, that similar action be taken with regard to the strike on the west coast.
I believe if the representatives of the two parties were brought here to Ottawa and interviewed by the minister and his deputy there would be a reasonable chance of settling this unfortunate strike. It is now two and a half weeks since Mr. Wilson left for Ottawa and, as I mentioned a moment ago, he said at that time there was no chance of the parties getting together if they were left to themselves. I believe the practical step to take now is to bring the representatives here to Ottawa in order to see if these troubles cannot be ironed out.
Out on the west coast we feel we are a long way from the centre of Canada, a long way from headquarters. We are inclined to believe that difficulties of this kind in our province do not count as much down here at Ottawa as if the troubles were in the port of Montreal, or at the lakehead. We have the actual fact that the threatened strike at the lakehead has been settled. Whether it is because Vancouver and New Westminster are so far away, on the other side of the mountains, and they do not stir up the activities in the Department of Labour as much as do troubles at Fort William or Port Arthur, or at Montreal, I cannot say.
This is a very unfortunate strike. Grave damage is being done to the ports of Vancouver and New Westminster and, as I have said, to the farmers on the prairies. I believe if the government took the lead and invited the representatives of these groups down here to Ottawa, there is a reasonable chance that the strike could be settled without any further delay. I rose tonight in this debate simply to place that suggestion before the government in the hope that they will take action either along that or some other line. I realize that it is a difficult problem, but it is never going to be settled by sitting back waiting for something to happen.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) has done a service for the people on the Pacific coast, both labour and management, in bringing this matter to the attention of the house. I doubt if there will be anything in what I shall have to say that has not been touched upon by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, but I also wish to add my support to the request he has made of the Department of Labour that it should endeavour to get both parties together in Ottawa or somewhere else and indicate to them that the time has arrived when a settlement of this dispute is imperative.

I regret very much that neither the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) nor his parliamentary assistant is in the house this evening. I do not say that in a fault-finding way because I know they had no forewarning that this matter would be raised. Furthermore, I am not saying it in a fault-finding way because I have been almost constantly in touch with the Department of Labour with respect to this matter and I know they are concerned. My last word was with Mr. Maclean, the deputy minister, just before the house adjourned on Thursday for the short Easter recess. I was to call him again this morning but unfortunately I did not have time to do so because of pressure of other business.
I want to give the house a brief summary of the events leading up to the strike and of what has taken place since the strike, as given to me by the elevator employees. The contract between the local union and the terminal elevator companies terminated on November 30, 1952. The union tried to enter into negotiations with them shortly after the expiration of the agreement, but the companies would not discuss any proposals for a new agreement if the union would not agree to a wage cut of 5 cents an hour, I believe. On the suggestion of the representative of the companies, Mr. R. H. Tupper, Q.C., the entire matter was submitted to a board of conciliation under the chairmanship of Professor J. A. Crumb of the University of British Columbia. Both majority and minority reports were made by the members of the conciliation board. The majority report recommended certain fringe benefits, as they are called, involving an increase in wages for employees working in dusty jobs and a differential of 5 cents an hour for night work. It also recommended two additional holidays with pay. There was no mention at all in the majority report of either a wage increase or a wage decrease.
As I understand it, the minority report coincided with the majority report on the points I have mentioned but also recommended an 'increase in wages of 12J- cents an hour. The employees accepted the recommendations of the majority report with the exception of the one on wages, and asked that this matter be discussed directly between themselves and the companies. On the other hand, I am told that the companies rejected all the recommendations of both the majority and minority reports. They rejected the benefits to which their own member on the board and the chairman had agreed.
This left the employees in the very difficult position of either going on strike or agreeing to sign an agreement involving a 5 cents per

hour cut in wages. Anyone who knows anything about these matters will realize that at a time like that no officers of a union would recommend to their members that they go to work under that kind of an agreement. However, the union made another effort to resume negotiations with the companies on January 28. The company representative, the union representative and the representative of the Department of Labour, which had already concerned itself with the situation, held an informal meeting at which the representative of the companies stated that there was no point in further discussions as the companies would not go beyond the 1952 contract. The union then gave the companies two more weeks to reconsider their attitude, and on the 16th of February the strike was called.
As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has pointed out, the strike is a very costly one. I have been given estimates of the cost per week to the companies and to the employees. I am not going to mention the figures here because I do not know how reliable they are, but in my opinion they are not out of line with what is reasonable. When one adds to the cost to the participants the large number of other employees who are now out of employment and have been for some time, and the loss to the railway and other companies involved in the shipping business, the cost to the city of Vancouver and ultimately to Canada as a whole is quite a large figure.
I urge the Department of Labour to try to get the representatives of the employees and the companies together in an effort to reach a settlement in this matter. Labour disputes are no longer questions that merely involve employers and workers. The labour laws- the federal labour code and the codes in the provinces-are clear proof that today everyone agrees that the community has an interest in these labour disputes. Also, of course, we have our Department of Labour here, well staffed with men capable of doing what can or should be done in the way of bringing the two parties together.
Some little time ago I had a communication from the union asking me to urge the government to take steps to settle the strike. I told them that in my opinion that would be a rather dangerous policy to adopt, that it could prove dangerous even to the union, but that if they would tell me the terms on which they would be willing to agree to resume work I would be very glad to pass them on to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) to see what he could do about it. I do not think any member of parliament could be justified in going farther than that.
Supply-Public Works
Again, as I said, the time is running on, with the strike now going into its eighth week. While the number of men involved directly is not large, I am daily receiving letters from other workers who are being thrown out of employment; and the loss to Canada and particularly to the west coast is on a very big scale indeed. I would urge the leader of the house to see that what has been said here tonight is brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour at as early a date as possible. I am sure, from the conversations I have had with him, that he appreciates the importance of this stoppage of work. Possibly the same methods for settlement might be used as were used in the settlement of the strike at the head of the lakes. Nothing will be lost from trying, and a great deal may be gained.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
79. Departmental administration and payments to Canadian Commercial Corporation and other corporate agencies for services provided in connection with defence purchasing and production, $6,710,933.
Mr. Dickey:: Stand.
Item stands.



PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
306. General administration, $351,802.
Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Stand.
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
364. Departmental administration, $399,090.
Mr. Winiers:: Stand.
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
320. Departmental administration, $671,905.
Mr. Graydon:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister if his statement in connection with the first item under public works will be lengthy?


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, if this is an invitation to make a statement on public works hon. members will be disappointed, and it would be the first time in eleven years that I had made a statement. My general statement is that nearly everything that goes on in public works is contained in the blue book. Members who have taken the time'to read it will have found nearly all the details. I do not think it is a perfect book, but up to date we have had little criticism.

Supply-Public Works
I could add that to my surprise an outstanding newspaper of the capital city wrote in an editorial one day the following words:
In these days of budget fever when everyone is an economist and talks knowingly about the gross national product and the impact of taxes, it is heartening to find one department of government with its feet on the ground. This is the Department of Public Works, which has no public relations branch, makes few statements, and gets on with its job of building. The works department puts up office buildings, fine new laboratories, dredges harbours, builds breakwaters, wharves and jetties, and in general keeps the physical side of government in sound running condition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Mutch:: You asked for that.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister does not really believe that he and his department are that good.


Alphonse Fournier: Well, the paper says so.


Howard Charles Green: I am sure he does not believe everything that he reads in the paper. The minister has mentioned some little blue report in which we can find out everything that has been happening in his department. I have been trying to get that blue report ever since the house opened in January, but I have not been able to get it yet. I sent down today for the annual report of his department and the one that came up was for the period ending March 31, 1951.


Alphonse Fournier: 1952.


Howard Charles Green: No, 1951.


Gordon Graydon: You had better look that one up.


John George Diefenbaker: It will turn out yet that he wrote the editorial.


Alphonse Fournier: My office tells me that there is some misunderstanding. We did file the 1952 report, and it is the one for 1953 that has not come to us to date.


Howard Charles Green: This may be proof that the minister needs a public relations office.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: You should be the last to suggest that.


Howard Charles Green: In any event I was unable to get the report of the department for the fiscal year 1951-52 and, that being so has made it a little awkward to prepare any sort of a statement for the first item of the minister's estimates. I would hope that he could furnish us with a copy of that report before very long. Even if we do get it, it will only cover a period which expired over a year ago. So, whatever other good points there may be about the department, I am afraid that the little blue book is not one of them.
The minister will remember that when his estimates were under discussion about a year

ago we raised the point of other departments undertaking public works which we thought should have been done by the Department of Public Works. Our criticisms were based, of course, on the report by the standing committee on finance of the Senate which was dated June 23, 1952. In that report there was one very important paragraph dealing with the Department of Public Works, reading as follows:
The growing practice for other departments of government to by-pass public works department and build up little public works branches of their own, should cease, and all such work placed in charge of the public works department, where the law intended it should be.
That was one of the recommendations of this committee of the Senate; and it was based on the fact that various other departments of government have their engineering staffs and have been doing a good deal of building. As I read the findings of the Senate committee they argue or contend that in the fiscal year 1951-52 there was as much money spent by other departments of government, as was spent by the Department of Public Works itself.
In looking at the summary of standard objects of expenditure and special categories, which was tabled with our estimates for the fiscal year 1953-54, I find that this same condition still exists. In other words, about half the money spent for buildings and works, including land, by departments other than those concerned with war preparations, was spent by departments other than the Department of Public Works. We find very heavy expenditures for the construction or acquisition of buildings and works.
For example, the Department of Agriculture will spend over $11 million; the Department of Citizenship and Immigration over $4-5 million. This is for the construction or acquisition of buildings and works. In addition to these expenditures, of course, there are the expenditures for repairs and upkeep of buildings and for building rentals. At the moment I am only referring to the expenditures for construction and acquisition of buildings and works. The Department of External Affairs will spend over $1,300,000; the Department of Fisheries nearly $360,000; the Department of Justice, through the commissioner of penitentiaries, nearly $1 million; the Department of National Health and Welfare, over $1,300,000; the national research council and atomic energy control board, nearly $6 million; the Department of National Revenue, over $1 million; the Department of Resources and Development, over $4,200,000; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, over $3,700,000; the Department of Transport, nearly $30 million; the national harbours board,

$6,400,000; the Department of Veterans Affairs, nearly $5 million.
Whether or not that is a fair test of the extent to which the Department of Public Works is being by-passed in the construction of buildings and works, I am not prepared to say. I merely say it was one of the tests made by the finance committee of the Senate. They used that test to support their argument that whereas from the time of confederation the Department of Public Works was supposed to be the great building department of the government, in recent years other departments have been stepping in more and more and undertaking construction under one pretext or another. By so doing they have been cutting down the importance of the Department of Public Works.
When we come to the Departments of Defence Production and National Defence, the figures are much higher. The Department of Defence Production is spending $60 million this year for buildings and works, while the Department of National Defence is spending practically $225 million for this purpose. It might seem that most of the defence building should be done by the defence department or the Department of Defence Production but I may point out that before the war certain defence works were constructed by the Department of Public Works. We had forts built around Vancouver, and I believe they were constructed by the Department of Public Works. Furthermore the Department of Defence Production, which is spending $60 million during this fiscal year on buildings and works, is a department which is to be wiped out eventually. It is only a temporary department, the plan being that it will be eliminated as soon as possible and its work put back into one or the other of the regular peacetime departments. I believe that work should go back largely to the Department of Public Works.
The Senate committee made this recommendation that more of the buildings and works should be handled by the Department of Public Works because they thought that would bring about a saving, that it would cut out a certain amount of duplication, and would put the responsibility for economical construction where it belonged. We pointed out this fact during the discussion of the estimates of the Department of Public Works at the last session, but I can see no sign in these current estimates that there has been any attempt whatever to give the Department of Public Works a larger field than has been the case in recent years. It would appear that there has been no change in policy in spite of the recommendation from the Senate. I would ask the minister to explain to us this
Supply-Public Works evening whether or not there has been any change as a result of these facts being brought to his attention, and the attention of other ministers, during the last session.
Then I should like to know from him also what the policy is to be in the future. Are we going on in the present way with these other departments doing a great deal of their own building and handling their own construction, or is this work to be drawn back into the Department of Public Works where we believe it really belongs? I hope the minister will explain to us when I am through just what the policy is in that regard.
There is quite a substantial increase in the departmental estimates for this year. They have gone up, I think, by something over $5-5 million. I would ask the minister to explain to the committee, in general terms, where that increase is reflected in his estimates.
Another point is that in the second session of 1951 the house passed an amendment to the Public Works Act. No doubt the minister will recall that at that time we had quite a debate, and we finally persuaded him to cut down his request for additional power to do away with calling for tenders. I would ask him to let us have a list of the cases in which contracts were let by his department without the calling of tenders. At the present time the law gives him power to do away with the calling of tenders under three conditions: In the first place, where the work is of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest; in the second place, where the work can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the employees of the department concerned; and in the third place-and this is where the dispute took place in 1951-where the estimated cost of the work is less than $15,000 and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders.
The minister will recall that, before the amendment, that figure was $5,000. In other words he could not do away with tenders unless the contract was for an amount under $5,000. The amendment raised the amount to $15,000 whereas the minister, I. think, was asking the house to take the ceiling off entirely and to give him extremely wide powers to let contracts without tender. However, we saved him from that great error. I am particularly anxious to know the extent to which this new power of letting contracts for between $5,000 and $15,000 without the calling of tenders has been used during the last fiscal year, the year ended March 31, 1953.
The minister will know whether or not some of these requests will involve a great

Supply-Public Works deal of work. If such is the case I may say that I want to keep the work to a minimum. I have no desire to call on his department for reports which are unreasonably long; but I would ask that the list he gives us be divided into those three categories set out by the section.
Finally there is one local matter that I should like to place before the minister. As he knows, last year we urged upon him that dredging work should be undertaken in the first narrows of Vancouver harbour just as quickly as possible. In February of this year it was announced in the house that that work would be done, and I understood that it would be commenced at once; but in the estimates as tabled I find nothing for the present fiscal year to cover that work. I do not believe that any work has actually been undertaken in the first narrows.
I would point out to the minister that there is great urgency about this matter. We are being told by some of the oil companies-I heard the president of one of them intimate as much in addressing the Canadian Club here last week-that because Vancouver harbour needs improvement they are therefore going to pipe some of the oil from Alberta down across the boundary. I think that is just used as an argument. I do not think there are any tankers off the coast at the moment that are so big that they cannot use the harbour. But this argument is being advanced by some of the oil companies in support of their plan to send Alberta oil down into the state of Washington.
Then there is the great importance of not giving Vancouver harbour a bad reputation. It is one of the great harbours of the world. I do not believe there is in Canada a finer harbour than that of Vancouver. Simply because there is a need for further dredging to a depth of four feet or five feet, we do not want to have our harbour's reputation ruined by delay in getting this work undertaken. Both the ministers from British Columbia have given their word in Vancouver that that work would go ahead at once. I hope it is started, but so far as I know it is not. I would ask the minister to make that position clear when he speaks tonight.


Alphonse Fournier: Briefly may I go over the points mentioned by the hon. gentleman. The first problem was construction works by other departments. As to that, the system is as follows. In every department they need certain specialized kinds of buildings. For instance, in the Department of National Health and Welfare they are in the hospital business. They have a few architects to design plans and give their ideas as to the hospitals they want to put up. This would

be in the Indian branch of that department. Those architects co-operate and give some information to the architects of the Department of Public Works. They get the vote for the building and we do the work.
There are only a few departments where we do not do the work. For instance, we do not do their work for the Department of National Defence on the operation side; they have all that work done themselves or by Defence Construction Limited which is, we hope, a temporary arrangement. The Department of Transport generally do their own work on their airports and their facilities. But in nearly every other department-take, for instance, the mounted police-they have their vote of money but we generally do the work. That applies to nearly every department. So there is no taking away from the Department of Public Works of something that we have. We are extremely jealous of the work that is under our jurisdiction, but we are only the servants of these people in the other departments and we try to cater to their needs and supply their wants.
I do not say that in the other place they made a mistake, but I myself do not like to see any other department infringing on or duplicating the services that we are prepared to render to all departments and to the people. That would be the explanation I would give for these amounts which my hon. friend sees in the votes and in that white paper which is annexed to the estimates.
As to the increase in the estimates, may I say this. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) is quite an experienced parliamentarian. If he looks in this blue book that I have-I have not got the other one-


Howard Charles Green: That is the blue book I have not got.


Alphonse Fournier: No, but you have this blue book. They have prepared this big blue book of estimates so that I may have less trouble in explaining what I want to say. If my hon. friend will look in that blue book he will see where the increases take place as between the two years. That is to be found at pages 50, 51 and 52. They are detailed there. My hon. friend will see that the difference between the estimates is about $5,765,000; and if he will read down those columns headed "Increase" and "Decrease", he will have the whole explanation. I could go over the items with him, but I think it would save time if he would just read those two columns. Then he will probably know as much as I do about those increases.


Howard Charles Green: I wanted an explanation as to the main increases.


Alphonse Fournier: The main increases are all written down there. If my hon. friend looks at the architectural branch he will see that for maintenance and operation of public buildings in Ottawa there is an increase of $830,000, and outside of Ottawa $725,000. Then if he goes to building projects in the various provinces he will see that there is an increase of about $4,686,000. In the other column you have the decreases. We would have to subtract them. I do not think I should take the time for that. It is easily calculated. That would be the net amount. There would be now a $5,765,853 increase over last year. As we go along, when we meet these increases in the estimate book I will give a detailed explanation.
The third question you are asking is a real job for the department. You ask us to list all the contracts that were given by the department without calling for tenders. Well, we have hundreds and hundreds of contracts all over the country. I will give the hon. gentleman the place where he himself will get the information. It appears there.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Do you split them up?


Alphonse Fournier: You just look in the Auditor General's report.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do you split them up?


Alphonse Fournier: By categories, from $1 to $500, and then from $500 to $1,000, and so on? Is that what the hon. member means by splitting them up?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is it possible to split them up so you will get them within the limit?


Alphonse Fournier: That would be quite difficult. The change was made because you gentlemen said you would help me by bringing the figure up to $15,000 where I could give out contracts without calling for public tenders. This question was put to me by the hon. member for Kamloops and we found out that it would take so much time, because we find that it takes the year round to complete them and hand them to the Auditor General. If I remember correctly the hon. member for Kamloops dropped his question, redrafted it and asked for special contracts.
I know my officials are full of good will, but if I want to have the list revised in my estimates I think I should tell them to go ahead with the works instead of working on this. For my information generally, when I want to know something about my own department I look up the Auditor General's report. It is prepared by the comptroller of the treasury, and it goes in the Auditor 88108-228
Supply-Public Works General's report. It is an interesting study, but a little arid at times. You would find all the information there.


Howard Charles Green: That information would not be in the Auditor General's report.


Alphonse Fournier: No?


Howard Charles Green: It would not be in the Auditor General's report we have because it covers only the period to March 31, 1952 and I was asking for the year March 31, 1952 to March 31, 1953.


Alphonse Fournier: Up to eight days ago? That would be from 1952 to 1953, because I do not think the statute came into force until last year. We would have to compile the whole thing. We will be preparing this, of course, for the Auditor General and the comptroller of the treasury. What the hon. member has been asking for is a complete report on contracts without tenders, which we generally give to the Auditor General after the end of the fiscal year.
Furthermore, I am informed that even in contracts under $15,000 we call for tenders as usual if no loss of time is involved and if the work is not urgent. We generally do ask for tenders. May I tell the hon. gentleman that I have been sold on the system of asking for tenders on public works and I am not going to change; I am too old now to change. I have stuck to it, but hon. gentlemen did not believe me the last time. Somebody brought me down to my knees and I had to amend my bill. I knew what I was thinking of at the time. I believed in the system of calling for tenders, and I still believe in it. I do not limit myself when the amount is less than $15,000 to not asking for tenders. We do ask for tenders. It is for the protection of hon. members as well as of the Minister of Public Works.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister not give us the number of these contracts in each category?


Alphonse Fournier: I am told that they could put a staff on that and try to figure out the number of contracts that went through the department in the last fiscal year, and they are ready to do that as soon as I give them some free time.
The last question that was asked by the hon. gentleman had to do with the dredging of the first narrows. I cannot recall clearly, but I think in answer to a question I did make a statement to the house that the government had decided to undertake this dredging. Perhaps the hon. gentleman thinks it is a small job and that the moment I said go ahead and dredge the first narrows, the work would start the next day. It is not that easy.

Supply-Public Works


Howard Charles Green: I would not think that.


Alphonse Fournier: No; I am glad you agree with me, because it is quite a project, running into millions. As one listened to the discussion he would think it was some creek which we wanted to just clean out. If we meet the request of the people out there we shall have to dredge down to 40 feet, and we shall have to widen the channel to a certain extent. I have not the last estimate, but I am going to bring down an item in the supplementary estimates, which will come down in a few weeks, which will be part of the whole amount. The moment the money is authorized we shall ask for tenders and try to get some company to do the dredging. The hon. gentleman would not want me to undertake that work without having an appropriation passed by the house. That is the story. The quicker we pass these estimates and I get on to my supplementaries the quicker we will get on with this work in Vancouver.


Howard Charles Green: There are two different pieces of work to be done by the department. One is the dredging of the channel, and that is not to be confused with the widening of the channel.


Alphonse Fournier: I know the two. The bigger project we cannot undertake now because it is under study by the national research council, by the national harbours board, assisted by the engineers of public works. It is a special committee that we are now dealing with. What I announced was that we would do some dredging in the first narrows. To my surprise I saw that it would run into millions of dollars. I never thought it was that kind of job. You will see that we are asking for quite a substantial amount in the supplementary estimates. When my supplementary estimates come down I hope the hon. gentleman will not make the statement that they have been increased, because that increase will go to Vancouver.


Howard Charles Green: When is it expected, that that deepening will commence?


Alphonse Fournier: The moment that we are authorized by parliament to spend money we will ask for tenders, probably from the companies out there; and the moment we get those tenders we shall give out the contract.
I*Ir. Green: Is it expected that the work will be started this year?


Alphonse Fournier: I hope so, because otherwise I would not put it in my estimates. Why should I put it in the estimates if I am not going to try to spend it, at least? Oh, yes, that is my sincere hope. Although I am in favour of the system of tenders, do not criticize me because it takes time. You have to get your contracts.


Mr. Proudfool:: I rise at this time to draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the need of protectional work in the county of Pontiac-Temiscamingue. I first want to draw his attention to the need of protectional work in the vicinity of south Temiscamingue; then, in the vicinity of Fabre. I specially want to draw his attention to certain lots up there, one of them being lot 30, range 2, in the municipality of Fabre, on which nothing has been paid for the erosion done to this property, while the other lots in this vicinity have received some attention.
I would also like to draw the attention of the minister to the need of protectional work at the village of Ville-Marie. There has been some work done there in the past, and we should do more there this year. The same thing applies to College island and in Duhamel municipality. At Duhamel there are lots 53 and 54 on which there has been great erosion. I do not think anything has been done in regard to these lots at any time. Then at the town of Notre Dame du Nord there is great danger of property damage, as it is at that point that the Quinze river enters into lake Timiskaming. There is great erosion just at the mouth of the river above the bridge at Notre Dame du Nord, and I think we should certainly look into it immediately.
I should also like at this time to thank the Minister of Public Works for the co-operation and initiative he has shown in regard to the Allumette island-Pembroke bridge. I feel sure that after the item in the estimates of the federal department and the item in the estimates of the Ontario provincial legislature, it will be only a very short time until we have the full co-operation needed so this project may begin.
I should also like to draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the need for repairs of the bridge at Rapides des Joachims. At Bryson, Quebec, we have a bridge we have been using many years. It has served its purpose well, but it should be replaced because the traffic passing over it is much greater than it should be over a bridge of that construction.
Then we also need repairs to the bridge at Portage du Fort. We also have causeways or roadways over the dams at Temiscamingue. There is not room for two cars to pass on the causeway at Temiscamingue, or for pedestrians. So I think the only solution would be for the Department of Public Works to widen the roadway on the dam to Temiscamingue, and also to widen the roadway and causeway on the dam at Angliers. Also they should put up a walk, as they have at Notre Dame du Nord and Chapeau. This would

look after pedestrians crossing there, so they would not be injured, or in danger of being run down by automobiles.
I should also like to say at this time that we need quite a few wharves up in that constituency, especially in the northern end. There is great need of a wharf at Laforce, and also great need of a wharf at Belleterre, as well as at Notre Dame du Nord.
I would ask the minister to give consideration to these projects at the present time. We would hope to have them all included in these estimates, or in the supplementary estimates. I would also ask him to give consideration to two new projects we will need in the near future in the counties of Pontiac and Temiscamingue. I refer to the interprovincial bridges between Fort Coulonge and the Ontario shore, and between Quyon and the county of Carleton.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Following the requests from the new "province" of Pontiac-Temiscamingue I do not feel at all worried about bringing forward the small matter I have to discuss- that is, if the minister has any money left, following the requests of the hon. member.
What I have to say involves a grave matter of principle, and it is to that particular phase I would direct the attention of the minister this evening. It is a matter that involves the Secretary of State, myself and the premier of Newfoundland, as well as the minister's department. I bring it to his attention at this time because I think the matter must be disposed of before we go further.
Perhaps I should lay a foundation for what I am about to say. As will be recalled, back in 1949 I brought forward a request for a wharf at Portugal Cove, and kept on bringing it forward each year. Finally this year we find in the estimates an item of $250,000 for the building of that wharf. The premier of Newfoundland disclosed on February 4 of this year that a wharf would be built, and made this statement:
The agreement reached between the Department ol Public Works in Ottawa and myself is that the government of Canada will build a new public wharf in Portugal Cove. This, needless to say, will be a very great improvement over the wharf presently there. At the head of this same wharf, the government of Newfoundland, under this agreement, would build a section to receive this ferry. The bow of the ferry is rounded, and she would fit snugly into the ferry section of the wharf.
In the Newfoundland provincial house a question was asked by the leader of the opposition, who is a member of the party to
68108-228J
Supply-Public Works which I have the honour to belong. His question was this:
What, if any, decisions have been arrived at by the government relative to:
(a)	the repair of said wharf, or
(b)	the construction of a new wharf.
The answer was this:
While discussions have been held between the government of Newfoundland and the government of Canada, no final decision has been reached.
There is a question of principle involved in this matter, with which the names of the Secretary of State and myself are concerned. On January 16, referring to the same wharf, the premier of Newfoundland said:
If there are new wharves in Bell island and Portugal Cove not Gordon Higgins will do it. Gordon Bradley, yes, but not Gordon Higgins. Any federal matter affecting Newfoundland, Gordon Higgins can talk till he is black, blue and red in the face and the man who will do it is the Secretary of State, the Liberal leader of Newfoundland, in the House of Commons, the Hon. Gordon Bradley.
And farther on he said:
These things, my friends, will be done by Liberalism, federal Liberalism, provincial Liberalism.
I am quite certain in my own mind that the Secretary of State is not involved in this matter in any way. I feel certain he would not be a party to it. I just wish to have the assurance from the minister that the statement I have just read is incorrect. Moreover, I should like to have the details in the matter.


Alphonse Fournier: I hope the hon.
member does not expect me to contradict what a colleague of mine has said. I did not hear clearly what he did say as to what was reported.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I was referring to a colleague of yours, to whom reference was made by the premier of Newfoundland.


Alphonse Fournier: I was referring to the Secretary of State. The premier of Newfoundland is a friend of mine but, as yet, he is not a colleague. At page 416 of the estimates there is an item for wharf improvement and roadway approach at Portugal Cove. Now, let us start from the beginning of this story about Portugal Cove. Some years ago the hon. member asked me to build a wharf there to accommodate the ferry. My answer at the time was that ferries within the provinces were not under federal jurisdiction. I said that we were ready to repair and maintain wharves for the general public but, so far as ferries were concerned, within their autonomous powers the provinces should put up the wharves, or make a contribution to that work.
That was some years ago. I see now that we are getting close to an agreement whereby

Supply-Public Works the provinces will be pleased to co-operate in the establishment of a good wharf for this ferry service. That does not mean that we will not make some contribution. I suppose when the province is ready to do the work we shall make a contribution.
My information is that to date we are negotiating, and we are asking for this amount to pay our share of this work. As we look forward to the development of that new province I shall do my utmost to see that these negotiations reach a happy conclusion for the benefit of all. I am sure the hon. member would not want to draw me into some discussions which have taken place about Portugal Cove, or other places. He will realize that I have enough troubles.
I cannot add much to what has been said. The Department of Public Works does not keep in mind what Mr. So and So says politically in his province. We try to handle these matters for the good of the public, and in the public interest. That is our motto in the department-and without any public relations officers to do it, either.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Perhaps we have not been here long enough to become familiar with the routine. I am only asking if it is a fact that if I, as an opposition member, make a request of the minister, it will be acceded to only if it is approved by the cabinet representative from Newfoundland.


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, that is not the way I proceed. When I receive a request from the hon. member, or from any other hon. member opposite, I ask for reports from my officials. They are my close advisers, and they have quite a bit of knowledge in these matters. I get reports from them, and if I come to a decision I have to submit the matter to my colleagues if it is to be put in the estimates.


Mr. Brooks:: There is where the catch is,


Alphonse Fournier: When I am convinced that it is really something that should be done I put up a good fight with my colleagues to try to carry the day. That helps the person who made the request, the mayor of a town or any member who has a request to make. They know they are always welcome in my department. I do not know of any member who would stand up in the house and say that he had not received a cordial reception and had not obtained results in my department. That happens to be the case for all hon. members.
If you will give me a moment there is one project in which I am very much interested, the Pembroke bridge between the provinces of Ontario and' Quebec. I happen to live

in the district, and we have been working on it for years. We have almost come to an agreement with the province of Ontario. Not long ago I received a letter from the premier of Ontario stating that if we would draft an agreement they would be ready to put up the approaches on the Ontario side and the first span of the bridge from the mainland to the island. We would undertake the bridge between the two islands. I am expecting an answer to letters I have written to the other government involved. If I get a favourable answer from that other government we will sign the agreement and proceed with the work. That is probably what the hon. gentleman wanted to know. Never be bashful or shy with the Minister of Public Works if you think you are justified in making a request. You will always be well received, but do not ask me to do everything in the same year. I cannot.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I do not think I can be accused of being bashful or shy. I have been asking for this project for nearly four years, and it is somewhat of a coincidence that it should be done this year and that this statement should be made. I certainly want to be sure that the wharf will be built.


Alphonse Fournier: You are not sure that it is to be done right away. You do not mean you think it is going to be done right now.


Gordon Francis Higgins: If the minister says he will do it, he will do it.


Alphonse Fournier: I will do it if I come to an agreement. I have a certain amount of money at my disposal, but we do not rush into these things with closed eyes. When we make a deal with somebody we know what we are doing.


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I ask the question once again. I do not want to upset the minister because he is the essence of good humour tonight, but following the explanation he has given me I am not quite certain yet whether Premier Smallwood is or is not correct. Would you say he is or is not? That is all I am asking.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Oh, yes. I think it is a fair question.


Alphonse Fournier: Do not ask me to
explain the actions of everybody who has business with the Department of Public Works. I can explain my own actions to my satisfaction and probably to yours, but I cannot undertake to explain other people's. Do you know that there are people in this country interested in public works who know more about the job than I or my whole staff

do? I can show you files of letters from members in all parts of the house and people throughout the country. They know about construction work. Everybody has put up something at some time and they can tell me how it should be done. I have been at it for ten years; I do not know if I am a little dense or did not learn enough, but I get advice from all over the place and I become bewildered with some of the advice I receive, sometimes even from members of parliament.


Gordon Francis Higgins: That is the grandest piece of shadow-boxing I ever saw. All the minister has to tell me is that he will not answer and I shall sit down.


Alphonse Fournier: I will answer you anything you wish but do not make me answer something I do not know about. If you ask me why Mr. So and So said such a thing then I would not be prepared to answer because you would be putting me in the position of interpreting what he had said and giving my judgment on it.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Let me put it to the minister once again so I will not be misunderstood. Premier Smallwood made the statement that any request that came from me for works to be done in my district would not be granted unless the Secretary of State agreed.


Alphonse Fournier: I have put it clearly once. When you make a request to public works my engineer or my architect down there is the first man consulted. He investigates and looks over the situation and makes a report to my deputy and myself. We study it with the staff at headquarters. We make our decision one way or the other. If I need money to do the job I have to submit the matter to my colleagues. I cannot get a vote put in the estimates without the matter going before treasury board and the cabinet. If that is what is meant by saying that I am under the thumb of Mr. So and So in these things, well, I suppose I need cabinet authority to proceed. I do not think I can run the whole show myself, but beyond that I do not follow any other procedure. I can give the hon. member my word about that.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Then it is the whole cabinet that decides the matter.


Alphonse Fournier: Certainly.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I can tell Premier Smallwood he is wrong.


Alphonse Fournier: You can tell him what you please, but do not make me tell him.


Mr. Herridge:: I have a suggestion or two to make to the minister, and I trust he will be patient with me for two or three minutes. Before doing so, I want to say that I know
Supply-Public Works during my long experience of over forty years that the senior officials of the Department of Public Works have been held in very high respect in my district. I have personal knowledge throughout the years. I had some experience with the construction of wharves and docks before I was a member of parliament. I know the very unusual problems they have to deal with, legal questions and matters involving property, matters between individuals and communities and problems involving materials and labour. I have always found that they have dealt very fairly, and as a result they are held in high respect throughout the district. The people I represent appreciate very much the work being done by the Department of Public Works.
I might also say that the local staff, the foremen and those who do the repairing, are very good men indeed. The captains on the lakes appreciate very much indeed the close co-operation they get from the captain of the dredge with respect to the dredging of narrows, spots which become shallow after every high water and things of that sort.
I want to make one suggestion. In the postwar period a few small tenders have been let for the building of wharves and other structures running from $15,000 to $35,000 or $40,000. I think the department would have been well advised to have the work done by day labour under the supervision of their local staff. I brought this matter to the attention of the department on one or two previous occasions and I was informed that it was not the policy of the department. But I can give the minister one or two illustrations of cases-and it was not the fault of his officials or anyone in his department-where tenders were granted to people without experience and without the necessary capital. In addition they did not have a knowledge of the district and met unusual difficulties and circumstances. As a result one community waited two years to use a wharf after the contract was let because of delays occasioned by a contractor who did not have sufficient capital and experience to proceed with the work properly.
The local foremen and the small skeleton crew you have would also be provided with permanent employment. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get skilled men for this type of work. Twenty or thirty years ago you could get axe men, men used to building wharves, driving piles and things of that sort, but today you cannot. Men accustomed to that type of work are getting scarcer and scarcer. I suggest it would be good policy on the part of the department to build some of these smaller structures, say from $60,000 down, by day labour and keep their permanent men employed. I am quite sure they would
3594	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works save money by doing so. These men not only have a knowledge of local conditions and water levels and a knowledge of local people enabling them to secure the best labour available, but they also know how to assemble materials. I have known of cases where the building of wharves was delayed by from a year to eighteen months because lumber could not be obtained, or a contract had been let to someone to supply material and they had failed to deliver, or cedar logs could not be obtained under contract from certain logging companies or individuals, or piles could not be purchased.
The local men employed by the department have full knowledge of all these things. They know where all the stands of timber are. They know the people who can supply timber quickly. They know where it is required and they know the best place to order from to get delivery at the lowest possible cost. I do suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the department and the minister would be well advised to give consideration under certain circumstances, such as I have mentioned, to the building of some of -these projects in that way. I am thinking, for instance, of the Arrowhead wharf for which,
I understand, the figure is some $57,000.
They have had considerable experience in driving piles, building wharves and so on, and I think that wharf could be most economically built by day labour under the supervision of your senior and local officials. You would be sure of getting materials on the job, and that the wharf would be completed in a certain definite period.
I make those suggestions as a result of my personal experience, and I would ask the minister to give them his consideration.


Alphonse Fournier: There is a lot of truth in what the hon. gentleman says; but we could not take many of these works by day labour because we have not the staff. We would have to increase our staff to a figure far beyond that which we actually -have; and there is always the danger, if we delegate our authority, of going beyond what the statute authorizes, and then I would be blamed. For instance, Mr. So and So could make this lumber during the season and we might make a contract with him to have the lumber delivered on the spot for such and such a date, but I would feel that under section 36 of the act I would not be authorized to do that.
True, there is delay in our department because of the act, but by following the act everyone is protected. We have many revotes. If you will look at the figures for the province of British Columbia in the present estimates


you will see a great many revotes. You will find about 30 of them, but there are actually some 19 projects that are proceeding at the present time. I think the statute is about the best control and protection that the finance department, the treasury board and the comptroller of the treasury have over a spending department.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You owe it
all to us.


Alphonse Fournier: This is a spending department. We are asking for $120 million this year to be spent in different parts of the country, and I am in favour of these controls. If I were in the opposition and somebody tried to get out of these controls probably I would be quite outspoken about it. We have a certain reputation in the department and we do not want to lose it, at least I do not want to lose it while I am there. However, I shall take into consideration the remarks that have been made.
(Translation):


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, I know that the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) would be surprised and might blame me if I did not, tonight, reiterate the plea I have been making ever since my election to the House of Commons in favour of Gloucester county.
First, I must say to the minister that I have greatly appreciated the courtesy he has always shown me and my requests have been numerous; in some instances I even went to knock at his door and I was always well received. Unfortunately, last week Le Droit announced that he may abandon his present portfolio-


Alphonse Fournier: Do not believe everything you read in the papers.


Albany M. Robichaud: -to accept a higher
appointment. I deeply regret this mention that has been made of the possibility that he may leave the Department of Public Works to sit on the bench of the exchequer court.
I would not like to repeat, tonight, the long list of works that are needed in my constituency and to which I have already drawn the minister's attention, by letter or otherwise. That would entail a great deal of repetition and I will try to be as brief as possible. However, there are some which I cannot help mentioning tonight.
In view of the new mining developments which have proved very important in the county of Gloucester, certain public works are urgently needed in the Bathurst district for the development of the Bathurst harbour, that

is, dredging and construction works. The minister should not be surprised to learn that Bathurst, our county town, has no public wharf. Some years ago, there was a bit of a wharf that we used to call the public wharf, but it was first damaged and afterwards carried away by the currents on the Nipisiguit river; consequently, our county town has no public wharf at the present time. That is why I am of the opinion that the time has come to stress the need and the necessity of building a public wharf at Bathurst, as well as of carrying out important dredging operations at the entrance to our harbour, as well as inside it.
Still on the subject of these mining developments, I might say that I know that the companies involved are looking for deep water harbours suited to the shipping of iron ore. I have already pointed out to the minister the need of looking into the possibilities of the Point Marcel and Shippigan harbours.
Last February I asked a question with regard to the harbour at Tracadie. In his answer the Minister of Public Works informed me that the breakwater on the gully and the dredging of the harbour at Tracadie had cost, up to now, $325,092.69. The minister's department has spent a considerable amount of money on the development of this harbour since 1930 but, as he already knows, the breakwaters are just about destroyed and the gully, as it is called, is almost entirely choked by quicksand and is therefore of no practical use whatever. So that, in spite of this outlay of more than $325,000 which has been made over the last twenty years, the harbour should be dredged and the breakwaters reconstructed. I know that the hon. minister instructed his officers, this winter, to study the situation of the gully and of the harbour at Tracadie.
In closing my remarks, I venture to ask him whether he has received a report on this subject and whether we may expect his department to provide the money necessary for the reconstruction of these breakwaters and the dredging of Tracadie harbour.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member's first question, I must say that I have not yet seen the report in question, but that I shall study it closely as soon as it comes before me for consideration.
Secondly, I cannot reveal the government's intentions beforehand, because the estimates are never disclosed in advance. Besides, I have already explained that the cabinet must first approve the recommendations of' each
Supply-Public Works department with regard to their respective estimates. Thus, it remains for the hon. member, as well as for myself, to hope that the government will consider these recommendations favourably, but there is nothing to be done before we have received and studied the report here in Ottawa.
(Text):


Mr. Noseworthy:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would give me a little information on a point about which I am quite interested, since he is so good-natured tonight.
In looking through his estimates I notice that his employees are classified as permanent, temporary and casual. I notice that there are approximately 6,000 temporary and about 1,800 permanent employees. I have totalled the numbers listed as temporary and permanent in order to arrive at those figures. What I would like to know is just why you have that difference between approximately 6,000 temporary and 1,800 permanent employees.
First of all, why is there such a difference? Second, I would like to know the conditions which determine when an employee becomes permanent. I have cases of people who have been working a considerable number of years in the department, and they are still temporary. As a matter of fact, I should like to know who has the final say as to when one becomes permanent. I have one case of a veteran with a number of years of service, Who was recommended for permanency by his department. He was recommended by the civil service commission; nevertheless he was retired and did not get his permanency. All I could find out was that someone somewhere had held it up. What is the story about these temporary and permanent employees?


Alphonse Fournier: It is quite a story. You generally come into the service through the civil service commission. You are on the eligible list, and when a request is made by a department the first person on the list is probably sent over by the civil service commission. The commission issue their certificate and the person goes to the department. For the first six months he is on a trial basis. As time goes on he gets experience and one day, if we find we are not over our quota of permanent positions, we recommend that this gentleman become permanent.
This recommendation goes to the civil service commission and they inquire into the functions and work of this gentleman. They compare our permanent and temporary
3596	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works establishments, and if the commission recommends him that recommendation goes to the treasury board. The treasury board has a set of principles and regulations dealing with those cases. When the treasury board decides that a man meets all the conditions requisite to becoming permanent, and the department is within the establishment of permanent positions, he may or may not become a permanent employee.
There is not so much difference now between permanent and temporary employees. Even temporary employees, in certain instances, come under the superannuation act, and they are entitled to nearly all the same privileges. As Minister of Public Works I am ready to give any explanation for nearly any department of which I have knowledge, but this matter would probably come under the Minister of Finance or the Secretary of State. The minister who represents the civil service commission in this house would probably give a full explanation.
I have given it to you as I understand it in my own department; I think that is the way it operates.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The minister mentioned the number of permanent employees to which his department is entitled. Can he give me any information as to how, for instance, you arrive at the number of permanent employees to which that department is entitled?


Alphonse Fournier: I am speaking only from memory, but I do not think there is any branch of the department in which more than 75, 80 or 85 per cent of the employees are permanent. The others would be temporary. As vacancies come along probably these temporaries become permanent, and they are replaced by other temporaries.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, as I listened with fascination to the minister brushing aside our questions and mesmerizing us in his inimitable way, I was reminded of an experience I had many years ago. I met an old Tory friend of mine coming home from a meeting at which Sir Wilfrid Laurier spoke in Toronto. I thought something had happened to him, and I asked him about the speech. He said it was a great speech, so I asked him what it was all about. He said, "I do not know what it was about, but it was like a poem, and I have been seeing visions". After listening to the minister for a while I am in something like that state.
I do want to come back to earth and ask the minister one or two questions. The point I am going to raise was raised before, but I am going to suggest to the minister that he


did not deal with it as fully as he might have. There is a sentence in the report from the other place, to which the member for Vancouver-Quadra referred, concerning the practice of other departments by-passing the Department of Public Works and building up little public works branches of their own. I am very interested in that because the minister replied to that, as I understand him, by saying that the Department of Public Works was the servant of the other departments and did work for them. I also understood him to say they were not going to be too small-minded if they found other departments setting up in business for themselves.
I am small-minded about that. I want to know why they are doing it. I am going to read to the minister some of the figures for the competing departments, which appear to be waxing in size.


Alphonse Fournier: May I interrupt for just a moment? I am ready to listen and answer all questions if they relate to my department. However, if this matter relates to some other departments I think the hon. gentleman would be well advised to ask the ministers concerned. I have had questions asked about the civil service, and if there are questions concerning my colleagues I would rather have you ask these other gentlemen.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is
nothing I like better than to oblige the minister, but I believe this matter is closely related to public works. We really have to have a beginning, otherwise when we get to the other departments they will say we should have asked the Department of Public Works. We have had that experience before. The reason I think this is related to public works is that after all we start-I am almost quoting the minister-from the proposition that public works is public works and it has a quota of engineers, draftsmen and technicians. It is not so many years ago that this department looked after public works almost exclusively.
We realize that when the war came there was a sudden growth in all kinds of undertakings. I would think it would be quite reasonable then that other departments would inevitably embark on enterprises of their own. We are now eight years after the war, however, although we have a kind of lukewarm war in the offing; nevertheless 1 want to seriously ask the minister-I think he can tell us-just what has come to pass. Where does the Department of Public Works come in? What has come to be the limitation of the functions of public works? I want to remind the minister-I shall make it quite brief

because I know he would like to get through by ten o'clock if he could- of the staffs that are being built up elsewhere. I have some of the figures here, and I will give him a little summation of the architects in the various departments. The army, navy and air force have 15; the Department of Agriculture has 5; citizenship and immigration has 3-they are not up with the procession yet- the Department of External Affairs has only 1; justice has 5. Now, that interests me a great deal. Why does the Department of Justice need five architects? The minister will tell me later.


Alphonse Fournier: Is that in your budget speech?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am just taking these figures from an authoritative source; they are quite accurate. The Department of Labour has 1 architect; the Department of National Health and Welfare has 1; the Department of Public Works has 32. That seems reasonable, at any rate, for the Department of Public Works, should have far more than any other department. I should like the minister to feel that I am very interested in this, and I think it is important. I believe we are entitled to have his serious consideration of this problem. We all know how easily it can happen that as soon as you have a new little kingdom set up, the king wants to have as many subjects as possible; that is just human nature.
I do not want to be tiresome, but I am very anxious to find out about this. I want the minister to give us his view as to what are the limitations, where we come to the end of public works and their duties and where the other people step in. For example, let us take the Department of Justice. It is hard for me to understand why the Department of Justice wants 5 architects. Perhaps we could take that as a sample and go on from there. Again I say to the minister that I feel this is a reasonable question to ask because I believe that there is developing a situation where, as the serious committee in the other place says, the growing practice of building up little public works branches of their own should cease. These are responsible men. Some of them have had long experience in this house, certainly much more than I have had. These responsible men say that this practice should cease and that all such work should be placed in charge of the public works department where the law intended it should be.
That is a strong statement. That statement was not made twenty years ago; it was made in 1952, last year. There you have the considered statement of responsible people, presided over by Senator Crerar, a former
Supply-Public Works
minister of the crown. He makes that statement. It must be answered. In the face of that I have read this list as long as your arm of architects setting up in business in all kinds of departments. As I say, every one who knows anything about organization of any kind knows that just as soon as you set up a new little bailiwick, you have a man who wants to add to it. He does not want to keep down staff, he wants to add to it; and his importance will be regulated to some extent not by the smallness of his staff but by the largeness of it.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great attention to what has been said, and I read some time ago those figures given by the hon. gentleman-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: They are the same figures.


Alphonse Fournier: -in his speech. I cannot remember them all as he has just read them, but let us just take the 5 in the Department of Justice. Those are the architects that look after the penitentiaries under the Minister of Justice. I am not too sure of this, but I think under the Penitentiary Act they have the control of their buildings. They have to maintain them, repair them and rebuild them. I did not invent this procedure. This is probably an exception to the Public Works Act. If hon. gentlemen opposite are against that system, when there is any question as to penitentiaries they can get their information from the proper minister.
If the hon. gentleman speaks of the Department of Transport, where they have 15 architects, may I say that, for all the airports and all the works they have under their department, they have exclusive jurisdiction. Under my act I cannot go in and say, "Stop that building at Goose Bay" or at Gander, that I am going to put up those buildings. When my estimates are being considered and when I am ready to justify what we are doing under our act, I do not think that is the time I should be charged with all the sins of Israel, if hon. gentlemen think any sins are being committed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
charging sins. I am just asking questions.


Alphonse Fournier: When the estimates of these departments come before the committee these matters can be discussed. If the hon. gentleman does not like the 16 architects in the Department of National Defence, the time to discuss that matter is when the estimates of the Department of National Defence are being considered. We have never had in public works responsibility for buildings for operation under national defence. They have always had authority under their own act.

Supply-Public Works


Mr. Fleming:: Is the minister inviting the hon. member for Greenwood to make the same speech in connection with every department?


Alphonse Fournier: Not while I am leader of the house. But I am trying to give an explanation which is the real explanation. In that other place there was a committee which said that public works should have all these works done. That is a noble sentiment. I am flattered that they have such great confidence in the public works department, but do not ask me to be responsible for all these amendments to all these acts giving jurisdiction and power to other departments. This is one place where you cannot say that the Minister of Public Works is of a grasping nature. Let somebody else do some work.
In many instances they are justified. I can mention one department in which they have only a few architects, namely in connection with the construction of hospitals. If they did not have two or three experts in those matters we would have to increase our own staff and have those experts. There is therefore some justification for the system. You cannot say that the system is absolutely wrong. Although I would appreciate having all the works under my department, and would perhaps feel more important than I do right now, I am just trying to discuss the department and the act under which we operate. I think that up until now we have done our best. I do not know whether or not it is good enough for the opposition, but it is the best we can do.
(Translation):


Mr. Brisson:: Mr. Chairman, never in all its history has the county of Saguenay received such readily understood or such well deserved attention. Since 1949-and I include here the moneys provided in the current estimates-the Department of Public Works will have built or rebuilt in the county of Saguenay, 16 wharves, that is those at Tadoussac, les Bergeronnes, Les Escoumains, Sault au Mouton, Forestville, Colombier, Ragueneau, Baie Comeau, Seven Islands, Havre St. Pierre, Natashquan, Tabatiere, St. Augustin and Blanc Sablon.
If I add to that the sums that have been spent since 1949 and which will be spent during the next fiscal year, on dredging

operations and construction of retaining walls, plus those that the architect's division has earmarked for the construction of new post office and unemployment insurance buildings, and which it will spend for these purposes, you will realize that I am right in saying that the constituency of Saguenay has received from the Department of Public Works well deserved attention.
Such being the facts, I feel it to be my duty, on behalf of my constituents*, to thank the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) for his loyal co-operation.
I wish to thank the minister, but he will understand that in doing so I cherish the hope of getting again millions of dollars worth of public works for Saguenay county. The sea is the principal means of transportation by which the people of the county get their supplies and ship their raw materials.
May I draw your attention to the case of Shelter Bay? It seems to me that with the co-operation of the Quebec North Shore Company, the provincial government and the federal public works department, it should be possible to build a wharf suited to the needs of these people.
I do not need to mention here all the other projects that will have to be carried out in the future in Saguenay county, since I have already had the opportunity of making them known to the minister. I am confident that he will give them his kindest consideration.
(Text):


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item carry?


Mr. McLure:: No. I want to say something, but it is ten o'clock. I would ask that you report progress.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall move to go into supply, call two departments -national defence and national health and welfare-then proceed with public works and then with citizenship and immigration.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 8, 1953