1953-02-03

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps hon. members would be interested in the information I have obtained so far about the requirements necessary to aid the victims of the terrible disasters in the United Kingdom, Belgium and The Netherlands. The Canadian Red Cross Society has been in communication with the Red Cross Society of the United Kingdom, with that of Belgium and with that of The Netherlands. It would seem that the situation in the United Kingdom and Belgium is that there is no shortage of any of the supplies required immediately to meet the emergency, but that in The Netherlands there is a shortage of clothing and bedding. Fortunately the Canadian Red Cross Society had 250 cases of such supplies in Geneva which are already on their way to the Dutch Red Cross Society. They also had forty cases of such supplies in Toronto and these are being moved immediately to be delivered to the Dutch Red Cross Society through K.L.M. air lines which had a plane just about ready to leave for The Netherlands. They feel that they will have perhaps forty cases more in the provincial commands of the Canadian Red Cross Society that can be made available almost immediately.
I also understand that the officers of our Canadian 27th brigade have been in touch with the authorities in The Netherlands and are making immediately available such engineering services as they can render which are urgently needed and are inquiring as to what other services might be made immediately available suggesting that they have mechanical transport material that could be used. Of course it would mean some interference with present training but the matter is being examined of making such services available if it will relieve any situation which has arisen there.
It occurred to me that perhaps the most effective and expeditious instrument that we
Canadians could use to make our aid avai able and effective would be our ow Canadian Red Cross because of its experienc in handling such situations and its intimal connections with the Red Cross societies < the United Kingdom, Belgium and Th Netherlands. Perhaps the authorities of tl Red Cross Society would like to set up national committee with special membersh: to assist them in raising the funds, and feel from the expression of views in ti house yesterday that if something of th; kind were done it would be agreeable * the house to accept a recommendation th, the government make a substantial contr bution to the Red Cross for the special pu pose of such aid.
I think I should add that the premier Ontario was in communication with me th morning, and from our conversation I kno he would be glad if that kind of arrang ment could be set up, and that his gover: ment would be glad to do its part in wh our people look upon as desirable. I ha1 no doubt that his good example would al be followed in our other Canadian province Fortunately there is no lack of food ai no lack of medical supplies anywhere in tl stricken areas at the present time, and think that our Red Cross Society, throuj its association with the Red Cross societi of the three nations so severely tried in th disaster, will be able to point out ve rapidly what will be the kind of help th is apt to be the most effective for the victir who have suffered from these disasters, thought that members of the house wou be glad to know that no time is being lc in giving as concrete an expression of o sympathy as is possible under the circu: stances.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of i Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish join in expressing the feeling, which I ; sure is shared by every hon. member of t house, that there will be agreement with a approval of the proposal by the governme to contribute to such fund as may required for this purpose. Most certainly i evidence that will be furnished in this w of the sympathy of the people of Cana will be an expression of our own sense sorrow that so many people should be sufL ing in these three countries in the way tl they are at this time.
562	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry STANDING ORDERS
First report of standing committee on ;anding orders.-Mr. MacLean (Cape Breton orth and Victoria).



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National evenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for ork West asked me yesterday whether the laracter called the member of parliament i the Sunday night broadcast on the city E Ottawa, in which the mayor of Ottawa iok part, was actually a member of this ouse, and if so, was he advised of the dicule he was to be subjected to by other leakers. I am informed by the C.B.C. that le voice in question was not that of a ember of parliament but what was said was ased on an interview with a member. The ember was informed that other persons in Le course of the program would have the aportunity of expressing views taking issue ith his.


Mr. Adamson:: My point in asking the
jestion, if I may say so, was that I thought iat the broadcast held members of this ause up to ridicule. I thought it was most afair to members of the house and I wished protest against it.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Watson MacNaught (Parliamentary ssistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: esterday the hon. member for Nanaimo ked me if the herring season in the lower st coast area of Vancouver island would : extended beyond the closure date of ;bruary 5. At that time I told him that i investigation was being carried out and soon as the report was received a icision would be made and announced, lis morning the report arrived. From the port it appears that spawning has already mmenced in the southern portion of vanson channel and that the condition of e fish in other parts of the lower east ast area indicates that spawning will soon i general. The early spawning is attributed the current unusually mild winter. In ese circumstances it was decided that the [tension of the season in this district could it be granted and that the long-standing actice of protecting the fish on the spawn-g areas must be followed. Over the years Mr. Drew.]

such action has been of great advantage in maintaining the populations on a stable basis.
The central and northern herring fishing areas are open until the end of February. These areas would serve as a source of supply with which to fill the existing orders. From information on the stocks in previous years it can be assumed that the fish in these other areas will be in better condition and not yet approaching spawning too closely.



INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have a reply to a
question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) concerning meetings of the international wheat council which are currently in progress in Washington.
The eighth session of the council convened in London on April 17 of last year to consider the renewal of the present agreement which will expire on July 31 of this year. The meetings adjourned on May 9 with the understanding that discussions would be resumed later. The meetings now taking place in Washington are a resumption of the London talks.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), speaking in the house on May 26 last, advised hon. members of what had transpired in London and outlined, in general terms, the position taken by the Canadian delegation at these meetings. There is nothing further that I can add at this time. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated to the house on May 1 last; answering a question by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), the discussions of the wheat council are being held in camera. Only the opening statement at the plenary session received publicity.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: My
question arose out of a statement made by Mr. Sharp, the deputy minister, and I asked whether or not Canada was joining with the United States in asking for an increase in the minimum and maximum prices. I was not asking for details; I was asking whether or not Canada was going to take that attitude.


Lionel Chevrier: My answer is contained in
this statement. In effect it is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has already put on the record of this house what the policy of the government was. Furthermore,

the statement which appeared in the press and which my hon. friend was good enough to send across to me indicates that the position taken by the Canadian delegate is not at all inconsistent with what the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated in the house.


John George Diefenbaker: It is pretty hard to get
information.



GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I direct a question to the
Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg). Can the minister say whether legislation amending the Government Annuities Act, such as the legislation we had in 1951 which was not proceeded with, will be re-introduced at this session?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker.



INTERIM PAYMENT ON 1952 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Dinsdale) asked me if I could indicate when prairie farmers may expect interim payments on the 1952 crop. I am afraid that I am not able to so indicate. The matter of interim payments is still under active consideration and there can, of course, be no announcement.


John George Diefenbaker: Let us know when the
next election is taking place.



INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Is the government withholding stocks of butter from the market for the purpose of bringing about an increase in butter prices?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, February 2, consideration in committee of Bill No. 103, to amend the National Defence Act- Mr. St. Laurent-Mr. Robinson in the chair.
National Defence Act
On section 1-Associate minister.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I believe that we are not only on clause 1 but there is still before the committee the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. We were also discussing, when we adjourned last night, the question of whether or not the words "or the minister" which appear in lines 11 and 12 of clause 1 should properly be in legislation of this kind. I was trying to make the point that, whether the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition is accepted or not, those words to which I have just referred should be deleted. In other words, if the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition is accepted I would contend that after it has been accepted the words "or the minister" should be deleted. Similarly, if the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition is not accepted by the majority of this house I would take the same position.
I said last night that it seems to me that all full-fledged cabinet ministers should be on the same level and that their duties and responsibilities should either be defined clearly by statute or be established by the governor in council. I cannot see the propriety or fairness to anyone who might take this appointment in saying to one minister of the cabinet that his duties are to be those assigned to him by another minister supposedly on the same level. I submit that it would be possible to offer a subamendment but there seems to me to be no point in complicating it that way. Rather I am just giving notice that after the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition has been dealt with, whichever way the house deals with it, I intend to move a further amendment to the effect that the words "or the minister" be deleted from lines 11 and 12 of clause 1.	.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I think, Mr. Chairman, that it would be more regular and in better order if before continuing discussion on a possible subsequent amendment we disposed of the amendment that is now before the chair, without prejudice to anyone's rights with respect to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Amendment (Mr. Drew) negatived: Yeas, 47; nays, 89.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentleman would allow me to do so I would ask the Minister of National Defence to move that the words "or the minister" in lines 11 and 12 of clause 1 be struck out.


Mr. Claxion:: I would so move, Mr. Chairman.

National Defence Act


The Deputy Chairman:: Mr. Claxton moves that the words "or the minister" be deleted from lines 11 and 12 of clause 1.


Mr. Wright:: I should like to ask a question based on this deletion. Will the Prime Minister give us the assurance that the government will, by order in council, clearly define the duties of the associate minister so that parliament itself will have knowledge of what his duties are.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will give the committee the assurance that the governor in council, when the act comes into force, will provide, as was provided in the statute of 1940, that the associate minister be entitled to exercise all the powers of the Minister of National Defence, including those defined by this act, except such as the governor in council otherwise directs-or words to that effect. I am not guaranteeing that the language will be the same. The intention is, however, to make a general order that the associate minister shall be entitled to exercise all the powers of the minister, unless and until otherwise directed by the governor in council.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before section 1 as amended carries, there are one or two other questions I should like to ask. Perhaps we are on such good terms today that a suggestion I shall make will be accepted by the government.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It depends upon the merit of the suggestion and not upon the terms that now exist.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The suggestion which I have to make is one the merit of which the Prime Minister has already endorsed some time ago. The question I have in mind is one which we have raised when we have had other bills before us appointing new ministers to the cabinet, namely, the technical question concerning the authority for paying the tax-free $2,000 car allowance to cabinet ministers. As the Prime Minister and the committee are aware, there is no reference to that item in the section now before us. It provides only for the salary of $10,000 a year. Those who have followed this matter realize that an item in the Appropriation Act of 1931, I believe it was, provided in that year for a car allowance to each cabinet minister in the amount of $2,000.
On previous occasions we have discussed the merits of relying on that item. It still perplexes me, but I know that the authorities have ruled it is proper to rely on that item and to continue paying the $2,000 for this purpose each year. My point is that that

was an appropriation act for that particular year which voted a precise sum of money which was spent that year but has since been spent over and over again, ft is treated by the financial people, however, as a continuing item. I believe it is fair to say that the Prime Minister agreed with me when I raised the point on an earlier occasion, and said it was one of the things that might well be tidied up. I believe that is the very phrase the Prime Minister used. On subsequent occasions I have asked if this bit of tidying up had been dealt with, and the answer so far has been in the negative.
I would point out that we are about to receive, some time this spring we hope, the new Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952. I have not seen them, but it would be my guess that the Appropriation Act of 1931 is not brought forward in the revised statutes of 1952. In general terms the revised statutes of 1952 will be the law of the country from that time forward. In this instance the government will be going back beyond these revised statutes to that old Appropriation Act of 1931 for the purpose of paying this item. It does seem to me that it should be put on a better basis.
I am not arguing now about the question of the amount being paid. I am arguing about the way in which it is being handled. If it is going to be regarded as a statutory item, it seems to me it ought to be put in the Salaries Act or in the acts setting up the various departments and appointing the ministers, rather than relying on that item in the Appropriation Act of 1931. As I say, [DOT] I have no desire to argue this back and forth. I think it has already been recognized between us that it is being done, and the Auditor General and others do not quarrel with the legality of the manner in which it is done. The Prime Minister has admitted it is a point that should be tidied up. Is it not about time that the tidying up was effected?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I said to the hon. gentleman that it would depend upon the merit of the suggestion as to whether or not we could accept it, and not upon the immediate precedent that had been set this afternoon. The government is advised by the law officers of the crown that what is in existence is sufficient to take care of the point. While they so advise, it has not been felt necessary to do any tidying up that might be the occasion of a very untidy debate in the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One of my legal advisers
here suggests that we move an amendment, but I am afraid any amendment of that kind would be out of order. I suggest, as opposed

to the advice from the law officers of the crown upon which the Prime Minister now relies, that the Auditor General has called attention to this matter in the way that he calls attention to matters. He cannot say that things are illegal or poor policy; he just calls attention to them. I believe the very fact that he has called attention to this item as one which has been practised too long is an indication that it might well be tidied up and attention should be paid to that by this government.
In this same vein, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out something else that amazed me. We received this bill only a short time ago. It was given first reading in the house on January 22, and given second reading only yesterday. It still has not passed this house, and it still has not passed the other place. It still has not become law. Yet I find in the estimates that were tabled in this house some time ago, and printed longer ago than that, an item of $12,000 for the salary and motor car allowance of the Associate Minister of National Defence. It appears on page 39 of the estimates. Out in the left-hand column is that capital "S" which indicates it is a statutory item.
I know the Prime Minister does not like it if we make a suggestion that government legislation receives automatically the approval of the majority of this house, but how is it explained that before the statute is passed providing for this salary it appears in the printed book of estimates labelled as a statutory item?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: Because it is being proposed that it be included in the estimates as a statutory item, and unless it has become so it will have to be struck out. The recommendations have to be made for the maximum amount for which parliament is asked to make appropriations. Parliament can reduce the estimates submitted, but cannot increase them after they have been submitted with the message from the Governor General. If at that time there is no provision that would justify the inclusion of the item as statutory, it will have to be struck out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The item in question is not
included in the estimates that this house is called upon to vote. When we get the Appropriation Act some time before the end of the session or next session, whenever we get it, it will be based	on these	items	andwill include only	the items that	the houseis being asked to	vote.	This item will	notbe there. It is	just	furnished	here	for
information. My complaint is that the book of estimates lists the item as though it was
National Defence Act
an established fact that it is a statutory item before it has become part of th< statutes of Canada.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-Associate minister.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: With respect to clause 2 Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleague th< Minister of National Defence to move th< same amendment as was moved with respec to clause 1. It would be for the deletioi of the words "or the minister" in lines 2-and 25.


Brooke Claxton: That the words "or the minister" be deleted iron lines 24 and 25 of clause 2.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, there is ni
occasion to deal further with this sectioi because the wording is precisely the sam as that of section 1. In refraining fron further comment on this matter, I do so onl; because the discussion has been directed t wording which is precisely similar. May say, however, that the adoption of the motioi with regard to' the earlier section, and whicl almost makes it essential that this sectioi be similar, in no way disposes of the questioi that has been before us.
The Prime Minister has spoken about th fact that in attempting to tidy something u; we might produce an untidy result. Her in the House of Commons we have had chance to do something to tidy up a extremely untidy department of governmen That opportunity is being missed. We ar proceeding in an unsatisfactory way, as result of the majority vote, to deal with serious situation. It is now apparent tha the government has decided to proceed wit that and that further debate on detail wi not produce any effective changes. W therefore can only accept the situation fror that point of view.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be rea
the third time?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Next sitting of the housi



THE ROYAL STYLE AND TITLES ACT


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the second reading of Bi No. 102, respecting the royal style and title
566	HOUSE OF
Royal Style and Titles Act Motion agreed to, bill read the second time ind the house went into committee thereon, dr. Robinson in the chair.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister nake a statement?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, this is a dll that I consider to be of great importance nd I think that it should receive attentive nd serious consideration by every hon. nember. Section 1 of the bill is to provide hat the assent of this parliament is given
0	the issue by Her Majesty of a proclamation stablishing for use for Canada the royal tyle and title set out:
Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the nited Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms ad Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, efender of the Faith.
That is the text that was agreed to at ie prime ministers' conference held in ,ondon last December. There was a general esire to have the royal style and title accord nth the constitutional position of the various lembers of the commonwealth and to have :, in so far as might meet the conditions f the various members of the commonwealth, as uniform as possible.
With respect to some members of the ommonwealth there was some difficulty, or instance, with respect to Pakistan it was iund that the form that would be acceptable >
the people of the United Kingdom would e apt to create difficulties with the popula-on of Pakistan. It was also found that rch was the case with respect to the popu-ition of the Union of South Africa. With :spect to Australia, New Zealand and anada an effort was made to agree upon ie acceptance of a form that would be uni-irm-with the exception of the use of the ame of the country-in each one. That *as finally agreed upon and there was agree-tent-I will not say at whose suggestion; think it was almost simultaneously sug-jsted by the representatives of the three juntries, Canada, Australia and New Zea-nd-that it would be desirable to retain
1	the style and title as used in our countries unething that would indicate that it was ie sovereign of the United Kingdom who as recognized as the sovereign of our >untries, and that it would be preferable i have that indication appear in the royal yle and title rather than to have it merely ime each one of our respective countries id to have all the rest of the cornmon-ealth described as the Queen's other realms id territories.
It seems to me that that is in accord with ie historical development of our constitu-onal relations. Her Majesty is now the ueen of Canada but she is the Queen of 

Canada because she is the Queen of the United Kingdom and because the people of Canada are happy to recognize as their sovereign the person who is the sovereign of the United Kingdom. It is not a separate office. It is the recognition of the traditional development of our institutions; that our parliament is headed by the sovereign; and that it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our sovereign and who is loyally and, I may say, affectionately recognized as the sovereign of our country. We all felt that it was desirable to have that recognition retained in the title as a proclamation of the historical, traditional link between this country and the United Kingdom; and the same feelings were entertained by the other two prime ministers with respect to their countries.
The question then arose whether it would be proper to have in the title we would use the traditional words, "by the grace of God", sovereign. We felt that our people did recognize that the affairs of this world were not determined exclusively by the volition of men and women; that they were determined by men and women as agents for a supreme authority; and that it was by the grace of that supreme authority that we were privileged to have such a person as our sovereign. Then perhaps the rather more delicate question arose about the retention of the words "defender of the faith". In England there is an established church. In our countries there are no established churches but in our countries there are people who have faith in the direction of human affairs by an all-wise Providence; and we felt that it was a good thing that the civil authorities would proclaim that their organization is such that it is a defence of the continued beliefs in a supreme power that orders the affairs of mere men, and that there could be no reasonable objection from anyone who believed in the Supreme Being in having the sovereign, the head of the civil authority, described as a believer in and a defender of the faith in a supreme ruler.
I trust and hope that those views which were shared in this conference will appear as reasonable views to hon. members. The procedure that was discussed was that we would each of us ask our parliaments to acquiesce in the issue of proclamations by Her Majesty herself. It is Her Majesty who will determine, who will announce by proclamation what her royal style and title will be for each one of the several realms of the commonwealth. It is hoped that these proclamations may be issued simultaneously in the
156:

various realms of the commonwealth and in the other parts of the commonwealth that recognize Her Majesty not as their Queen but as the head of the commonwealth.
The developments of modern times have been that the sovereign does not exercise the royal prerogative that has come down through the centuries without being sure of the acquiescence of parliament. And it is for the purpose of expressing in advance that our parliament will acquiesce in such a proclamation that this bill is now before the house.
In going over the elements of the royal style and title I made no special reference to the head of the commonwealth. I think it is fortunate that in spite of local situations that appear to make it necessary for the most populous part of the commonwealth no longer to recognize the sovereign of the United Kingdom as the sovereign of its state, but felt that it was necessary for it to adopt a republican form of government with a president as the head of the state, nevertheless it wished to maintain the close relationship with the other members of the commonwealth and remain in the commonwealth.
I think that the real links between the various members of the commonwealth are their common ideals, their memories of association in the past, their intimate conviction that that association in the past has been for the benefit of their people, and their desire to conserve that association in the future for the benefit of their people. I do not think that we are being presumptuous or conceited when we believe, and even when we express the belief, that this commonwealth group not only works for the benefit of its own peoples but is an effective instrument for the good of free mankind throughout the whole world.
I know that my predecessor had an influential part in the decision that was reached that, in spite of the fact that the situation in India required the constitution of a republic for that great country, India would remain a part of the commonwealth. I think that the influence he exercised at that time was in the right direction and that the result was something beneficial to us, beneficial to India and also beneficial to free men throughout the world, and that the conservation and development of that feeling of common ideals, common purposes between the great Republic of India and the other members of the British commonwealth will continue to be of service to free mankind. And it is I think something for which the realistic genius of the British people has reason to be proud, that it can accommodate itself to the requirements of new situations in the lives of men and can conserve the essentials without having to
Royal Style and Titles Act conserve forms that to some appear to hav become so outmoded that they can no longe be accepted. I think it is a magnificent thin, that the peoples of India and the people of the Occident can look upon each othe as human beings equal in every respect; am I was not going beyond what the fac requires when I said in Ottawa to Mr. Nehn that we hoped and trusted that in spite o the many more centuries of their socia experience and civilization there would neve be any indication by their own people tha they looked down upon us as their inferiors and that I hoped and trusted that in spit of our rapid development of industrial pro cesses and industrial know-how there wouli never be any feeling among the people o India that we thought that because of tha we were human beings in any way superio to the millions who inhabited their country
We all know from our own Canadiai experience that unity between us, unit; between all the elements of our population is and must be based upon that recognitioi by us all that we are all equal to each othe and that all have the same rights to Canadiai citizenship, and that Canadian citizenshi] gives us equality in every respect with al our fellow citizens, whatever their origin their traditions and their cultures may be It is because our forefathers had the wisdon to recognize that it was not going to be neces sary in this Canadian nation to pour all thi elements into the same mould that we nov have a Canadian nation.
We are all proud of being Canadian citi zens because we can be so and can exercisi all our rights as such without forgetting ou: racial origins, our ancestral traditions, ant without there being any effort by any of ou: fellow citizens to make us over into any othe: kind of Canadian than we happen to bi because of our racial origins and with ou: ancestral traditions.
That is also something which is now work ing out in this commonwealth of free peoples I think it is a solid foundation upon whicl there can develop and rest equal pride of al of us in our allegiance to a common sover eign. There are those of us who recognizi the sovereign of the United Kingdom as ou: own sovereign. There is a common loyalt; between us and the group of which tha sovereign is the head only as the head of thi commonwealth because in their countries thi situation that exists does not make it con venient to have a monarchical form of con stitutional set-up.
I believe firmly that what we are doing heri today and what others are doing in thei: respective parliaments will further that idea

Royal Style and Titles Act )f unity of purpose and desire to co-operate ;hat characterizes us at this time and which was so touchingly evident at the meeting of prime ministers which it was my privilege ;o attend a month and a half ago in the city )f London.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, it was a nost moving address to which we have just .istened. It is evidence of the strength of ;he parliamentary system that while we may De separated in smaller things, in respect to jur system of government and to the unity hat is provided by the crown there is no livision, there is no diversity of opinion, here is but a common devotion. It is on pccasions like this that parliament rises to ts greatest heights. As we listened to the Prime Minister without regard to party considerations this parliament became cathedral ,n devotion to our history, to our heritage and to our common pursuit of freedom.
As I listened to the Prime Minister referring ;o the diversity of the membership within the commonwealth, and in particular to the rather anomalous position of India, I could not help Dut remember that events of the last few i^ears have established clearly that while [ndia, becoming a member in the circumstances under which she did, seemed in essence to destroy the power of this com-nonwealth, it has really meant its strengthening and has given to the commonwealth a representation in Asia that may well stand as a rampart against the advance of communism which would destroy the system in which we believe.
The change in the Queen's title is an event af great importance. Parliament assumes the responsibility of approving or disapproving the title suggested by the prime ministers' meeting in London. The reason for this lates back to the imperial conference of 1930 when the various members of the British commonwealth decided that the assent of the parliaments of all the dominions, as well as of the parliament of the United Kingdom, was required in order to change the name.
The royal style and title has been changed through the ages as the concept of government has changed. Parliament walks with history in the changes that have taken place. The title of the first sovereign of the United Kingdom was King of the English, which was established by King Egbert in the ninth century. There was a further change a thousand years ago by King Athelstan when he adopted the title King of Britain. Henry VIII added Defender of the Faith. There were no changes then for several centuries until in 1800, when the act of union with
TMr. St. Laurent.]
Ireland made necessary a change in the title of the British sovereign.
It is of interest to recall that for more than three hundred years the sovereign bore the title not only of Defender of the Faith but also of King of France. It was not until 152 years ago that the British sovereigns altered their royal style and title in that regard and removed, from the British coat of arms, the arms of France.
The next change, as I remember my history, was in the 1870's when India became an empire within the British empire. In 1901 the royal title was changed in order to include the British dominions beyond the seas. Then in 1927 a further change took place when Ireland withdrew and an alteration was made in the title to cover that situation.
So the changes have taken place. One of the most moving things about these changes is the fact that the title of every British monarch has never been a boastful one, or one of pomp in words. That is one of the abiding things of the title now established, its freedom from anything in the nature of boastful pride. It is simple, moving and direct.
Freedom owes much to the British monarchy. When one indulges in the "ifs" of history it makes one wonder what might have happened to freedom in the world had Cromwell succeeded in forever abolishing the British monarchy. Had he done so there would never have been the British commonwealth or the commonwealth as it is known now, for it would have been impossible to bind together the various races and religions in all parts of the world but for the centralizing mystic influence of the crown. The commonwealth typifies unity in diversity. Was there ever a more anomalous condition of affairs than this crown with its symbolism, the queen of each of the various parts of the commonwealth, indivisible yet divisible?. Yet that very anomaly permits of constitutional flexibility permitting of a living, vital organism in constitutional and parliamentary development.
The Prime Minister spoke of the meaning of our citizenship. One of the major reasons that I wanted to come to parliament was that I wanted to do my part to assure within this country a Canadian feeling that would deny a hyphenated citizenship while at the same time maintaining pride in the racial origin of one's father and one's mother. The first speech I made in parliament was to that effect, urging equality of Canadians regardless of race, and I expressed the hope that those who served in two world wars would have the right to be in days of peace what

they were in war, namely to be Canadians without any hyphenate consideration whatsoever. Their pride in war was on their. shoulder strap-"Canada".
We are building that type of Canada. Year by year we are building in stronger unity. We in Canada represent something that the world must ultimately attain, a realization that it is not one's surname that makes for citizenship, but service and devotion to the public cause. We are building in unity and we are denying discrimination based on race or creed. What we are doing here has within it the elements of what is necessary to be achieved in the world.
Communism, some say, marches on an empty stomach, but communism also marches because all of us have been guilty too often of the practice of the luxury of mental discrimination against those who belong to other races. As communism marches, one of the greatest bulwarks against it is the fact that we within this commonwealth spread all over the world have practised and are practising in ever widening measure our belief in the sacredness of the human personality and the equality of all without regard to race. Asia is in a desperate situation as she faces the forces of communism; but if the concept of the commonwealth, which has now been proven to be the right one, can be grasped by the minds of the coloured races everywhere, the commonwealth shall indeed have greater days in the future than in all its glorious history.
It is not in the name or title of the sovereign, it is not in title that the strength of our country within the commonwealth consists. It is not in constitutions, not in unification under a central authority that the commonwealth is strong and vital, but it is in that relationship of heart and soul to which the Prime Minister referred as having been characteristic of the last meeting of the prime ministers in London.
I want to see the commonwealth strengthened in heart and soul. In the last few days we have shown what our attitude is not only to the people of Britain but also to the people of Holland and Belgium whence many of our citizens have come. The members of the commonwealth are united in their devotion to freedom. Each realizes that each is indeed each other's keeper, each is filled with pride in our heritage in this year of the coronation and the formal dedication of Her Majesty to the service of her peoples everywhere.
I pass this on to the Prime Minister through you, sir, as an idea that I have embraced, and I ask him whether it would not be in accord-
Royal Style and Titles Act ance with our history and our traditions and the concepts inherent in the recent developments of commonwealth relations that we should make Her Majesty acquainted with the fact that we as her subjects in Canada would like to see her consort, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, created a prince of the commonwealth to bind us together ever closer in heart and soul and to have in him as in her a link with all parts of the commonwealth.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, as the Prime Minister has indicated, this bill, though a very short one, is very important. It not only deals with Her Majesty's royal style and titles, but it is a bill which is symbolic in a number of ways. One of the most interesting points of symbolism in it, as I see it, is the fact that we in parliament have the privilege and are called upon to deal with a measure of this kind. The fact that we are dealing with this bill symbolizes the strength of our nation and of the commonwealth of which we are a part. It also symbolizes the strength of our parliamentary institutions, and the capacity of our form of government for growth and development. The hon. member for Lake Centre has already referred to that. I should like to underline what he said and to add something that I think is appropriate on this occasion by saying how grateful I believe most Canadians are that we have the parliamentary form of government which we inherited from the United Kingdom.
To me the most important and significant aspect of the parliamentary form of government is the fact that we have the executive branch of the government here on the floor of parliament with the rest of us who represent the people of the constituencies of this country. Obviously I have in mind the fact that in some countries there are other forms of government where the executive is apart from the elected representatives of the people. We on the floor of parliament have many a quarrel with the executive, and we shall no doubt continue to have these quarrels. Nevertheless, my point is that it is a matter of great satisfaction to us, and it is a matter of great significance to the people of Canada, that we have the executive here on the floor of parliament, where we can get at the heads of the various departments of government and where they must accept their responsibility to parliament.
So, Mr. Chairman, as I say, this bill is one that has symbolism in that it goes beyond the subject matter that is covered in the actual terms of the clauses now before us. We should on occasions such as this remind ourselves of the privilege that is ours of having inherited the parliamentary system
1570	HOUSE OF
Royal Style and Titles Act of government; and the privilege that is ours of being part of this great commonwealth of nations, the unity of which is symbolized by Her Majesty, for whom our people have such respect and affection.
I am sure the Prime Minister caught the mood of this House of Commons when he spoke as he did in introducing this measure. That applies to what he said as to our relations with the crown; and I am sure, too, that we are all in complete agreement with the way in which the Prime Minister devoted a good part of his remarks to the question of India and of the special place that realm holds in the commonwealth of nations. It is not only a matter of pride to the rest of us in the commonwealth that India is a member of this family, but I think it is very true to say that the way in which the relationships between the United Kingdom and India were handled-and there is particular credit coming to the government that was in power at the time India was given her independence -may have made a real contribution to the peace of the world. Indeed, I am satisfied that in decades yet to come historians will look back and say that that was one of the most important incidents in relations between east and west, namely the way in which arrangements were made so that the countries of India, Pakistan and Ceylon might withdraw from the former arrangement and yet still be members of this family of nations which we know as the commonwealth.
So, Mr. Chairman, as I say, we are not only celebrating on this occasion the strength of the parliamentary institutions which we enjoy; we are celebrating the moral strength of the commonwealth to which we belong, and which we believe may yet play an even greater part in spreading peace and human accord throughout the world.
While I am commenting on the matter there are one or two other thoughts that occur to me which perhaps I might mention in this connection. It so happened that at 2.30 this afternoon when His Honour the Speaker was leading the house in the usual prayer with which the sitting is opened, my thoughts followed exactly the line of those of a colleague of mine who sits near me. We happened to compare notes afterwards and both of us were of the opinion, and it does seem to fit in at this time when changes are being made in the royal style and titles, that there are some phrases in the prayer that is used to open the daily session of the house that might likewise be altered.
I have looked in Beauchesne and I find that there was a committee appointed away back in 1877 to consider and report upon the


desirability of using a form of prayer in this chamber. I do not know whether that form has been changed at any time since, except to substitute the names of the new sovereigns. What occurred to us in particular was the continuing use of the phrase "may she vanquish all her enemies".
A few minutes ago the member for Lake Centre said in very appropriate language, I thought, that the title of the sovereign has never been a boastful one. A few other words which I took down earlier were those of the Prime Minister when he said that the commonwealth is in his view an effective instrument for the good of free mankind throughout the whole world.
It seems to me that these words to which I have just referred, and which are still uttered in the prayer every day, are not in keeping with the attitude taken by the United Kingdom, by Canada or by other members of this commonwealth. Our desire today is not to "vanquish enemies"; our desire today is to make friends out of enemies and to build a world of peace and human accord the world around.
I do not propose it as something which needs to be attended to overnight but I would hope that thought might be given to considering the language of that prayer and bringing it more into line with the spirit and aims- in terms of peace and human brotherhood- that characterize the various nations of this commonwealth.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps the hon. member, who I understand is a member of the committee which we have just set up to consider the rules of the house, would ask his colleagues on the committee to consider the matter which he has just been dealing with; and I am sure a recommendation of that committee would also receive very careful consideration from the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the Prime Minister. I had it in mind but I am glad he made the suggestion first, for reasons that are obvious.
Another thought that occurred to me, particularly while the member for Lake Centre was speaking, concerns a matter that was raised the other day by the hon. member for Cartier, who I think was paying particular attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre when he referred to equality of our citizenship. I do not wish to interject into this debate any unkind remarks or unduly critical remarks toward any one section or part of our country, so I will just leave it at that. The matter is on the record in the terms used by the hon. member for Cartier the other day, but I will say that, at a time when we are celebrating the strength of our parliamentary set-up and our democratic way,

together with the strength of our citizenship being equal throughout the various nations of the commonwealth, we should stand on guard against any moves in our own country that would bring about any discrimination or any difference between one citizen and another. I am glad to note, Mr. Chairman, the support which the Prime Minister gives to me in that plea as well.
There is one other suggestion that I make at this time. It may not meet with the same unanimity that some of my other suggestions have been accorded today, nevertheless I think it would be the view of a great many people if not the majority of the people of this country. This bill arises naturally because we have a new sovereign in the person of Elizabeth II, whose recent visit to this country was enjoyed by all our people, and because of her forthcoming coronation, in which there is great interest throughout this country. So far as I can ascertain, when the various countries of the commonwealth are represented at the coronation ceremonies by the prime ministers and other heads of our various states, all other parts of the commonwealth except Canada will go there with a distinctive flag. It seems to me that it is a bit of a liability that our nation will suffer that lack. I know that to propose at this session of parliament, between now and June 2, that we should decide on a distinctive national flag would mean that there would have to be a committee set up, thousands of designs submitted, and we would have to go all through what we have been through before.


An hon. Member:: You would not get anywhere.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear one of my Tory friends say we would not get anywhere, but I would ask even those who would not agree with me on this point to consider rather strongly the situation that will obtain in London when Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, and all the rest, are present each with a distinctive flag-yet there will be no flag that stands specifically for Canada. Even if it is only on a temporary basis I suggest that something should be done about it. There flies from the peace tower of this very building, and has for a number of years, a flag which has in the upper lefthand corner the union jack. It is what is commonly known as the Canadian ensign. I believe it flies there because of an order in council which was passed some years ago designating that flag for that particular purpose. The suggestion I make-is the Prime Minister disagreeing?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The order in council designated that flag as the flag to be flown wherever other nations would be flying a
Royal Style and Titles Act distinctive national flag. It is flown not only here on the parliament buildings but on all the public buildings in Canada and all the Canadian embassies or offices abroad.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the point I am
making is met. Perhaps that order in council is wide enough to cover the suggestion I am making, namely, that when the Prime Minister and other representatives of Canada go to the coronation, if any flags are being flown there should be a distinctive flag for Canada.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: The order in council is
broad enough to have induced the government of the United Kingdom to have this flag flown on the Dorchester hotel in London whenever it is receiving a Canadian delegation as guests of the government in that hotel.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am very pleased to learn that my request has at least brought out the information the Prime Minister is now giving. I am very glad that some progress has been made in connection with this matter. I hope that it will not be too long until, like other members of this family of nations, we will have our own distinctive flag.
Other thoughts occur to one, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps that is enough for this occasion. On behalf of this group I simply say we are glad that we have the kind oi set-up in which it is parliament's right to deal with legislation of this kind. We welcome this opportunity to reaffirm our faith in the democratic way of life which is pari and parcel of our association with the commonwealth. We welcome this opportunity to reaffirm our belief in our parliamentary system of government as the one mos1 suited to our needs. We hope that as time goes on the needs of our people will be ever better served by that form of government


Mr. Low:: This bill, Mr. Chairman, is
indeed one which should be given the mosi earnest consideration by every member oi the committee. At this time I am glad tc be able to add just a word to the eloquem addresses delivered here this afternoon ir connection with the proposal concerning the royal style and titles. I compliment the Prime Minister upon the very high tone o: his address. I enjoyed it. It sets a mood or a high level, and certainly I am going tc do nothing to detract from that high level
It makes little or no difference, it seems what elements are used to constitute the title of Her Majesty the Queen so long a: those elements do indeed portray accuratelj the present relationship between the sover eign and the different parts of the common wealth. It seems to me that those that are

Royal Style and Titles Act outlined in section 1 of the bill do just that. As a consequence we are quite content to accept them and to use them in the future.
Our concern, as the hon. member for Lake Centre has so well said, is not so much with the words used as to see that our acts, deeds, thoughts and attitudes would uphold and sustain through the ages the purposes, ideals, character and traditions that have reached such a high level in the commonwealth over the centuries. I hope that those things will remain unchanged, and that nothing we do will at any time mar them or cause them to be less than the superlative heights to which they have risen in the past. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that I can say without any doubt or without any successful contradiction that we in this house all love our commonwealth. Many of us have looked upon it as the nation or the company of nations that has been described in various places in the Scriptures. We love the commonwealth not only for what it is but because we believe that it can yet be the greatest force in the world for peace. We believe that, particularly at this time when the world is in such danger from subversive forces like communism.
It seems to me there is one thing we would need to keep in mind if we are going to make the commonwealth the great force that we want it to be, and that is the warning that was uttered by Rudyard Kipling, the one-time poet laureate. It is contained in a verse from the Recessional, and it is a stanza that is not often seen these days. I do not know why, but it is not often seen. In that stanza he said, speaking of the members of the commonwealth:
If, drunk with sight of power, we loose Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe,
Such boastings as the Gentiles use.
Or lesser breeds without the Law-Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget-lest we forget!
I am satisfied, Mr. Chairman, that our commonwealth has a tremendous destiny yet to fulfil. It will fulfil that destiny, provided we always keep in mind the humility the poet had in mind when he penned those lines. On behalf of the group I represent, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to join with the Prime Minister and those who have spoken In expressing our gratitude for our membership in the commonwealth, for our citizenship n this great land, and for our great and loble sovereign. We agree with the wording if the style and title as set out in this bill.


Mr. Crestohl:: Mr. Chairman, we were all emotionally stirred by the doctrines so magni-icently enunciated by the Prime Minister. I ;annot resist emphasizing most respectfully ;he remarkable nobility of his language. I
[Mr Low.]

should like to paraphrase his thoughts into these three doctrines. We are all equal children of one God. We are all equal and loyal subjects of one beloved sovereign. We are all equal and loyal citizens of one country, and all these are we, Mr. Chairman, irrespective of race, colour and religion, to the glory of this great country.
(Translation):


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to add a few words. I rejoice at the fact that there are no differences of opinion between us as far as the crown is concerned. The crown is a symbol of the unity which we all desire, without exception. I am confident that the bonds of unity will become stronger and more sincere because of everyone's attachment for such a young, beautiful and gracious Queen.
(Text) :


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, it is not my
intention to extend the discussion of this measure beyond adding one or two thoughts to those which have already been expressed. As has been said already, it is not so much the name or the title as the reality that is of concern to every one of us. We have had deep and convincing evidences of that reality in the uniform expression of affection, regard and loyalty that came from every part of Canada at the time our present Queen came to the throne last year under such tragic circumstances. We have had further evidences of that reality in the manner in which the people of Canada now join in welcoming the coronation of this young lady as the living embodiment of those decencies that are represented in the occupation of that throne. The reality is one of respect for the great traditions which were never greater than they are today. The reality is one of loyalty and affection for an institution that has come to mean so much to us and to the whole free world. It is in institutions of this kind that the hope of people now enslaved depends in a great measure at this hour.
We might differ as to the exact wording that would best express our own thoughts as to this remarkable association, but it is recognized by hon. members of this house that the measure now before us interprets that agreement which the Prime Minister has described as resulting from the discussions which took place in London last December. That agreement having been reached and the new titles having been announced, there would seem to be little advantage to be gained in seeking to redefine what is not so much a matter of definition as rather one of affection, respect and loyalty.
For that reason it is not my thought to deal with any of those discussions which

doubtless took place at the time the prime ministers met last December. Undoubtedly the different names and titles that might be in our minds today were before them. Agreement was reached, and to us that agreement is a matter of great importance at this time. I am sure that we all join with the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Lake Centre and the others who have spoken in recalling with real sentiments of satisfaction the fact that the great nation of India, with the second largest population of any nation in the world, has seen fit to continue the association of that great and historic people with the other nations which make up the commonwealth. So also has the nation of Pakistan, with a population more than six times that of Canada, decided to continue that association under these new terms.
Whether we might have felt some measure of satisfaction if other names and titles had been chosen, the reality remains that India and Pakistan as well as all the other nations of the commonwealth have continued as members of this great fellowship of free people; and to every one of us today that is the most important fact before us. If, out of that measure of common agreement which has been reached, the foundation has been laid for a continuing association of a similar type of democracy in Asia, in Europe, in North America and in Australasia, then undoubtedly one of the greatest achievements in all history will have been accomplished. I should think that nothing could offer a better example to the rest of the peoples than to see India, Pakistan and the other nations and territories of Asia joining with us in this ancient fellowship at this time under whatever names and titles may be chosen. For us the reality-the Queen-which is expressed in these terms is the reality we wish to preserve.
There is only one thought I would wish to add to what has already been said. On an earlier occasion, shortly after the present Queen had visited us as Princess Elizabeth, I placed before the Prime Minister and the members of this house the suggestion that consideration be given to introducing the appropriate legislative enactment which would declare that she is a citizen of Canada. Now that she is the Queen of Canada, as has been pointed out by the Prime Minister, I repeat that suggestion. While it would not seem that it would be a part of the measure now before us, I urge that as a symbolism of her special relationship to the Canadian people as the Queen of Canada there be, in the Canadian Citizenship Act or elsewhere, a declaration which will place before our people the fact that, in the acceptance of that
Royal Style and Titles Act title, she is a Canadian citizen enjoying all the rights, privileges and other associations that go with that name.
I should think that to those people of other lands who have come here who have choser to become Canadians and who accept then citizenship with pride, it would be an addec symbolism of the greatness of that citizenship if they knew that they shared tha common citizenship with the Queen o: Canada, the Queen of the commonwealth.


Mr. Pearson:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a few words to this discussion which if I may say so, has been carried on a such a high level and which evokes in u: a sense of history, a sense of constitutiona development and indeed a realization of th( continuity of our history and the depth o: its roots.
The bill before the house deals with thf royal style and titles, and I should like ti say a few words about it, Mr. Chairman against the background of our constitutiona development. It is a long time between thi date which the hon. member for Lake Centr mentioned, the date when King Egbert, think it was, in the ninth century proclaimei himself as king of the English-and 195 when we are by this bill approving of < royal style and title for Her Majesty a Queen of Canada and head of the common wealth-head indeed of the peoples of tb commonwealth. During that long interva from 828 there have been very many change in the royal style and titles. In feudal time the personal relation between the monarc] and his people tended to give way to th power which he exercised over the land under his domain and his titles changei accordingly. In later years, as the hereditar; rights of kings lapsed, there has evolved th practice of defining the title by an amend ment of the parliament in London. Stl later, when the overseas possessions of th crown began to take on greater importance the ministers of the crown in London adopte the practice of consulting, through the coloni; governors, with the ministers of the variou colonies, before making changes in the title
By 1926 the royal style and titles had be come one of the subjects for discussion i the periodic commonwealth conference which were held in London, and the tit! has changed since then, as has been pointe out this afternoon, as a result of decisior reached at those conferences. After th Statute of Westminster, as has been pointe out by the hon. member for Lake Centr not only were the members of the commor wealth consulted on proposed changes but th subsequent assent of their parliaments wi required to make such changes effective.
1574	HOUSE OF
Royal Style and Titles Act The bill before the house, which is one of such importance, in a sense fulfils the ambition of Sir John A. Macdonald that Canada should be recognized as a kingdom. Students 3f Canadian history are familiar with lis efforts at the London conference of L866-67 to persuade the British government )f that day to agree that the country, to be 'ormed by the union of the provinces of Janada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, should bear the title "Kingdom of Canada." \t that time relations between the United States and the United Kingdom were not as solidly based on good understanding and co->peration as they are at the present time. 3ecause of the strong tide of republicanism n the United States, born I suppose of the itruggle for independence against a mon-irchy, the view in London and of the home government was that it would not be wise mnecessarily to offend that feeling by allow-ng the new Canadian federation to call it-:elf a kingdom, a designation which it was hought, and possibly with some justice, night have stirred up deep antagonism in he United States. Nevertheless, it is interring to recall that Sir John A. Macdonald, vho did not give up easily, continued to >ress for the adoption of the word "kingdom" ight up until the final draft of the British lorth America Act. The earlier drafts of anuary and February, 1867, produced at the jondon conference, do indeed bear witness o his tenacity on this point. There is I inderstand a draft of the British North America Act in the handwriting of Sir John L Macdonald which, from internal evidence, ppears to be earlier than any of the drafts ctually considered at the conference. In his draft, in what I believe is his handwriting, the word "kingdom" is used through-ut, and scribbled on the margin of it are he following alternatives-in case there had o be a choice from many:	"Province, de-
>endency, colony, dominion, vice-royalty and ingdom." Obviously Sir John had been urning these over in his mind and had con-luded that "kingdom" was the word-and e used it throughout the draft-that would e the most fitting appellation for the new ta'e which he and his colleagues were strives to establish in British North America.
In the meantime the law officers of the rown, apparently unaware of the views of *ir John himself, had been at work on their raft of the bill, and on January 23, 1867, hey placed that draft before the conference, t provided that the provinces of British forth America should be united, and I uote from it now words familiar to all of s: "into one colony with such name as Her lajesty thinks fit." Well, the word "colony" 

in that draft from the law officers of the crown found no favour with the delegates of British North America and they substituted the word "dominion" for it. Thus the draft of February 2, 1867, provided, and I quote from it:	"The said provinces . . .
shall form and be one united dominion under the name of the kingdom of Canada." It is interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, that in this draft the word "dominion" was not introduced as an alternative to kingdom. The name of the proposed dominion was to be the kingdom of Canada, and until February 9, 1867, this name was retained in the various drafts; but on that later date Sir John gave up the fight with the home authorities and agreed with the proposal that the provinces should "form and be one dominion under the name of Canada".
It is clear from this record that Sir John A. Macdonald's acceptance of the description "dominion" was by no means intended to exclude the eventual recognition that Canada was to be styled a "kingdom," even though at the time it was considered inappropriate to include this word in the name of the new country-our country.
If this great Canadian patriot and statesman were present in the house today I venture to think that he would welcome with much satisfaction the introduction of this legislation, which places the name of Canada in the royal style and titles as one of Her Majesty's realms alongside that of the United Kingdom.
The idea of designating Canada as a kingdom did not die with Sir John. It is possibly not quite so well known to students of history that when in 1901 a change in the royal style and titles was being contemplated the designation was given careful consideration again.
The exchange of telegrams between the secretary of state for the colonies of that day, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, and the colonial governors who were instructed to consult their ministers on the question of the new royal style and titles, reveals that the colonial secretary-and I quote from his dispatch of the day-was "very desirous that the separate and greatly increased importance of the colonies should be recognized if possible."
The suggestion made at that time for revision of the title was that the king who was acceding to the throne, King Edward VII, might be called, "King of Great Britain and Ireland and of Greater Britain beyond the Seas".


John George Diefenbaker: Who was colonial secretary then?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Joseph Chamberlain.
This suggestion from London evoked mixed responses from the colonies, as they then were, and alternative proposals were put forward with the result that the words which have become fairly familiar to us were adopted, not by unanimous agreement in the first instance but as a result of messages that passed back and forward between the colonies and London. The title adopted was "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas".
At that time there was a definite expression of opinion on the part of certain colonies, including Canada, which at that time through the Earl of Minto made certain suggestions with regard to the new title by which the name of Canada would be specifically designated. However, these were not followed then, and the title was adopted which remained in force for many years after 1901. It is interesting to note that in the correspondence of 1901 which led to the acceptance of the word "dominions" that word was almost synonymous, although not so subsequently, with the word "colony".
The change that was made at that time is of some significance because of the distinction which developed between the colonies and the self-governing colonies which became dominions. The extent of this distinction between colony and dominion is emphasized further when we consider that prior to 1901, with the exception of the addition in 1876 of the title "Empress of India", the possessions of the crown outside the British Isles, although included in the settlements of the crown, received no recognition whatever in the royal title. It was recognition of the importance of the overseas territories that led to the passing of the royal titles act in 1901 which authorized the crown to make such additions to the existing title as it saw fit. The title was then proclaimed as we know it, "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas". So it remained for many years.


John George Diefenbaker: What was Sir Wilfrid
Laurier's suggestion in 1901?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think I have that information actually with me. I know that the government of the day did object to the suggestion that the phrase should be "Greater Britain beyond the Seas". The Earl of Minto, replying to that suggestion on February 6, 1901-I think this will answer the question
Royal Style and Titles Act of my hon. friend-said that his ministers appreciated the inquiry from London, and then he continued:
They entertain some doubt as to the appropriateness of the expression "Greater Britain", which, while convenient colloquially, is perhaps hardly definite or intelligible enough for such a formal purpose. They would therefore suggest for consideration the expediency of retaining the title of King of Great Britain and Ireland and Emperor of India, and adding the words "King of Canada, Australasia, South Africa, and all the British Dominions beyond the Seas";
In other words, the Canadian government of that day suggested the inclusion in the king's title, not only of the specific designation of Canada but the specific designation of Australasia and South Africa. The dispatch from the Earl of Minto continued:
-if the mention of greater colonies be deemed unfair to remainder of smaller colonies, or otherwise objectionable, the addition to title might be ''King of all the British Dominions beyond the Seas".
That was the suggestion put forward tc London at that time. We now reach the situation as i-t was at the time of the London conference of 1926 when the title was found tc be out of date because of the changed position of Ireland. A further alteration in the title was found to be required and the wore "Ireland" was so interpreted as to distinguish geographically between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland. Under the geographica: umbrella of "British dominions beyond the seas," the independent countries, Australia Canada, New Zealand and South Africa were lumped together with the colonies anc other dependencies of the British crown. Ir spite of certain misgivings as to the appro priatehess of this title, it has remained anc was reaffirmed by a United Kingdom statute and proclamation in 1936 at the time of the accession of King George VI.
Following the second world war the neec for a further change in the royal style anc titles became more apparent and wher the prime ministers met, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, last December anc on the eve of the coronation of Her Majesty it was decided to make this change. The equality of status of the countries of the commonwealth, if it needed further emphasis was fully revealed by the part played bj each in the second world war. The entrj into the commonwealth of three fully inde pendent Asian states, India, Pakistan anc Ceylon, not only greatly enhanced it: membership but widened the basis o commonwealth association. The establish ment of the republic of Ireland outside the commonwealth made it clearly necessary t( undertake a revision of the geographica
1576	HOUSE OF
Royal Style and Titles Act content of the title which had been agreed to only a few years earlier. There were other equally cogent reasons for a change, not the least of which was the need for recognition in the title of the sovereign's position as head of the commonwealth, a designation which had been agreed to a year or so before.
Therefore in recent years members of the commonwealth have been considering, by exchanges of correspondence between governments and by meetings in London, ways and means of bringing the title into conformity with the constitutional relations which now exist within the commonwealth. The discussions which took place last December when the prime ministers of the commonwealth assembled in London were the result of long and careful consideration of how changes could be brought about in the royal style and titles which would make them appropriate to and practicable for the current commonwealth relations, while maintaining the tradition and dignity associated with them.
Recognizing that the present 'title was not in accord with the current constitutional relations within the commonwealth, they concluded, after full consideration, that in the present stage of development of the commonwealth it would be in accord with the established constitutional practice-this represents an important change from any previous consideration of this matter-that each member could subsequent to the conference use for its own purposes a form of title which suited its own particular circumstance but which retained a substantial element which was common to all. [DOT]
So agreement was reached, in a sense, to iisagree. They agreed on the various forms of the title which would be used in various parts of the commonwealth. But they also agreed that each of these titles should have a common element in the description )f the sovereign as Queen of her other realms and territories and as head of the :ommonwealth. I think it is of great significance-


John George Diefenbaker: And which is common to all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes. That was our common 5lement of agreement at a time when it was agreed to disagree with respect to other parts pf the title. It is of great significance, I think, Mr. Chairman, that the words which ire common to all titles in all parts of Her Majesty's realms are the words "head of the lommonwealth". It was in 1949 that agreement was reached in London that this phrase, bead of the commonwealth, should describe


a new relationship of the crown to the commonwealth which was made necessary by the inclusion, in the commonwealth, of a republic. I recall, because I had the great privilege of being present at these discussions, the very earnest effort that was made at that time, in the best traditions of adaptability and flexibility in the commonwealth association, to find an expression-something which would certainly not be possible in strict legality as it would have been conceived by constitutional lawyers twenty years ago-under which we could include in our commonwealth association a country with the largest group of people in that association, India, which had declared itself a republic.
That was done, and the expression "head of the commonwealth" was then used in proclaiming the accession of Queen Elizabeth II in the United Kingdom. This is, as I have said, one of the principal common elements in the varying titles which have now been agreed upon. Our Queen then, Mr. Chairman, is head of a commonwealth whose members include a republic of which she is not Queen and in which she has no constitutional function to perform. That, I suggest, is striking evidence not only of the adaptability of the commonwealth to changing conditions but of the political realism and ingenuity of the peoples and the governments who make up the commonwealth. It is striking evidence of the adaptability of this association to new conditions and of our power to adjust our constitutional practices and our constitutional procedures to these new conditions. It is one more proof, if proof is needed, that membership in the commonwealth imposes no limitation whatever on a nation's control over all its affairs, including its constitutional development as a republic or as a monarchy.
For certain members of the commonwealth -and this certainly includes Canada-the monarchical form is preferable because it symbolizes in a very real way the unbroken continuity in our history and the development of our political institutions from Magna Carta to the session of the House of Commons in Ottawa today. The crown under the monarchical principle also lends, I think, stability and dignity to our national life, and I am sure we all agree that that is important in a democratic system based on the free and active play of party controversies. The crown as head of the state and as represented in our country, standing above all such controversies, commanding and deserving the respect and loyalty and affection of us all, ensures a more solid and secure

foundation for national development than might otherwise be the case under some other form of democratic government.
Yet it is good to know that the commonwealth, with its monarchical and its republican membership, is flexible enough to include Asian as well as western members, and a republic as well as monarchies. This becomes an essential feature in the new and important role which the commonwealth now performs, a bridge between the west and Asia at a time when there are too few such bridges and when they are more important to -the world's history than ever before. All those who believe in co-operation between states must be heartened by this new opportunity of service which is afforded the members of the commonwealth family, and they must be heartened also by the fact the crown will continue to play a vital part in that association in the future as it has in the past.
At London, as I have said, it was agreed last December to differ, if necessary, in the titles and style of the crown, but we all agreed, without difficulty and without difference, in respect of our determination to pursue within the commonwealth those ideals for which the crown so finely stands-peace, dignity and ordered progress.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read
the third time? Now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps hon. members
would like to rise now and sing "God Save the Queen".
Whereupon the members of the house rose and sang
God Save the Queen.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) moved: that the house go into committee of supply.
South Saskatchewan River Project



IRRIGATION-SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER DAM

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this motion affords to members of parliament an opportunity to assert their traditional right to bring before the executive any matter that they believe is of interest to the people of their country, the basis being that supply shall not be granted until causes of complaint have been fully discussed. It is in that spirit I intend to deal with a matter of transcendent importance to the people of western Canada, and in particular the peoples of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
I bring this matter up on this occasion to give parliament an opportunity of discussing a question pertinent to the prosperity of western Canada. I commence by pointing out that the questions of irrigation and of power in Saskatchewan and in western Canada generally have been matters of constant reference for several generations. I go back to the days of the Palliser expedition and also to the recommendations made as far back as 1856, when even then it was suggested, in the diaries of early explorers, that the area which we now know as the Palliser triangle, extending as well beyond Canada in the general direction of Salt Lake City, might in the future be subject to settlement; but that in order to settle it there would be required the benefits of irrigation for the reason that from generation to generation, periodically, drought has come to that area.
This matter has been before the House of Commons on a number of occasions. It has been discussed throughout the years in the legislature of the province of Saskatchewan. As I say, it has been brought to the House of Commons periodically since 1938 when the late John R. MacNicol dealt at length with the problems of irrigation. It has been before us year by year since that time.
I am not going to go into the references by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) throughout the years, although that could be done later on if necessary. Throughout the years he has been constantly bringing to the attention of the people of Saskatchewan the need for irrigation, the demand for power, and has pictured Saskatchewan and other areas within the Palliser triangle as areas that might well in future be of the type of the Essen area in Germany, power resulting in industrial development and irrigation resulting in areas arid today blooming as the rose,
As far back as 1946 the minister, speaking at a meeting that year, as reported in the Regina Leader-Post of April 27, said:
The dominion government had already mapped out a program, and it was a program involving

South Saskatchewan River Project $110 million. This would be used largely in providing for the storage of water and partly for the distribution of this water where needed.
The dominion government thus did not need the endorsation of the South Saskatchewan river development association to begin work on the South Saskatchewan river. It had already decided to go through with it.
Later in the summer of 1946, again speaking in the province of Saskatchewan, the Minister of Agriculture was reported as saying:
-a decision would be reached on where the dam on the South Saskatchewan should be placed. It would be on one of three sites between the Elbow and Saskatchewan.
As soon as the site had been finally decided upon, contracts would be let and work would proceed immediately.
Throughout the years his advocacy of this project was in keeping with the words that he was reported to have used the other day in Winnipeg on the occasion of an interview with the press, excepting that there were no words that required deletion and the description was "blank, blank".


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not use language of that kind.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I say with respect to that alleged interview. I, at least, have never known the minister to use language that had to be abbreviated in order to make it parliamentary. But his language was always most definite. The dam, the construction, and the irrigation were in immediate prospect, and generally the project was just around the corner.
In the by-election at Rosthern in 1948, on October 18, the minister is reported as having said that the issue of the campaign, the main task would be to push the building of the dam as soon as possible. On that occasion the Minister of Agriculture drew a picture of the development of irrigation and power on the Saskatchewan river that would result in industrial and agricultural development similar to that which I have already referred to in the Essen area of Germany.
On October 20, 1948, Mr. Tucker, speaking in the same by-election said that support had already been received from two federal cabinet ministers both of whom had expressed their favourable attitude towards the project; and he referred to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) and to another minister.
On October 23,	1948, the Minister of
Agriculture said:
If this part of the country could be turned into an industrial as well as an agricultural area, it would be possible for it to support twice the population that it does now. Cheap power is the "open sesame" to industrial growth. With a dam at its


back door almost assured, and with the resultant cheap water power available in the not too distant future, Saskatoon stands at the gateway to new and unprecedented development.
And so on and so on through the years. The dam was the issue in that by-election when my hon. friend from Rosthern (Mr. Boucher) was elected. He was elected, but we did not get the dam. In 1949 it was again an issue.
There were various discussions during the years. The P.F.R.A. people went ahead with an investigation; and there are men in the P.F.R.A. who, with long training, ability and experience, know the needs of Saskatchewan. They know the needs of irrigation and they have periodically made reports to the effect that the building of this dam was not only feasible but was necessary. Moneys have been expended month by month during the last few years to determine whether or not this project should be proceeded with; and the reports by the P.F.R.A. were as clear as they were definite that this project was a proper and a feasible one. The reports so given raised the hopes of people within the province.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will take up consideration of public and private bills.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 2. to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).
Milton Fowler Gregg: In rising to speak to this bill, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that his introduction of it has served a very useful purpose because it has evoked an interesting debate. I should like to thank all those who took such an active part in that debate.
My hon. friend's outline of the parliamentary history of this legislative proposal since 1948 was a very fair one. I was glad that, although he thought it necessary to state that the language which forms the main part of the bill was drafted by officers of the Department of Labour, he did not try to read any unfounded significance into that fact. As a matter of fact, they did the same thing in polishing up the wording of the bill in its original form.

The hon. member spoke about Liberals standing for union security. He again made much of that fact, and it is a fact. I am one of those about whom he spoke, and I do believe in union security. I see nothing wrong in union security measures, even though I much prefer those that are freely agreed upon by labour and management. I am very pleased indeed when I learn that new collective agreements have been signed providing for union security for the first time, or extending for the second and third time the scope of previous provisions. I am pleased when these agreements have been reached freely by the two parties. My reasons for feeling that way are, first, that I am in favour of collective bargaining; second, I believe in the value of having strong and stable labour unions in Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are a good many members in this house who sincerely do not want to see employers compelled by legislation to initiate a check-off in their plants, any more than they want to see a prohibition against the union security measures in our legislation here. The question has been asked as to whether it is necessary or desirable that a responsible union should derive its stability from government imposed conditions rather than freely negotiated agreements. That, I think, is the question to which we need to give a great deal of thought and study.
In closing his speech on the motion for second reading of the bill, my hon. friend said he was encouraged by the fact that this principle has now been accepted by the railway companies and by the union representatives of many of their employees. I would say to him that the only principle the railways or the employees accepted was the principle of a negotiated check-off, freely agreed upon in the process of collective bargaining. The principle contained in the provisions of Bill No. 2 is the principle of a legislated check-off, with the word ''voluntary" applying only to the individual employee and having no reciprocal connotation for the employer.
Before I leave the subject of the settlement between the railways and their nonoperating employees, I wish to express a word of commendation to Mr. Justice Kellock and the other members of the conciliation board, to the officials representing management for the railways, and to the trade union leaders who represented the employees. Those non-operating railway labour organizations sought the adoption of the union shop, but reached agreement with management jpon the check-off of union dues.
Industrial Relations
My information is that the railways have agreed to the compulsory check-off of union dues for all members of the bargaining units for which the non-operating unions hold collective agreements, regardless of whether or not the individuals affected are members of the unions. This formula goes considerably beyond the provisions of Bill No. 2, but the important thing to remember is that it was freely negotiated.
It should not be forgotten that our law dealing with industrial relations already makes pretty secure the position of unions which by their own effectiveness and merit are able to enlist the loyalty of a majority of the workers in any given bargaining unit. The right of employees to joint unions and to carry on their lawful activities is protected, and interference and coercion on the part of employers through unfair labour practices are prohibited under penalty.
Earlier in this debate my parliamentary assistant (Mr. Cote) and also the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald) made some pertinent references to the Maintenance of Railway Operation Act which terminated the railway strike of 1950. There was universal agreement that all the elements of compulsion in that bill should disappear, and should constitute no precedent.
I am glad to say that the compulsory features of that statute have long since passed into limbo, and the parties are to be commended for having reverted to orderly collective bargaining, with enough good will on both sides to work out a settlement without disturbing industrial peace.
By any fair standard I think it will be agreed that our labour relations act is working out well. From here on I do not think any of us want parliament to impose statutory obligations upon employers and trade unions which might throw out of balance the factors of compromise and cooperation which are essential in collective bargaining. In order that collective agreements may be freely negotiated it is necessary to have a climate of good will, free from any excessive compulsion. It is that climate of good will, of mutual confidence, of willingness to conduct sincere negotiations, that the Department of Labour is ever seeking to encourage.
There are two schools of thought reflecting divergent philosophies on this matter. The views of one group are that the matter of check-off of dues is one which, in common with other conditions of employment, should be dealt with by the processes of free collective bargaining, and that legislative interference with those processes will not operate in the long run to the best interests

Industrial Relations
of the trade unions and their members. The other school of thought, as expressed in th-bill, is that the matter of the check-off of union dues is one which should be remove: from the collective bargaining field and disposed of by legislative enactment.
My parliamentary assistant, speaking of this bill on January 23 in this house, gave, in my opinion, a very clear analysis of the arguments related to this legislative proposal. For some time now the parliamentary assistant has been taking an active part, with my deputy minister and senior departmental officials, in studying the results of experience so far gained under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
The results of those studies may well lead in the future to proposals for amendments to the act. I do think, however, that any amendments made to this act ought to be most carefully considered and should be brought forward from time to time in groups rather than one by one in a haphazard fashion. It may be that at some future time, when a group of such amendments are brought forward, something along the lines of this bill may find its place amongst them. But we can afford, I think, to go slowly in the knowledge that the degree of industrial accord within our country is not necessarily measured by the number of laws we make on labour relations, but rather is it measured by the good will and determination of the parties concerned to find a fair solution based upon mutual confidence.
In view of the interest in this matter and having regard to the diverging views expressed, I believe that before this house is asked to vote on the principle of Bill No. 2 the bill should receive further and careful study by the competent committee of this house. I would therefore move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier):
That Bill No. 2 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss this from the point of view of the proposal that is now made to refer the matter before the house to a committee. In explaining why he was introducing the amendment which he moved, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) pointed out that he did so with the idea that this would give an opportunity to consider the matter at the appropriate time. I understood him to say that this might then be dealt with at the time; that a group of amendments could be brought forward on some other occasion. If that is the situation, Mr. Speaker, the acceptance of the amendment as it now stands simply means that this proposal is shelved and that no positive steps are to be taken to have a review of the act, which is long overdue.
It will be recalled that on other occasions we have proposed that there should be a general review of this act. One of the questions that arise in regard to any single amendment of this kind is that the most desirable practice is to have a general examination of the whole act, because patching up

Industrial Relations
the act in one spot or another may not produce the desired results. In the end, as has happened on a number of other occasions, an unwieldy and sometimes incoherent act may result, and clauses introduced into the act by way of amendment from time to time may easily conflict with each other when they subsequently are interpreted by the courts or elsewhere, and they may in fact defeat the very spirit of the act itself. Often a few words introduced without regard to the whole act and the intention of the act have had the effect of defeating the very purpose for which the amendment was introduced.
If the recommendation which the minister now makes is as I understood it from his words, then the proposal before the house is simply to be put in cold storage and at some unannounced date when a general consideration of this act is to take place it might then receive consideration or might not. If there is to be a reference of any kind to a committee to deal with the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, then I suggest that this is the appropriate time to ask once again that there be a general review of the whole act. I think the time is more than ripe for such a general review.
With what the minister has said in regard to labour relations generally I think there will not be general disagreement. What has been said in response to his proposal I think will also meet with general agreement. The time is long past when there is any doubt in anybody's mind that legislation must assure the right of employees in any occupation to associate themselves together in the union of their choice, and that they must have the right to bargain collectively under clearly defined provisions when that association has been established and recognized under the terms of recognition that are placed in statutory form.
I doubt whether there is anyone today who would challenge the basic right of the employees in our different industrial and other activities of this country. One of the things which should constantly be engaging our attention is the improvement of the methods of dealing with those disputes which may arise between employees and employers, facilitating the negotiation of agreements and generally assuring that with the increased understanding of the problems of employees and employers an increasing measure of harmony may constantly be found throughout the whole of the social structure of this country.
All too often the fact that a strike may be causing some inconvenience, or that a threatened strike may actually cause great concern, obscures the extremely important

fact that in the overwhelming majority of cases the discussions between employees and employers lead to satisfactory and harmonious agreements without attracting any public attention at all. Certainly the objective of all legislation of this kind should be to increase that ever-widening area within which agreement is being so generally found.
We have advanced a long way. This is something about which there need be no partisan differences of opinion. It should be recognized that those of different political persuasions in parliament and in the other legislative bodies of Canada have year by year advanced with the wider and better understanding of employee and employer relations which has come generally to all *our people.
Most Canadians recognize today that an essential feature of the development of our social structure is the pride in work well done which finds its expression in the desire of the representatives of the employees to assure that along with every advantage they may gain from the negotiations they carry on there may also be at all times the acceptance and appreciation of the basic worth of the individual. After all I think there will be no disagreement with the statement that work well done carries with it honourable recognition on the part of every Canadian, and that in the development of this nation of ours and the improvement in the social conditions in this country there is no place where pride in a task that is undertaken can more justifiably be found than in those places where the energy, the skill and the faithful work of the individuals contribute to the general advancement of the whole country.
We are all concerned with the improvement of those conditions; we are all concerned with the general improvement of the relationship which exists. In its simplest terms, a desirable labour relations act should seek to establish, first of all, the basic right of employees to associate themselves in trade unions for the purpose of bargaining with employers and obtaining for themselves adequate wages, fair working conditions and an assurance of advancement in return for work well done. The act should also make it possible for those who represent the worker to carry out their duties on behalf of the employees in an orderly, lawful and constructive manner so that the purpose of that association of employees may be fully recognized.
A good labour relations act should be based on the thought of the mutual respect which can be established between employees and employers whenever occasion comes to carry out collective bargaining. The whole act

should follow a constructive and integrated pattern which will from time to time bring into legislative form the advances which have taken place in the relations between the employees and employers. Such an act should also be constantly under review so that from the experience which has been gained under the legislation in existence improvements may be made.
This is a subject which is of great concern not only to the members of this legislature, to employees and employers, but to the people of Canada generally. Their welfare, their daily lives are in substantial measure related to the success of legislation of this kind in producing harmony rather than dispute. It should be remembered also that a larger number of workers in Canada than those affected by legislation passed here are affected directly by legislation passed in the various provincial legislatures. Very often what is done here will offer suggestions to the provincial legislatures. Very often provincial legislatures will not deem it advisable to advance beyond the steps that have been taken by the parliament of Canada because they know there is a recognition that on the national level legislation adopted here is something that is recognized in every part of Canada.
Therefore in seeking improvements in this legislation we also can take it for granted that whatever is done here is likely also to find a response in the provincial legislatures, which most certainly have advanced greatly year by year in the legislation affecting employee and employer relations in the provinces.
I think it demonstrates something of the increasing understanding of this subject by hon. members of this house that the amendment put forward by the minister has been accepted on this occasion. Nevertheless, since reference is to be made under that amendment to the select standing committee on industrial relations, I submit that this is a good time to go beyond that. In presenting his amendment the minister has indicated that he has in mind deferring action on this until such time as a group of amendments might be brought forward. I think this is the time when consideration should be given to amendments generally which will bring the whole act into conformity with modern practices and advance the harmony of relations between employees and employers in every way possible. With that in mind I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough):
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following words:
"with instructions that they have power to consider and to recommend amendments to the Indus-
Industrial Relations
trial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. with a view to bringing the act into conformity with current practices of employment in industry and of ensuring the greatest possible harmony between employees and employers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am not prepared to make any comment at this moment other than to say that it appears to me at first sight that the amendment to the amendment of the Minister of Labour is not in order. The principle of the bill is to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act with respect to introducing the check-off. Second reading of the bill has been moved, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) has moved that the subject matter be referred to the committee on industrial relations. The amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) seeks to give instructions to the committee. In any event, I will look up the point and perhaps have something to say later.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the amendment moved by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg). Knowing his feelings with respect to the bill, second reading of which has been moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I think the amendment is a constructive proposal on the part of the minister. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has already indicated that it is acceptable to him. I am not the sponsor of the bill, but it is acceptable to me because I believe it is a constructive way to deal with a matter of this kind.
I think most hon. members are opposed to compulsion, but we are not so opposed to compulsion as not to pass laws compelling people to do things. As a matter of fact pretty nearly all our laws are laws of compulsion. I think someone told me that under the British system, of which we are a part, what the law does not forbid the law allows, or what the law does not compel the law permits.
I think there is a great demand for the inclusion of the provision contained in the bill before us in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. That employers would oppose it is quite understandable because until very recent years employers have opposed organized labour in any shape or form. In that connection I remember the report made by the royal commission that investigated the textile industry around 1937 under the chairmanship of W. F. A. Turgeon. The report indicated that, with the exception of one, all the textile companies that were under review could see no reason whatsoever why they should deal with organized labour in their plants. I thought

Industrial Relations
I had conveniently in my file the statements made by the representatives of those companies, but I cannot put my hand on them now. However, I have another statement that is equally authoritative on this point.
In 1943 or 1944-I am not quite sure of the date-a commission was appointed to inquire into the national war labour board. The chairman of the commission was C. P. Mc-Tague, who was then a justice of the supreme court of the province of Ontario. The other two members were J. L. Cohen representing labour and the late Senator Bench representing employers. There were majority and minority reports, and I should like to read a quotation from the majority report which was signed by the chairman and the labour representative. It is as follows:
The recognition of the right-
The reference is to the right to bargain collectively.
-is far from universal. By far the majority of employers have resisted it over the period. Generally speaking, the great mass of employers, until comparatively recent years, have employed all weapons in their power to resist and discourage the trade union movement.
That was only too painfully recognized by those who were interested in these matters in the early years of the war. At that time almost all labour disputes were concerned with the recognition of the union in the particular employment. In order to overcome that, when the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act was drafted, right in the beginning compulsion was put on employers and employees to bargain collectively in good faith. If there is a general demand to go one step farther, and conditions being what they are, then in my opinion it is not something that should be turned down. However, I must say again that I agree with the attitude taken by the Minister of Labour, and I believe his proposal is a constructive way to deal with the matter.
I hope the industrial relations committee will meet this session, and that this matter can be discussed. If there is any desire to enlarge the scope of the committee I have no objection. It has not occurred to me that there is a general demand for a complete revamping or revision of the act, although there may be. I cannot say because I have not been as close to things in the past year or two as I would wish. I hope that this point at least can be discussed at this session. Then we would know whether sentiment was in favour of or against it. From my point of view the amendment of the minister is a much better solution than that the question should be put to a vote now and defeated as it has been on other occasions.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take very long to discuss this matter on this occasion. Since you have raised the question of whether or not the amendment to the amendment is in order, I shall confine my remarks to the amendment.
I do not think anyone in the house was at all surprised when the minister moved his amendment to the motion for second reading in order that the bill might be referred to the committee for discussion.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the question of the check-off is not being opposed as much now as it has been in days gone by. There are, as we all know, several provinces which have the compulsory check-off- Alberta and Saskatchewan, to mention two. Then, too, there are a great many provinces in which the companies themselves and the unions have now included in their contracts the voluntary check-off. So that does not seem to be such a great problem as it used to be.
I think it is wise on this occasion that the bill itself should be referred to the committee for further investigation. I think a lot of benefit can come from a thorough discussion of the matter in committee. Probably a more satisfactory conclusion can be reached in committee than in the house; but I trust that when this subject is returned from the committee back to the house, if the committee's recommendation is to include this provision in the act, the minister of today will not take the same attitude which Mr. Humphrey Mitchell took when he was minister of labour. When the bill came back to the house he took advantage of the occasion to have the decision of the committee rescinded by putting a motion before the house and having it carried. That would be unfortunate. I think it is unfortunate when any minister takes any method to get around decisions of a committee.
Certainly when a committee of this house has gone to great lengths to study a bill such as this and has decided that a certain clause should be included in the act, then I do not think the minister should bring it before the house only to have those decisions rescinded. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) would not do that. I feel quite confident that if the committee recommends, as it did in the past, that this check-off should be included in the legislation he will abide by the decision of the committee in that respect.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to oppose the minister's amendment to have this referred to the committee. We think it is the proper place for it to go, and it will be given consideration there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I should deal with the subamendment which was moved by the Leader of the Opposition and say that this subamendment certainly enlarges the scope of the amendment moved by the minister. In the second place I would say that the point which strikes me as most important is that this bill is to amend the act with respect to the check-off. The amendment of the Minister of Labour is relevant to the principle of the bill, in that it moves that the subject matter of that particular bill be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations. The subamendment of the Leader of the Opposition is not relevant to the amendment moved by the minister. It deals generally with the act which the bill before the house tends to amend in one particular only.
I do not have ready before me the various references, but I think one is citation 344. Another, regarding the enlargement of the scope of the amendment is, I think, 364. I do not wish to be unfair in judging this amendment, and were I not persuaded that it was out of order I would give it further study. However, so far as I can see from the study I have made in the short time at my disposal, basing my judgment on the two citations I have mentioned, I am satisfied that this amendment to the amendment is not in order.
Is the house ready for the question?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Before the question is put may I just say one word prompted by the remark of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) with whose words, in the main, I agree. He stated, I think, that the Minister of Labour might put this bill in cold storage. That is not the intention at all. In the department we are carrying out a review of the act, in conjunction with representatives of employers and employees in the light of what has been experienced in recent years. There will be recommendations and bills brought forward. I do not think they will be brought forward at this session but perhaps the Minister of Labour, whoever he is, at the next session or the session following will bring them in.
With respect to this Bill No. 2, I presume that if my hon. friend from Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald) is chairman of the committee as soon as my fair employment practices bill comes to the committee, he will also consider this one. I hope members of the committee on industrial relations may then have gotten over the most difficult part of their other committee duties and be able to study these two bills at this session and, if necessary, hear evidence from outside so that the subject matter of Bill No. 2 may be fully explored. It might thus become part of the other packet of amendments at such time as it is advisable to bring them in. I wanted to make that clear.
Industrial Relations


George Alexander Drew: Just so I may understand what the minister has in his mind I would direct a question to him having to do with the remark he has just made. He said that when the department was ready with a packet of amendments, then this matter would receive consideration.
I have accepted Your Honour's ruling and I recognize the difficulties of interpretation in these cases. I certainly have no thought of challenging that ruling, but what I have put forward in relation to the amendment does indicate my own belief that this will not widen the scope of the committee.
I would point out that when the committee is set up, unless there are restrictions placed upon its activities, I feel that if it were indicated by the minister that he desired wider examination the committee could carry out the suggestion I have made.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The committee is already set up and we can refer to it anything we desire.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question. Is it clear that if the committee wishes to do so it may make a recommendation back to the house on the subject matter of this bill at this session?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is within the power of the committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the amendment moved by the Minister of Labour agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
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) that the house go into committee of supply.

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, at five
o'clock I was dealing in general with the history of the South Saskatchewan river dam project, and some of the things that had taken place throughout the years. I had arrived at the point at which the prairie farm rehabilitation organization had determined that the proposition was feasible, and one that deserved consideration. Then there was no immediate action taken. The question arose as to whether or not the water could be secured, and whether Manitoba would be

South Saskatchewan River Project prepared to allow the diversion of the necessary waters that would be required in order to operate the irrigation plant.
The water board was set up, and apparently it arrived at a conclusion sufficiently favourable in any event to enable the project to be proceeded with. Following that, in 1949 a discussion took place in the house with reference to this matter. In order to indicate the united attitude of the opposition on that occasion, on March 29, 1949, I set out the view of the Progressive Conservative party regarding the project in these words, as they appear at page 2122 of Hansard:
This project-and it is admitted it will have the results that X have referred to-must not be used by any party as an instrument for political preferment. It should have the support of all parties to the end that it will be assured. It will be proceeded with immediately by the Progressive Conservative party when in power. Full consideration has been given to this matter. The leader of this party, having been apprised of the necessities incident to the situation not only in Saskatchewan but also in parts of Alberta and Manitoba, has given his undivided support to the plea that this work be proceeded with at the earliest date that engineering skill and capacity will permit. It should not be delayed four, seven, or ten years, but should be proceeded with now-* when this country is apparently entering into a cycle of possible unemployment, and when Saskatchewan is again facing the dangers inherent in drought. Only those who have lived in that province during the trying years of drought can appreciate that this is a work that, if proceeded with now, will give new hope to the people of Saskatchewan and to the people of western Canada as a whole. It will be a national work that will permit the expansion of industrial development, the extension of productivity in the areas affected, and will pay to the nation as a whole profits that can now only be dreamed of.
Then came the election campaign in 1949.
I am sure there was no one in Saskatchewan who did not believe that the work was going to be proceeded with, although the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when speaking in Saskatoon said that, while he was in favour of the dam, he viewed with some trepidation the danger of a dam such as was envisaged under the plan being washed out and Saskatoon being flooded.
Following the 1949 election the work preceded under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation ^ct, and several hundred holes were drilled vith a view to determining the proper loca-;ion for the dam. There were six hundred >r thereabouts in all, and everything seemed o be proceeding well to the end that the vork would be gone ahead with.
Then on May 31, 1951, for the first time o my knowledge, a suggestion was made by he Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) hat it would be necessary for the province if Saskatchewan to accept the responsibility

of providing irrigation facilities. Until that time I had never heard, nor am I able to find any record anywhere, that there was any responsibility to fall upon the province of Saskatchewan. However, the feasibility of the project was admitted by the minister, and in speaking in the house on May 31, 1951, as recorded at page 3601 of Hansard, he said -I am reading the pertinent words-
-under P.F.R.A., we had Professor Allan appointed again-
That refers to the fact that as early as 1918 Professor Allan had made a report.
-and then later on in 1947 we had another report on it which has been tabled in the house. Those reports are all favourable. I must say to the committee that all my reports to the government have been favourable, and they will continue to be favourable. I have reported to the government on each occasion we have obtained a report to the effect that in my opinion it would be a good thing to build this dam.


An hon. Member:: This year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Three or four years ago-five years ago, for that matter-every time there has been a report. I think it would be a good thing to build this dam.
The government of Saskatchewan accepted the responsibility imposed upon it and agreed to discharge the financial responsibility incident to supplying the necessary irrigation.
Then a new wrinkle developed. We had had promises throughout the years. The dam was just around the corner at election time. Following that there were water boards set up, responsibility was placed upon the government of Saskatchewan and assumed, and then in the summer of 1951, for the first time, we found that a royal commission of experts was going to be set up to review the reports and decisions of the real experts, those who were members and officials of P.F.R.A.
The setting up of the royal commission was quite a surprise to the people of the province of Saskatchewan. After all, as far as the official opposition were concerned, we promised the minister that we would support him to the limit and without any exception would vote the necessary supply in order to permit the work incidental to the development and building of the dam to be proceeded with. So did the members of the C.C.F. party.
The royal commission was set up and empowered to inquire into the economic and social returns to be derived from the project and to measure them against the cost; and also, in effect, to ascertain whether there was not somewhere else the water could be used to better advantage. At least that is my conclusion as to the meaning of the commission report. Certainly there was nothing that would have indicated that a commission

would commence to sit and, even though only intermittently, continue to sit for an extremely long period of time, measured by the months before the report was brought down, in order to determine first, apparently, where the dam should be situated; to review the decision that had been made almost with finality as to the location of the dam; and then as well to determine whether or not the whole project was feasible, and finally, whether in the national interest the social benefits would be commensurate with the expenditure.
The commission finally brought in its report. Everyone knew what was in the report before it was tabled in parliament. For some reason the information became known in December. The general plan in connection with the dam and irrigation project was given in considerable detail. It was designed to provide for the irrigation of 455,000 acres of land in central Saskatchewan and also to provide secondary benefits:
(a)	a source of hydroelectric power for a province-wide transmission system;
(b)	a source of rural and urban water supply;
That was to supply water directly or indirectly to Regina and Moose Jaw.
(c)	stream and flood control; and
(d)	recreation facilities.
Throughout the years we who have lived in the province of Saskatchewan have known something of the terrible conditions that prevail in consequence of drought. We remember so well the year 1938. We remember years prior to that. My own memory goes back to the time we first went to Saskatchewan in 1903. Intermittently even in northwestern Saskatchewan there were periods of drought. But those people living in the areas adjacent to the elbow of the South Saskatchewan river experienced recurrent drought throughout the years. They looked forward with hope to something being done to assist them.
Now the report comes down. It is one of the most amazing documents I have ever seen. I presume what the minister said in Winnipeg was-and I am not being profane -that it was a silly damned report, because of the fact that there was a blank in the statement which he made. It is the most surprising piece of work that the ingenuity of man could possible produce, having regard to the evidence which was before them and which was available to them. The engineers and officials of P.F.R.A. had spent years looking into this matter. The minister had given his approval. He had given his benediction to the feasibility of the proposition. Members of the house in all parties were agreed that it was necessary and that it was feasible. However, when the report is brought down it consists of statements in part 68108-102
South Saskatcheiuan River Project commendatory and corroborative of the report of P.F.R.A. It speaks of the benefits that could be achieved and at times one almost concludes that the report is going to be favourable. Indeed there never was a report anywhere that could damn a project with fainter praise than did this one.
As one follows the report, one wonders what the decision will be. One can take excerpts from various parts of the report and build up a strong and powerful argument in favour of the proposition. Then after everything has been canvassed the decision finally is that it is not feasible because of the fact that we would not have a market for the garden produce that would have to be grown in order to make the irrigation expenditure worth while; that, in any event, the place chosen is indicated not to be the proper place; and that the social benefits are not commensurate with the expenditure.
The costs given are fabulously higher than those estimated by competent engineers and men in the public service who know conditions in Saskatchewan. As a matter of fact, I think it is to be regretted that the commission did not sit during years when drought afflicted our province. I cannot believe that the findings of this commission would have been as they are had the members of that commission had any knowledge of what the people in Saskatchewan suffered and of the terrible terrors of drought during the days of the 1930's until 1938. The highlights of the report are as follows, as summarized by the Canadian press:
The project is rejected as uneconomical under current conditions.
As far as that finding is concerned, it is based in large measure on what appears to be the choice of evidence that was unfavourable to the scheme. After all, when a royal commission is set up you expect it to hear both sides. You expect it to have an open mind. You expect it to face the problem that is before it by weighing the favourable evidence with the unfavourable, instead of weighing the evidence that was negative to the construction of this development. The next finding is this:
The situation might be reviewed when there is a big market for specialty crops, such as potatoes and sugar beets, in the area, or as a relief project in time of unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, I think the members of the commission, great and distinguished as they were, did not have-by reason of illness and other difficulties-the opportunity to weigh the measures that had to be considered in connection with this matter. They talk about irrigation for the production of garden stuff. We are not asking for irrigation of that kind. We are asking for irrigation that can be used
1588	HOUSE OF
South Saskatchewan River Project in a dry farming country and which will nave the result of ensuring against recurrent drought and crop failures incident thereto.
It would cost $250 million, likely to be shared B100 million by the Saskatchewan government and floO million by the federal government and Canadian taxpayers as a whole.
The evidence regarding costs is as prejudiced evidence as one could find anywhere. They chose one contracting firm that for some reason or another in some of its own tenders was twice or three times as high as the lowest tender, and that is decided upon as the company to determine the costs. As far as costs are concerned, the engineers in the Department of Agriculture had gone into that matter with thoroughness and completeness, and no one can convince me that their conclusions were almost 100 per cent wrong. They are men who have been devoted to an examination of this object over a period of eight, nine or ten years. They know more about costs than three commissioners who were brought in and sat in three, four or five centres in Saskatchewan and then wrote a report, numerous as the pages are, without the necessary evidence upon which to determine the costs.
Their next finding is:
More economic use could be made of the money through other projects.
That was not a conclusion they were asked to come to. We realize that the expenditure of money on some other projects -and I have none in mind at the moment- might ensure faster and surer immediate returns; but this proposition is one that would rehabilitate the province of Saskatchewan and give it a boost not only in agriculture but also in industry, without which Saskatchewan would find itself in an unequal position so far as other provinces are concerned.
Although the commission was not asked to do this, they had to find [DOT] some escape hatches; therefore they say, if you did something else, why you would get returns from that. If you develop a wide program, take a lead in creating a realistic country, use the thousand-mile long Saskatchewan river to the best interests of all Canada, you will get better returns. Then they develop little plans and schemes, some not so little, schemes that the Minister of Agriculture has had under investigation or in contemplation during the years, some of which are under way. They are recommended by the royal commission as something the government can do.
That very fact indicates that while the royal commission sat it was not devoting

South Saskatchewan River Project draughts. We know the benefits of irrigation. We know what could have been achieved and would be achieved if 450,000 or 500,000 acres could be irrigated for dry farming purposes within the province of Saskatchewan.
Fifth, when the royal commission says that we could not raise vegetables and sugar beets because there is no market available, it again denies the facts of history which show the benefits of irrigation to grain farming in various parts of the United States. I think this whole argument was anwered on August 9, 1951 at Outlook, Saskatchewan when the general manager of the southern Alberta eastern irrigation association, Carl Anderson, of Brooks, said that irrigation was needed in dry land farming areas. He stated also in effect that irrigation could be as beneficial to wheat and other grain farmers in Saskatchewan as it had been to farmers in other parts of North America. It has been indicated in recent years that everywhere in the world irrigation is expanding the opportunity for the production of food. Today Russia has an irrigation plan under way to irrigate some 20 million acres. Today the United States has 7 million acres under irrigation. We in western Canada have some 3 million acres which would be as productive as the best land there is, provided the necessary water was made available.
The other day we heard a speech by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) which indicated the trend of recurring droughts and the need of irrigation and the like to assure the production of all those things. Apparently all that information was lost in so far as this royal commission was concerned. All of that was indeed ignored. One would almost conclude from reading the report that the commissioners had an objective, which was to arrive at point X. While throughout the report they describe the benefits of irrigation and state that sometime in the distant future something along this line might be done, they finally end up by claiming that this project which has been demanded by and promised to the Saskatchewan people for many years should not be built because of the costs.
I believe that we are going to get this project. Without exception we in the province of Saskatchewan are united on this matter. We demand it. We have had far too many excuses, a multiplicity of evasions and a succession of postponements. Today the people are asking for the carrying out of a promise made directly and by implication throughout the years. They are asking that it be not used again as a promise for the future; they are demanding that it be gotten under way now in these days when crop

conditions are exceptionally good for this area. They realize that history shows that inevitably periods of rainfall in that area are followed by almost corresponding periods of drought and arid non-production.
It is in order to place this matter before the house and in order to secure the opinion of members of the house that I have endeavoured to arrive at a method. First I thought it might be done through the instrumentality of a private member's motion; but then I found what happened to private members' motions when the new expedient was adopted of moving the adjournment of the debate, thereby ensuring that such motions would wind up in the limbo of forgotten things. So I could not proceed by way of a private member's motion. There used to be a day when private members' motions were just talked out, but now they are voted out by postponement and adjournment. I could not proceed in that way.
Within the rules the only time anything could be done was when a motion for supply came before the house. Then an opportunity is provided, and there is no other opportunity. If there were that is the method I would follow. An opportunity comes to move an amendment to the motion to go into supply. That amendment I intend to move in order to give parliament an opportunity to say what it thinks of this proposition, in order that through discussion Canadians as a whole will have some realization of what this means to us.
We have supported proposals in other parts of the country that have been for the benefit of Canada. Through the years we in Saskatchewan have been denied a fair and reasonable share of defence production because of the fact that we have not power available. Our industrial development might not be as great as that of other provinces, but with power available it would be immeasurably greater than it is. Agriculture itself with assistance would be productive in a large area.
I do not believe that the state should undertake expenditures to go into competition with private enterprise, but I do believe that the state has the responsibility of providing an equal opportunity for Canadians everywhere, and that is all we are asking in the province of Saskatchewan. So far as the report is concerned, a meticulously careful reading of it indicates that it is biased and prejudiced, unjust to our legitimate claims in that province and founded-


Some hon. Members:: Time.


Mr. Speaker:: Some hon. members are calling "time". I would inform hon. members

that the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) is not limited as to time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak beyond my time.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to assure the hon. member that he is not limited as to time.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I see. This is one time that I will not overspeak my welcome.
I was concluding, Mr. Speaker, because I want to hear the answer of the government. The newspapers say that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will speak out here in favour of this project. That is the report, and I am sure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will do the same. We want to hear why this project, justified by experience, reinforced by the evidence of the trained engineers and officials of P.F.R.A., should longer be denied to us. Without exception people in my province are asking parliament to act, not to provide alternative plans, not to start this project or that project, not to picture a vast scheme that is going to cover all Canada. They are demanding that their members from that province present their demands before parliament, demands that are legitimate, fair, reasonable and proper, and which involve in effect the implementation of promises long made and as long unkept. I therefore move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew):
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house regrets that in the estimates presented to this house no provision has been made for immediately proceeding with the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam."


Mr. E. A. McCusker (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, so there will be no misunderstanding, I do not want my hon. friends across the way to say that I have accepted the challenge and am proposing to speak for the government. I am speaking as a member from Saskatchewan who is strongly in favour of proceeding with the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam, as are all other Liberals, and I will even be generous and say all other members from Saskatchewan.
I will not take up your time tonight by trying to give you an outline of the Palliser triangle. I am sure that even if any hon. member here were blindfolded he could take us around the whole area without having seen it because hon. members have heard it described so often.
I will not dwell on the necessity for irrigation-you know it-nor on the economic benefits that will accrue to the country, because Lethbridge is an example of that. When you go into that community, which
South Saskatchewan River Project was once almost poverty-stricken, and see it well settled and prosperous, surrounded by beautiful farming country, you have the answer as to the benefits of irrigation.
No one questions the ability or integrity of the members of the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan river project, nor do we hold their motives in question, but I think as a member of parliament I have a duty to study the report and the soundness of its conclusions.
It seems strange to me that the commission failed to understand and appraise the agricultural, social and economic aspects of the project. The commission failed to take advantage of the wealth of factual information available in the Regina office of the P.F.R.A., information amassed by experts over a period of sixteen years, information concerning low rainfall, soil suitability, temperatures, and effects of irrigation on surrounding communities. It failed to take advantage of the advice and experience, available to it, of the officers of the P.F.R.A., their engineers and consultants, experience gained by the construction and operation of similar projects over a period of years, information on water flow, on foundation conditions, on construction of dams and irrigation canals, information and experience backed by the opinion of the most prominent engineers from the United States.
I refer here to Major General Ferguson, consultant to the United States corps of engineers on water conservation and reclamation; to Professor Casagrande of Harvard, soil expert; and to Mr. Harza of Chicago, construction engineer, who have had wide experience in the construction of such projects. The commission failed to appreciate that this is part of a plan to rehabilitate and settle that dry area of Saskatchewan and Alberta, which is the responsibility of the federal government and which responsibility will not be discharged until this project has been completed. The commission failed to consider and properly appraise the social benefits that would accrue to the people of Saskatchewan, and indeed to the people of Canada as a whole.
Let me refer to some of the statements and conclusions of these men, and offer criticisms. My hon. friend who has just preceded me has gone over this in a general way, and I intend to take some of their conclusions and deal with them in detail. I refer you to page 2, paragraph 5, line 10 of the report which reads;
While the best use of water is an urgent consideration in the Saskatchewan river basin, the problem has not been understood in its broadest aspects. Nor have solutions to it been conceived in terms of the fullest ultimate use of available water.
1592	HOUSE OF
South Saskatchewan River Project The scope of the problem Is vast so that the selection of projects for water utilization must take into account the general public interest as well as sectional claims.
That is an amazing statement when you consider that the broad problems of water conservation were conceived by the P.F.R.A. sixteen years ago. They have been studying them ever since that time. Surveys and investigations were begun of the South Saskatchewan watershed to serve the public interest. It required ten years to reach the planning and construction stage. The year 1947 saw construction start on the St. Mary project. In 1949 the plans for the development of the Bow river project were completed, and it is now under construction. In 1950 the South Saskatchewan development investigation reached the plan stage.
Now, here is where I think my friend who has just spoken was probably a little unfair to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) because he accused him of not having built this dam in 1946. At that time the plans and studies leading up to a decision as to whether or not it was feasible had not yet been completed, though they thought it was feasible. In any event men today are working on it, planning, sinking shafts and so on, so I do not think my friend is realistic when he reproaches the Minister of Agriculture for not having built the dam years ago. We are just ready now to proceed to build it.
Engineering surveys on the Red Deer river were completed for preliminary planning in 1951, but further soil investigations require two years' work. Other investigations include extension of the Lethbridge northern project, the eastern irrigation district, and many other projects. All these projects and extensions have been studied by P.F.R.A. and by the prairie provinces water board. Water has been allocated. Yet these people come out and say a study or something of that nature should be made. It is ridiculous.
I refer next to page 2, paragraph 7, lines 3 to 7:
The development of large irrigation projects where they are desirable will foreclose other uses, such as hydroelectric power schemes lower down on the same river.
What a ridiculous statement!
The creation of such a tremendous reservoir by a dam will make possible an equal flow of water throughout the winter. The fact that it can be controlled will do nothing but improve projects lower down the river. The South Saskatchewan project would not foreclose other uses downstream. It has been determined that the proposed hydro plants downstream in Saskatchewan would benefit rather than lose inasmuch as the important low winter flows would be increased from


3,000	cubic feet per second to about 5,000 cubic feet per second. In fact, certain of these hydro plants would become much more economical. It is true that the output of proposed hydro plants in Manitoba would be lowered a little. On the Dauphin river the flow would be decreased 3 per cent and on the Nelson river 1 per cent; yet the commission terms these losses "serious".
I will refer next to page 3, paragraph 8, which says:
Moreover, the large scale abstractive use of water for irrigation in eastern Alberta and western Saskatchewan would be at the expense of a serious loss of hydroelectric power at undeveloped sites on the lower Saskatchewan and Nelson rivers.
I maintain that a reduction of power might take place on the lower Saskatchewan if the dam were not there, but on the lower Saskatchewan a dam and big reservoir of water which I mentioned before would do nothing but improve power conditions.
When we are talking about power do not forget that the studies of power output and the design of the power plant have been based on the assumption that 1,700,000 acres of land would be under irrigation in Alberta. That is about three times the acreage under irrigation there now, and this has been approved by Mr. Ben Russell of the Alberta water resources department. It was only after they had made provision for the land available for irrigation that they calculated the water available for power.
On page 4, paragraph 12, it is stated:
From studies of the project the soils are suitable and the amount of water available is adequate for irrigation development. However, the land is situa-ated in a climatic zone that imposes limitations on the crops that can be grown. Furthermore, a readily available market for specialty crops is not apparent at this time.
The reference to climate in the project area is not substantiated by the facts. The climate and the soils are highly suitable for the production of crops in an irrigation economy. The summary report shows this picture quite clearly. The fact is that most of the project lands lie in one of the very driest areas on the prairies. The town of Outlook, which is the centre of the project, receives less rainfall than Medicine Hat, Alberta. It is only the northern extension of the project, comprising 10 to 20 per cent of the area, near Saskatoon, that could be classified as "fringe-y" from a climate standpoint. The commission has seized on this northern tip of the project and has erroneously applied its climatic conditions to the whole project. This it terms "one of the major criticisms".
In paragraph 14, page 4, the commission refers to the risk of failure of sustained

irrigation for all parts of the project, such as has occurred in certain irrigation projects in Alberta where over 150,000 acres of irrigated land have reverted to dry farming.
Surely they knew that this project, the western project, was started by the C.P.R. as a colonization venture. Some of that land, true, reverted to dry farming, but the soil conditions there are entirely different from those at Outlook. They have heavy soil, and they have from 18 to 20 inches a year precipitation while at Outlook the precipitation is from 8 to 10 inches. The altitude at Outlook is 1,600 to 1,800 feet, while in the C.P.R. irrigation project it runs around 3,000 to 3,500 feet. The danger of frost is much greater in the higher locations and we do not know but that some day they may decide to revert to irrigation to make better use of that land.
On page 4, paragraph 15, they refer to the Mannix estimate, which states that the project can be completed in six years. Our people, the P.F.R.A., in working it out feel that it would take eight to ten years because climatic conditions dictate this period as the most economical to follow in construction.
In paragraph'16 on page 4 they refer to unfavourable foundation and other conditions in relation to the estimates. That is not borne out by the investigations of leading engineers and consultants from the United States whom I have mentioned. They do not confirm such statements in relation to the estimates. The statement by the commission that the P.F.R.A. has underestimated the cost is not fair. I refer to that particular remark of the commission on page 4, paragraph 16:
Even where construction is less hazardous, the cost is apt to be underestimated, as in the St. Mary-Milk river project where the anticipated final cost of $43 million compares with an original estimate of $15 million.
Surely the commission knew that was an unfair comparison. Surely they knew that from the time that project was started in 1942 it had been greatly expanded in order that we would get our full share of the water from the St. Mary and Belly rivers. Diversion canals had to be created, storage spaces enlarged and redesigned. It was not any mistake in estimating the cost that caused the increased estimate, it was merely that the project was enlarged. Railways had to be diverted, new roads built, and all these additional costs were added to the original estimate. Construction costs have more than doubled since 1942 when the estimates were made, and still the St. Mary dam itself was built for only a 25 per cent increase in cost; but that was built by Canadian contractors.
South Saskatchewan River Project
Now, dealing with pages 4 to 6, paragraphs 17 to 21C of the report, mention is made o: estimating the cost of the project. May 1 point out here that no estimates were giver upon which the Mannix company could work The P.F.R.A. engineers were closely associatec with the project. They knew the type o: construction that was necessary, and in addi tion to that the late Beattie Ramsay ant Don MacDonald of Bird Construction, gavt estimates that were pretty close together When the Mannix people came in they madt an estimate, probably based on the experienci of their engineers who had worked on thi Fort Peck dam, and they estimate that th dam in the Saskatchewan river will cos approximately the same as the Fort Pec] dam. This dam is only half as long am has three water flumes as compared witl seven tunnels in the Fort Peck dam, yet the; say it will cost the same.
I want to point out to you some of th differences that we find in the bidding o: these projects. If you examine the tender which have been received by the P.F.RA for projects since 1945 you will find a grea variation. You will find a variation of 25 pe cent or more in 66 per cent of these bid: 50 per cent or more in 37 per cent of th bids; 75 per cent or more in 26 per cent of th bids; and 100 per cent or more in 9 per cer of the bids. During this period 65 contraci were awarded to a total value of $16,120,0C while the total of the high bids amounte to $23,450,000, an over-all variation of 4 per cent. One can see how easily variatior may take place. I do not want to blarr the Mannix company. Perhaps they had i view a different method of construction, more costly one, but I do want to point oi some of the inaccuracies or inequalities i the prices submitted.
The P.F.R.A., with wide knowledge of th type of construction and wide experience i it, is competent, I think, to give an accura estimate of the cost of these works. Here a: some works which I propose to discuss : detail. They include the Meridian dai Elbow crossing, securing riprap, and irrig tion estimates. As I have said both the Met dian dam and the Elbow crossing are typ of structure with which the P.F.R.A. enginee are familiar. They have built many dar of this magnitude in western Canada ai are familiar with construction work of th kind. The P.F.R.A. estimate is based i current costs and knowledge of dams of sirr lar magnitude either under construction recently completed, such as the St. Mai Pothole, Travers, Rose Valley, and so on.
There are no special problems or hazar in connection with either the Meridian da

South Saskatchewan River Project or Elbow crossing. There is no river to handle and no spillways are required, yet these are the comparative estimates. The Meridian dam: Mannix company total cost, including indirect charges, $6,412,000; P.F.R.A. estimate, $4,561,000; a difference of $1,851,000. Then for Elbow crossing we have the Mannix company total cost, including indirect charges, of $7,110,000; P.F.R.A. estimate, $3,609,000; a difference of $3,501,000.
Here is another example, a difference in the cost of securing riprap. The Mannix estimate was based on bringing rock from the Frank slide in Alberta, a distance of 600 miles, at a cost of approximately $14 a :ubic yard. The P.F.R.A. estimate is based jn harvesting the rock which is available vithin 40 miles of the dam site, and they received a bid on it of $3.60 per cubic yard. There is a difference in that one item alone >f $7 million.
Now, the experience of the P.F.R.A. has shown that they can harvest field stone for the construction of their various projects, ind they have been able to get it at an average cost of $4.20 per cubic yard. It is interest-ng to note that the St. Mary dam is mly 100 miles from Frank, and when it was instructed they thought there was not suffi-:ient field stone in that vicinity so they speci-ied stone from Frank for the riprap. The intractor found it more economical to hardest his field stone in the region of the dam *ather than bring it from Frank.
I am not an authority on engineering. The ^.F.R.A. estimated that their power house vould cost $13,800,000. They were basing his estimate on the cost of a similar contraction at Pine Falls, except that the water-lead at Pine Falls is only 37 feet while in he Saskatchewan it would be 165 feet. It nay be that having this greater weight of vater made stronger foundations and stronger ;enerators necessary, and that may account or the difference in cost there.
The P.F.R.A. is presently constructing inflation distribution systems serving areas of ver 400,000 acres in Alberta on the St. Mary-dilk river and the Bow river projects. The '.F.R.A. present estimate for the South Sas-:atchewan project is $25,500,000 based on heir actual current costs, and the present stimate of the cost of the pumping stations ased on recent design is $6,500,000, or a total f $32 million for the distribution of water, 'he estimate made in the commission report >
$75 million, a difference of $43 million, n so far as increased costs of labour are oncerned, the Mannix estimate provides an ;em of $10 million for increases in the cost f labour and material. This is only a guess 
and because of the long period of construction the wage and price trend could reverse. In any event, as costs go up so do benefits, and the ratio can be expected to remain the same. For overhead and profits, the Mannix estimate provides an amount of $15 million for the contractors. I think that is rather high, as it is about 12 per cent of the estimated value of the work. I was under the impression that when contractors tendered on a project of this kind they included their profits.
The commission makes a recommendation upon such projects as have already been completed or are under way. For example in connection with the Qu'Appelle valley project, they recommend that a dam be built at Buffalo Pound lake. Well, that dam was built a couple of years ago. The commission recommends that work be done on the delta of the Saskatchewan river, which has been undertaken along with the Manitoba government. Other soil studies are being made before proceeding further with the project.
In arriving at these astronomical costs, the commission fails to credit the project with the many social and economic benefits which are bound to accrue. I cannot understand how this terrifically accelerated cost was arrived at in view of the estimates based on experience that are put forward by the engineers of the P.F.R.A.
There is one thing that I should like to call to the attention of all hon. members of this house. The construction of the dam is a federal responsibility, and we think it can be built for well under $80 million. The provincial government's responsibility is the construction of the power house and the water distribution system, and I understand that the province is quite willing to accept that responsibility.
I would like to have gone right along with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker)-I am going to urge the government to build this dam-but the hon. member, while one minute telling us how sure he is that the supporters of the government who are from Saskatchewan will support any move that can be made to have them build this dam, turns around and places before us a motion that puts us in the position of being forced to vote against it. It is a political move to try to put us in the awkward position that if we support his motion we vote want of confidence in the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member mentioned that point, and I rise on a question of privilege because of that fact. There is no reason whatsoever why a minister of the crown should not make it perfectly clear that this vote is a free vote;

and that is what I want. I have tried to bring this matter before the house as a private motion.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John George Diefenbaker: No. The hon. member has asked me a fair question and he has been most reasonable. I am answering him in the same spirit. What I want is to have a declaration by the house freed from any question of want of confidence, and I am all for that.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Mr. Speaker, my more experienced advisers-I do not mean more experienced than the hon. member for Lake Centre-or those near me say that on going into supply an amendment like that of the hon. member is a vote of want of confidence and cannot be anything else.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; not according to the decision on our milk subsidy amendment in 1946.


John George Diefenbaker: It was held otherwise in 1946.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: In view of that fact, Mr. Speaker, I greatly regret not being able to support the amendment. I should like the hon. member to ascertain whether or not he is correct, and to withdraw his motion if he does not want to place us in an awkward position. I am going to tell him frankly that I do not intend to precipitate an election by voting want of confidence in the present government. I am trying to stay here until we get this dam built.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the hon. member should move over to the Senate if he is going to stay here until we get the dam built. I say that on the basis of the promises made in the past and not fulfilled.
However, I do not want to start a political argument. I should like to say this. I do not think a vote for this amendment is a vote of want of confidence, for this reason. I remember that back a few years ago on going into supply we moved an amendment with regard to the subsidy being paid on milk, and this house carried it. One of the ministers, I believe, gave notice that it was not going to be considered as a motion of want of confidence. In this case if the government wishes to place this amendment on the same basis as the amendment that was moved by our group at that time, we can have the opinion of the house on this motion without any vote of want of confidence in the government.
I am sorry that the leader of this group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), is not here this evening to take
South Saskatchewan River Project part in this debate. This South Saskatchewan river project has been a favourite subject of his in this house ever since he came here in 1935. He has consistently advocated the construction of this project and the irrigation works necessary to bring it to a successful conclusion in the province of Saskatchewan.
We were disappointed when this royal commission was appointed. From the information that had been given to the people of Saskatchewan by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and by P.F.R.A. officials, we had thought that all of the engineering work that was necessary to establish the feasibility and the advisability of this project had already been accomplished and that it was just a matter of waiting until such time as the material and labour were available to go ahead. That has certainly been the suggestion that was given to the people of Saskatchewan. When we found that another commission was to be appointed to go into the whole matter again, it was natural that a great many fears were aroused in the minds of the people of Saskatchewan. When the personnel of that commission was announced, even greater fears were aroused. Inasmuch as this was mainly an irrigation project, we had hoped that there would be two irrigation men and one engineer placed on that commission. We were in hopes that a prominent man on irrigation in the United States would be named as chairman. As a matter of fact, we were given to understand that Mr. Lilienthal, who was the head of the Tennessee valley project in the United States, was being approached to take the chairmanship of this commission. Unfortunately that situation did not develop. We had appointed a commission consisting of Dr. T. H. Hogg, formerly of the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario; Mr. G. A. Gaherty from Montreal, who was an engineer and connected with the Calgary Power Company; and Dr. John A. Widtsoe of Salt Lake City, of the agricultural college there and a real expert on irrigation. Then as secretary of the commission we had Mr. B.	T. Richardson.
When that personnel was announced we felt that there were two strikes against the favourable consideration of that project; and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar at that time stated that if the government had been desirous of getting a favourable or an unbiased report as far as the irrigation part of the scheme was concerned, it would have been advisable to have two irrigation men on that commission. As a matter of fact the whole handling of this thing, and more particularly the tabling of the report and the advance press notice which was given with

South Saskatchewan River Project regard to it, have inclined some of us at least to believe that the secretary of the commission was prejudiced against the project. I have in my hand the advance copy that was issued to the press by Mr. Richardson, the secretary of this commission. It states:
South Saskatchewan River Report
Unofficial news summary as a convenience to press and radio, available when report is tabled in House of Commons.
I do not know whether this was another leak, but certainly there were people who seemed to know, at least a month before the report was tabled in the house here, what Mr. Richardson's summary was going to be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was not any dam to hold it back, anyway.


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not think this is a fair summary of the report.
When one reads it, he cannot help but feel that this summary picks out all of the unfavourable parts in the official report with respect to the whole project. By giving that to the press as the first intimation, the first view they have of it before they have time to review the whole report, it certainly creates an unfavourable opinion in the press right across the country. On the first page they say:
The commission's report, released by the Prime Minister's ofRce today, noted three major arguments against the project:
(1)	Its high cost;
(2)	The likelihood of more profitable investment in irrigation elsewhere; and
(3)	The need for a broader approach to the question of river development.
You find the same tone in the whole report which was issued by Mr. Richardson to the press as an unofficial news summary for their convenience. In the secretary of the commission perhaps we had a person who was not unbiased as far as the project was concerned.
With regard to the report itself, while it is unfavourable as a whole, there are portions of it which indicate the need for this particular project. Many of the various appendices to the report and the presentations made by the various organizations which presented evidence to the commission in Saskatchewan and throughout other parts of western Canada were not unfavourable to the project and gave very cogent reasons why the whole project should be proceeded with at this time; not at some future date; not, as Mr. Richardson says in the summary, when there is-
(2) Demand for farm products in Canada which, if it were more nearly in balance with production, would require more intensive use of land resources;
CMr. Wright.]

(3)	A change in the relationship of the price of farm products to construction costs;
(4)	Need of public works for the relief of unemployment.
I wonder whether we are not to have any development of our natural resources in this country until we go back in a depression again. That would be the impression one would get from reading Mr. Richardson's summary of the findings of this commission. If that is so, this dam should have been built back in the 1930's. We had unlimited amounts of cement in Canada at that time; we had unlimited amounts of labour in Canada at that time. We were giving men ten cents a day to kill time, to carry a piece of stone from one side of the road to the other, when they could have been used in more constructive work such as this South Saskatchewan river dam; and there was certainly need for it at that time.
The need for the construction of this dam becomes more evident as you read the history of agriculture in the province of Saskatchewan over the years. In their presentation to the commission the Saskatchewan government indicated the tremendous fluctuations in agricultural income in that province over the years. In 1937, one of the worst drought years they had in that province, the total sale of farm products in Saskatchewan amounted to some $36 million. That was the cash return to the farmers of Saskatchewan in that year. Last year the return to the farmers of that province was well over $400 million, with approximately the same acreage under cultivation, which goes to show the tremendous fluctuations in production that we have in our province because of atmospheric conditions, weather conditions, over which we have no control. The building of a project such as this in the central part of the drought area in Saskatchewan, which would irrigate some 425,000 to 450,000 acres of land, would provide in the centre of the province where it is needed the fodder which would enable the province to have a more diversified agriculture. I think that is one of the strongest arguments for the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam.
The Minister of Agriculture over the years, both when he was in the province of Saskatchewan and since coming to Ottawa, has urged that in western Canada, if we are to overcome some of the difficulties with which agriculture is faced there, one of the things we must have is a greater diversification of our agricultural production. I do not agree with some of the methods which the Minister of Agriculture has been endeavouring to use over the last few years to secure that result. As a matter of fact, I think some of the methods that have been adopted have had

just the reverse effect, and that is quite evident from the decrease in production of certain of our agricultural products in western Canada. But this project would give stability to our agricultural production.
It was never suggested that this scheme, when it was first put into operation, would pay direct dividends. Practically no irrigation scheme that has ever been built has paid even the interest on the investment necessary to inaugurate the scheme during the first ten or fifteen years, yet very few of these irrigation schemes have not paid dividends in the course of twenty-five or fifty years. They have not only paid dividends in better living conditions for the people who live there, but in actual dollars and cents to the economy of the country that had the foresight, the initiative and the resources to go ahead and develop the irrigation projects and carry them to a successful conclusion.
Almost invariably the irrigation projects that have failed have been those in which the project was undercapitalized, where too great a share of the original cost was passed on immediately to the farmer who was trying to operate a unit in that irrigation district. In every case where that was done, where too large a share of the cost was passed on immediately to the operator of the farm, that scheme failed because the farmer, unable to bear that cost, became discouraged, was unable to get the necessary seed, the necessary equipment and the necessary capital to develop his individual farm and to make a financial success of it.
Where governments have had the foresight to absorb, as the central authority, the major portion of the cost of these developments, then invariably the economy as a whole has been well paid over the years through the better production and the greater consumption in that area of goods and services provided by other parts of the country. That is what would happen in the South Saskatchewan river development. It would be not only a benefit to the immediate area concerned, but to all of Canada. It would be a benefit to eastern Canada through the creation of a market for a greater share of the products of the east, the products of the factories and of the various firms which produce the agricultural implements and the services which would be required in that area. The greater production in that area would be reflected in greater freight shipments to other parts of Canada. It would be reflected in the annual statements of the railroads, of the banks, and of the other organizations which go to make up this country whose head offices are in eastern Canada but who are supplying services to western Canada. This project is
South Saskatchewan River Project not a Saskatchewan project, it is not just a western project, it is a project for Canada as a whole as well as for the people who may be situated in that particular area.
The Saskatchewan government from the beginning have been prepared to assume their fair share of the cost of this project, and that is evident from the report itself. There was a report in the press by some correspondents that would leave some doubt as to whether the Saskatchewan government, in view of the larger costs indicated in the report of the commission, would be prepared to go ahead and assume their share of those costs. I do not know how anyone could have got that impression; certainly they could not have got it if they had read the general submission by the government. Here is what the Saskatchewan government said in their submission to the commission, as appears on page 360 of the report:
I have attempted to touch on two of the major needs of agriculture in Saskatchewan (apart from market and price considerations). There is great need firstly for assured feed supplies to permit increased diversification of the economy through livestock production and. secondly, for new land on which to resettle insecure farmers.
I shall deal with that later, and I shall also deal at somewhat greater length with the question of cost.
Neither of these needs can be adequately filled without the central Saskatchewan development. Construction of this project will be a great step forward towards meeting the need for a mature and stable agricultural economy in Saskatchewan. How can we merely calculate in terms of dollars and cents what it might be worth to us. Is it any wonder that the government of this province is anxious and ready to make its investment in the project-that we are so eager to see it started.
When this press report appeared the premier of Saskatchewan wrote a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in which he stated quite definitely the position of the Saskatchewan government with regard to this project. He said:
In order that there may be no misunderstanding on anyone's part, may I refer you to my letter to the Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner of February 10, 1951, copy of which I am enclosing. At that time the Saskatchewan government expressed its faith in the soundness of the South Saskatchewan river project and declared its willingness to meet its share of the cost. Nothing in the findings of the royal commission has altered our opinion in this regard. When the federal government is prepared to proceed with the South Saskatchewan river project, the Saskatchewan government stands ready to enter into an agreement committing itself to pay its share of the cost.
There can be no doubt that as far as the government of Saskatchewan are concerned they are prepared to go ahead with their share of this project whenever the federal government are prepared to build the dam.

South Saskatchewan River Project
The hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker) and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) dealt with the cost of this dam as indicated by the commission. Mr. B. T. Richardson, in his summary to the press, indicated that the commission estimated the cost of the dam at $250 million. He stated that this would tend to place a great burden upon the land or upon the farmers. He goes on to indicate the various ways in which this might be divided, but he ends up by suggesting that each farm unit, which would be approximately 160 acres, would be saddled with a cost of some $70,000 for the construction of this dam and the delivery of water to the unit.
Of course that is a ridiculous cost as far as a single unit is concerned. I think it is also a ridiculous cost as far as the total project is concerned. The estimate of the engineers of the P.F.R.A. was something over $80 million for the construction of the dam, allowing for the increase in costs since the original estimate was made, and $35 million to $37 million for the cost of the water distribution system.
It is interesting to note that while the commission secured the services of the Mannix company of Edmonton to give them an estimate of the cost and the engineers of that company appeared before the commission, P.F.R.A. officials were not given an opportunity to question those costs. I think it would have been only fair for the commission to call the officials who had made the original estimate. Not only did the commission not call those engineers, apparently the government in Ottawa agreed that those officials should not be called.
On January 28 the Prime Minister answered a question which had been asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) which appears on page 1399 of Hansard and is as follows:
This commission was established to get information which the government did not already have and to make recommendations to it. As the commissioners had access to all the records and technical advice of the P.F.R.A., it was not necessary for them to have formal appearances by federal officials at public hearings. The government shared this view and gave this opinion to the officials of the P.F.R.A.
In reaching that conclusion, the government had in mind the fact that it would not be fair to place civil servants in a false position by requiring them to appear publicly and express opinions on matters on which the Minister of Agriculture and the government as a whole had subsequently to reach decisions.
It was not necessary to place the P.F.R.A. officials in that invidious position by calling them before the commission. The engineers might have been called to check the costs submitted by the Mannix company. They


had years of experience in the construction of dams-perhaps not of the size of this project-in Alberta and they had figures with regard to the costs of construction which had been obtained from other sources. They knew the cost of moving dirt in the area in which this dam was to be built. They had firsthand knowledge as to what costs in this particular area were likely to be. Surely they should have been called by the commission and allowed to check the figures given by this firm from outside the province of Saskatchewan. I am not saying that firm was not reliable, but I do think that the P.F.R.A. officials who had the knowledge of this subject and who had made previous estimates should have been called and allowed to give their evidence.
There is a reference in the report to the press by Mr. Richardson to the development of an area in the Carrot river valley triangle close to The Pas in Manitoba. He states that there are 100,000 acres there which might be developed. Not only is that project under consideration; work is actually being done there.
Neither Mr. Richardson nor the commissioners make a full recommendation as to the possibilities in that northeasterly part of Saskatchewan. As a matter of fact there are not only 100,000 acres there that can be developed. Reliable estimates have been made of that area, and it is stated that there are between 2 [DOT] 5 and 3 million acres of land there that can be developed by certain diking and drainage projects; not 100,000 acres but 3 million acres. That development is in part at least dependent on the construction of flood controls on other parts of the Saskatchewan river, and the South Saskatchewan river dam would be one of those flood control projects. This area in the northeastern part of the province of Saskatchewan and in the northwestern part of the province of Manitoba and the estuary of the Carrot and Saskatchewan rivers is flooded periodically through overflow from the Saskatchewan river in the peak of the flood of that river which usually occurs late in June when the snows are melting in the mountains.
As a result that area cannot be developed until certain flood controls are placed in the Saskatchewan river either at its headwaters or on the river at Elbow where it is proposed that this dam will be constructed. When that flood control is placed there, then it will make more easily available this 2-5 to 3 million acres of land in the northeastern part of Saskatchewan and in Manitoba. That is some of the most valuable land in the Dominion of Canada. It is the type of land that you see in the Red river valley around

the Portage plains, that you see in the Regina plains or in the Red river valley in North Dakota. It is silt land that has accumulated there over thousands of years. It is deep and productive. All that is needed is drainage and the necessary flood control measures in order to bring that land under production.
When this South Saskatchewan river dam is constructed it will make it that much easier to provide the necessary controls and to bring this huge area in the northeastern part of the province under cultivation and production. The area that it is proposed to irrigate from the South Saskatchewan river dam is not in the heart of the real drought area but on the edge of it. That is one of the reasons given by the commissioners and by Mr. Richardson in his unofficial news summary as to why the project should not be proceeded with. Nevertheless this area is so placed that it is adjacent to much of the drought area, and the construction of the dam and the irrigation of the area will enable the provision of feed for stock and feed for ranchers in the drought area itself.
The necessity for these feed banks is most apparent when one goes back and reads the history of what happened in Saskatchewan during the former drought period. In the Saskatchewan submission they say, as found at page 358 of the report of the commission:
Farmers throughout the prairie parts of Saskatchewan know only too well what a crop failure means when livestock are kept. Our worst experience was in 1937. Between September 1, 1937 and August 31, 1938, more than 450,000 tons of fodder were shipped by governmental agencies-this even after a liquidation of 611,574 cattle for canning purposes at 1-11 cents per pound had occurred.
The entire livestock population of the huge area in the central part of Saskatchewan, the southern part of Alberta and the southwestern part of Manitoba had to be liquidated in 1937 because even with the shipping of this tremendous amount of fodder into the area there still was not enough feed. They go on to say:
In that year alone more than $3,500,000 was spent in freight moving hay, feed grain and seed. We hope that this will not happen again-
Mark this.
-but in each of the years 1945, 1947, 1948 and 1949, it was necessary to ship hay into Saskatchewan to supply areas that had suffered a failure of hay crops. During that period hay was moved from The Pas, Manitoba, to Prince Albert and Saskatoon, from Brock, Alberta to Moose Jaw and Swift Current, even from the interlake country of Manitoba as far as Saskatoon, with freight charges, as far back as 1948 running to $10 per ton.
The construction of this dam would make available right in the centre of that drought area reserves of fodder which would enable farmers there to carry on more diversified
South Saskatchewan River Project agriculture, to keep livestock and to keep them with the knowledge that they were not going to have to sacrifice them for 1J cents a pound as they did in 1937 and 1938. Until we have some security in the form of additional fodder in the province of Saskatchewan, we can never have the diversified agriculture in that province that I am sure every member of parliament and every business organization in that province would like to see there.
The Saskatchewan government has itself been trying to meet some of the needs for irrigation and some of the needs for the development of better feed reserves in that province. I should like hon. members to note that in 1945-46 the department of agriculture of the province of Saskatchewan had a budget of $826,000, while in 1952-53 their budget was $3,666,000. Much of that money is being spent in the development of feed reserves for livestock in the province. The department of agriculture of Saskatchewan has set up a new conservation and development branch charged with the responsibility of undertaking the physical development of irrigation, drainage and dry land projects. This branch has an appropriation of nearly $1,350,000 for the year 1952-53.
It is well to mention that previous to the inauguration of this branch there were no engineering specialists and no equipment in the department to implement this program. Since the development of this branch engineers have been hired and the scope of the activities of the branch can be gauged by the fact that 45 water users' associations are now organized. Water has been brought to 50,000 acres of land by the province of Saskatchewan over and above the good work done by the P.F.R.A. in this regard in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. There have been 145 miles of ditch constructed,
475,000	acres of dry land projects developed, and a million acres of land affected by drainage improvements.
I could go on and give a further review of the efforts that are being made by the province of Saskatchewan to solve some of their own problems with respect to this matter but there is a limit to the resources of a province, and I believe that limit has been reached by the province in the development of the projects under their control. I am not saying they are not going to continue to spend money. They are going to continue to spend it in increasing amounts on these developments.
Their financial resources are not such that they can enter into a project of the size of the South Saskatchewan river dam and ever hope to carry the load of financing.

South Saskatchewan River Project
That is the reason we in the province of Saskatchewan are so anxious that the dominion government go ahead with this project now. We feel that it is essential as far as Saskatchewan is concerned, and that is why I think you will find at least every member from Saskatchewan on his feet expressing his views on this project, urging the federal government not to shelve the thing, not to come in with some half-hearted promise that they are going to set aside a little money to make a further survey or to make a small development with the hope that in the future -twenty years from now-this may be completed.
I hope the government will come through with something that is worth while; and that in spite of some of the unfavourable aspects of this report, the government will recognize its responsibilities. I say "its responsibilities" because it was the federal government of Canada which opened for settlement much of the drought area in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. It was while those lands were under their control that they were homesteaded and put to a use which was not a proper long-term use for those lands.
I hope the government at this session will come down with something definite; that they are accepting their responsibility and that they are going to go ahead with that development. I wish to move an amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member
for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). His amendment read:
This house regrets that in the estimates presented to this house no provision has been made for immediately proceeding with the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), that the amendment be amended by adding at the end thereof the following words:
as recommended by the federal government's P.F.R.A. engineers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I now call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Larson the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I move that the house do now adjourn. Tomorrow we will take up the third reading of Bill No. 103, to amend the National Defence Act. Then we will take up Bill No. 7, to amend the Loan Companies Act, and Bill No. 8, to amend the Trust Companies Act. I understand those are very short bills, just amendments to those acts. Then we will revert to this motion to go into supply.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 9.55 p.m.
16C1

Wednesday, February 4, 1953